In Revelation 17:5, the apostle John describes a mysterious figure: >"Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth." (Revelation 17:5) Many modern interpreters and some Christian teachers associate America with this symbolic "Babylon," citing its global cultural influence, economic dominance, and especially its perceived moral decline (e.g., promotion of sexual immorality, media-driven hedonism, and exporting of ungodly values worldwide). My question is: Do any Christian traditions or interpretations seriously support the view that America is Babylon the Great specifically because of its moral decay? Or is this interpretation more rooted in speculative prophecy teachings rather than established theological frameworks? I’m interested in thoughtful perspectives from within Christian theology, especially those that either support or critique this view using Scripture.

In [Chapter 2 of Holy Apostle St Paul's 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians, vv. 1-12], the RSVCE Title of which is **The Man of Lawlessness**, i.e., the **Antichrist**, St Paul in v.5 asks his audience to recall: > *5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this?* It appears that the early Christians right from the **Apostolic Age** were taught about and were familiar with this **Antichrist** character. The Church teaches that the heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church from the Apostles, is contained in the the ***depositum fidei***, i.e., in Sacred Scripture and [Holy] Tradition. > **The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church** > > **[CCC 84]** The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the ***depositum fidei***), contained in Sacred Scripture and > Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] > the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful > to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking > of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and > professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a > remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful." Chapter 13 in the Apostle St. John's Apocalypse introduces the Apocalyptic Beasts and their relationship . In the preceding Chapter 12 , the dragon had already been introduced, described, and the readers told what he does: > *the **great dragon** [...], that **ancient serpent**, who is called **the Devil and Satan**, **the deceiver of the whole world*** That leaves us with the two Beasts, the 7-headed First Beast from the Sea, and the Second Beast with with two horns from the earth. Which of these two Beasts, from the Catholic Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, is identifiable with the **Antichrist**?

The Protestant Marko Latvakoski of "The Mission of God" (or a certain "Cory Cornelius"), in the context of Apocalypse 13 supposedly being fulfilled, claims : >Pope Leo XIV declared, “We must dissolve the barriers between faiths {ONE WORLD THEOLOGY} to achieve lasting peace on earth.” Did Leo XIV say this? Latvakoski/Cornelius continues: >The Antichrist is said to perform great acts in the name of peace, seducing the world into worshiping as one. Pope Leo’s unprecedented interfaith push has set off alarm bells for believers everywhere. >

According to reformed theology, in the Savoy Declaration of Faith, Chapter 26 (*Of the Church*), paragraph 4, the Pope is the Antichrist. >There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Also in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26 (*Of the Church*), paragraph 4, we found the same, the Pope as the Antichrist. >The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. But how can he be **THE** Antichrist, as 2 Thessalonians 2: 2-9 says, if it is talking about a position and not a person. Would not be more in line with the concept of the spirit of the antichrist, of which it is spoken of in 1 John 2: 18-19 and 1 John 4: 2-3. How can this paragraph be interpreted? The Pope is *an* antichrist or the Pope is *the* Antichrist?

I am only interested in the Evangelical/Protestant or other reformist denominations and sects who come to the conclusion that (insert something from revelation here) is (insert modern person/place/thing here) despite this process repeatedly having failed for the couple hundred years. This is the other side of the "coin" of my other question here . Instead of answering what is the basis of the practice. I'm asking for a kind of reconciling of the logical contradiction of persisting in the practice. Here are some modern examples of people that Christians have "identified the Antichrist" from revelation: The Popes of rome, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Gorbachev, Oliver Cromwell, Vladimir Lenin, Saddam Hussein, Trump, ... and I'm sure in 4-12 years there will be another new one. Here is an example of an event: Chernobyl = Wormwood/Absinth (Revelation 8) Here is an example of a technology: Digital currency from the Chinese/European/etc is easily combined with implanted chips... (oh no, mark of the beast and the inability to buy and sell) --- #### How do they keep their conviction of faith despite being repeatedly disproven by reality? Do they just ignore history? "It never worked before, but I've got it right"? > At a time when more and more people feel the need, because of the profound crisis affecting mankind, to deal with eschatological events as described in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Theologian, as well as those things revealed by the Grace of God to the Prophets, the Fathers of the Church and contemporary saintly elders like Elder Paisios, **we must especially stand with the view of Elder Porphyrios, and decode why such a great Saint of our time, while knowing with precision and detail everything that we are living and where things come from, avoided talking about these things.** (Hieromonk George Kaufsokalyvites ) And so I note at the end here the observation that when the Orthodox Church speaks about the end times and about the second coming, **it is always a hopeful message.** (And consistent, etc)

