Ten Reasons I Do not Believe There Will Be "an Antichrist"

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I know I am one of the few who think the whole Antichrist concept is unbiblical. However, for the sake of discussion, let me post ten reasons why I think this concept needs to be rejected.

10. The books most often cited to validate the Antichrist concept are Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation. None of these books use the term, Antichrist. It is only used in John's epistles and it is a plural term that encapsulates present day false teachers, not a future demonic figure.
9. The entire concept of an Antichrist only leads to Christians foolishly attempting to label people as the Antichrist. This is judgmental and unchristian.
8. Attempting to view images in Revelation as depictions of this Antichrist figure displays an ignorance about the historical setting of this book and how it would have been understood by early readers.
7. The entire theology of the Antichrist is built on very challenging texts. There is not one straight-forward teaching in the NT about a solitary Antichrist figure for the end times.
6. Jesus declares that the "abomination which causes desolation" refers to the destruction of the Temple...likely because of the rejection of Christ and his perfect sacrifice in favor of animal sacrifices (cf. Matt. 23:38; Lk. 13:35; Lk. 23:28-29; Heb. 10:28-29; Dan. 9:26-27).
5. The "mark of the Beast" on the hand and forehead is spiritual just as is the seal of the Holy Spirit on the foreheads of believers in Revelation (cf. Rev. 7:3; 9:4). It has nothing to do with allegiance to an end times figure. This would mean nothing to the churches to whom Revelation was written.
4. The emphasis of Daniel's 70 weeks is not the end of the world, but to "finish transgression, put and end to sin and atone for iniquity." This happened at the cross and Daniels weeks, like his dreams and visions, point to the coming of the Savior, not the coming of an Antichrist.
3. The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is encouraging believers that they have not missed the Second Coming (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1-2). Discussion about a mysterious and unknown Antichrist figure makes no sense in this context. It would only cause more confusion and worry, not less.
2. The revelation and destruction of "the lawless one" results in the absolution of all evil. The idea is that as long as evil is in the world, then we know Christ has not returned. When Christ returns, he will reveal the evil one and bring an end to his work and the evil in the world once and for all.
1. The verbs "will exalt" and "will set himself up" in 2 Thessalonians are not actually future tense in the Greek. This is misleading in the NIV. They are participles which indicate that the man of lawlessness is currently and actively exalting himself as God and setting himself up in the temple to be worshipped as God. These are present happenings (in the first century as well as today) that will be brought to an end when Christ returns. This is not a future event of a future Antichrist, but a present work Satan in the world.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think someone may be in for a big surprise but only time will tell for sure.
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Good morning brother Wormwood!

How do you view "the man...the son" in IIThess.2:3?

I view this as a human being thus cannot be Satan, however agree with you to a degree that the "beast" and the "antichrist" explicitly doesn't occur in this Epistle.

Old Jack
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe this is referring to Satan and his "apocalypse" or revelation as the "man of sin" and "son of destruction" who has been behind the evil of the world but is revealed to the world and destroyed by Christ at his coming.

I think this commentator expresses this idea better than I can word it myself.

"Man" translates ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), which normally refers to a human being. However, the word was commonly used with a weakened sense, almost as an indefinite pronoun, when the emphasis was not on the word "man" but on the words which qualify it. That would be the case here, where the emphasis lies on "lawlessness" as the characteristic of this figure (cf. Rev 13:18). This is confirmed by the next expression: the second occurrence of "man" in the NIV translates ὑιός (huios), literally "son," which is used in a similar indefinite fashion to put the emphasis on the descriptive noun "destruction" (cf. Matt 8:12; 13:38; Luke 16:8; 20:34; John 17:12; Acts 3:25; Eph 2:2; 5:6; Col 3:6). That the terms do not necessarily stress humanity in this context is indicated later in the text, where Paul will refer more indefinitely to "the mystery of lawlessness" (v. 7) and "the lawless one" (v. 8; cf. Matt 6:13).
- Jon A. Weatherly
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Wormwood said:
I believe this is referring to Satan and his "apocalypse" or revelation as the "man of sin" and "son of destruction" who has been behind the evil of the world but is revealed to the world and destroyed by Christ at his coming.

I think this commentator expresses this idea better than I can word it myself.
Thank you for your response again!

