The Meaning of Matthew 24:4-5

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, I still believe you are not understanding what we are saying, and that this is an example of "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel" ... sorry, but that is just how I see it. And yes, now we are in our second fight...

SO, since it looks like we will not reach agreement on this, let's go back to your premise--that many will come claiming TO BE (themselves) THE Messiah. There have been many, many through the years (as Charisma's list probably points out--haven't read it yet, but have heard of many myself). And, more importantly, there have been more PROVEN ones in the past 1/2 century than there are PROVEN ones pre- 70 a.d. (I remember seeing full page ads in newspapers from guys claiming this). Your example of Thedaus (sp?) was not a very good one, IMO--there were a lot of assumptions there that could be better explained as just a dude who wanted to gather followers...egomaniac...). SO, if you are using this scripture as strong support for the preterist view, I do not see that as very strong. BTW, my eschatological views do not line up entirely with any of the "popular" views.

I find your suggestion that the normal reading of Matthew 24:5, which is how the verse has been understood by the vast majority of Christians over a span of 2000 years, to be "straining at a gnat" quite unbelievable. You are the one introducing a new and novel interpretation of a verse that "strains" more than just gnats. It seems to me to be a forced interpretation that contradicts the normal rules of grammar.

And I'm sorry, but I must correct you agaiin. I don't think we are having a fight. This is just your run of the mill misunderstanding. Nothing to get worked up about. I have reasons for my interpretation and I have not seen reason to change them. One cannot believe what one does not believe.

As for eschatology - Theudas fits the bill, and John said there were many antichrists in the first century. But Preterism does not hang on "proving" that there were false messiahs in the first century. There is sufficient evidence to make that plausible. The "proof" comes from the main and the plain things that cannot be denied. Christ began the Olivet Discourse by predicting the destruction of the Temple and he said it would happen during the lives of the first century generation that heard him speak. His prediction was fulfilled. If you deny that there were antichrists at that time, you deny Scripture.

Great chatting! And remember, we're not fighting. We are having a heated debate!

[Charisma]

At face value, doesn't this phrase state: "Many will come in my name, claiming I am annointed."

This could mean that many will come pronouncing themselves to be in one accord with the power, purpose, and authority (<===my name) of Jesus, claiming:
1) that Jesus is annointed (of God),
and/or
2) they themselves are annointed (of God).

Am i missing something?

You're missing absolutely nothing. Thank you.

Richard...Timmy is explaining this better than I could myself. And you yourself have said in other posts that "christ" means "anointed one." His death and resurrection made the way to reproduce the "Christ," in others ("unless a grain of wheat..." and "He is the firstborn of many sons..."). So, if the entirety of Jesus' and NT teaching is really centered around becoming "like Him" -- or becoming "anointed ones" ourselves -- this is what that is referring to. However, there will be some who are TRUE in that pursuit, and others who are FALSE. It is the FALSE ones, who do not have the understanding--the eyes of their hearts were never opened--who will lead many astray.

Amen.

In this case, the phrase "come in my name" appears to be referring to pretending to be him.

Richard, this is NEVER the case in scripture, and it's astonishing that you should even suggest it. I hope you will look into the meaning of being sent in another's name - in the full authority of another's name and character, and look for other scriptures which line up with it. Here are two easy ones from the New Testament:

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. The 'As' at the beginning of the sentence is:

2531 kathos {kath-oce'}
from 2596 and 5613;; adv
AV - as 138, even as 36, according as 4, when 1, according to 1,
how 1, as well as + 2532 1; 182
1) according as
1a) just as, even as
1b) in proportion as, in the degree that
2) since, seeing that, agreeably to the fact that
3) when, after that



1 Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

I would venture that since the prophets who are quoted in the NT spoke 'by the Holy Ghost', they could also have recognised Jesus as Lord, had they lived in His time on earth. Paul is not saying that a person has to be 'born again' to speak by the Holy Ghost. God can pick people up and put them down just as easily. But He is interested in the inclination of their hearts - towards Him or not towards Him.

But I wouldn't say that "Christ" is "not a name."

