On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:24:55 GMT, "Rev. Chain Smerker"
<michael@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> claimed:
>>>The anti-christ was Nero.
>>
>> The AntiChrist? I don't believe that there was one
>> person taught as such in the Bible.
>>
>> However, there was "the beast", "the man of sin", etc..
>>
>> I agree with you about Nero, other than which label
>> you chose though. :)
>>
>> And btw, what will all of those Futurists who pinned
>> Saddam as being the one do now? Oh wait, that's
>> right, they'll wait for him to rise from the dead and
>> rule again. <laugh>
>>
>
>I always get those mixed up (beast and anti christ) But yeah, your right,
I
>cant remember seeing anything in revelations about a single "anti-christ"
>that is going to take over the world. I for one agree that it is
unbiblical
>and also quite silly.
I agree. :) If you don't mind me asking, what are
your beliefs (basic summation)?
--
I believe the Bible, period! If you don't,
that's up to you. But do not expect me to
consider your point of view valid. I am a
Christian and being a Christian means not
calling God a liar. When people claim that
this or that in the Bible isn't God's word,
what they are doing is trying to set themselves
up as judge and jury of what God said to man
and I would rather believe God, than believe
that you are some divine being who is here
to tell us what God has to say. That role
was already taken by Jesus. So I'm sorry,
but you lose and you have nothing by which
you can convince me otherwise! And if you
don't like what the Bible says, then get a
new god. But do not pretend to be a Christian!
|