Only want you to raise the bar a little higher than both of us, I do recall the generic article with "man" usually refers to "humankind" as in a sequence of men, etc.....3rd Semester Greek long ago, beyond 1st year. I'm unable to find one use in the weakened sense almost as an indefinite pronoun in the N.T.? I'm not implying there isn't, just was curious if you could dig up an example as IIThess.2:3-12 is one of my favorite passages. The more I can understand it, the better I feel within.

Old Jack
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hey Jack,

Thanks for the response. Let me point to a couple of the verses the commentator mentions to illustrate the idea that I think is trying to be communicated. For instance, Colossians 3:6 has a variant reading which says, "ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας" or upon the sons of disobedience. Here we have the definite article with "sons" but the focus is not on sons but on disobedience. Which is why some translations just render it, "upon the disobedient." I think 2 Tim. 3:17 is also a good example of this with reference to anthropos. The man of God is not referring to a specific person, but is more indefinite in nature...even when using the definite article. The emphasis is on the type of person...being of God, or godly...and not a specific individual or "man." So, It would seem to me that "the man of sin" is not referring to a specific "man" but is a phrase that is more indefinite and focuses more on the nature of this person...being sinful or lawless.

In any event, what is more compelling to me is not the nature of this particular phrase, but the overall context of this passage. As you know phrases and words derive their meaning primarily from their context. Paul qualifies this "man of lawlessness" and "son of destruction" later with more indefinite phrases such as "mystery of lawlessness" and "the lawless one." So, I think the emphasis is not on this being a particular human being. Rather it is speaking about the nature of this person who must be "revealed" and who was currently exalting himself and opposing God in the days of Paul..and seemingly will continue to do so until he is unveiled and overthrown by Jesus.


Also, 2 Thess. 2:6 is a significant verse in this passage that I think has been mistranslated by most. The ESV renders it,

"And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time." The word "restraining"

κατέχω] is generally translated "to restrain," it only means this when associated with an object..."him" is not in the Greek. Because the Greek has no object, a possible translation is "prevail," or "persist."
(Lk. 8:15; 1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2; 1 Th. 5:21; Heb. 3:6, 14)

Thus, it is possible to translate it"And you know what is prevailing now so that he may be disclosed in his time." So, again, this is pointing to the prevailing evil of our day that is at work and reveals that Christ has not yet returned. When Christ returns, the prevailing evil in the world, which is the fruit of the work of the hidden son of destruction, will be destroyed as the lawless one is exposed and destroyed.


To me, this concept fits much more closely with the context and the issue Paul is addressing in 1 Thess. 2:1-2. Essentially, the logic flows like this: Hey Thessalonians, don't be upset that you may have missed the Second Coming. Don't let anyone lead you astray with this idea. You know the Second Coming has not occurred until the hidden architect of evil is exposed and destroyed. Currently, evil prevails until he is revealed at the proper time. Evil will prevail until he lawless one is revealed and destroyed by the breath of Christ's mouth at his coming.

In my mind, verses 1 and 2 do not fit with a subsequent discussion of a mysterious and unknown future Antichrist figure. I do not now how this concept would have encouraged the Thessalonians and prevented them from being led astray that they were missing the return of Jesus. If, what Paul has in mind for the lawless one is reflective of Revelation 20:7-10, then it makes much more sense in my estimation.
 

Rocky Wiley

Active Member
Aug 28, 2012
929
156
43
83
Southeast USA
Wormwood said:
I know I am one of the few who think the whole Antichrist concept is unbiblical. However, for the sake of discussion, let me post ten reasons why I think this concept needs to be rejected.

10. The books most often cited to validate the Antichrist concept are Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation. None of these books use the term, Antichrist. It is only used in John's epistles and it is a plural term that encapsulates present day false teachers, not a future demonic figure.
It not only would include present day teachers, John said they were already there in his day. Here are the four scriptures that speak of antichrist.

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

John is saying it is the last days because there were many antichrists at the time of his writting.

1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Who is the antichrist? He that denieth that Jesus is the Christ.

1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh has the spirit of antichrist.

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Many deceivers have come in the flesh and is an antichrist.