I have watched a dozen of YouTube videos on the identity of the Sea Beast mentioned in the book of Revelation. Almost all these channels conclude that the sea beast is a religious institution that already exists. There are also thousands of website online that make the same allegations. The first evidence they use to point to the RCC as the sea beast is the Daniel prophecy about a *future institution that shall think to change the times and the law.* **Daniel 7:25** >He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall oppress the holy ones of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law It is common knowledge that the Pope transferred the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday which was also known as the Lord's day in those days hence a fulfillment of shall think to change the times which is the time of worship. The Catholic Church also persecuted Protestants and they have apologized for this many times hence a fulfillment of "shall oppress the Holy Ones of the Most High". Some of those fleeing the religious persecution in Europe fled to America where they declared each individual had a right to freedom of worship. The second proof they use to identify the RCC as the Sea Beast is the Biblical verse that says the beast is *seated on seven hills and seven mountains* and there is only one city in the entire world that fits this description: **The Vatican**. **Revelation 17:9** >This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated The third evidence they point to is that the sea beast has already been given *authority over every tongue, tribe and nation* which is a **power only held by the RCC as it's the only institution found in all countries of the world** **Revelation 13:7** >And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation Lastly but not least, the third evidence is the *color of clothes Pontiffs and Cardinals use during masses and sermons*. **Revelation 17:4** >The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup. It is crystal clear that priests use clothes made in Scarlet and Purple and there are golden cups all around during regular masses. How do Catholics defend their faith from these allegations?

Reading from the book of Daniel Chapter 11, there is a man mentioned near the end of the chapter that most agree is the anti-christ. Daniel describes his eventual end as him being pressed by several kings and eventually his army abandons him: > Daniel 11 > > 44 However, news from the east and north will frighten him, so that he moves out in great fury to ruin and completely do away with many. 45 Finally, when he pitches the tents of his palace between the seas and the mountain of the holy Glory, he will come to his end, with no one to help him. However the book of Revelation describes the end of the anti-christ as a battle between his armies and Heavens armies: > Revelation 19:19 > > I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to do battle with the rider of the horse and his army. Is the book of Daniel suggesting that the Antichrist is basically a "weak" version of himself by the time Jesus arrives, and it's the other kings of the earth that are primarily waging war against Jesus? If that is true what can we make of Revelation 13 that says: > The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. Daniel mentions the other kings eating at a table with the anti-christ, would they not have his number/mark on them during this time? > Daniel 11 > > 27 These two kings, bent on mischief, will sit at the same table, speaking lies to each other; but none of this will succeed; because the appointed end will not have come yet. 28 Then the king of the north will return to his own land with great wealth; with his heart set against the holy covenant, he will take action and then return home.

When I read through Luther's writings awhile back, I noticed he said the pope was the antichrist. I thought this was just some of Luther's usual hyperbolic rhetoric. However, I've learned that many (almost all?) of the major Protestant used to have that as a part of their doctrinal statement. For example, the Westminster confession of faith used to have: > There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. I believe the presbyterian and lutheran churches also used to have something similar. Not sure about methodists, but I have read Wesley claimed the pope is the antichrist. Maybe this was never an important topic for the baptists. So, it looks like until fairly recently (late 1800s, early 1900s) the pope being the antichrist was pretty important for most Protestants. Was that the case? If so, why was it so central? If it was so central, what suddenly changed that made all Protestants cease to claim the pope is the antichrist? Why is it no longer an important doctrine?