I feel sure that if Timmy has time, he will say more about this comment. For now, I would like to say that to reduce Christ to 'a name' in the modern western way we use the term 'name', is to miss completely what it means to be 'in the name of Jesus Christ'.

It is of the unauthorised appropriation of His 'name', Jesus was warning His disciples (in the passage under discussion). It is clear that anyone who claims himself to be 'Christ', has an overgrown opinion of himself. There is no cross in his words or his behaviour. This lack of humility is one of the ways a 'false Christ' is recognised.

[debz]

I find your suggestion that the normal reading of Matthew 24:5, which is how the verse has been understood by the vast majority of Christians over a span of 2000 years, to be "straining at a gnat" quite unbelievable. You are the one introducing a new and novel interpretation of a verse that "strains" more than just gnats. It seems to me to be a forced interpretation that contradicts the normal rules of grammar.

I personally don't believe that the "vast majority of Christians" are right. If you have taken anything from my posts, you should understand this! I am not supporting "the majority" -- on the contrary, I believe "the majority" is mostly wrong in their interpretation of scripture!

I believe that Jesus spoke in parables, in "dark speech," (not "dark" as in "from the 'evil/dark' side," but "dark" as in "hidden meanings" -- He stated numerous times that He spoke this way so that "those hearing wouldn't really hear....and those seeing wouldn't really see..." It was a direct, mocking, deliberate "in your face" statement AGAINST the RELIGIOUS ones of His day!! I believe, and there are many, many references to this in scripture, that Truth cannot be understood only by our intellect. When measured by contemporary standards (I.Q. tests, etc.), I have always had a very high I.Q. -- I am NOT saying this to in any way boast about myself, I am simply stating that I can prove, by contemporary standards and measurements, that I have a high "intelligence" by the world's standards. HOWEVER, and this is a really BIG "however" -- that means nothing as far as interpreting scripture! Paul understood this as well--he said that by all accounts he should really "be something" (Phil 3:4-6) -- but all of his writings, interpretation, etc., were based on REVELATION -- something or Someone outside of His intellect revealed to him everything! We see many examples of this in his writings -- where someone who would ordinarily interpret things from JUST the intellect would come to a completely different conclusion than what Paul interpreted. It is why he prayed for the Ephesians (probably the strongest church of all to begin with...) that "the eyes of their heart would be enlightened" -- these were already "believers" -- they THOUGHT they understood everything -- but Paul KNEW they needed more! He knew that only by having their spiritual eyes opened would they be able to understand the REAL Truth....about their inheritance, etc.

And I'm sorry, but I must correct you agaiin. I don't think we are having a fight. This is just your run of the mill misunderstanding. Nothing to get worked up about. I have reasons for my interpretation and I have not seen reason to change them. One cannot believe what one does not believe.

Yay! (I still can't figure out how to insert those cute little smiley/angry/winking guys into this...I am "forum-communicative-challenged!" LOL, ...and I'm blonde, but we will just NOT go there, right?! (and, although I may be blonde, I think with my roots... *winking guy*)

As for eschatology - Theudas fits the bill, and John said there were many antichrists in the first century. But Preterism does not hang on "proving" that there were false messiahs in the first century. There is sufficient evidence to make that plausible. The "proof" comes from the main and the plain things that cannot be denied. Christ began the Olivet Discourse by predicting the destruction of the Temple and he said it would happen during the lives of the first century generation that heard him speak. His prediction was fulfilled. If you deny that there were antichrists at that time, you deny Scripture.

Absolutely agree on the fact that there have been, and still are, MANY anti-christs! There is not "one" anti-christ dude such as what is displayed in books like "Left Behind," etc.... YAY! We are in agreement on one more thing!!

So...are you saying that preterism mostly hangs on the fact that Jesus said "this generation..." ??? Have you ever considered another potential "hidden"/parabolic meaning behind that? ... e.g. the "42nd Generation"?

