ITALY The Antichrist is already among us
For some, the association of character with destiny is a boon. For many . The Death Of Superman, by Jerry Siegel & Curt Swan et al 4. If we only had 13 examples of the genre to pick from, how could we possibly choose?. Because he was their God, they considered him to be the God of piety, and reward in relation to Yahweh. We have spoken of the first two under the heads of Satan and Antichrist, all that While the LAMB (Christ) is mentioned in the Book of Revelation 22 times, the description given of Him in chapter , He is the Antichrist, Satan's SUPERMAN. His relation to the "First Beast" is the same as the Holy Spirit's relation to Christ.
This question, we believe, receives answer in Dan. Practically all students are agreed that "the south" here refers to Egypt, the "east" to Persia and Greece and "the pleasant land' to Palestine, hence it would seem that the country from which Antichrist will first be manifested is Syria.
It will be noted that nothing is said in Dan. This is confirmed by the fact that "the king of Assyria" in Isa. We may say this was the current view of Christian writers on prophecy through the first ten centuries A. Newton in his splendid "Aids to the Study of Prophetic Inquiry" has succinctly summarized the various arguments of the ancients in the following language: Moreover, seeing that Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus Epiphanes - two monsters who bore down upon the people of God with an overwhelming power of destruction, and who were the antichrists of the old Testament and remarkable types of the Antichrist which is to come; seeing, I say, that these monarchs reigned in Babylon, it is fitting that the true Antichrist of the New Testament should arise from the same Babylon.
The consummation, therefore, of impiety, which is to have its recapitulation in Antichrist, could not break forth from a more fitting place than Babylon".
Having dwelt at some length on the time and the place of the Antichrist's appearing, we shall attempt to give now a brief outline of the leading events in his career. We have seen that the scriptures which help us to determine the direction from which he will arise, speak of him under the title of the Little Horn.
Now the first thing this title denotes is that he is a king, king of Assyria. Some, no doubt, will wonder how a Jew will succeed in obtaining the throne of Syria. Several answers might be suggested, such, for example, as heading a successful rebellion - the spectacle of an obscure plebeian speedily rising to the rank of national Dictator, has been forcibly exhibited before our own eyes in Russia.
But on this point we are not left to speculation. With this agrees Rev. The symbol suggests bloodless victories. As soon as this Jew acquires the crown of Syria he will speedily enlarge his dominions. The first thing which is predicted of him as "the Little Horn" is that "he shall subdue three kings" Dan. As to what kings these may be, appears to be intimated in Dan. He waxes great first toward the south, that is, most probably, by a victorious expedition into Egypt. Next, he is seen moving toward the east, reducing, to what extent we are not told, the dominions of Persia and Greece; finally he turns his face toward the pleasant land, which is Palestine.
Without being dogmatic, we would suggest that the three kings he subdues are those of Egypt, Persia, and Greece. Having subdued the three kings by his military prowess a "league" is made with him see Dan.
Probably it is the remaining seven kings of the revived Roman Empire, plus the three vassals of the Antichrist who take the place of the kings he had deposed, that enter into this League with the Little horn, or king of Assyria; but he shall work deceitfully, and shall become strong with a small people Dan. So strong does he become that in a short time he rises to political supremacy, and the whole of the ten kings shall "give their kingdom unto the Beast".
Thus as King of kings he will dictate the policies of Europe and Asia. And let not this be regarded as an event incredible. We are to remember that Antichrist will be Satan's masterpiece; furnished with every auxiliary of influence and wealth, for wresting the sceptre from the hands of Him who won it by His humiliation of the Cross.
The accumulated and restored honors of each royal successor are thus to crown the brow of this last and greatest of Gentile monarchs. And so shall he stand in his unrivalled magnificence till the Stone shall smite him and his power, and grind all to powder" Mrs.
After the Antichrist has acquired the political sovereignty of the prophetic earth he will then enter upon his religious role, claiming to be the Christ of God and demanding Divine honors. At first sight it appears strange, if not incongruous, that a military despot should be found filling the character of a religious impostor. But history shows that there is a point at which one character readily merges into the other.
