[unlearner]

“Something MHGinTN will never share with you (the truth) Early Church Fathers on the Timing of the Rise of Antichrist”

In saying this I hope the truth you are referring to is merely on the issue of the identity of the restrainer. While I do not support the idea that everyone should come up with his or her own idea about everything, there are some areas of Bible interpretation that leave room for disagreement.

Though I can break bread with those who think the restrainer is the Roman government or the Holy Spirit, I am confident that it is Michael the archangel. I also see value in debating issues like this because it forces us to challenge our own assumptions and learn the scriptures more thoroughly. There are certainly things that are settled and nonnegotiable. There are others which require careful study, and over which sometimes even very gifted and godly Bible scholars disagree. This matter seems to be one of them.

[Philsworld]

In saying this I hope the truth you are referring to is merely on the issue of the identity of the restrainer.

---

Specifically now, yes. The early church fathers were 1500-1800 years closer to Paul than we are now and the topic was still relatively fresh back then. They didn’t know who the Antichrist was then. Now we know. The rest is easy to figure out from there if you follow the clues given in the bible.

The Antichrist/Little Horn came out of Daniel’s 4th beast and that Beast was Pagan Rome.

I suggest taking a look at this: At least get a different perspective and if you want to reject it, fine. But at least you saw it. You seem like a decent person and I respect whatever decision you make (to read or not to read)

http://who-is-the-antichrist.org/

You can also read up on the Mark of the Beast if you are so inclined.