The Time of the First Antichrist

When did the antichrist began

I have no doubt there will be some who will not like what is revealed in this Hub. I will state here and now that I make no apologies. I will use verses in the Holy Bible to back up what I say. If you are not a believer in the Holy Bible, then it's a moot point.

The subject that I will deal with, as far as I know, has not been covered before. The time of the first antichrist is a subject that as far as I know has not been talked about nor have I ever read anything about it. I think you will find the following to be very revealing.

Although I am aware the subject of the antichrist has been much talked and read about, I have never known anyone who has come out and spoken or written about the early days of the antichrists. I like to refer to this as the First antichrists.

This Hub is not about prophecy of the antichrist, nor the antichrists that I believe exist even today. But this will identify those who were antichrists almost 2000 years ago. And this subject, no doubt, will come as a surprise to many. It is my intent to show you the FIRST antichrists who spoke out against Jesus the Christ.

First we must understand where the word antichrist came from and what exactly it is. The word antichrist is mentioned in the Holy Bible four times. The Apostle John is very clear about his writing on the subject. In them he defines the antichrist and the spirit of the antichrist. The following are all of the verses where the antichrist and the spirit of the antichrist are mentioned and defined.

First verse

1 John 2:18 (NKJV) states: 18 Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Second verse:

1 John 2:22 (NKJV) states: 22 Who is a lier, but he who denise that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denise the Father and Son.

Third verse:

1 John 4:3 states: 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now already in the world.

Fourth verse:

2 John 1:7 (NKJV) states: 7 For as many have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and antichrist.

So, within these four verse it is not hard to understand the type of persons to be an antichrists. And the spirit of antichrist. It is clearly spelled out. So in a nutshell, what these verses are saying, that if anyone denise Jesus Christ as the Son of God, then he/she is an antichrist. And if anyone does not confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh then this person is an antichrist.

John describes in one of his verses, "that now antichrists are in the world." So does this mean the antichrist began at the time 1 John was written? Could antichrists been in the world long before 1 John was written?

I believe the most simple and direct answer is; Yes.

All we have to do is read a number of verses in the Book of Matthew. And if we go by how the Apostle John defines antichrist(s) in 1 John, then it is easy to decern who the first antichrists were in the Book of Matthew.

Matthew 12: 14-15 (NKJV) states: 14 Then the Pharisees went out to plot against Him, how they might distroy Him. 15 But when Jesus knew it, He withdrew from there. And a great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all.

Another verse reveals more antichrists:

Matthew 26:3-4 (NKJV) state: 3 Then the chief priest, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him.

More verses reveals antichrists:

And Matthew 26: 63-66 (NKJV) states: 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him; " I put you under oath by the living God; Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God". 64 Jesus said to him; It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying" He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses. Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think? They answered and said, He is deserving of death."

One last verse to reveal more antichrists:

Matthew 19:7 (NKJV) state: 7 The Jews answered him, " We have a law, and according to our law, He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God."

I could continued to described many more verse throughout the gospels of Mark, Luke and John that have similar descriptions of antichrists types like those I've just mentioned. The Pharisees and scribes plotted many times to destroy Jesus and to stop His ministry because they did not believe He was the Son of God or that Christ had come in the flesh.

Even during the three and onehalf years of Jesus Christ's ministry the antichrist(s) was there to try to destroy Him. But they did not succeed. Jesus Christ succeeded in establishing the foundation of His ekklesia. And the gospel of the Kingdom of God will continue to go out into all the world.

If we are to accept how the Apostle John defines the antichrist, then we should be able to decern the Pharisees and scribes as the First Antichrists. But it is most important to note the multitudes of those who accepted the teaching of Jesus Christ DURING His ministry. As a result, the foundation of His ekklesia (called out ones) was set. And the ekklesia (called out ones) of Christ has continued to spread the gospel of the Kingdom of God and no amount of antichrists, then or now, can stop it.




More by this Author


30 comments

celafoe profile image

celafoe 2 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

you are correct, they have been around from the beginning but cannot prevail against the plan of God. They can get in the way but they will not prevail. And today there are more than ever. and the majority of them are in the leadership of our government and the churches as it was then.

There is nothing new under the sun.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 2 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Grace in us, this is a wonderful piece and very helpful to our understanding. But your insistence Through John 4:3 is as legalistic as the scribes of the pharisees. Imagine a little girl at one years old brought to a Buddhist temple in Myanmar because the regime killed both her parents. And then at age 8 she dies of starvation because the regime would not let food into the temple. By your suggestion ""3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now already in the world."" we should read that to mean she is an antichrist.

Besides John is extolling virtues of prophets and not children or ignorant ones. I think you need to be clear that here John is speaking or "Preacher" types and not naïve women and children.

Especially when in 4:4 is placed after 4:3


graceinus 2 years ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

celafoe- Thank you very much for your comment. As you have stated they have be around from the beginning. And I agree they will not prevail. It is important that we continue to spread the Gospel of God's Kindom. It is an ongoing effort that will continue until His secound coming.

God bless


graceinus 2 years ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

Eric- Thank you for your comment. In my opinion I do not see this in a legalistic manner. We must remmeber the Pharisees and Scribes enforced the Law and commandments of God. In the verses described by the Apostle John he simplely defines what is an antichrist.. And I quoted these verses. So I don't understand how these two (law and antichrist) can be tied together an being legalistic.

My main focus as in this Hub is identifying antichrist in the early years. The Pharisees and Scribes were very much aware of the teachings of Jesus Christ. There was nothing naïve about them. And you can sure bet that God will hold them accountable.

I believe there is a time when we all reach an age of accountability. In my opinion this age in God's view may vary from person to person based on their ability to understand. And I think this is a key word here "ability". It is also my opinion we will be held accountable for what we believe and do not believe based on our abilty to understand.. How this will work out for those "children and ignorant ones" as you put it is beyound my scope of understanding or control. And I'm sure you well know the Apostle John made no mention how this subject of the antichrist applies in these situations like you have described. So, honestly I have no asnswer for you in this regards. Maybe this is one of those situation when we will find our answer when it is our turn to stand before God.

Good bless you Eric


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 2 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Well said friend. And I think you laying it out like this is very helpful for many --- as it most certainly is for me. Let us love and learn in Christ.


BlossomSB profile image

BlossomSB 2 years ago from Victoria, Australia

Well researched and well written. It is so true.


graceinus 2 years ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

BlossomSB- Thank you very much for your visit and comment.

Blessings to you.


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 2 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ

Graceinus,

There are those who are opponents of Jesus Christ, but proclaim Him to be their Lord and Savior, and even do things in His name. The clever deception is that they do not promote the true Jesus Christ; it is another Jesus with another Gospel. They are workers of iniquity, violators of the true Gospel.

Anybody who promotes anything in the Mosaic law as a means to salvation denies Jesus Christ. They are an antichrist because they are saying that what Jesus did on the cross was not enough. Anyone who believes that they are an extension of the Gospel is saying that what Jesus Christ did on the cross was not enough; therefore, they must add to what Jesus Christ has already done with their abominable traditions and laws. If the Gospel is about what we do, then it is an antichrist agenda because the true Gospel has NOTHING to do with what we do, but EVERYTHING to do with what He has done.

We can all learn from the early antichrists because they function the same way today. There is nothing new under the sun. Same spirit, but different mask.

The workers of iniquity in the modern "church" put themselves in the place of Jesus as objects of worship. They are desecrators who attempt to rule the masses in monarchical fashion, and love embellishing their man-made titles. They strangle out anyone who wants to worship Jesus Christ in Spirit and in truth.

Some of the greatest examples of antichrists in the OT are the serpent in Eden, Nimrod, Amelek, Balaam, Pharaoh in Exodus, Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar who all had an agenda to desecrate where God's presence was on earth. In the OT, it was God's temple, today, it is we who are His temple. The antichrists who are wolves in sheep's clothing need to be exposed for what they are because they attempt to desecrate God's people and their true faith.

The reason this subject is not covered is that it would give people discernment in identifying the deception. The modern "churches" would not teach on this. There are many on Hubpages who attempt to mix the holy and profane to justify their Gospel of "love," but fail to understand that the true Gospel is about agape love that deals with evil. It requires standing for truth when it is unpopular. Those who oppose the true Gospel often manifest in anger, pain, bitterness and double-mindedness. They are red herring tactics that attempt to lead away from the truth. Their version of "love" is a bastardized version that promotes precedence towards the warm and fuzzies.

God Bless.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 2 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

P&N the only thing that can be added to that is AMEN


graceinus 2 years ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

PandN- Thank you for your comment. I believe you have just provided a much deeper insight into the subject of the early antichrist than I have. This is without a doubt an important subject that needs to be said. By identifying ALL aspects of the antichrist throuhout time allow us to better decern what the antichrist is as far as when, where and how. As you have clearly explain the antichrist trails back to a very long history and has had an impact on mankind since the very beginning. Again I thank you and hope that our fellow brothers and sisters will take your comment and learn from it.

Your brother, graceinus


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 21 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

So I understand that you and Planks feel the "modern" church is as you put it

"Most so called Christians think it's all about "going to church." Their churches are all part of the anti-christ system"~ Graceinus

are all part of the anti-christ system.

I want to understand your claim better. I wonder how you determine "most so called Christians" because I have known many Christians, thousands, personally who go to church and of those I actually know personally I don't know one who thinks Christianity is about going to church. Of the churches I have attended since I became saved, and that covers several denominations over many years, I have not heard one preach that Christianity is about going to church, to the contrary they have all frequently preached Christianity is about a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and not about going to church.