This is taken from another's website, but I have heard the concept before:

"Numbers in the Bible do have some significance. And the number 42 has generally been considered to represent the coming of Christ. Take a look at Matthew, chapter one. It tells the genealogy of Jesus. Verse 17 says 'Thus there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile to Babylon, and 14 from the exile to Christ.'

The problem is if you count up all the generations, they only add up to 41. We know that the Bible does not lie, so what’s up? Either the Holy Spirit made a mistake, or there’s a mystery we need to try to understand. There are only 13 generations from the exile to Jesus. But the text says 'to the Christ.' Matthew 1:16 says, 'Mary of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.' The 42nd generation is between Jesus and Christ."

...and, this all ties back in with the interpretation of "the Christ" -- it is supposed to be both Jesus, THE Christ, AND those who come into agreement with Him and follow all His teachings, and all NT teachings, to become LIKE Him-- to become "christs"/anointed ones ourselves.

...and, to throw in another piece of the "555" revelation... Revelations 11:15 (note, #15 [5+5+5] and #15 in your dreams...)

‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.’'

This verse is not saying the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of Father God and His Christ (Jesus). It is saying it has become the Kingdom of our Lord (Jesus) and HIS Christ. 'Christ' means anointed one—so who is 'His Christ'? It is His Body on earth—the remnant so much like Him in love and anointing that they are as One, equally yoked. And the phrase 'of our Lord and His Christ' totals 5550 (555x10, perfection of order).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, this is NEVER the case in scripture, and it's astonishing that you should even suggest it. I hope you will look into the meaning of being sent in another's name - in the full authority of another's name and character, and look for other scriptures which line up with it. Here are two easy ones from the New Testament:

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. The 'As' at the beginning of the sentence is:

Hey there Charisma,

I agree that when someone is sent "in the name of Christ" it means "in the authority or character of." But this doesn't apply to the people Christ warned about because they were not being "sent" by anyone. They were coming on their own, "in the name of Christ" claiming to be him, to have his authority and character.

Christ was predicting the coming of false christs who would claim to be the Christ by saying "I am the Christ." John confirms this when he explained Christians knew it was the "end times" in the first century because there were many antichrists just like Christ predicted in Matthew 24. The Scriptures confirm each other.

I feel sure that if Timmy has time, he will say more about this comment. For now, I would like to say that to reduce Christ to 'a name' in the modern western way we use the term 'name', is to miss completely what it means to be 'in the name of Jesus Christ'.

I didn't "reduce Christ" to anything. I spoke the simple truth that is common knowledge. The word "Christ" is properly classified as a name.

It is of the unauthorised appropriation of His 'name', Jesus was warning His disciples (in the passage under discussion). It is clear that anyone who claims himself to be 'Christ', has an overgrown opinion of himself. There is no cross in his words or his behaviour. This lack of humility is one of the ways a 'false Christ' is recognised.

That's an understatement! A person who claims to Christ has more problems than an "overgrown opinion of himself!"

Jesus was not speaking about the "unauthorised appropriation of His 'name'" - he was warning of people who would come claiming to be the Christ. That's what the text says

But maybe there is some merit in your case. If so, then you should be able to find some competent scholars one who interpret it the way you suggest. As it stands, you are offering a very unusual interpretation that I've never heard in all my years as a Christian, and you intrerpretation ignores the natural grammar of the verse. And besides that, all the major conservative commentators agree with the traditional interpretation. Here's what Adam Clarke says:

For many shall come in my name -

1. Josephus says, (War, b. ii. c. 13), that there were many who, pretending
to Divine inspiration, deceived the people, leading out numbers of them to the
desert, pretending that God would there show them the signs of liberty, meaning
redemption from the Roman power: and that an Egyptian false prophet led 30,000
men into the desert, who were almost all cut off by Felix. See Acts 21:38. It was a just judgment for
God to deliver up that people into the hands of false Christs who had rejected
the true one. Soon after our Lord's crucifixion, Simon Magus appeared, and
persuaded the people of Samaria that he was the great power of God, Acts 8:9, Acts 8:10; and boasted among the Jews
that he was the son of God.