I've heard the claim, mainly from Fundamentalists but also from some Lutherans, that the Pope is an antichrist. Are there any Protestant denominations that specifically teach this, whether it be in their sermons or in their church documents?

The Bible mentions in a passage that the flesh cannot have life without the spirit. Both the spirit and the flesh need to be present for that person to be considered a living soul and for this I am going to quote several passages in the Bible. In the beginning when God created Adam out of the mud of the earth. He breathed into Adam's flesh his own spirit and Adam became a living soul. **Genesis 2:7** >Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. The preacher Ecclesiastes also mentions that the spirit goes into the womb from God when new life is formed. **Ecclesiastes 11:5** >As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. Other translations use the word *wind* instead of *spirit* but the same *wind* is much similar to the *breath of life* God breathed into the nostrils of Adam so wind could well be substituted for spirit. Jesus also made a statement to prove that this *wind spirit* theology is closely related and I am going to quote **John 3:8** **John 3:8** >The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. The final one is the spirit of Jesus who was God moving into the child who was formed in Mary's womb. Again, I think Ecclesiastes was prophesying of Jesus without the benefit of knowing the previous verse. Now let's fast forward to **Revelation 13:11** where there is an attempt to prove to the world through deception that the false prophet is from God, and for this deception to materialize he then needs to cause an image which I will assume is the image of a man to speak so that the world would marvel and say "Who is this man (false prophet), that he even gives life to lifeless objects that they are able to speak, could he have been sent by God?". This is very similar to what Jesus did during his time on earth: he walked on water and people marveled that who was Jesus that even the seas obey him. The devil is copying God's moves desperately to ensnare the world into a trap. Now here is my question, **does the false prophet cause the spirit of Satan to move into the image of the beast so that this image (who is Satan incarnated into flesh), speaking and causing many who would not worship the first beast to be slain?**

**Will the Antichrist come from the Catholic Church?** Perhaps since the Antichrist was a real person, is it possible that he is like a Cardinal or Bishop infected by the spirit of Antichrsti? According to St. John's epistle (1 John 2:19-20); > They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if > they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us, but their > going showed that none of them belonged to us. Is St. John talking about the future Bishops or presbyters will become the Anti-Christ who belong to the Catholic Church but separated themselves in a form of schism? Does Catholic Church have a teaching that one of the Bishops or Cardinals will be the Antichrist?

> 18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that [a]it would be evident that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:18-19 NASB) What was St. John describing when he said the words "they went out from us but they were not really of us". It's like the schismatic bishops, they claimed to be inside the Church, but they were not really belong to the Church, because schismatic behavior makes one outside the Church. - Canon 751 Cardinal Sarah stated, **"to oppose the Pope is to be outside the Church"**, and we have seen so many bishops and cardinals opposing Pope Francis, but still insist they remain in the Church and not outside. [Cardinal Sarah: To oppose the pope is to be outside the church](https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/cardinal-sarah-oppose-pope-be-outside-church) Antichrist or spirit of Antichrist won't submit to authority like the Pope, like Lucifer won't submit to God uttering "Non-Serviam". Was St. John passages in 1 John 2:18-19, be appropriately pointing to schismatic bishops of our times?

What is the earliest recorded instance of the popes being identified as the Antichrist or the Whore of Babylon, and who was the figure responsible for making this claim? Additionally, how did this interpretation of Catholicism develop over time, and what are some of the main arguments used to support or refute it within different Christian traditions?

> There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph > 1:22; Col 1:18): nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head > thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, > that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is > called God (Mat 23:8-10; 2 Thes 2:3-4, 8-9; Rev 13:6). > > WCF 25:6 > [Antichrist] shall be a master of sin and all iniquity, and yet will > retain the name and appearance of Christ and call himself “most holy > one; vicar of God; head of the Church,” and persecute all who will not > obey him… the pope more than fits this description. — Martin > Luther Do still protestants believe that the pope is the antichrist?

