The Coming Great Apostasy

[Earburner]

Hmm the Roman Emire denuding the Levant of trees to make crosses to crucify innocents on as "restrainer." 500 or so a day just in Jerusalem at the height I guess. Millions slaughtered. But I guess a cardinal is bound to serve his master too, and we can consider the source on our own

Lol, our choice of words and sentence structure, reveals alot about previous conversations elsewhere, doesn't it?

 

[Earburner]

Since 1 Mac. 1:10, 54 reveals that Antiochus Epiphanes was that "little horn", who committed the AoD, before Christ's first appearance, one must think more deeply of whom Christ spoke of, that committed the AoD just prior to 70 AD.

As the angel in Daniel spoke it, the very act of the AoD is the event that maketh the house of Israel desolate.
Was Jesus speaking of Titus as being the AoD?
Or was He speaking of Himself as being the AoD?
Jesus said this about the OT scriptures:
John 5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they whichtestify of me.

 

[bbyrd009]

dunno, I did the AoD myself most of my life I guess, don't think I need to go searching for that little horn any more

sounds like a fab def of Dunning/Kruger to me!

Y'all have a nice day

 

[Davy]

Thanks for pointing this out. This phrase "temple at Jerusalem" could be symbolic as much as Paul referring to the church as "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6. But my point is that Irenaeus expected the Man of Sin to arise way back in history on the heels of the fallen Roman Empire, which was already beginning to crumble in his day:

“Times of the Antichrist” was the title of the first sermon. Here as in the rest, Cardinal Newman follows the ancient Fathers who were not too far removed from the apostles, like Sts. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, plus others like Jerome. Their agreement, and weight of authority are reasons to esteem their insights.
"Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 (about Christ and the Lawless one) explains that there is a restraining power holding back the lawless one from being revealed until that restrainer is removed for a sort time. Newman says the ancients considered the Roman Empire the restrainer..." - Cardinal "Saint" John Henry Newman
​

While I hate to agree with Rome on anything, facts are facts. And it is fact that the ECFs looked for the Antichrist "man of sin" to arise as soon as the Roman Empire fell based on what Paul told the early church and what teaching became associated with Paul's words on the same. If you'd like more proof of their belief that the Roman Empire was the Restrainer - not some current agent of holiness - check out this link:
Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness
All this doesn't change the fact that Paul referred to the church symbolically as a "temple" (Gr. "naos"), the same exact word that he uses when describing the "temple (Gr. "naos") of God" in 2 Thessalonians. Since no building in which the animal sacrifices offered would be an official rejection of the Lamb of God and a middle finger in His face would ever be considered by God to be "of God", we find that my idea stands while yours must be abandoned.

This is an example of "the plausibility of Historicism vs. the plausible deniability of Jesuit Futurism/Jesuit Preterism".

Paul didn't refer to a spiritual temple in 2 Thess.2. He was speaking of the coming "man of sin" being revealed SITTING in the temple at Jerusalem. By that verb "sitteth" should be enough for you to realize it is literal, and not to be understood in the spiritual sense.

 

[Davy]

Thanks for pointing this out. This phrase "temple at Jerusalem" could be symbolic as much as Paul referring to the church as "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6. But my point is that Irenaeus expected the Man of Sin to arise way back in history on the heels of the fallen Roman Empire, which was already beginning to crumble in his day:
....

What you put in 'red' are not my words. They are what Irenaeus himself said in his Against Heresies. You should never misconstrue a quote to be written by one who is only quoting it, by your failing to document its origin.

And you should stick to what Irenaeus himself said in his writings, and not other men who take his writings out of context.

Here's another proof of Irenaeus' stance about 2 Thess.2 meaning a literal false one coming to sit in a literal temple in Jerusalem and play God, in Irenaeus' own words...

Irenaeus:
"Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be." (Against Heresies, Book 5:25.2)


All I'm doing is repeating the traditional view of 2 Thessalonians 2 which the 1st century Church fathers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus held, a view separate from those of the Alexandria school like Clement and Origen who attempted to spiritualize the "temple of God" Apostle Paul mentioned.

Thus today, that separation still goes on, those who heed the Church fathers who held to the Scriptures as written, vs. those who err in even turning the idea of 'sitting' into a spiritual metaphor (as the "man of sin" is to 'sit' in the "temple of God" according to Paul).

 

[Davy]

The papacy is the man of sin because the temple over which it sits is the the church. By your refusal to condemn its professed authority, you sanction it.

The pope has no authority over me. I give him no more nor less respect than I would any other brother in Christ Jesus.

And your "temple over which it sits is the church" idea is ludicrous!

Per Apostle Paul in Eph.2, the spiritual temple is made up of the OT prophets, the Apostles, and Jesus as its Head Cornerstone. Those in Christ Jesus are builded upon that foundation. And that is Christ's Church.

It is a spiritual metaphor, and that spiritual temple Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2 is DIFFERENT than the "temple of God" he speaks of in 2 Thess.2. No "man of sin" will ever... sit in Christ's spiritual temple, period!!!

It is not about a pope sitting over all Christianity either! The Protestant Church separated from the Roman Church centuries ago, or haven't you ever heard of the Reformation and Martin Luther?

 

[Davy]

Are you saying that the Early Church Fathers were liars when they said Paul told the church the restrainer was the Roman Empire?

What? Are you going to try and produce some more quotes from commentaries you agree with, but which have no actual support of what the early Church fathers actually said? How many times already here have I had to 'correct' your quotes by what Ireneaus actually wrote??? You're simply not to be trusted, and are only using the 'I dare you to lie' ploy when it's actually you that has already been proven to tell lies here.

So go away, little boy, you're just a pest.

 

[Earburner]

dunno, I did the AoD myself most of my life I guess, don't think I need to go searching for that little horn any more

sounds like a fab def of Dunning/Kruger to me!

Y'all have a nice day

"sounds like a fab def of Dunning/Kruger to me!"
> Speaking about yourself, of course!
.
Mark.13[14] But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Hmm... prior to Titus, did anyone else stand where they ought not (the Holy place- Mat. 24:15)?

What you put in 'red' are not my words. They are what Irenaeus himself said in his Against Heresies. You should never misconstrue a quote to be written by one who is only quoting it, by your failing to document its origin.

And you should stick to what Irenaeus himself said in his writings, and not other men who take his writings out of context.

Here's another proof of Irenaeus' stance about 2 Thess.2 meaning a literal false one coming to sit in a literal temple in Jerusalem and play God, in Irenaeus' own words...

Irenaeus:
"Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be." (Against Heresies, Book 5:25.2)


All I'm doing is repeating the traditional view of 2 Thessalonians 2 which the 1st century Church fathers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus held, a view separate from those of the Alexandria school like Clement and Origen who attempted to spiritualize the "temple of God" Apostle Paul mentioned.

Thus today, that separation still goes on, those who heed the Church fathers who held to the Scriptures as written, vs. those who err in even turning the idea of 'sitting' into a spiritual metaphor (as the "man of sin" is to 'sit' in the "temple of God" according to Paul).

What you put in 'red' are not my words. They are what Irenaeus himself said in his Against Heresies. You should never misconstrue a quote to be written by one who is only quoting it, by your failing to document its origin.

And you should stick to what Irenaeus himself said in his writings, and not other men who take his writings out of context.

Here's another proof of Irenaeus' stance about 2 Thess.2 meaning a literal false one coming to sit in a literal temple in Jerusalem and play God, in Irenaeus' own words...

Irenaeus:
"Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be." (Against Heresies, Book 5:25.2)


All I'm doing is repeating the traditional view of 2 Thessalonians 2 which the 1st century Church fathers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus held, a view separate from those of the Alexandria school like Clement and Origen who attempted to spiritualize the "temple of God" Apostle Paul mentioned.

Thus today, that separation still goes on, those who heed the Church fathers who held to the Scriptures as written, vs. those who err in even turning the idea of 'sitting' into a spiritual metaphor (as the "man of sin" is to 'sit' in the "temple of God" according to Paul).

Irenaeus spoke error, which is the concept of the visible church (tares).
Origen spoke truth, which is the concept of the invisible church (wheat).

 

[bbyrd009]

"sounds like a fab def of Dunning/Kruger to me!"
> Speaking about yourself, of course!

ah well maybe I should clarify that I do not know for sure what Little Horn reps, and you seem to be saying that you do. And I guess you could even be right, although I srsly doubt it...he might be a manifestation of it or something though, sure. might.

 

[Phoneman777]

1Mac. 1
[10] And there came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.

[54] Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;

OK, Jesus is lying and the Mac daddy is telling the truth. I'm done.

 

[Phoneman777]

Yes freedom in Christ, Amen to that...

Yes, Antinomianists freely cover themselves in that which made necessary the suffering and death of our dear Lord while proclaiming "Freedom in Christ to cover myself it this filth!"

 

[Earburner]

Davy wrote:
"It is a spiritual metaphor, and that spiritual temple Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2 is DIFFERENT than the "temple of God" he speaks of in 2 Thess.2. No "man of sin" will ever... sit in Christ's spiritual temple, period!!!"
.
> Davy, you misunderstand the issue about our physical bodies. Originally, we were designed and created for the INDWELLING of God, who is a Spirit.
Everyone, who is born in the flesh, have an equal opportunity to receive God's Grace of forgiveness and the free Gift of Eternal life, through faith in Jesus Christ.
God's deepest desire has always been to permanently dwell within each one of us.
Unfortunately, since the fall of Adam, He must contend with the self filled will of our fleshly mind, of which can and does defy His good intentions and deep love for us. John 3:16-18.
He is eagerly at work, hoping to recover/save as many as He can out of each generation, that they may come to Him in repentance through Jesus, that they may freely receive the Gift of Himself, His Eternal Holy Spirit.

Of course, each and everyone who defies Him and denies Him access, to be permitted to dwell within their temples, they remain to be "god" unto themselves of their own bodies (temples), and therefore do rule them for their own selfish purposes. All of such are "the man of sin...the son of perdition" , and are "none of His" . Rom. 8:9.

 

[Earburner]

OK, Jesus is lying and the Mac daddy is telling the truth. I'm done.

No, your fleshly thoughts and your own form of doctrine are lying to you!
Isam 55:8-9; John 16:13

 

[Earburner]

^ Isa. 55:8-9

 

[Earburner]

ah well maybe I should clarify that I do not know for sure what Little Horn reps, and you seem to be saying that you do. And I guess you could even be right, although I srsly doubt it...he might be a manifestation of it or something though, sure. might.

The book of Daniel reveals in Daniel's visions and the interpretations by the angels, that "horns" are symbolic of kings and/kingdoms WITHIN an Empire (beast).

 

[Phoneman777]

Paul didn't refer to a spiritual temple in 2 Thess.2. He was speaking of the coming "man of sin" being revealed SITTING in the temple at Jerusalem. By that verb "sitteth" should be enough for you to realize it is literal, and not to be understood in the spiritual sense.

It is a commonly used expression even to this day that "sitting" refers to "authority" as in "a sitting President" which doesn't mean "sitting down" but means "in charge".

If ever there was a description of one who is "large and in charge" it is that of the Man of Sin papal Antichrist which ruled over the lives of men as the professed "Vicar of Christ" for over a thousand years during the great period of apostasy where every stripe and type of paganism was dragged into the Christian church and baptized as "holy".

 

[Phoneman777]

What you put in 'red' are not my words. They are what Irenaeus himself said in his Against Heresies. You should never misconstrue a quote to be written by one who is only quoting it, by your failing to document its origin.

And you should stick to what Irenaeus himself said in his writings, and not other men who take his writings out of context.

Here's another proof of Irenaeus' stance about 2 Thess.2 meaning a literal false one coming to sit in a literal temple in Jerusalem and play God, in Irenaeus' own words...

Irenaeus:
"Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be." (Against Heresies, Book 5:25.2)


All I'm doing is repeating the traditional view of 2 Thessalonians 2 which the 1st century Church fathers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus held, a view separate from those of the Alexandria school like Clement and Origen who attempted to spiritualize the "temple of God" Apostle Paul mentioned.

Thus today, that separation still goes on, those who heed the Church fathers who held to the Scriptures as written, vs. those who err in even turning the idea of 'sitting' into a spiritual metaphor (as the "man of sin" is to 'sit' in the "temple of God" according to Paul).

I think you're missing the main point: Irenaeus may have believed the temple in which the Antichrist would sit was a literal temple, but the fact is that he believed that just after the fall of Pagan Rome into the ten horn divisions, the "Little horn" Antichrist would arise among those ten. Therefore, he believed that the Little Horn could not rise because the Roman Empire was preventing that while it ruled over the land.

He certainly didn't believe a period of almost 2,000 years would go by after the fall of Rome without the rise of Antichrist.

He, like all the ECFs, believed that the Antichrist would arise on the heels of the fall of the Roman Empire, which is the Protestant Historicist view, not the error of Jesuit Futurism's view.

 

[Phoneman777]

The pope has no authority over me. I give him no more nor less respect than I would any other brother in Christ Jesus.

"It is the bounden duty of the Christian to pray against Antichrist. And as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise the question: if it be not the popery in Rome, there is no other institution that may be called by that name..." - Charles Spurgeon.

And your "temple over which it sits is the church" idea is ludicrous!

I'm in good company...like with several million other Protestant Christians since the Reformation who loved, lived, and shed their blood for the truth's sake, while you're in company with the Christianity of today, where many pastors and laity admit to being hooked on porn, having barely enough time to pray, study, or care for their flocks, and what constitutes a "successful church" is how many worldlings we can cram into a "rock concert style worship service" where they can feel as comfortable with their sin in church as they do outside church. Sure, they got some things wrong, but two things they got right - Eph. 2:8 and the papal Antichrist - have defined what Protestantism is all about for centuries.

Per Apostle Paul in Eph.2, the spiritual temple is made up of the OT prophets, the Apostles, and Jesus as its Head Cornerstone. Those in Christ Jesus are builded upon that foundation. And that is Christ's Church.It is a spiritual metaphor, and that spiritual temple Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2 is DIFFERENT than the "temple of God" he speaks of in 2 Thess.2. No "man of sin" will ever... sit in Christ's spiritual temple, period!!!

Israel - God's chosen people - over and over turned their backs on the One Who chose them. The church in Galatia and in Corinth are just two examples of how the "temple of God" got so out of hand that they shocked even the pagans. Let's not delude ourselves with high sounding platitudes into believing that the church would somehow become immune to such things after Paul's departing when HE HIMSELF spoke about those grievous wolves that would enter in thereafter.

It is not about a pope sitting over all Christianity either! The Protestant Church separated from the Roman Church centuries ago, or haven't you ever heard of the Reformation and Martin Luther?

The prophecy said "all the world would wonder after the beast. Have you seen the many pagan religious systems bowing down to the pope and recognizing him as the "world religious leader"? What's worse, have you seen all the so called "protestants" not worthy to be called by that name who are defending JESUIT doctrines as "legit Biblical eschatology" like Jesuit Futurism and Jesuit Preterism, while this same system claims that their figurehead is "Jesus Christ Himself hidden under veil of flesh?

The pope says non-catholics who keep Sunday pay homage to HIS AUTHORITY "in spite of themselves".

 

[Phoneman777]

What? Are you going to try and produce some more quotes from commentaries you agree with, but which have no actual support of what the early Church fathers actually said? How many times already here have I had to 'correct' your quotes by what Ireneaus actually wrote??? You're simply not to be trusted, and are only using the 'I dare you to lie' ploy when it's actually you that has already been proven to tell lies here.

So go away, little boy, you're just a pest.

Please, it was you who claimed the ECFs were Futurists, and I've shown you that all of them - including Irenaeus - believed that as soon as the Roman Empire fell, the Antichrist would arise - textbook Protestant Historicist. You have yet to produce even ONE WORD FROM AN ECF where he expected Antichrist to arise long after the fall of Rome.

If you're too cowardly to click on the links, then here's an abbreviated list of what they said - INCLUDING IRENAEUS:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tertulliun, 2nd - 3rd century:

"...he who now hinders must hinder until he be taken out of the way" What obstacle is there but the Roman State, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist..."

(The early church prays for the preservation of the Roman Empire) : "There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock (rise of Antichrist) impending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes---is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration.
------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysostom, 4th century:

"...'he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way', that is when the Roman Empire is taken ouf of the way, then he [Antichrist] shall come; and naturally, for as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will readily exalt himself; but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarch, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of men and of God."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Augustine, 4th - 5th century:

"...it is not absurd to beleive that these words of the apostle, 'Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he bge taken out of the way,' refer to the Roman empire..."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus, 2nd century:

"John and Daniel have predicted the dissolution and desolation of the Roman Empire, which shall precede the end of the world and the eternal Kingdom of Christ...In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire (Roman Empire) which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, ...

But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await (those who wish to identify Antichrist in Irenaeus' day), in the first place, the division of the kingdom (Pagan Rome) into ten (barbarian tribes); then, IN THE NEXT PLACE, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he (Antichrist) who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lactantius Firminianous, 4th century:

"These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: ... The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things; and the God of heaven is to be entreated by us and implored -- if, indeed, His arrangements and decrees can be delayed -- lest, sooner than we think for, that detestable tyrant (Antichrist) should come who will trader-take so great a deed, and dig out that eye, by the destruction of which the world itself is about to fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jerome, 4th - 5th century:

"... We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king (Antichrist) will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings, ..."


There are more examples here of testimony of the ECFs that the prevailing teaching about the Restrainer was NOT SOME AGENT OF HOLINESS, but that it was the Pagan Roman Empire.

Early Church Fathers on the Timing of the Rise of Antichrist
Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

 

[Phoneman777]

No, your fleshly thoughts and your own form of doctrine are lying to you!
Isam 55:8-9; John 16:13

Jesus said the AOD was still future. Your Mac daddy says otherwise. You choose to believe the Mac daddy, just like Adam and Eve chose to believe the serpent.

I'm DONE.