2. Of the same stamp and character was also Dositheus, the Samaritan, who
pretended that he was the Christ foretold by Moses.

3. About twelve years after the death of our Lord, when Cuspius Fadus was
procurator of Judea, arose an impostor of the name of Theudas, who said he was a
prophet, and persuaded a great multitude to follow him with their best effects
to the river Jordan, which he promised to divide for their passage; and saying
these things, says Josephus, he deceived many: almost the very words of our
Lord.
4. A few years afterwards, under the reign of Nero, while Felix was
procurator of Judea, impostors of this stamp were so frequent that some were
taken and killed almost every day. Josephus. Ant. b. xx. c. 4. and 7.

And here's what another very conservative scholar wrote on this verse:

For many shall come in my name,.... by his orders, or with delegated powers
and authority from him; but should assume the name of the Messiah, which was
peculiarly his, to themselves; and take upon them his office, and challenge the
honour and dignity which belonged unto him:

saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many. This is the first sign,
preceding the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem; as there was a
general expectation among the Jews of a Messiah; that is, of one that should
arise and deliver them from the Roman yoke, which was the common idea tacked to
that word; in this period of time, many set up themselves to be deliverers and
redeemers of the people of Israel: who had each of them their followers in great
numbers, whom they imposed upon, and brought to destruction. Of this sort was
Theudas, not he that Gamaliel speaks of, Acts 5:36 for he was before this time;
but one that was in the time of Claudius Caesar, when Cuspius Fadus was governor
of Judea; who persuaded a great number to follow him to the river Jordan, which
he promised to divide, by a word of command, and give them a passage over; and
thereby, as the historian observes (c), , "he deceived many"; which is the very
thing that is here predicted: but he and his company were routed Fadus, and his
head cut off. There was another called the Egyptian, mentioned in Acts 21:38 who made an uproar, and led
four thousand cut-throats into the wilderness; and this same man persuaded
thirty thousand men to follow him to Mount Olivet, promising a free passage into
the city; but he being vanquished by Felix, then governor of Judea; fled, and
many of his followers were killed and taken (d): and besides, there were many
more magicians and impostors, that pretended to signs and wonders, and promised
the people deliverance from their evils, by whom they were imposed upon to their
ruin. There were others also besides these, that set up for deliverers, who
called themselves by the name of the Messiah. Among these, we may reckon Simon
Magus, who gave out that he was some great one; yea, expressly, that he was the
word of God, and the Son of God (e), which were known names of the Messiah; and
Dositheus the Samaritan, asserted himself to be Christ (f); and also Menander
affirmed, that no man could be saved, unless he was baptized in his name (g);
these are instances before the destruction of Jerusalem, and confirm the
prophecy here delivered.

And here's what Wesley wrote:

24:5 Many shall come in my name - First, false Christs, next, false prophets, Mt
24:11. At length, both together, Mt 24:24. And indeed never did so many
impostors appear in the world as a few years before the destruction of
Jerusalem; undoubtedly because that was the time wherein the Jews in general
expected the Messiah.

When you argue for deb's new and novel interpretation of that verse, you are arguing against both the Bible and all the great expositors that it has had over the span of centuries.

But maybe I'm wrong and the scholars can't agree on this point better than any other. If so, I would expect you could find a competent scholar who agrees with Deb's interpretation. If so, I will have learned something, and so be in your debt.

Thanks!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I personally don't believe that the "vast majority of Christians" are right. If you have taken anything from my posts, you should understand this! I am not supporting "the majority" -- on the contrary, I believe "the majority" is mostly wrong in their interpretation of scripture!

I don't believe that any truth is established by majority vote. But on the other hand, Scripture repeatedly teaches that truth is established "in the mouth of two or three witnesses." Given that we are at an impass, I thought it would be helpful to look at how others have interpreted this verse. If no one has ever interpreted it the way you suggest then I have 2000 years of witnesses on my side. I think that maybe that should you reasone to pause and rethink your interpretation.

I believe that Jesus spoke in parables, in "dark speech," (not "dark" as in "from the 'evil/dark' side," but "dark" as in "hidden meanings" -- He stated numerous times that He spoke this way so that "those hearing wouldn't really hear....and those seeing wouldn't really see..." It was a direct, mocking, deliberate "in your face" statement AGAINST the RELIGIOUS ones of His day!! I believe, and there are many, many references to this in scripture, that Truth cannot be understood only by our intellect. When measured by contemporary standards (I.Q. tests, etc.), I have always had a very high I.Q. -- I am NOT saying this to in any way boast about myself, I am simply stating that I can prove, by contemporary standards and measurements, that I have a high "intelligence" by the world's standards. HOWEVER, and this is a really BIG "however" -- that means nothing as far as interpreting scripture! Paul understood this as well--he said that by all accounts he should really "be something" (Phil 3:4-6) -- but all of his writings, interpretation, etc., were based on REVELATION -- something or Someone outside of His intellect revealed to him everything! We see many examples of this in his writings -- where someone who would ordinarily interpret things from JUST the intellect would come to a completely different conclusion than what Paul interpreted. It is why he prayed for the Ephesians (probably the strongest church of all to begin with...) that "the eyes of their heart would be enlightened" -- these were already "believers" -- they THOUGHT they understood everything -- but Paul KNEW they needed more! He knew that only by having their spiritual eyes opened would they be able to understand the REAL Truth....about their inheritance, etc.

Actually, the ability to accurately interpret Scripture is highly dependent upon IQ and knowledge of lanugage and history. Of course, a high IQ guarentees nothing, but in general people that are smarter and more well-informed will interpret Scripture more reliably.

The appeal to "revelation" is utterly meaingless because nobody knows if their particular interpretation is inspired or not.

Yay! (I still can't figure out how to insert those cute little smiley/angry/winking guys into this...I am "forum-communicative-challenged!" LOL, ...and I'm blonde, but we will just NOT go there, right?! (and, although I may be blonde, I think with my roots... *winking guy*)

Do you see those small smilies over on the right side when you typing a post? Click on them. Or if you want more click on the "more" link just below them.

Absolutely agree on the fact that there have been, and still are, MANY anti-christs! There is not "one" anti-christ dude such as what is displayed in books like "Left Behind," etc.... YAY! We are in agreement on one more thing!!

I knew it was bound to happen!

The whole teaching about a wanna-be world dictator antichrist is entirely unbiblical. No such character is mentioned even once. The term "antichrist" refers only to false teachers who either denied that Christ came in the flesh, or that he was the Messiah.

So...are you saying that preterism mostly hangs on the fact that Jesus said "this generation..." ??? Have you ever considered another potential "hidden"/parabolic meaning behind that? ... e.g. the "42nd Generation"?

No, not at all. Preterism is taught by everything in the NT. All the time texts say the same thing. The day of the lord would be "Soon" These events must happen "soon" for the "time is at hand." The phrase "this generation" mererly confirms a hundred other verses that all say the same thing. John said "It is the last hour" in the first century. Hebrews said Christ died in the "end of the age." And on and on it goes. The entire NT speaks with one voice on this. The "end times" happened in the first century.

This is taken from another's website, but I have heard the concept before:

"Numbers in the Bible do have some significance. And the number 42 has generally been considered to represent the coming of Christ. Take a look at Matthew, chapter one. It tells the genealogy of Jesus. Verse 17 says 'Thus there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile to Babylon, and 14 from the exile to Christ.'

The problem is if you count up all the generations, they only add up to 41. We know that the Bible does not lie, so what’s up? Either the Holy Spirit made a mistake, or there’s a mystery we need to try to understand. There are only 13 generations from the exile to Jesus. But the text says 'to the Christ.' Matthew 1:16 says, 'Mary of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.' The 42nd generation is between Jesus and Christ."

So many people have tried so many ways to fix that silly error! Michael Rood said the solution was that ALL the Greek manuscripts were wrong and that the "Joseph the husband of Mary" should read "Joseph the father of Mary." Then you get 14 generations and all is good. Of course, that would mean that God gave his church a fundamentally fallacious Bible. So it doesn't really help much, does it?

