There are only 4 verses in Scripture that contain the word antichrist. If you have doubts search the Blue Letter Bible (KJV quoted below):

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Clearly, from the verses above, antichrist is a SPIRIT, or THE spirit, that lives in the heart of anybody that denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or denies that Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh. Thus, every man that denies the Father and the Son is antichrist, and also is an antichrist (Jewish blindness, however, may be a separate issue in this regard).

Since there are billions of antichrists - and no shortage from John’s day forward - there cannot be a single antichrist - not then - not today - not ever. An individual antichrist can only ever be just ANOTHER antichrist. One of the reasons the Lord had John write so late ws so he could address heresies that had already arisen plentifully in the church.

The following verse is sometimes abused in an attempt to suggest a single past or future boogeyman, but Scripture shows us how to understand this verse perfectly:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

We can develop our understanding hermeneutically by looking to another verse that also uses the term antichrist in a singular fashion:

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

You can see the singular “that”, “spirit”, “it” in this sentence and singular “antichrist” just like the singular “antichrist” in 1 John 2:18. The translators gave us a little extra push in 1 John 4:3 by inserting the word [spirit] a second time, further clarifying that the spirit of antichrist is this singular entity. Now look at how perfectly this understanding works in the “little children” verse:

John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that [the spirit of] antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Finally look also at how beautifully parallel these two verse snippets are:

“ye have heard that antichrist shall come”
“ye have heard that it should come”

Can it really be any more obvious than that?

Look at the fruit of misunderstanding. Some orthodoxy (Greek) says “the” “Antichrist” was Nero. Perhaps over and done with. Futurists are looking for some future “antichrist” boogeyman like that of the silver screen in the “Left Behind” series. Others you can find on the internet, of which there is no shortage, proffer guesses from the leader of Spain, to the Pope, to Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile there are 1.5 billion antichrists in Islam alone. This doesn’t even count the atheist neighbor down your block where your kids go to hang out. The Church has been decieved into looking in the wrong place. Has the Church’s misguided effort to look for some single boogeyman, past or present, also made it look like so much buffonery to those outside of the Church?

Satan has succeeded in removing the term antichrist from our everyday Christian vocabulary - except - as regards a fabled individual. When was the last time you heard a Christian casually refer to the atheist down the block as an antichrist? Ask the guy next to you in Church next Sunday who “The” “Antichrist” is.


Yes, the Antichrist will come in to the world personifying a wicked heart that is cold, rotten, lifeless, hateful, lustful, corrupt, etc. He will be crushed by the the true Prince, Jesus.


George Bush:p but the answer varies on the person being asked


According to many Baptists and Fundamentalists your College of High Cardinals will be electing him in the not too distant future!:smiley: :smiley: :wink:


Can you guide me to some scripture that supports this?
So far your description works for much of mankind that are antichrist.


Not necessarily. You see man was created to be good. While his heart may be corrupt, it does not rule out the fact, that since man is created in the Image of God, he cannot personify evil.
Now I will point you to a verse:

2 Thessalonians 1:3,4
Let no one decieve you in anyway. For unless the apostasy comes first, and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed perdition who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming he is a god


So where is the temple of God?
(P.S. What the heck version do you use?)
Same verse KJV:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


You might be interested in reading how some of the early Church Fathers described the coming Anti-Christ:


We have the same meaning, with many word changes. I have not learned where the temple of God is, but I know as defined in this verse, even in your translation, that the Antichrist will be a person. Only a single person could be labeled with the article the. The more different kinds of Bibles you use, which there are many kinds of translations, the more you will see different variations of words.

I am using The New American Bible right now.


The whole point I am trying to make is that heresy pervaded the Church even as John penned the book of Revelation in around 95 AD. Support your view with scripture. There is a reason that these guys aren’t included in the Bible. One can search and find support in the reams written in the early Church to support nearly any heresy one chooses to follow. That doesn’t make it true.

Just look at the fruit that I mentioned in the first post. The movie “Revelation” - A boogieman that sends guys house to house to put goofy goggles on folks that instantly uncripple them and burn a 666 in their hand right through the air.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


I have:

1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Cr 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The Bible doesn’t lie. The temple of God is us.