Suppose the Antichrist has arrived, and there is a political leader who tries to destroy him, while knowing that he is the Antichrist. I heard an opinion that such a political leader should be considered an enemy of Christians, as his attempt to destroy the Antichrist basically means attempt to prevent the Second Coming of Christ. From the perspective of Eastern Orthodox theology, is this opinion valid?

I am quite familiar with the Reformers' opposition to the Papacy, and [many said the Pope is the Antichrist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist#Protestant_reformers) . What confuses me is this quote from that same page: >In calling the pope the "antichrist," the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the "antichrist" when they wished to castigate his abuse of power. I was under the impression that the idea originated with the Reformers; however, it clearly did not. I would like a brief history of this idea up until the Reformers.

I am not up on my scripture but is the 'second coming of Christ', Jesus specifically? 'Christ' is a title, meaning the 'anointed one', so is the 'second coming' Jesus coming down from a cloud, or is it the coming of a yet another 'anointed one'?

While doing research into the Antichrist, I came across an article that suggested Satan will possess and control the Antichrist, the first beast that comes out of the sea. Revelation 13:5 says that this beast receives power from the dragon (Satan): >The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (Revelation 13:5-8) Then came a statement that made me stop and think: ***>Satan works through the Antichrist, for Satan himself is not able to become incarnate.*** I began to investigate what it means to be incarnate. Here are a couple of partial quotes: >The word incarnation means “the act of being made flesh.” It comes from the Latin version of John 1:14, which in English reads, “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.” Because of the near-exclusive use of the Latin Vulgate in the church through the Middle Ages, the Latin term became standard. https://www.gotquestions.org/incarnation-of-Christ.html >When Christ took on the form of a human, His nature did not change, but His position did. Jesus, in His original nature of God in spirit form, humbled Himself by laying aside His glory and privileges (Philippians 2:6–8). God can never stop being God because He is immutable (Hebrews 13:8) and infinite (Revelation 1:8). If Jesus stopped being fully God for even a split second, all life would die (see Acts 17:28). The doctrine of the Incarnation says that Jesus, while remaining fully God, became fully man. https://www.gotquestions.org/God-incarnate.html While angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5) - but that is not an incarnation. Jude verse 6 refers to those fallen angels who abandoned their own home (heaven) whom God "has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great Day." 2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan is still free to "masquerade as an angel of light" - but that is not an incarnation. What, then, does it mean or imply for Satan, a created, fallen, angel to become incarnate? Can Satan take on human flesh as Jesus did, i.e., be born as a human being? Or can Satan only take on the outward appearance of a human? As for the Antichrist, if Satan is unable to become incarnate, is that why Satan has to possess and control him? I am looking for a Christian overview on this specific question and am pleased to receive both Protestant and Catholic views.

In futurist interpretations of Revelation, is the Antichrist (or the "Beast from the Sea") considered an evil human, or a demon in human form? I've seen unsourced claims that he's supposed to be the son of Satan, birthed by a harlot who appeared to be a virgin (making him a half-demon?), or that he is Satan in human form (like a mockery of Christ). However, I can't find the biblical foundations of those ideas. Even if those specific ideas are incorrect, though, it doesn't confirm that he's supposed to be human. I guess another way to ask is, is the Antichrist a fallen angel (making him a demon), or a more recent creation/spawn/devotee of the Devil (making him maybe human, maybe a demon)?

Is the idea that a Pope may be anti-Christ, the same as basically saying the chair of St. Peter is vacant? Chair of St. Peter refers to an actual chair, but also the spiritual leadership. In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI described the chair as "a symbol of the special mission of Peter and his Successors to tend Christ’s flock, keeping it united in faith and in charity." -source- A vacant chair is referred to sedevacantism . Anti-Christ is defined as one who opposes Christ and substitutes itself.