Political ambition, intoxicated by success, finds it an easy step from self-glorification to self-deification, and the popular infatuation as easily passes from the abject adulation of the tyrant to the adoration of the god. Or again; a religious impostor, encouraged by the ascendancy he has acquired over the minds of men, grasps the sceptre of secular power and becomes the most arbitrary of despots.
His religious ambitions are as insatiable as his political, for he will "oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" 2 Thess.
This claim to be God Himself, incarnate, will be backed up by imposing credentials, for his coming will be, "after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders" 2 Thess.
These miracles will be no mere pretenses, but prodigies of power. The Jews, previously returned to Palestine, and with temple in Jerusalem rebuilt, will receive this Son of Perdition as their long-promised Messiah" John 5: In imitation of the true Christ who will, at His return to the earth, "make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah" Heb.
Under a seven years' treaty, and in the guise of friendship, he will gain ascendancy in Jerusalem, only later to throw off the mask and break the covenant. About seven months after the Antichrist, the "Prince" i.
This we believe is the explanation of the two thousand three hundred days of Dan. This two thousand three hundred days is the whole period during which the false messiah will practice in Jerusalem and have power over the "sanctuary": The world will suppose that the long looked- for Millennium has arrived.
There will be every indication that the eagerly desired Golden Age has, at last, dawned. The great Powers of Europe and Asia will have been united under the ten-kingdomed Empire. It will be expected that the League of Nations guarantees the peace of the earth.
For a season quietness and amity will prevail. None will dare to oppose the mighty Emperor. But not for long will the hideous war-spectre hide himself. Soon will the "white horse" of Rev. A "red horse" will go forth, and then "peace shall be taken from the earth" Rev. At the very time the world is congratulating itself that all is well, and the slogan of the hour is "Peace and Safety", then "sudden destruction cometh upon them" 1 Thess. In the midst of the seven years the Antichrist will throw off his mask, break his covenant with Israel, and stand forth as the most daring idolater who has ever trodden this earth.
After he has "practiced" in Jerusalem for two years and five months, he will take away the daily sacrifice Dan. This brings us to the great dividing line in his career, to which reference was made near the beginning of this chapter.
It is a point not only of interest but of considerable importance to ascertain what it is that causes this startling change of front, from posing as the true Christ to that of the open defier of God. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology which is a strict phenomenalism.
These physiological states produced a depression, and Buddha tried to combat it by hygienic measures. He encourages ideas that make for either quiet contentment or good cheer — he finds means to combat ideas of other sorts.
He understands good, the state of goodness, as something which promotes health. Prayer is not included, and neither is asceticism.
There is no categorical imperative nor any disciplines, even within the walls of a monastery — it is always possible to leave —. These things would have been simply means of increasing the excessive sensitiveness above mentioned.
And in all this he was right, for it is precisely these passions which, in view of his main regiminal purpose, are unhealthful. The things necessary to Buddhism are a very mild climate, customs of great gentleness and liberality, and no militarism; moreover, it must get its start among the higher and better educated classes.
Cheerfulness, quiet and the absence of desire are the chief desiderata, and they are attained. Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection is merely an object of aspiration: Here body is despised and hygiene is denounced as sensual; the church even ranges itself against cleanliness — the first Christian order after the banishment of the Moors closed the public baths, of which there were in Cordova alone.
Sombre and disquieting ideas are in the foreground; the most esteemed states of mind, bearing the most respectable names, are epileptoid; the diet is so regulated as to engender morbid symptoms and over-stimulate the nerves. And Christian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage, of freedom, of intellectual libertinage; Christian is all hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general.
When Christianity departed from its native soil, that of the lowest orders, the underworld of the ancient world, and began seeking power among barbarian peoples, it no longer had to deal with exhausted men, but with men still inwardly savage and capable of self-torture — in brief, strong men, but bungled men.
Here, unlike in the case of the Buddhists, the cause of discontent with self, suffering through self, is not merely a general sensitiveness and susceptibility to pain, but, on the contrary, an inordinate thirst for inflicting pain on others, a tendency to obtain subjective satisfaction in hostile deeds and ideas. Christianity had to embrace barbaric concepts and valuations in order to obtain mastery over barbarians: Buddhism is a religion for peoples in a further state of development, for races that have become kind, gentle and over-spiritualized — Europe is not yet ripe for it —: Christianity appears before civilization has so much as begun — under certain circumstances it lays the very foundations thereof.
Buddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times more austere, more honest, more objective. His mere instinct prompts him to deny his suffering altogether, or to endure it in silence. In the first place, it knows that it is of very little consequence whether a thing be true or not, so long as it is believed to be true. To understand that fact thoroughly — this is almost enough, in the Orient, to make one a sage.
The Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows it. When, for example, a man gets any pleasure out of the notion that he has been saved from sin, it is not necessary for him to be actually sinful, but merely to feel sinful.
But when faith is thus exalted above everything else, it necessarily follows that reason, knowledge and patient inquiry have to be discredited: Man must be sustained in suffering by a hope so high that no conflict with actuality can dash it — so high, indeed, that no fulfilment can satisfy it: Precisely because of this power that hope has of making the suffering hold out, the Greeks regarded it as the evil of evils, as the most malign of evils; it remained behind at the source of all evil.
The Antichrist is already among us
To satisfy the ardor of the woman a beautiful saint must appear on the scene, and to satisfy that of the men there must be a virgin. These things are necessary if Christianity is to assume lordship over a soil on which some aphrodisiacal or Adonis cult has already established a notion as to what a cult ought to be. To insist upon chastity greatly strengthens the vehemence and subjectivity of the religious instinct — it makes the cult warmer, more enthusiastic, more soulful.
The force of illusion reaches its highest here, and so does the capacity for sweetening, for transfiguring. When a man is in love he endures more than at any other time; he submits to anything. The problem was to devise a religion which would allow one to love: I call them the three Christian ingenuities. Here I barely touch upon the problem of the origin of Christianity.
The first thing necessary to its solution is this: The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions — one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance.
We meet with the same phenomenon later on, in an incalculably exaggerated form, but only as a copy: Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: The Judaeo—Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail. In order to be able to say Nay to everything representing an ascending evolution of life — that is, to well-being, to power, to beauty, to self-approval — the instincts of ressentiment, here become downright genius, had to invent an other world in which the acceptance of life appeared as the most evil and abominable thing imaginable.
The history of Israel is invaluable as a typical history of an attempt to denaturize all natural values: I point to five facts which bear this out. Originally, and above all in the time of the monarchy, Israel maintained the right attitude of things, which is to say, the natural attitude. Its Jahveh was an expression of its consciousness of power, its joy in itself, its hopes for itself: Jahveh is the god of Israel, and consequently the god of justice: In the religious ceremonial of the Jews both aspects of this self-approval stand revealed.
The nation is grateful for the high destiny that has enabled it to obtain dominion; it is grateful for the benign procession of the seasons, and for the good fortune attending its herds and its crops. But the people still retained, as a projection of their highest yearnings, that vision of a king who was at once a gallant warrior and an upright judge — a vision best visualized in the typical prophet i.
The old god no longer could do what he used to do. He ought to have been abandoned. But what actually happened? Once natural causation has been swept out of the world by doctrines of reward and punishment some sort of un-natural causation becomes necessary: A god who demands— in place of a god who helps, who gives counsel, who is at bottom merely a name for every happy inspiration of courage and self-reliance.
What is Jewish, what is Christian morality? The concept of god falsified; the concept of morality falsified; — but even here Jewish priest-craft did not stop. The whole history of Israel ceased to be of any value: We would regard this act of historical falsification as something far more shameful if familiarity with the ecclesiastical interpretation of history for thousands of years had not blunted our inclinations for uprightness in historicis.