But I showed you how the spirit of antichrist is labeled with the article “the”.

I am not familiar with it but I would set aside any version that selectively capitalizes the term antichrist as it is doctrine driven.

I like the KJV with Greens Greek/English and Hebrew/English and Strong’s definitions. Certainly not perfect as they are futurist driven as well, but I try to make them do.


You responded so quickly, I can only conclude that you did not actually read any of the quotes that are provided on that link. If you are claiming that the early Church Fathers, many of whom are today saints, spoke with heretical views about the anti-Christ, then I would have to say that you are not here for a serious discussion but for some darker motive. I am hoping that I have misunderstood you.


I would agree, and not to be uncharitable to John Williams, but if you actually read the article, you would know that the Church Fathers are so fundamental that anyone who does not adhere to their teachings, to some degree cannot be Christian. Every Church that is really Christian, especially Catholics and the Orthodox, concur that the teachings of these men are true. Therefore, all Christians look up to them. As well as Eden has said, I hope that I have misunderstood, because to claim that the Fathers taught heresy is a serious claim.
If you do not adhere to the teachings of them, you cannot rightly claim to be Christian, for even Protestants adhere to them in some degree and are Christians. If you do not believe in the Fathers’ teachings then it would not be worthwhile debating since together with the Bible and the Magesterium, the were an essential development to the Faith.


Jhn 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Interestingly it was earlier today that an internet search led me to that exact link you posted and to this forum where I then joined. I am not otherwise unfamiliar with this subject. I don’t believe scripture allows for an individual antichrist.

And that dark and perhaps sinister motive?

Well one might be to help Christians ponder that the “man of sin” could be seated in the temple of God, which is us. Instead of taking stock and exercising a little introspection, perhaps Satan has folks metaphorically running over the hill with a pitchfork in one hand and a torch in the other, pointing their fingers in a direction perhaps one hundred eighty degrees from that which it should be, looking for a boogieman.

Sorry but I don’t believe this singular “Antichrist” concept has ever served the Church well, nor do I believe it can be supported by scripture. I believe it was John’s effort to convey this.

But everybody loves a boogeyman. That’s how Hollywood makes the lions share of its money.


For one, I never said the Bible lied, I believe that the Bible is without any error. The version did not captialize antichrist, I did, for the sake of showing our different view points. We are the temple of God, but the temple of God is something else too. And as of such I will question you. Have you read Daniel and Revelation? The significantly personify him as a person and a chief opponent of Christ, fooling many people.


I have read Daniel and Revelation. My view, however is linear-historic, or continuous-historic, not futurist. My view WAS futurist until the Lord led me out of that doctrine last spring.

Want to take a crack at Revelation 13 with me? I want this to be in the spirit of fellowship, not hostility.

(PS I didn’t indicate that you indicated the Bible lied. It wrote that to punctuate the truth of where God’s Holy Temple is.)


While I think by considering your motive dark, was a little rash, I think it is a serious issue that you reject the Fathers, very serious. You made no attempt to read the article but made a quick skim. I have talked to someone with a similar belief as you, the rejection of the Fathers. It will be in fact difficult to talk Faith with you, since you rely only on the Bible and not Tradition as well.


Perhaps…but… But my idea is a futuristic/present, not necessarily historic. I hope I will not derive hostility and I am sorry if I appeared that way. You are certainly welcome to post here regualarly.


I perceived no hostility whatsoever. I am just hoping we can proceed with open hearts.


What I wrote was that I read it. I read it in its entirety earlier today. You judged me unfairly - this time by presumption - in spite of what I wrote. I am not called to respond further. I have read many of those quotes previously and they constituted a brush up this time.

But I do know what if feels like to have one’s DOCTRINE questioned and I understand. .

Go to the Episcopalian discussion to see what happens when we stray from scripture and rely on tradition/doctrine. Or consider the treatment of Reformers for an extreme example of error.
Or consider Jesus warning to the Pharisees:

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Sometimes I am prone to judge by the fruit.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit