How Long Will the AntiChrist Be Sitting in Your Temple?

Infallible Arbiter

Gold Member
Apr 12, 2021
543
168
143
Amazing how people get this wrong.

II Thessalonians 2:

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth (present tense) himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God (present tense), shewing himself that he is God.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6 And now ye know what withholdeth (present tense) that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth (present tense) will let, until he be taken out of the way.

"AND NOW there are MANY ANTICHRISTS" - I John 2:18
Over 7 billion of them.
 
Some say,......

Um, if God created "everything"...he also created pain, suffering and evil, bad people.
"Free will"? If it causes that much suffering, was it really a good idea?

If all powerful, what kind of sadist would god have to be to have created all that horror?

When I look at this world, I sometimes have to agree with them.
 
Titus Flavius Vespasianus is called the man of lawlessness because he permanently put an end to the practice of the Law by destroying the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70 thereby making it impossible to fully follow the customs of the Law of Moses.
 
Titus Flavius Vespasianus is called the man of lawlessness because he permanently put an end to the practice of the Law by destroying the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70 thereby making it impossible to fully follow the customs of the Law of Moses.
your typical non-spiritual interpretation -
which misses what II Thess 2 actually says - "NOW".
 
Titus Flavius Vespasianus is called the man of lawlessness because he permanently put an end to the practice of the Law by destroying the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70 thereby making it impossible to fully follow the customs of the Law of Moses.
2 Thessalonians was written before Titus's men destroyed the temple, supposedly, and the lawless one was already around by then (2 Thes 2:4). And why would a Roman have been the lawless one?

The Romans concerned themselves not one iota with the Judean God. A Roman leader would not have proclaimed himself to be this God (2 Thes 2:4) and then to seat Him in the Roman pantheon. Roman citizens often enshrined their emperors as gods, and some of the emperors even demanded such enshrinement. But if for some strange reason a Roman leader broke character and proclaimed himself the Judean God, he would not have violated any of his own laws. And not being Jewish, the Jewish concept of lawlessness would not have applied to him, either.
 
Titus Flavius Vespasianus is called the man of lawlessness because he permanently put an end to the practice of the Law by destroying the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70 thereby making it impossible to fully follow the customs of the Law of Moses.
your typical non-spiritual interpretation -
which misses what II Thess 2 actually says - "NOW".

"Now" as in 2000 years into the future? The letter was to the Thessalonians.
 
General Titus was the man of perdition.
Titus had much respect for the Jews and their temple. He ordered the temple fire quenched, but his commands went largely unheeded amid the chaos and noise of the struggle that night and the roar of the growing inferno (Wars 6.4.6).
 
Titus Flavius Vespasianus is called the man of lawlessness because he permanently put an end to the practice of the Law by destroying the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70 thereby making it impossible to fully follow the customs of the Law of Moses.
2 Thessalonians was written before Titus's men destroyed the temple, supposedly, and the lawless one was already around by then (2 Thes 2:4). And why would a Roman have been the lawless one?

The Romans concerned themselves not one iota with the Judean God. A Roman leader would not have proclaimed himself to be this God (2 Thes 2:4) and then to seat Him in the Roman pantheon. Roman citizens often enshrined their emperors as gods, and some of the emperors even demanded such enshrinement. But if for some strange reason a Roman leader broke character and proclaimed himself the Judean God, he would not have violated any of his own laws. And not being Jewish, the Jewish concept of lawlessness would not have applied to him, either.

Might have been Antiochus IV Epiphanes..
The letter to the Thessalonians was written by Paul so why would he write it from the Roman POV?
 
General Titus was the man of perdition.
Titus had much respect for the Jews and their temple. He ordered the temple fire quenched, but his commands went largely unheeded amid the chaos and noise of the struggle that night and the roar of the growing inferno (Wars 6.4.6).

True and he was commanding a lot of foreign soldiers. I don't think the Jews were sympathetic towards Titus.
 
"AND NOW there are MANY ANTICHRISTS" - I John 2:18
Over 7 billion of them.
Not so. There were not 7 billion people two thousand years ago.

But now there are . . try to remain in current.
You do live in 2021 don't you?
I live in your soul. I am the devil.

devil sign.gif


Come to the dark side. We have cookies.
 
Titus Flavius Vespasianus is called the man of lawlessness because he permanently put an end to the practice of the Law by destroying the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70 thereby making it impossible to fully follow the customs of the Law of Moses.
2 Thessalonians was written before Titus's men destroyed the temple, supposedly, and the lawless one was already around by then (2 Thes 2:4). And why would a Roman have been the lawless one?

The Romans concerned themselves not one iota with the Judean God. A Roman leader would not have proclaimed himself to be this God (2 Thes 2:4) and then to seat Him in the Roman pantheon. Roman citizens often enshrined their emperors as gods, and some of the emperors even demanded such enshrinement. But if for some strange reason a Roman leader broke character and proclaimed himself the Judean God, he would not have violated any of his own laws. And not being Jewish, the Jewish concept of lawlessness would not have applied to him, either.

Might have been Antiochus IV Epiphanes..
The letter to the Thessalonians was written by Paul so why would he write it from the Roman POV?
Paul didn't write it from a Roman point of view. Where did you get that idea? And a Roman wouldn't have violated a Jewish law.

The lawless one could have been several people, I think. Perhaps one contender for the title was Phannias, awarded the high priesthood by chance. This man knew nothing of the priesthood and mocked it in the manner of those who put him there and desecrated the Law while legitimate priests could only look on from the sidelines in tears (Wars 4.3.8). After Phannias, the Levitical priesthood dissolved.

Eleazar ben Simon was another one with godlike aspirations who seized the Most Holy Place and desired all power and dominion for himself (Wars 5.1.2). Perhaps John of Giscala should not be ruled out, either, as he entered the Most Holy Place also, and consumed the wine and anointed himself with the oil reserved for burnt offerings (Wars 5.13.6).

But truth be told, to identify an individual as the lawless one is to chase our tails. A composite of the seditious Jews in the temple, however, could well fit the bill. Peter referred to the presence of lawless people, after all (2 Pt 3:17). The Satan in their midst is the lawless one, just as he was the lawless one in the midst of the Garden. In the peaceful empire before the war – the Pax Romana – an eerie calm prowled like a hunting lion. For the saints, the restraint was palpable (2 Thes 2:6-7), but for the unwary, the unleashing of this man of sin startled them like a thief in the night, no doubt because they did not suspect that they themselves were the adversary! This Satan, the wolves in sheep’s clothing – this adversary of God in the midst of the holy people – with their murderous rampages and mockeries of tradition, effectively abased God Himself and placed themselves in the ruling heavenly places to govern without the benefit of God’s counsel. They made themselves gods in the divine council. They practiced sin and therefore they practiced lawlessness (1 Jn 3:4). And their flouting not only of divine law but also of Roman law only compounded their lawlessness.

Besides, Paul’s habit was to name names. He identified individuals who preached the cause of Christ and who accompanied him on the various legs of his missions. He also identified detractors from the faith. That he did not identify the lawless one suggests that he was referring only to the spirit of lawlessness and not to an individual.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top