And the philosophers support the church: That there is a thing called the will of God which, once and for all time, determines what man ought to do and what he ought not to do; that the worth of a people, or of an individual thereof, is to be measured by the extent to which they or he obey this will of God; that the destinies of a people or of an individual are controlled by this will of God, which rewards or punishes according to the degree of obedience manifested.
One observes him at work: For this should be noted: The fact requires a sanction — a power to grant values becomes necessary, and the only way it can create such values is by denying nature.
The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: Christianity sprang from a soil so corrupt that on it everything natural, every natural value, every reality was opposed by the deepest instincts of the ruling class — it grew up as a sort of war to the death upon reality, and as such it has never been surpassed. The phenomenon is of the first order of importance: Christianity actually denies the church. This is what brought him to the cross: He died for his own sins — there is not the slightest ground for believing, no matter how often it is asserted, that he died for the sins of others.
As to whether he himself was conscious of this contradiction — whether, in fact, this was the only contradiction he was cognizant of — that is quite another question. Here, for the first time, I touch upon the problem of the psychology of the Saviour.
My difficulties are quite different from those which enabled the learned curiosity of the German mind to achieve one of its most unforgettable triumphs. It is a long while since I, like all other young scholars, enjoyed with all the sapient laboriousness of a fastidious philologist the work of the incomparable Strauss.
The histories of saints present the most dubious variety of literature in existence; to examine them by the scientific method, in the entire absence of corroborative documents, seems to me to condemn the whole inquiry from the start — it is simply learned idling. Nietzsche here refers to it. What concerns me is the psychological type of the Saviour. This type might be depicted in the Gospels, in however mutilated a form and however much overladen with extraneous characters — that is, in spite of the Gospels; just as the figure of Francis of Assisi shows itself in his legends in spite of his legends.
It is not a question of mere truthful evidence as to what he did, what he said and how he actually died; the question is, whether his type is still conceivable, whether it has been handed down to us. Renan, that mountebank in psychologicus, has contributed the two most unseemly notions to this business of explaining the type of Jesus: But if there is anything essentially unevangelical, it is surely the concept of the hero.
What the Gospels make instinctive is precisely the reverse of all heroic struggle, of all taste for conflict: Every one is the child of God — Jesus claims nothing for himself alone — as the child of God each man is the equal of every other man. Imagine making Jesus a hero! In the strict sense of the physiologist, a quite different word ought to be used here. We all know that there is a morbid sensibility of the tactile nerves which causes those suffering from it to recoil from every touch, and from every effort to grasp a solid object.
The instinctive hatred of reality: The instinctive exclusion of all aversion, all hostility, all bounds and distances in feeling: These are the two physiological realities upon and out of which the doctrine of salvation has sprung.
I call them a sublime super-development of hedonism upon a thoroughly unsalubrious soil. What stands most closely related to them, though with a large admixture of Greek vitality and nerve-force, is epicureanism, the theory of salvation of paganism. I was the first to recognize him. I have already given my answer to the problem.
The prerequisite to it is the assumption that the type of the Saviour has reached us only in a greatly distorted form. This distortion is very probable: The milieu in which this strange figure moved must have left marks upon him, and more must have been imprinted by the history, the destiny, of the early Christian communities; the latter indeed, must have embellished the type retrospectively with characters which can be understood only as serving the purposes of war and of propaganda.
The prophet, the messiah, the future judge, the teacher of morals, the worker of wonders, John the Baptist — all these merely presented chances to misunderstand it.
7 The Antichrist
Finally, let us not underrate the proprium of all great, and especially all sectarian veneration: Nevertheless, the probabilities seem to be against it, for in that case tradition would have been particularly accurate and objective, whereas we have reasons for assuming the contrary. I can only repeat that I set myself against all efforts to intrude the fanatic into the figure of the Saviour: The physiologists, at all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in the living organism, the result of degeneration.