I realize my personal experience may vary from someone else's personal experience in this realm but I find it hard to believe if most Christians think it is all about going to church how it would be that I don't know of one out of literally thousands I have known and have never encountered one protestant church who makes that claim.

Planks says, "The workers of iniquity in the "modern church" put themselves in the place of Jesus as objects of worship." Obviously my personal experience, as I have said, comes nowhere near this type of "modern church" (though I don't deny somewhere a church like this could exist) which leads me to ask you when did the "modern church" with workers of iniquity who subplant Jesus begin?

When do you deliniate the "modern church" from say the churches of mentioned in the New Testament.

Local churches mentioned in the Bible:

Antioch, Pisidia: Acts 13:14; Gal 1:2

Antioch, Syria: Acts 11:26 (Paul's home base)

Athens: Acts 17:34

Babylon: 1 Peter 5:13; Acts 2:9

Berea: Acts 17:11

Caesarea: Acts 10:1,48

Cenchrea: Rom 16:1

Colossae: Col 1:2

Corinth: Acts 18:1

Crete: Titus 1:5

Cyrene: Acts 11:20

Damascus: Acts 9:19

Derbe: Acts 14:20; Gal 1:2

Ephesus: Acts 18:19

Hierapolis Col 4:13

Iconium: Acts 14:1; Gal 1:2

Jerusalem: Acts 2:5

Joppa: Acts 9:36, 38

Laodicea: Rev 1:11, Col 4:15

Lydda: Acts 9:32

Lystra: Acts 14:6; Gal 1:2

Pergamum: Rev 1:11

Philadelphia: Rev 1:11

Philippi: Acts 16:12

Puteoli, Italy: Acts 28:13-14

Rome: Rom 1:7

Sardis: Rev 1:11

Sharon: Acts 9:35

Smyrna: Rev 1:11

Tarsus: Acts 9:30

Thessalonica: Acts 17:1

Thyatira: Rev 1:11; Acts 16:14

Troas: Acts 20:6-7

Were they all "the ekklesia" or part of the "anti-christ system"?

If not when were they taken over by the "anti-christ system"? How could that be if as you say "no amount of antichrists, then or now, can stop it."

Just exactly what comprises "the modern church", all churches in existence today?

If so where do I find "the ekklesia" (called out ones) of Christ that has continued to spread the gospel of the Kingdom of God, despite the"modern church".

Do they send out missionaries into the world like the great commission commands, do they worship in one accord, do they assemble together as in Hebrews 10:25 - Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

I ask because I want to learn, evidently I am missing something. Maybe you have a study or reference link that supports the statement that "the modern church" is part of the anti-christ system, or is that just an opinion a couple of you have, because I gotta tell you, if the entire "modern day church" was part of the anti-christ system I think God would have warned us not to go to church ?


graceinus 21 months ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

tsad- Thank you for your comment and questions. Many christains believe the word church comes from the word ecclesia (ekklesia). what most " christians don't know or fail to relatize is the word ecclesia is found in Greek manuscript as far back as 500 BCE. That's 500 years before the birth of Jesus. This word ecclesia meant called out of citizen or assembly (congergation) Mostly it's a political word used by Greece in that era. And continued that meaning until at least 600 or so AD. The first time the word ecclesia was translated to the word church was in 1557 print in the Geneva New Testament by William Whittingham. Then again it was use in the Bishops Bible in 1565. The word church was again used in the King James Version when it was printed in 1611.

It is enough said that the word "church" could not have existed as far back as 500 BCE in Greek text. The only Greek word that could be closely translated to mean church is the word Kuriakos to mean lord and later the word Kurios which later meant " pertaining to the lord."

What is interesting to note is how much this word ecclesia played on the part of the Roman Government who were aware of the true meaning of Greek word ecclesia of the time during and after the ministry of Jesus and the apostles. The Romans (and Jews) knew the ecclesia was a political word and fearing that Jesus was "calling out" disciple and preach a KINGDOM message. This did not bode well with the Jews who feared that Jesus was creating His own Kingdom and drawing in followers from the Jewish faith. The called out one's (disciple) began spreading the Kingdom message after Jesus death and identified themselve as ecclesia. "called out". To the Romans this meant losing people to another Kingdom as they understood it. But they (the Romans) did not understand the spiritual aspect of the Kingdom of God the Apostle were teaching. They (Romans) felt the Kingdom teaching was a real threat to the government of Rome and it's very existence. Needless to say many follower of Jesus and the apostles died at the hands of Rome during the early days of the "ecclesia" for spreading the Kingdom message.

Going back to the word ecclesia it is first time it's mentioned in the bible is in Matthew 16:18 (NKJV) which states: "And I also say to you Peter, and upon this rock I will build my ecclesia (translated as church) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

This word ecclesia meant assembly in this verse and it was seen as political. But in the following verse the Kingdom is mentioned in verse 19 which states; And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven..... As you can see this would cause a problem among the Jews and later the Romans.

It can be argued that a Church is a congergation or assembly. If this is true then the Church existed 500 years before Jesus was born.

In many cases throughout the Old Testament you will see the word congergation or assembly of the children of Israel. But you will not see the word ecclesia to discibe their assemblies or the congergation. Greek text existed but the word ecclesia was not used in the Old Testament. Why? Why wasn't the children of Israel called a church in 1557 in the Geneva New Testament when the word assembly or conergation was translated as church.

The point here is this, there is no such thing as church. And this is where the part of the anti-christ system comes into play to misleads those who call themselves christians. To believe in a false teaching to mislead the masses. The ecclesia is the ecclesia called out.

It is my hope that you will research the things I mentioned above for yourself. Research the word ecclesi vs. church. And find out for your self and don't just take my word for it. What you find out or discover may shock you.

I will end my comment with a question to you. If the word ecclesia can be traced back to Greek text 500 years BEFORE the birth of Christ, then how can one explain the existence of the word church almost 2000 years later, but not seen in the Old Testament? Hummmm.

Have a good day and many blessings.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 21 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Graceinus you haven't answered one of my questions but instead gave me a long dissertation on the semantics of words. Do you really think that answers anything in my comment? I'm very disappointed because I was looking for answers to legitimate specific questions and rather than give me even one you've written what sounds like an elaborate dodge. I expected more.


graceinus 21 months ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

Tsad- A long dissertation on the semantics of words as you discribe it IS my answer to ALL your questions. If you can not see it, then I can not help you.

Have a good day.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 21 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Then you actually are agreeing your answer IS a dodge because there is no reason not to answer my questions specifically if answers exist, and you have to know they don't or you would have answered them.

You totally miss the point of my questions, you ignore the obvious objection I have to your worldview and go on about something that I actually agree with you on because I have researched it, but I don't agree with the extent to which you take it, it is not true.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you think your answer is actually an answer to all my questions and so I will have to take issue with it and you will no doubt be surprised I do not dispute your description of the meaning of ecclesia.

Ecclesia makes specific reference to a group meeting in a particular geographical location. I agree this would preclude using the word to refer to a universal or invisible body of believers, as you claim "the modern church" Paul, who used the word more frequently than any other New Testament writer clearly understood the word to mean an assembly or congregation who met locally together and the KJB translation of ecclesia to church, if "church" means a universal or invisible body of believers is not an accurate translation, and I agree it has been used to wrongly define a universal church. In Revelation 2-3 Jesus addressing each of the seven churches in Asia concludes each message with statement "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." The word churches is plural meaning it was addressed to all the individual churches. If there was a universal church then Christ would have used the singular word "church" which would have been responsible for correcting these issues in all the churches under it. However, by using the plural word clearly Jesus was making the point He was addressing individual churches because He did not establish a one church system. I agree with all that.

OK so far?

Where I disagree is you, and believers of your ilk are making the same mistake you claim that the "modern church" is making. Your claim the modern church consists of all church denominations in existence today and that they all have a view of this universal church of Christianity that was not intended or even implied in scripture is as erroneous as those who interpret ecclesia to mean a universal church. Just because there is no biblical basis for a church administration outside the local church or local assembly of believers the Bible does not say not to have one. However there is Biblical basis that it not be used in a universal sense referring to all believers everywhere or what some call the "universal" or "invisible"church. A universal church cannot meet in one place together and assemble, therefore the word cannot be used in referring to all believers of all time all over the world. The New Testament refers to believers universally only once. In Rev. 21:9, New Testament believers are not called a church, but "the body or bride of Christ." At the Second Coming (Rev. 21:9), the body or bride of Christ is seen coming with the Bridegroom to earth to reign with Him.

Some may conclude that the term "body of Christ" (1 Cor. 12:27, Eph. 4:1-6) refers to a universal church but I agree that is wrong. However, that doesn't mean that a "church" denomination which may have some sort of administration out of the need for a check against local congregations falling into heresy or going astray has subjugated the idea of ecclesia to a universal or worldwide "modern church"

You do Christianity the greatest disservice equating all churches with the anti-christ system, The spirit of anti-christ you speak of is not limited to a universal modern church but is present everywhere even in ecclesia and it comes in the form of unbalanced believers, of cults, of false doctrines like what you have made by extrapolating scripture into falsely blanketing all "modern churches" as satanic simply because they have some sort of group administration. Pay attention now, I am mostly agreeing with you because I agree a "church" that claims they are the universal body of Christ is not a Biblical church, but you neglect to exclude denominations most of which ascribe to the fact they are not a universal body and respect the autonomy of their local members. Even the Puritans who favored the correct translation of the word "ekklesia" as a congregation also had a hierarchical church government. It would be almost a hundred years before the Baptists churches would come into existence in England and later in America and guess what:

They establish a church structured on the biblical doctrine of the autonomy of the local church.

