Zone1 "The man of Lawlessness"

[FoghornLeghorn]

I found this post from 2005 and I think it sounds credible. I'm curious if there are any Bible scholars here who can confirm or refute the contents of the post below. Thanks in advance.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/noe-john_p_03.html by John Noe
excerpt from article.

Josephus also records that before this John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was established as the Zealot leader in control of the Temple area (there were three Zealot factions), the power of Satan was already doing his deceitful and treacherous work. This John physically entered the Temple, presented himself to the Zealots as a God-sent ambassador; and persuaded them to defy the laws of Rome and go to war to gain independence. He also instigated the calling in the Idumaeans to keep the Jewish sympathizers from submitting to Rome. He ordered the death of Ananus and the removal of the priesthood. After these atrocities, he became the official leader of the Zealot group m control of theTemple area-john held the temple" and began disregarded the laws of Rome, God, and man, and promising deliverance from the Romans. Then he broke off from the Zealots and began "setting up a monarchial power." He "set on fire these houses that were full of corn, and of all other provision which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years" He deceived the Jews about the power of the Roman armies In possession of the Temple and the adjoining parts, he cut the throats of anyone suspected of going over to the Romans.13 He performed many sacrileges, such as melting down the sacred utensils used in Temple service, and defiled the Temple.

In short, this John established himself in the Temple, the one standing when Paul wrote, and put himself above Rome and above God, thereby taking the place of God in the Temple. All this happened, right then and there, and exactly as Paul had said the "man of sin" would do.

After the coming of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, John of Gischala was "condemned to perpetual imprisonment" by the Roman authorities. Thus was fulfilled Paul's prophetic and symbolic language that this man would be destroyed by "the spirit of his Jesus mouth and brightness of his [parousia] coming" (see Isa. 11:4; 30:27-33; Hos. 6:5; also Da. 7:8, 19-28).

Verses 11-12. "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but delighted In wickedness."

Josephus records that the Roman General Titus had no intention of destroying the Temple. The Romans wanted to preserve it as a trophy and monument of their conquest. Even Josephus personally pleaded with John of Gischala to surrender. But such a "madness" swept through him and his Jewish followers that they taunted the powers of Rome and refused to listen. This man, John, through the power of Satan and the delusion sent by God upon the Jewish people, forced the Roman armies to act. Instead of accepting Jesus as Messiah, King, and Deliverer, the unbelieving Jews placed their hopes in this false messiah a man of deceit and wickedness. They looked to the "man of sin" to lead them to victory and independence. The priesthood, which stood in their way, had been removed. And by August or September of A.D. 70, Paul's entire "man of sin" prophecy of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12 was fulfilled. The city and the Temple were burned and destroyed. The covenant nation of Israel and biblical Judaism were forever destroyed.

 

[norwegen]

Sounds right. But to my mind, John of Giscala was a man of lawlessness not so much for violating Roman law but rather for violating Temple law.

 

[HaShev]

I found this post from 2005 and I think it sounds credible. I'm curious if there are any Bible scholars here who can confirm or refute the contents of the post below. Thanks in advance.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/noe-john_p_03.html by John Noe
excerpt from article.

Josephus also records that before this John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was established as the Zealot leader in control of the Temple area (there were three Zealot factions), the power of Satan was already doing his deceitful and treacherous work. This John physically entered the Temple, presented himself to the Zealots as a God-sent ambassador; and persuaded them to defy the laws of Rome and go to war to gain independence. He also instigated the calling in the Idumaeans to keep the Jewish sympathizers from submitting to Rome. He ordered the death of Ananus and the removal of the priesthood. After these atrocities, he became the official leader of the Zealot group m control of theTemple area-john held the temple" and began disregarded the laws of Rome, God, and man, and promising deliverance from the Romans. Then he broke off from the Zealots and began "setting up a monarchial power." He "set on fire these houses that were full of corn, and of all other provision which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years" He deceived the Jews about the power of the Roman armies In possession of the Temple and the adjoining parts, he cut the throats of anyone suspected of going over to the Romans.13 He performed many sacrileges, such as melting down the sacred utensils used in Temple service, and defiled the Temple.

In short, this John established himself in the Temple, the one standing when Paul wrote, and put himself above Rome and above God, thereby taking the place of God in the Temple. All this happened, right then and there, and exactly as Paul had said the "man of sin" would do.

After the coming of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, John of Gischala was "condemned to perpetual imprisonment" by the Roman authorities. Thus was fulfilled Paul's prophetic and symbolic language that this man would be destroyed by "the spirit of his Jesus mouth and brightness of his [parousia] coming" (see Isa. 11:4; 30:27-33; Hos. 6:5; also Da. 7:8, 19-28).

Verses 11-12. "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but delighted In wickedness."

Josephus records that the Roman General Titus had no intention of destroying the Temple. The Romans wanted to preserve it as a trophy and monument of their conquest. Even Josephus personally pleaded with John of Gischala to surrender. But such a "madness" swept through him and his Jewish followers that they taunted the powers of Rome and refused to listen. This man, John, through the power of Satan and the delusion sent by God upon the Jewish people, forced the Roman armies to act. Instead of accepting Jesus as Messiah, King, and Deliverer, the unbelieving Jews placed their hopes in this false messiah a man of deceit and wickedness. They looked to the "man of sin" to lead them to victory and independence. The priesthood, which stood in their way, had been removed. And by August or September of A.D. 70, Paul's entire "man of sin" prophecy of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12 was fulfilled. The city and the Temple were burned and destroyed. The covenant nation of Israel and biblical Judaism were forever destroyed.

None of that is accurate, although it seems to be taken from the Wicked Priest stories aprox 145-165bc from the scrolls, mixed with the stories in Josephus about Yehuda the Gaulionite / Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter christ who burned and robed houses of people who paid the Rome taxes, he died in 6bc and is mentioned in Acts 5.
The wicked priest probably was regarding one of the Maccabees particularly Jonathan Maccabee.

The scrolls show the man of righteousness had to be a head priest of the Hasidim.
The time line through events shows a Zadokite affiliation according to 4Q 256 ,258 The hierarchy would have been Priests of Aarons lineage which is attributed to this Zadokite high priestly family regarding the anointed lineage.
This could have only existed up to the Maccabees era around 164 BC because of the destruction by Antiochus and because of the period of this man's rise mentioned in the Damascus Document I 5-11.

At this same time we see the wicked priest was called out on truth but ended up changing into a liar perhaps leading people into a wrong sort of worship or violence. (IQpHab, 4QpPsa,CD)
The time line shows this individual existed between the reign of Antiochus like I said before around 164 BC (some say 168BC) and the founding of the Qumran sect around 150-140BC.
The person would have been a high priest which there were 5 at that time. The 3 hellenizers like Menelaus have to be rejected as the persona since the wicked priest was said to be in truth in the beginning. The other two Greek influenced priests Jason & Alcimus also fail to fit the character because neither were killed by an enemy.
That leaves only the Maccabee brothers-Jonathan & Simon.
Both fit the profile causing violence and dying violent deaths.
Since Jonathan died by the hands of his Greek enemies he fits more so then Simon who died by his son in law. (I Mac. xvi, 14-16).
Jonathan qualifies as the wicked Priest because he accepted from the throne from a heathen named Alexander Balas the pontificate raiment which Johnathan was not even entitled to wear. Later he was killed by Tryphon, a General of this same apointee. (Imac. xiii, 23)