A faith of this sort is not furious, it does not denounce, it does not defend itself: To be sure, the accident of environment, of educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain sort: But let us be careful not to see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics 6 an opportunity to speak in parables.
His spirituality is infantile, a result of delayed puberty. Jesus does not resist or contend with the world because he doesn't recognize the importance of the world. His life is its own kingdom of God at every moment.
Early Christians used Semitic concepts to express his teaching, but his anti—realism could just as easily have been a characteristic of Taoism or Hinduism. Nietzsche asserted that the psychological reality of redemption was " He offers no resistance to evil, He has no anger and wants no revenge.
Blessedness is not promised on conditions, as in Judaism. The Gospel's glad tidings are that there is no distinction between God and man. There is no Judaic concern for sin, prayers, rituals, forgiveness, repentance, guilt, punishment, or faith.
The apparent world, however, is only a collection of psychological symbols, signs, and metaphors. These symbols are expressed in terms of space, time, history, and nature. Examples of these mere symbols are the concepts of "God as a person", "the son of man", "the hour of death", and "the kingdom of heaven". He wanted to show how to live. His legacy was his bearing and behavior. He did not resist evildoers. Nietzsche has Jesus tell the thief on the cross that he is in Paradise now if he recognizes the divinity of Jesus' comportment.
Christianity's history is a " Modern people act with worldly egoism, pride, and will to power in opposition to Christianity's denial of the world. Nietzsche considered this falseness to be indecent. Unlike past ages, his contemporaries knew that sham and unnatural concepts such as "God", "moral world—order", "sinner", "Redeemer", "free will", "beyond", "Last Judgment", and "immortal soul" are consciously employed in order to provide power to the church and its priests.
Belief in redemption through Christ is not originally Christian. Genuine, original, primitive Christianity is not a faith. It is state of being that consists of " The disciples, however, wanted revenge against the Jewish ruling class and high priests who had delivered him to Pilate.
They elevated Jesus into being the Messiah and Son of God and promised future judgment and punishment in the kingdom of God. Paul and the promise of eternal life[ edit ] The apostles claimed that Jesus' death was a sacrifice of an innocent man for the sins of the guilty.
Jesus had done away with the concept of 'guilt' itself — he had denied any chasm between God and man, he lived this unity of God and man as his 'glad tidings' Paul made immortality the main point in 1 Corinthians Paul falsified the history of Christianity, the history of Israel, and the history of mankind by making them all seem to be a preparation for the crucifixion. One lives for life in the beyond.
By offering immortal life after death to everyone, Christianity appealed to everyone's egoism. The laws of nature would be broken for the salvation of everyone.
Nietzsche claimed that Paul's pretense of holiness and his use of priestly concepts were typically Jewish. Christianity separated itself from Judaism as though it was the chosen religion, " If one wants to be, in one's own person, 'chosen of God' In the Old TestamentGenesis 3: Man tasted knowledge and " Sinful, suffering humans believe in supernatural agents.
Such sinners are dependent on their priests for salvation, redemption, and forgiveness. It, itself, is an object of belief. Also, blessedness, or pleasure, cannot be a proof of truth.
From everywhere, the aggregate of the sick accumulated in Christianity and outnumbered the healthy. Every straightforward, honest, scientific road to knowledge has to be repudiated by the Church as a forbidden road. Even doubt is a sin. But Christianity uses sick reasoning, such as martyrdom, to try to prove its truth. Christians think that " Lying is utilized by all priests, whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian.
The 'Law,' the 'will of God,' the 'sacred book,' 'inspiration' — all merely words for the conditions under which the priest comes to power, by which he maintains his power The purpose of the Christian Holy Lie is bad because it " Paul realized that " Nihilist and Christian Nihilist und Christ: Over two thousand years ago, the Greeks and the Romans had discovered the scientific method. Hidden vengefulness, petty envy became master The decision is given in advance; no one is free to choose here.
One either is Chandala or one is not. War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!: Actually, the papacy was rid of corrupt Christianity.