Thomas21. The history of the use of the words "false prophet" and "Antichrist" is important. Jesus warns of "false prophets" and "false Christs" (i.e., false messiahs). The Hebrew word "mashiach" means "anointed." A King, like King David, is anointed. A High Priest is anointed. A "prophet" is primarily a teacher (not just a prognosticator). So the the false prophet/false christ/false messiah will be a person who claims both "kingship," priestly authority and teaching authority (i.e., an Antipope). In the Apocalypse, St. John uses the designation "the false prophet" but does not use the word "Antichrist" in that book, although the Beast from the Sea is traditionally considered to be "the Antichrist" in the Apocalypse. St. John does use the word "Antichrist" in his letters as a more general term (not specific to a single individual). St. Paul uses the term "man of sin" and Daniel uses the term "little horn." See these references here: https://biblehub.com/topical/a/antichrist.htm I think it is likely that the Antichrist and the False Prophet are the same person. That person comes on the scene first as "the False Prophet," teaching error, and then he "reveals himself" to be "the Antichrist" (false Christ) at some point later, when he makes a definitive break with the past teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Also, it could be the same person playing two different roles: he plays "the false prophet" when he teaches error in the Catholic Church, and he plays the Antichrist when he acts as the "prince of peace" in world affairs (see Apocalypse 13: "And all the earth was in admiration after the beast."). I cannot prove this, of course. We shall see very soon how this plays out. Daniel 7 and 8 don't teach that there are two different "bad guys." Daniel's description in those Chapters is primarily about a single bad guy "the little horn." So I think all of the following names are the same individual: "Fourth Beast" (Daniel 7) = "Little horn" (Daniel 7 and 8) = "False Christ" (Olivet Discourse) = "False Prophet" (Olivet Discourse and Apocalypse) = "Man of Sin" (St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians) = Beast from the Sea/Beast from the Earth (Daniel and Apocalypse 13) = Antichrist (St. John's letters and Church Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church). If you read the description of the actions of the person given those different names, you will see they all describe the same behaviors. Therefore, I think they are just different names given to the same person. And consider Apocalypse 16: 13 And I saw from the mouth of the dragon, and from the mouth of the beast, and from the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. 14 For they are the spirits of devils working signs, and they go forth unto the kings of the whole earth, to gather them to battle against the great day of the Almighty God. One might be tempted to think that St. John saw three DIFFERENT mouths, one on Satan/Dragon, one on "the Beast" and one on "the false prophet." But I think he saw the SAME mouth. The mouth of ONE MAN having THREE DIFFERENT SPIRITS in him. This man is 3 spirits in one person. He is the reverse of God, who is 3 persons in one spirit. The person with the Mouth (the one speaking great things, Daniel's Little Horn) is the unholy trinity: 666. Remember, Six, Six, Six is the number of A MAN.
PNF, The following scripture makes it clear that the False Prophet and the Beast are not the same. Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, who wrought signs before him, wherewith he seduced them who received the character of the beast, and who adored his image. These two were cast alive into the pool of fire, burning with brimstone.
I admit it is possible that they are two different individuals. However, if you will read the evidence I presented, you will not find two different individual "bad guys" in the other Bible prophecies that speak of the same events and the same, single "bad guy." Only in the Apocalypse is the concept of the "three spirits" of the unholy trinity (the Dragon/Satan, The Beast from the Sea, and the Beast from the Earth) distinguished from one another in that way. All I'm saying is be on the look out for a single individual that starts out his life being a "High Priest/Bishop" and then becomes "False Teacher" and then becomes a world-renowned "peace negotiator" that stops all the famines and wars and sicknesses through his "miracles." That person will be your False Prophet and Antichrist in the same person, if it happens that way. But I cannot see the future, so you might be correct.
The reason I am asking is because all the discussion of the end times focuses on just the antichrist, but scripture also talks about the false prophet, who Bishop Fulton Sheen said will pretend to be the pope. I am still convinced that temple refers to the Church, where the holy sacrifice of the mass is offered. What if it is warning us of the False Prophet, the end times Judas?
Yes, the "false prophet" is the SIGN that the Antichrist is near. They are either two different people, the first teaching error, the second implementing it. Or they are the same person at two different stages in their life. Regardless of being one or two different individuals, the false teaching is the definitive sign. It is the "revolt," the "apostasy" that St. Paul warns of in 2 Thessalonians 2: 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt [Greek = ἀποστασία] first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. So the apostasy happens first, then the "man of sin," the "son of perdition" (SAME PERSON) is revealed through HIS apostasy, his "falling away from" the True Faith. Judas is definitely a figure of the Antichrist (as well as a real historical person, of course).