 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, Rocky. I agree with you. I meant "present day" as in those false teachers present as John wrote(which would also apply to contemporary false teachers) rather than a future Antichrist. I was not very clear there. Thanks for pointing that out.
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Wormwood said:
Hey Jack,

Thanks for the response. Let me point to a couple of the verses the commentator mentions to illustrate the idea that I think is trying to be communicated. For instance, Colossians 3:6 has a variant reading which says, "ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας" or upon the sons of disobedience. Here we have the definite article with "sons" but the focus is not on sons but on disobedience. Which is why some translations just render it, "upon the disobedient." I think 2 Tim. 3:17 is also a good example of this with reference to anthropos. The man of God is not referring to a specific person, but is more indefinite in nature...even when using the definite article. The emphasis is on the type of person...being of God, or godly...and not a specific individual or "man." So, It would seem to me that "the man of sin" is not referring to a specific "man" but is a phrase that is more indefinite and focuses more on the nature of this person...being sinful or lawless.

In any event, what is more compelling to me is not the nature of this particular phrase, but the overall context of this passage. As you know phrases and words derive their meaning primarily from their context. Paul qualifies this "man of lawlessness" and "son of destruction" later with more indefinite phrases such as "mystery of lawlessness" and "the lawless one." So, I think the emphasis is not on this being a particular human being. Rather it is speaking about the nature of this person who must be "revealed" and who was currently exalting himself and opposing God in the days of Paul..and seemingly will continue to do so until he is unveiled and overthrown by Jesus.


Also, 2 Thess. 2:6 is a significant verse in this passage that I think has been mistranslated by most. The ESV renders it,

"And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time." The word "restraining"

κατέχω] is generally translated "to restrain," it only means this when associated with an object..."him" is not in the Greek. Because the Greek has no object, a possible translation is "prevail," or "persist."
(Lk. 8:15; 1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2; 1 Th. 5:21; Heb. 3:6, 14)

Thus, it is possible to translate it"And you know what is prevailing now so that he may be disclosed in his time." So, again, this is pointing to the prevailing evil of our day that is at work and reveals that Christ has not yet returned. When Christ returns, the prevailing evil in the world, which is the fruit of the work of the hidden son of destruction, will be destroyed as the lawless one is exposed and destroyed.


To me, this concept fits much more closely with the context and the issue Paul is addressing in 1 Thess. 2:1-2. Essentially, the logic flows like this: Hey Thessalonians, don't be upset that you may have missed the Second Coming. Don't let anyone lead you astray with this idea. You know the Second Coming has not occurred until the hidden architect of evil is exposed and destroyed. Currently, evil prevails until he is revealed at the proper time. Evil will prevail until he lawless one is revealed and destroyed by the breath of Christ's mouth at his coming.

In my mind, verses 1 and 2 do not fit with a subsequent discussion of a mysterious and unknown future Antichrist figure. I do not now how this concept would have encouraged the Thessalonians and prevented them from being led astray that they were missing the return of Jesus. If, what Paul has in mind for the lawless one is reflective of Revelation 20:7-10, then it makes much more sense in my estimation.
PERFECT!!! Busy this morning, but look forward going over your material when I return...thank you again.

Old Jack
 

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
Wormwood said:
Hey Jack,

Thanks for the response. Let me point to a couple of the verses the commentator mentions to illustrate the idea that I think is trying to be communicated. For instance, Colossians 3:6 has a variant reading which says, "ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας" or upon the sons of disobedience. Here we have the definite article with "sons" but the focus is not on sons but on disobedience. Which is why some translations just render it, "upon the disobedient." I think 2 Tim. 3:17 is also a good example of this with reference to anthropos. The man of God is not referring to a specific person, but is more indefinite in nature...even when using the definite article. The emphasis is on the type of person...being of God, or godly...and not a specific individual or "man." So, It would seem to me that "the man of sin" is not referring to a specific "man" but is a phrase that is more indefinite and focuses more on the nature of this person...being sinful or lawless.

In any event, what is more compelling to me is not the nature of this particular phrase, but the overall context of this passage. As you know phrases and words derive their meaning primarily from their context. Paul qualifies this "man of lawlessness" and "son of destruction" later with more indefinite phrases such as "mystery of lawlessness" and "the lawless one." So, I think the emphasis is not on this being a particular human being. Rather it is speaking about the nature of this person who must be "revealed" and who was currently exalting himself and opposing God in the days of Paul..and seemingly will continue to do so until he is unveiled and overthrown by Jesus.