No matter what the solution, it shows that the Bible cannot be trusted "as given." It requires a huge amount of work to "massage the message" into whatever it is you think it should be. And that's the problem with Biblical fundamentalism. It is really an exercise in creating your own religion and blaming it on God.

...and, this all ties back in with the interpretation of "the Christ" -- it is supposed to be both Jesus, THE Christ, AND those who come into agreement with Him and follow all His teachings, and all NT teachings, to become LIKE Him-- to become "christs"/anointed ones ourselves.

The fact that people are to become like Christ does not justify calling them "christs." The Bible never does that.

...and, to throw in another piece of the "555" revelation... Revelations 11:15 (note, #15 [5+5+5] and #15 in your dreams...)

‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.’'

This verse is not saying the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of Father God and His Christ (Jesus). It is saying it has become the Kingdom of our Lord (Jesus) and HIS Christ. 'Christ' means anointed one—so who is 'His Christ'? It is His Body on earth—the remnant so much like Him in love and anointing that they are as One, equally yoked. And the phrase 'of our Lord and His Christ' totals 5550 (555x10, perfection of order).

Another novel interpretation! Will it never end? Your interpretation plays fast and loose with the Scripture. I see no justification for changing "his Christ" to mean "his Church." If this is what the Bible really means, then it hasn't meant anything to the vast majority of people since it was written.

But hey! I'm glad you feel free to share. And don't worry about my disagreement, I'm just a dirty apostate, remember?

Great chatting,

Richard

[CWH]

Hey there Charisma,

I agree that when someone is sent "in the name of Christ" it means "in the authority or character of." But this doesn't apply to the people Christ warned about because they were not being "sent" by anyone. They were coming on their own, "in the name of Christ" claiming to be him, to have his authority and character.

Christ was predicting the coming of false christs who would claim to be the Christ by saying "I am the Christ." John confirms this when he explained Christians knew it was the "end times" in the first century because there were many antichrists just like Christ predicted in Matthew 24. The Scriptures confirm each other.


I didn't "reduce Christ" to anything. I spoke the simple truth that is common knowledge. The word "Christ" is properly classified as a name.


That's an understatement! A person who claims to Christ has more problems than an "overgrown opinion of himself!"

Jesus was not speaking about the "unauthorised appropriation of His 'name'" - he was warning of people who would come claiming to be the Christ. That's what the text says

But maybe there is some merit in your case. If so, then you should be able to find some competent scholars one who interpret it the way you suggest. As it stands, you are offering a very unusual interpretation that I've never heard in all my years as a Christian, and you intrerpretation ignores the natural grammar of the verse. And besides that, all the major conservative commentators agree with the traditional interpretation. Here's what Adam Clarke says:



And here's what another very conservative scholar wrote on this verse:


And here's what Wesley wrote:

24:5 Many shall come in my name - First, false Christs, next, false prophets, Mt
24:11. At length, both together, Mt 24:24. And indeed never did so many
impostors appear in the world as a few years before the destruction of
Jerusalem; undoubtedly because that was the time wherein the Jews in general
expected the Messiah.

When you argue for deb's new and novel interpretation of that verse, you are arguing against both the Bible and all the great expositors that it has had over the span of centuries.

But maybe I'm wrong and the scholars can't agree on this point better than any other. If so, I would expect you could find a competent scholar who agrees with Deb's interpretation. If so, I will have learned something, and so be in your debt.

Thanks!

Richard

Thanks debz for the mind stimulating view of people claiming to be the Christ,"I am the Christ". Although I hold to the traditional view but your view does make some sense. if someone were to come to me/us and say he is Jesus Christ or come in the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and even did miracles, you and I will unlikely to believe him, but however if someone were to approach me/us and say, "Jesus is the Christ" or "Jesus Christ is the Lord", we tend to believe him. Preachers will usually approach non-believers in this way. That I believe goes with the people living in the first century. Since there are many people (some of which may be false prophets and false christs) preaching "Jesus is the Christ" or "Jesus Christ is the Lord", we should be beware of them. This I believe is what debz is telling us. That is why in the subsequent message in Matthew 24, Jesus did mentioned that we should be aware of false christs and false prophets who will even deceived the elect. Be on guard! Currently both views to me are possible interpretations of the verse.

BTW, this alternative views have stirred the hornet's nest...the traditionalist's view and the preterist's view. The traditionalist view that the verse,"I am Christ" is talking about people claiming to be Jesus Christ. The preterists also hold to that view but also believe that what Jesus said in Matthew 24 referred to those living in the first century, this alternative view force them to view Christ as referring the centuries beyond AD 70 till now where false prophets and false christs abound. It does give me the scary thought that we and other staunch Christians may actually be false christs and false prophets without actually knowing ourselves. Beware of Satan's trap! But I believe as long as we believe in and love God with all our heart, soul and strength and love others as ourselves and always doing God's will, we should be alright.

Thanks debz, it is a good post. I love good mind stimulating alternative views; it gives the "ummmph!" in this forum.

May God blessed us His Wisdom.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

BTW, this alternative views have stirred the hornet's nest...the traditionalist's view and the preterist's view. The traditionalist view that the verse,"I am Christ" is talking about people claiming to be Jesus Christ. The preterists also hold to that view but also believe that what Jesus said in Matthew 24 referred to those living in the first century, this alternative view force them to view Christ as referring the centuries beyond AD 70 till now where false prophets and false christs abound.

Nah ... no hornets! More like a "rat's nest" of confusion perhaps, if the history of the Futurist/Preterist debate is any indication!

It does give me the scary thought that we and other staunch Christians may actually be false christs and false prophets without actually knowing ourselves. Beware of Satan's trap! But I believe as long as we believe in and love God with all our heart, soul and strength and love others as ourselves and always doing God's will, we should be alright.

Be afraid. Be very afraid!

From the movie The Fly, have you seen it? One little change to his DNA ...

Thanks debz, it is a good post. I love good mind stimulating alternative views; it gives the "ummmph!" in this forum.

I concur!

Thanks to you too CWH. You stimulate a lot of discussion on this forum. It's good to have you around my friend.

Richard

[Timmy]

Well, we certainly see a mish mash of various conflictions over a few words, hunh?

Richard, your points are taken and who am i to quibble?
(Please recall Jesus words about "if you can believe, John the Baptist is Elijah who must come," as prophecied in Malachi. Does this mean there will be no second coming or that we missed it? Are you sooo preteristic to disregard seemingly conflicting ideas? Am i sooo post- that i disregard seemingly conflicting ideas?)




The mention of dark sayings brings two things to mind.

First, my new sig line--so often spoken to me by my Rabbi. It's a constant reminder of one thing:
Who but God alone has a corner on the truth?

Second, no interpretation of the Olivet prophecy, no matter how synchonously synoptic is without speculation. Prophecy of a futuristic nature finds it's fulfillment again and again until it comes to complete fruition.

With all dark sayings, you can see a megalithic eraser sticking out of my back pocket, with the words, "To err is human" stamped on it. Over the years, i am learning to use that eraser less and less; but still i am repeatedly forced to use it often.

Personally, if i come to a stopping point in further revelation/understanding of whatever the scripture studied, i see myself as trusting what i think. God and His word are infinite and i am not, much less my mind. For guidelines in this regard, i consider Jer. 17.5-10, Prov. 3, and Jas. 1.2-8. These remind me: i cannot trust my own or another persons reasoning; to engrain further truth through action; and patiently pray persistently expecting God to answer. (It always works, though hardly ever on my timetable or terms.)

The comment about the majority whip of Christendom just makes me think that all of whatever interpretation of these (and other) verses is accepted, though they may be correct to a certain extent, there is no case closed scenario. These indeed being the end times,--(observe Jerusalem and ever pray for it's peace)--consider the words from the book of Daniel, that "knowledge shall be on the increase" and those words do not specifying merely secular know how. Up until the present, we have always done as best we could with the Biblical tools at our disposal.
(Is it an accident the Bible Wheel is available, and at the touch of a button now?)




Of the text in question, the word "many" is being virtually ignored.

How many out of all the billions of humans spanning the globe since Jesus prophecied those words have actually claimed to be Jesus?
Is less than a handful of "many" compared to billions; or, even compared to the Jewish community in direct reference to his words (if your leanings are toward Covenant, Preteristic, or Dispensational theology)? whichever, there is either a misunderstanding of what he said or it has yet to occur.

Considering this one word "many" puts a whole new slant on the texts meaning, doesn't it?

Of the word christ. . .
--not really wishing to hash through that issue again again--
. . .know that every name in the Bible is objectification of the essence of the so named...and a title is not a name, though it does serve objectification purposes on another level. (Charisma knows me better than i thought.) People did not often run around calling Yashua ben Yusef by the title of Messiah because it is a title, not a name. Neither should we be running around calling Jesus as Christ when that is not his name. The word christ is a point of recognition. It is not objectifying the nature and character of Jesus as his name does (YHShVH).

The post hoc "In the name of" analogy is not valid. (i.e. "In the name of the President" applies not specifically to the president, but rather is a label used by those delagated to do his bidding, such as embassadors and other various emmisaries. Obama does not run around saying, "In the name of the President" or even "In the name of Obama.")

The phrase in question, if looked at in the greek is not in complete sytax with what surrounds it. . .if we interpret it to only mean there will be MANY false messiahs.

(...and the Gk. T.R. was in the distant past checked regarding the 7 "I Am's" mentioned of John's gospel. Actually, if recalled correctly, about three times seven times is more accurate. i have not checked into those two words more than this, but if time affords, i can check some classical texts and see just how it is used, (Though the greek rendition of N.T. Bible appears to be a massacre of classical Koine' Greek, perhaps parallels can be drawn.))

There is more desired to be written but time affords not presently.



God bless us everyone!

Timmy

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your reply.

I note that you have stuck like glue only to vv 4 and 5, while I have probably also had in mind the later verses in the chapter: 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here [is] Christ, or there; believe [it] not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

I think 'Behold I have told you before', has an unspoken ending 'so that when it happens, you'll recogise it and believe this warning'.

But this doesn't apply to the people Christ warned about because they were not being "sent" by anyone. They were coming on their own, "in the name of Christ" claiming to be him, to have his authority and character.

Christ was predicting the coming of false christs who would claim to be the Christ by saying "I am the Christ."

I accept this interpretation. I have no idea what I've said which makes you think I don't. However, you seem unaware that a person who does this, who has no real authority from God, is, nevertheless, being empowered by another spirit . If they were not, there could be no 'signs and wonders' to aid the deception they perpetrate. They come in the authority of their own spiritual father - John 8:44. I'm not assuming they are aware of how deceived they are; some will not be - the self-deceived - and some will know exactly what they are doing.

I have, though, taken it further, to include false prophets (Christ was 'that Prophet'), and false shepherds; the last, because of the way very many churches have allowed non-biblical templates to dominate the pastoring and teaching of their assemblies, and their internal management; using an exclusive right to minister model which prevents all other members from supplying what the Lord has ministered to them for the edification of the Bod; focusing on material rather than spiritiual wealth.

I would add, the 'in my name' warning appears a bit further on still, in Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

[Charisma]

I accept this interpretation. I have no idea what I've said which makes you think I don't. However, you seem unaware that a person who does this, who has no real authority from God, is, nevertheless, being empowered by another spirit . If they were not, there could be no 'signs and wonders' to aid the deception they perpetrate. They come in the authority of their own spiritual father - John 8:44. I'm not assuming they are aware of how deceived they are; some will not be - the self-deceived - and some will know exactly what they are doing.

I want to add that I believe God is over all. He knows what is going on, and He has something - if not everything - to do with the depth of deception which comes upon a person whose choices with their own free will, consciously compromised with truth.

The person in a state of self-deception because of circumstances beyond their control at some previous time, may still find Him every bit the Saviour we proclaim, if they seek Him.