To my thinking, Judas was more of an anti-disciple ~ he was wholly of self interest ie $$$$ If we are living in a backwards/upsidedown world, maybe the false prophet could be the reverse of a St. John the Baptist, a forerunner of the anti-christ, who comes a bit later? ie 2 separate imdividuals?
I think at the Last Supper we are told, 'Satan entered into him', which appears to suggest he was fully Satanically possessed to suggest from that point on he gave way to pure evil. Exorcists tell us that when Judas manifests he does so from the Pit of Hell , right at the Feet of Lucifer himself, where he lies with others like Herod. He had an inordinate love of money of course as we are told he was a thief who stole from the common purse. But I think at the end this vice led him far, far beyond that.
I think Bad Popes...and there have been several Bad Popes ..will have their bad asses parked right alongside Judas in the deepest depths.
Clearly from Scripture, the beast and the false prophet are two different beings. It behooves us to refrain from interpreting Scripture to fit what we want to see.
Bishop Schneider sums it up perfectly. You must choose a side: Either the perennial, unchangeable Gospel of Jesus Christ and his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Or the novel, modernist "false gospel" of a false teacher and his "Counterfeit Catholic Church." There is no middle position. We must get off the fence and take a stand for the Truth of Jesus.
Bishop Schneider said in this video that we must pray for the Pope so that he would be able to do what he is supposed to do. He said that when St Peter was in prison, the entire Church prayed for him.
Just a suggestion HeavenlyHosts. Rather than respond summarily with your opinion, why don't you address the specific points and logically argue your counterpoints. Then we can have a productive conversation and get closer to the Truth. Otherwise, it is just kind of "voting" with your opinion without giving any clear reasons. I agree that the particular Scripture that Carol55 quoted supports her position. I gave many other Scriptural quotes that support mine. Scripture cannot contradict. So why, if there are two separate "bad guys," don't the other Scriptural references warn of two different "bad guys." Could it be that St. John's Apocalypse is symbolically representing 3 spirits in a single person (the reverse of the Holy Trinity) and that explains why his narrative is different? Also, the example of Judas supports my position. Judas was first a disciple and later "fell away" from his faith in Jesus. After that change, he betrayed Jesus and sold Him for 30 pieces of silver. The single person of Judas shows a man who was different at three points in his life. I posit that the end times Antichrist will be a single person who goes through the exact same process.
I’m just voting , as you say. I am not interested in getting closer to the Truth in a discussion since I am already a member of the Catholic Church where all Truth is posited. I think I have a pretty solid grasp on what God wants me to do and I don’t think it involves this kind of debating. Clearly I don’t agree with you but we can agree to disagree.
Wow - such clarity of vision - he has the heart of a saint and a deep love for the church and the truth. I would follow him into the trenches.
Assuming that this was a recent broadcast on French TV carefully staged and managed - Point by point addressed -- What is the significance of the timing of this powerful statement by Bishop Schneider that everyone on this forum would 100% agree with? I don't think I have heard anything as powerful from a prelate of the Church in quite a while. I was literally cheering and saying Amen to each of the statements he made!!!
Far far beyond indeed....a question I ponder sometimes after this passage in the Gospel of Luke: 22:48 "And Jesus said to him: Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?" ~ if Judas had fallen at His feet begging forgiveness, would the Lord have forgiven him? I believe He would have, but Judas, of course, did not do this. In looking at this scene from our perspective, in the here and now, it's a very strong admonition not to lose hope and/or fall into despair, to cling to our faith with all we have. Judas, though fully possessed, appears to have still been given one last chance by the Good Lord Himself, refused it, fell into extreme despair and paid the ultimate price. That the Lord appears to give him that last chance, even after all he did, shows how important it is for us to ensure our own faith, each of us, is a solid as a rock, that we never ever lose hope, and in charity, help shore up those He puts in our path who may be sliding back.
The significance is, as Bishop Schneider said, to admit the obvious: that certain people have de facto "separated" themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. Even a "Pope" cannot take a position on the Sacrament of Marriage and Holy Communion that CONTRADICTS the teaching of Jesus and the perennial teaching of His Holy Church. The Pope, a true Pope, must always serve the Truth of Jesus and can never contradict Him. So since the de facto separation from the Mystical Body of Christ has taken place, we must pray that the "separated" persons come to their senses and repent. If they don't do that in a certain amount of time, then a juridical (de jure) process must take place and formalize the separation that exists in fact. That is called "excommunication." And an Ecumenical Council of non-heretical Bishops would be called to do that. But we are not there yet. Right now, we are at the point of a formal warning to the separated, heretical persons to come back to the fold.
You put the word Pope in quotation marks. Imho it changes the tone of what you are saying. I don’t think that reflects what Bishop Schneider was saying, either. And it may take years and possibly decades before the Church rules on this Papacy. Pray the rosary daily, offer up the sacrifice of our daily duties.