Also, 2 Thess. 2:6 is a significant verse in this passage that I think has been mistranslated by most. The ESV renders it,

"And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time." The word "restraining"

κατέχω] is generally translated "to restrain," it only means this when associated with an object..."him" is not in the Greek. Because the Greek has no object, a possible translation is "prevail," or "persist."
(Lk. 8:15; 1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2; 1 Th. 5:21; Heb. 3:6, 14)

Thus, it is possible to translate it"And you know what is prevailing now so that he may be disclosed in his time." So, again, this is pointing to the prevailing evil of our day that is at work and reveals that Christ has not yet returned. When Christ returns, the prevailing evil in the world, which is the fruit of the work of the hidden son of destruction, will be destroyed as the lawless one is exposed and destroyed.


To me, this concept fits much more closely with the context and the issue Paul is addressing in 1 Thess. 2:1-2. Essentially, the logic flows like this: Hey Thessalonians, don't be upset that you may have missed the Second Coming. Don't let anyone lead you astray with this idea. You know the Second Coming has not occurred until the hidden architect of evil is exposed and destroyed. Currently, evil prevails until he is revealed at the proper time. Evil will prevail until he lawless one is revealed and destroyed by the breath of Christ's mouth at his coming.

In my mind, verses 1 and 2 do not fit with a subsequent discussion of a mysterious and unknown future Antichrist figure. I do not now how this concept would have encouraged the Thessalonians and prevented them from being led astray that they were missing the return of Jesus. If, what Paul has in mind for the lawless one is reflective of Revelation 20:7-10, then it makes much more sense in my estimation.
Good to be back...one of those days yesterday, Jack's back...big deal! lol with you! My PC acting up too? We must be doing somethingd right? Anyway agree to agree to a degree my brother.

Regarding IIThess.2:3 grammatically cannot refer to a specific person, agree to agree looking at my old Koine notes regarding the uses of a generic article O. However, not meaning to dazzle you with footwork, Wallace, Dana-Mantey, Gildersleeve, A.T. Robertson, and etc., summed up convey that this generic article categorizes ("human kind" or particularizes ("human kind" of God...as in a "definite article") including the vocative use.

Now from me: IIThess.2:3, sequence of "human beings." Whether belongs to God or not, not a specific "man," "male," or Satan (by definition not being a specific man, male, or Satan who is not a "human being"). Thus a sequence of "human beings."

Contextually construed with "son" which is another study, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, however thank you for making me dig in again.

Old Jack that will be looking over the "son" part today.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think it is important to note that your assertions are only one side.

10. There are many names for the anti-Christ in prophecy; he is a central figure to the end-times. The fact that we don't get a single, simple reference to suit us in black and white belies our desire to have it all spelled out - and that is never done in any prophetic narrative.
9. The entire concept of anti-Christ does not "only" lead people "label people as anti-Christ." People are also watching and will rightfully oppose him when he surfaces. Those that want to 'pin the tail on the anti-Christ' miss the point as far as I'm concerned. It is not judgmental in the negative connotation to watch; nor are we not called to discern! What we are not to do is to judge as in to punish.
8. Trying to understand it as "early readers" leaves the door wide open to any possible interpretation. While we should try to understand the framework of any message in their culture and language so as to draw inference and meaning - we are not bound by the first guess, so to speak.
7. All of eschatology is challenging; most get it wrong if only one way is right because there are a plethora of systems, interpretations and outlooks. They all can't be right. Saying the anti-Christ is in challenging sections could also be saying that those sections are beyond the understanding of the person rendering such a conclusion. I do not find the various sections, mostly in Daniel, to be terribly confusing in their patchwork approach when a holistic one is made.
6. Ah, no. Jesus is not referring to the destruction of the Temple when He answers the two questions the Disciples raise that leads to the Olivet Discourse. In fact, He never really answers when the Temple would be torn down - (A.D. 70). He does refer BACK to Daniel in mentioning the siqqusim mesommen - and He further adds the detail that this will be in the "Holy Place." This is a significant fact in Bible end-time prophecy.
5. The "mark of the beast" - unlike the use of 'ot in the OT for a sign (see DT 6:8) - is a physical impression - charagma - AND it is tied to physical activities - buying and selling. You may not sell your wares or labor nor will you will be able to buy essential goods. Try living off the land while they hunt you down and you'll see why the megas thlipsis is so terrible that most of the Elect won't survive it!
4. Of all the last six actions which only Jesus can accomplish spelled out in 9;24 for what would happen with the conclusion of the seventy 'sevens,' the last two can be said to still await their fulfillment. Saying they already are is an opinion; there is another side to that for which I would argue is still future. In that regard we are at a standstill because neither of our opinions can outweigh the other.
3. It only makes no sense to you. On the other hand, by spelling out certain key facts which must PRECEDE Christ's paraousia on the Day of the Lord, Paul is comforting the Thessalonians that indeed they had NOT missed this critical Day because to be left behind is to suffer God's Wrath and eternal Judgment.
2. No, it does not in my eschatology. There still awaits the seventh "head" at the end of the Millennium who lasts only a short while - just long enough to raise the whole world against God's camp at Jerusalem. Evil is not abolished until they are judged to Hell and death sent packing too.
1. The Greek particle form can convey many various nuances, but here in the depondent fashion - Paul is testifying to the Thessalonians about a future action. Hence the rendering of the present (continual action) only makes sense when translated in the future tense. It is still tied to when he sets himself up in the Temple, which Jesus said would be in the "Holy Place" and proclaims himself God. That has never happened yet - and as the word 'yet' implies: but it will happen.