I agree with you that bringing together conservative, neo-evangelical, and liberal Christian denominations with no regard for doctrinal differences under the guise of working together for the common good of some universal body is a direct attack on the word of God. But you see in your tunnel vision you, Planks and others who buy into your unbalanced view and have not investigated all "modern church" different doctrinal statements of faith have basically painted all modern churches as though they believe in Catholicism, and they don't, or you would know Baptists churches are structured on the biblical doctrine of the autonomy of the local church. This I know because I am a disciple of Christ who attends a Southern Baptist church, after having explored many other denominations and I can tell you without a doubt your worldview is unbalanced Biblically and even Jesus would tell you you are falsely disparaging many more of his disciples by accusing them of being of the anti-christ than you are correctly pointing out unbiblical churches. There are FIVE BASIC DOCTRINES of Biblical Christianty

1. The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality.

2. The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.

3. The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming bodily to earth to rule and judge.

4. Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

5. The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life.

What you do is elevate a doctrine that "all modern churches are part of the anti-christ system" to a basic doctrine and that is just plain wrong, unbiblical, and that's why I have to take issue with your point of view, painting all churches as being something they are not solely based on the meaning (which I and many churches agree with you on) of just one word.


graceinus 21 months ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

Tsad- Thank you again for you comment. Where I see a problem within most if not all denominational and non-denominational churches is the differences in doctrine. The bible is only ONE doctrine. Within the ecclesia one does not pick and choose doctrine. It's already spell out within God's word. To learn this doctrine is a lifelong effort on the part of the disciple and should be for each individual. We each (if we're true disciple) have a responsibility to sit down a study God's word. This is how we come to learn THEE doctrine. THEE doctrine is the entire bible. Many if not most dnominational and non-denominational churches and ministries pick a doctrine or make one they wish to believe. Many of which are unbiblical and then they also throw in traditions that create an even bigger problem. For example. When a so called christian is baptized he or she is then given a certificate of baptism.This is done in most so called churches, Here's the problem I see with this concept. For what purpose does a certificate of baptism serve? And to top in off most certificate identify the denomination the individual was baptized into. This then makes the individual a member of the "church". So, now; here's the question. Does the Baptism identify the individual as the member of the church and now there is documented proof or does the certificate prove to others that this individual now has a relationship with God? In any case, there no excuse for it and it's flat out wrong. I am baptized and that is between our Father in Heaven and myself. I don't need a certifiacte to prove anything. As part of the ecclesia I don't need a certificate to prove anything within my faith. I further do not need a degree in theology hanging on my wall to spread the gospel of the Kingdom. But there are those within the church system who believe this is the case. Those who are clergy believe they have the corner on understanding God's word. These are the same individuals who pick and choose their doctrine based on which seminary they

attended. My question here is, since when do we get to pick and choose the doctrine to believe or not the believe and teach or not teach? This is where I believe what separate true ecclesia and church. And this is where part of the anti-christ system come into play. It messes with THEE doctrine. And creates traditions that effects THEE doctrine. And it's all the churches who are denomonational and non-denominational that are responsible for this problem in addition to the many different traditions they have. The true ecclesia have no traditions.

Then there are the many different Holidays such as christmas and easter that are clearly pagan holidays supported by most so called christians and/or churches. The example here is Christmas in which most believe Jesus was born December 25th. Yet there is NO biblical indication of this. They throw in Jesus and Santa Claus on the same day. You can be sure these pagan holidays are part of the anti-christ system. To make people believe Jesus was born December 25th. This tradition is a lie. Yet it continues to happen each and every year with the support of most so called christians.

So, how can the 5 point you brought up in your above comment that supposed to relates to a true christian faith be conducive with supporting pagan holidays each year? Again traditions causing a big problem when mixed into doctrine. And again it's the anti-christ system.

All churches have these kinds problem in at least one form or another. So when I group all churches together as part of the anti-christ system it is for the above reasons.

I believe you tend to separate churches into group whereas I see them as all the same. I see no difference between Catholic's JW, SDA, Baptists and etc. Whereas you see each one differently. You separate, because eachd enomination have their own doctrine. But I see the separation of doctrine to be the problem. There is only ONE doctrine and that ONE doctrine IS the BIBLE.

I now have well over 12,000 hours of indepth study of God's word. And I will continue to study for the remainder of my life. With that said I still may not fully understand the entire doctrine of God's word, but what I do know is this, I will continue seeking the Kingdom of God "first" and spreading the gospel of His Kingdom will be a continued effort. And when I say spreading the gospel of the Kingdom I do so by any means available. Even if it is one person at a time.

Have a Good Day


celafoe profile image

celafoe 21 months ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

Grace-- and I will add just this one thing.

1 Cor 1:10-17

10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

NKJV


graceinus 21 months ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

Spot on celafoe and I thank you very much.


Rich kelley profile image

Rich kelley 21 months ago from The Ekklesia

If there is a building, that has tithes, that has a 501 3 c charter, clergy, and laity, vocational positions of pay then it is man made and cannot be the Ekklesia that Christ is building. Christ was able to disciple 12 in three years we should be lucky to finish the race and disciple 12 in our lifetime.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 21 months ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

Rich-- actually if it has any ONE of them, doesn't need all


Rich kelley profile image

Rich kelley 21 months ago from The Ekklesia

Charlie Good point.


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 21 months ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ

Tsadjatko,

You said,

(("I want to understand your claim better. I wonder how you determine "most so called Christians" because I have known many Christians, thousands, personally who go to church and of those I actually know personally I don't know one who thinks Christianity is about going to church."))

Reread what you said. It makes absolutely no sense. If I told you that I knew thousands of people who go to school, but I don't know one who thinks they are a student, you would think I was delusional. Christianity is about going to named buildings called Church.

Every Christian says that the building where people meet is not the Church, but then on the other side of their mouth if you pointed to their religious building and told them to read the sign, guess what they would say? They would have to concede and read the Church name on the sign above their front entrance.

But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. - Matthew 15:18

The Christian will get up early on Sunday morning so they can GO TO CHURCH! To deny that they do this is blindness.

The Christian will give a list of all the "churches" they have found in the Bible to prove that there are "churches." The fact is, not one on the list has anything to do with a traditional denominational church setting where people meet on Sunday’s and Wednesday’s.

The Christian will tell you one thing, but the true indicator is by their actions.

They say church is not a building, but then why do they go in a building that has a sign on it that says, “Church?”

Why are there pews for the audience to sit on and a raised platforms for the salaried men who are in charge in Church?

What would happen if a tornado destroyed a building that the Christian says is not Church?

What would be the response of those who met in it?

Remember, they have told you that the building is not the Church, right?

I would guarantee that their emotional response to their precious building being destroyed would be, “Our Church has been destroyed!” I guarantee the news headlines would say that a certain denominational church on a particular street corner was destroyed would confirm that indeed a BUILDING called Church was in fact destroyed.

You can’t get around all the things that are associated with the concept of church such as the pews, pulpits, senior-pastors, denominations, salaried clergy, membership certifications, tithes, 501c3 status, etc… are all parts of having a “real Church.”

If a cookie-cutter Christian did not meet at particular designated times for Church, then it wouldn't be considered “real Church” would it?

If someone wasn't baptized by a professional minister, then it would not qualify them in becoming a “certified” Christian member of the Church.

Christians live in an idolatrous world of believing their buildings are “holy.” By their words they say one thing, but by their actions betray the Biblical principles set forth for the Ekklesia of Jesus Christ. Church buildings get in the way of the true Gospel and make it of none effect. Being spoon fed denominational doctrine was never the purpose God has for the Body of Christ.

All denominations can be traced back to a particular man, but that man is NOT Jesus Christ.

“Go to Church” is a phrase that is not found in the Bible. The Scripture verses that are used to coerce people to “attend” have been butchered for the pastor’s agenda. The Church, and those among the Ekklesia are identified by their actions. A Christian is in Church at predetermined times during the week. A Christian partakes in weekly event called “going to Church” partaking in shallow impersonal traditional programs made by the clergy specifically made for them.

The Ekklesia are very much different, but you would have to understand the truth of Scripture to know who they are.

The typical Christian attends a man-made building made of stones, glass, brick and mortar, but those among the Ekklesia are a living breathing temple consisting of living stones that Jesus Christ has built.

When someone says, “Church starts at 10 am, let’s go to Church!” the sad fact is they have really no understanding of the New Testament language. Cookie-cutter Christians use many more religious words besides Church, but when you start discussing those words that the clergy have defined for them, they really have no resemblance at all to the truth of what is attested in Scripture.


Rich kelley profile image

Rich kelley 21 months ago from The Ekklesia

1. The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality.

This is man made doctrine and it is totally false.

2. The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.

Again man made doctrine totally false. He is 100% human that is why his being tempted in everyway yet did not sin becomes a hope for us to sin no more.

3. The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming bodily to earth to rule and judge.

This more than likely in a southern Baptist church means a pre-tribulation rapture of the church, again man made doctrine and totally false.

4. Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

The faith alone part is not taught correctly there are things you need to do, not for the grace God gives but an emotional prayer one day doesn't do it.

5. The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life.

The word of God is for all people, the only difference is that disciples of Christ actually believe the word and daily try to be doers of the word. Again not normally something that is pointed out daily in the institutional church.


graceinus 21 months ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

Rich- Thanks for your comment-. I agree with the the 5 points you mentioned. In regards to the issue of the 501 3c charter, this is something churches and ministry apply for. It's unbelieveable how low churches and ministries will stoop. To me, it is sickening to see how churches operate like a business. Truly if they relied on God as they claim then the 501 3c would be a non-issue, but hey, their a business so what can I say.

Again thanks for your comment.


Rich kelley profile image

Rich kelley 21 months ago from The Ekklesia

Questions and answers

How do I receive the Holy Spirit Jesus spoke of?

Act 5:32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him."

How do we get to see God?

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.

How do I obtain everlasting life?

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

How do I get and receive the love of Jesus?

John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

Will we ever be friends with Jesus like He said He was with the apostles?

John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

I’ve heard Jesus said to make disciples how do I become one?

John 8:31-32 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

I’ve heard that there is a second death how does one ensure they don’t see that death?

John 8:51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death."

How do I get eternal salvation?

Hebrews 5:9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

These are not the only scriptures to answer the questions but they put us in mind of what should be going on in our lives. More often than not the answer is simple and not complicate

There are things we need to do


graceinus 21 months ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

Rich- Thanks. As you have mentioned, these are not the only verses that are supportive and answers the questions you've asked. I have come across many more them myself during my studies. Thanks for bring them up. My prayers are with you in your continued discipleship and mine.

God bless


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 21 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

@G, There are basic central Christian doctrines that cannot be debated, changed or compromised in anyway, not by anyone, not through different translations of the Bible or different interpretations of scripture . Any wrong interpretation of these basic doctrines affects the salvation of your eternal soul, actually makes Christianity non-existent. There are those like Catholicism and "cults of Christianity" that I agree with you, can be considered to be part of an anti-Christ system because they are groups of people, which claiming to be Christian, embrace a particular doctrine system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian Faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.

Then there are different ways of practicing Christianity that do not affect the truth or the inerrancy of God's word or eternal salvation. For the most part there are many denominations that do not differ on the central doctrines yet may have subtle differences in the practice of Christianity. This is people just being people and has nothing to do with an anti-christ system.

Ignore all church denominations you will not find one ecclesia that is exactly as another in their devotion to scripture. The body of Christ is more diverse than we can imagine so what is wrong with those ecclesia that have beliefs, practices in common coming together under one banner, or in another word denomination, to be disciples of Christ as long as their differences do not pervert the Bible in any way.

You say "Many if not most denominational and non-denominational churches and ministries pick a doctrine or make one they wish to believe."

Isn't the ecclesia a non-denominational church? I know you hate the word church so lets say it is a non-denominational group. You keep saying many or most do this or believe that and when you describe what they do, you describe a cult. Yes there are cults, there are unbiblical churches, but many, most, or some (or just one) doesn't make all groups of believers part of an anti-christ system. All modern day church denominations are not of the anti-christ, a few may be but most are respectful of the autonomy of the ecclesia and are actually controlled and directed by the ecclesia..why don't you understand that?

To say the Bible is THE doctrine implies that you have the one revelation of everything in it and to disagree with your viewpoint on anything in the Bible renders one condemned as part of the anti-christ system. You have provided no other way for me to see your points. Are you nitpicking about something you think that "most" or "many"(without actual evidence of how many) do and then creating your own interpretation of something which has nothing to do with the intentions of those you are nitpicking? For example Baptism. As I said before I have attended several denominations over many years from independent Full Gospel (pentecostal) churches to Assemblies of God to Southern Baptist. I only became a member of one "church" by my own choice and no denomination I have ever attended ever asked me to become a member nor treated me differently than people who were members, yet I was as active and participating in the church ministries as any member. I repeat, none of these churches preached that attending their church was a requisite for being a christian. None of these congregations I attended issued baptism certificates, and none of them would even suggest that anyone was being baptized into a church. Why? because that is scriptural and no one attending these churches would have accepted such an obscene suggestion because we studied the Bible daily, held Bible classes for all ages weekly and well frankly weren't a cult, which the things you accuse "all modern churches" of are only found in cults.

Your personal experience seems to be the complete opposite of mine which makes me wonder why. I can only infer from what you say you had an experience with a "denominational" church which was actually a cult (yes part of the anti-christ system) and you are projecting your experiences onto all "modern churches". Your idea of baptism is wrong ("I am baptized and that is between our Father in Heaven and myself.") It is between you and the Father but as the scripture says Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). How can it be an outward sign if it is hidden between you and God. In the Bible the Baptisms were always done by someone in authority, there is no Biblical record of disciples baptizing one another, it was always leadership. The reason is that baptisms are for people who have been saved and a person in authority has the burden of witnessing that they are saved, lest the baptism is meaningless. In the Bible no one was baptized in private but in front of witnesses, because it is an outward sign.

When you say, "As part of the ecclesia I don't need a certificate to prove anything within my faith. I further do not need a degree in theology hanging on my wall to spread the gospel of the Kingdom." Most denominations agree with you on this so how does that justify condemning them to being part of an anti-christ system?

You say "My question here is, since when do we get to pick and choose the doctrine to believe or not the believe and teach or not teach?"

The central doctrines are self evident and as I say cannot be pick out or apart or changed for any reason. However what you call doctrines that differentiate denominations, in the case of true Christian denominations and not cults, are not "doctrines" in the sense of the central doctrines of Christianity but simply human differences of opinion on traditions or the practice of Christian life. There is a line to be drawn somewhere that says whether you do certain things or not as a Christian it does not affect your salvation or the integrity of the Bible. You can't tell me that every single group you would approve of as a Biblical ecclesia has the same understanding of every aspect of Christian living as you do, I'm sure you, Charlie and Planks disagree on something. After all,even saved we are all human and no one of us fully understands the Bible in it's entirety. As you said it is a lifetime endeavor.

Please explain to me how if a person believes the 5 central doctrines of Christianity celebrating a holiday like Christmas causes you, or him, or anyone else to lose their salvation? Celebrating the birth of the savior, in any place in any form represents the anti-christ? I don't know of any congregations that worship Santa Claus nor any denomination that makes Santa Clause the basis of their salvation. Is it Biblical to celebrate Christ on a day that once was a pagan tradition, I don't think so, but it is not unbiblical as my reading of the Bible is to celebrate Christ on every day.

Most denominations are controlled and financed by he local congregations, the ecclesia, who get the benefit. The ecclesia of these denominations have autonomy, yet you make them out to be evil and controlled by a satanic hierarchy or "seminary institution" which are actually controlled by the ecclesia. No doubt, because I am a member of a denomination you believe I am of the anti-christ, so why are you even allowing me to spew what you consider heresy? You have made a doctrine of "the entire modern church is part of the anti-christ system" a false doctrine, not found in scripture , which serves to divide the Body of Christ and thusly makes your point of view more a part of the anti-christ system than what you call the modern church (which in itself is a meaningless term because most modern churches have existed before modern times). What you are doing is stirring up division,

Titus 3:9-11 ESV But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 21 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Now Graceinus, I agree it would be preferable if every believer, every student of the Bible, every theologian had the same understanding of everything that is written in the Bible but being human and woefully inadequate to even comprehend God this is an unreasonable expectation as no human, even though saved and a Disciple of Christ is capable of even perceiving the final word on everything, every mystery of God, every prophesy or every "questionable practice", if you want to, call them doctrines but not central doctrines.

So we have to unite upon those central doctrines that as I said are self evident and indisputable to the authenticity of Christianity and not seek to divide the body over things that really don't matter, which by painting all "modern churches" with the brush you use is exactly what you are doing. When it comes to declaration of churches being part of the anti-christ system stick to cults where you can make your case, but real believers can have differences, even the apostles had differences, wiith out making them out to be the spirit of the anti-christ. .

I commend you for your study and your zeal for God, wish that every believer was so inspired. I know many of my "denomination" who have spent their entire lives, even until death, studying the Bible and serving as pastors, teachers, evangelists and missionaries amounting to tens of thousands of hours each studying and more importantly, living, carrying out the Word of God, fulfilling the great commission, all of whom would agree that you are out of balance in your accusations. But my only criticism of you from what I know of you is that you, which you even admit you do, paint all churches with an unjust and uninformed accusation which serves only to divide the body of Christ and I sense isn't coming so much from scripture as a deep rooted hatred of organized religion, probably based on your personal experience with what was most likely an unbiblical "church".

To project that upon all of Christianity is not scriptural at all. You are throwing the wheat out with the tares.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 21 months ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

tsad-- first, yes we have disagreed on a few things BUT when we do (and you can see several of these discussions on HP) We do what scripture tells us to do and discuss it until we all have the correct meaning no matter who turns out to wrong or right and sometime none are but we follow scripture so there are NO Divisions among us

1 Cor 1:10-13 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

the fact that you can attend a baptist church shows that you do not understand the scriptural command "come out of her".

The vast majority of what you have written above does not line up with scripture. 'we can lead person to truth' but can not make them understand. He who has ears to hear let him hear.

your arguments are actually not supported by Titus, they are what he is talking against.

No sense in me saying more


graceinus 21 months ago from those of the Ekklesia Author

celafoe- Thank you. I could not of said it better myself.

Tsad- I said, How can the 5 central doctiren that you mention by conducive with supporting a pagan Holiday. I made no referrence to salvation. So don't twist it. I said it was anti-christ. Second I never said I had a revelation of thee entire doctrine of the bible. I stated or explained it is a continued and life time effort to learn doctrine. I study more so that I my learn more of thee doctrine. Third I never said you are an anti-christ. However I can not at this point rule out the possibility. And even if you were, there is time for change on your part. Forth I never said one could not have witnesses to baptisms or that baptisms should be kept seceret. I said , I don't need a CERTIFICATE of baptism to PROVE ANYTHING.

If one is an anti-christ now does not mean they have to stay an anti-christ. Which is why God said; Come out of her my people.

I will not change my views unless you (or anyone else) have verses (in it's correct context) that will prove me wrong . Until then we are at an impasse

Have a good day.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working