Your post attacked my position. I offer my post in opposition - defending what I think and not as an attack on you.
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Marcus O'Reillius said:
I think it is important to note that your assertions are only one side.

10. There are many names for the anti-Christ in prophecy; he is a central figure to the end-times. The fact that we don't get a single, simple reference to suit us in black and white belies our desire to have it all spelled out - and that is never done in any prophetic narrative.
9. The entire concept of anti-Christ does not "only" lead people "label people as anti-Christ." People are also watching and will rightfully oppose him when he surfaces. Those that want to 'pin the tail on the anti-Christ' miss the point as far as I'm concerned. It is not judgmental in the negative connotation to watch; nor are we not called to discern! What we are not to do is to judge as in to punish.
8. Trying to understand it as "early readers" leaves the door wide open to any possible interpretation. While we should try to understand the framework of any message in their culture and language so as to draw inference and meaning - we are not bound by the first guess, so to speak.
7. All of eschatology is challenging; most get it wrong if only one way is right because there are a plethora of systems, interpretations and outlooks. They all can't be right. Saying the anti-Christ is in challenging sections could also be saying that those sections are beyond the understanding of the person rendering such a conclusion. I do not find the various sections, mostly in Daniel, to be terribly confusing in their patchwork approach when a holistic one is made.
6. Ah, no. Jesus is not referring to the destruction of the Temple when He answers the two questions the Disciples raise that leads to the Olivet Discourse. In fact, He never really answers when the Temple would be torn down - (A.D. 70). He does refer BACK to Daniel in mentioning the siqqusim mesommen - and He further adds the detail that this will be in the "Holy Place." This is a significant fact in Bible end-time prophecy.
5. The "mark of the beast" - unlike the use of 'ot in the OT for a sign (see DT 6:8) - is a physical impression - charagma - AND it is tied to physical activities - buying and selling. You may not sell your wares or labor nor will you will be able to buy essential goods. Try living off the land while they hunt you down and you'll see why the megas thlipsis is so terrible that most of the Elect won't survive it!
4. Of all the last six actions which only Jesus can accomplish spelled out in 9;24 for what would happen with the conclusion of the seventy 'sevens,' the last two can be said to still await their fulfillment. Saying they already are is an opinion; there is another side to that for which I would argue is still future. In that regard we are at a standstill because neither of our opinions can outweigh the other.
3. It only makes no sense to you. On the other hand, by spelling out certain key facts which must PRECEDE Christ's paraousia on the Day of the Lord, Paul is comforting the Thessalonians that indeed they had NOT missed this critical Day because to be left behind is to suffer God's Wrath and eternal Judgment.
2. No, it does not in my eschatology. There still awaits the seventh "head" at the end of the Millennium who lasts only a short while - just long enough to raise the whole world against God's camp at Jerusalem. Evil is not abolished until they are judged to Hell and death sent packing too.
1. The Greek particle form can convey many various nuances, but here in the depondent fashion - Paul is testifying to the Thessalonians about a future action. Hence the rendering of the present (continual action) only makes sense when translated in the future tense. It is still tied to when he sets himself up in the Temple, which Jesus said would be in the "Holy Place" and proclaims himself God. That has never happened yet - and as the word 'yet' implies: but it will happen.

Your post attacked my position. I offer my post in opposition - defending what I think and not as an attack on you.
I thank you for really caring about the Word sir!

I never try to 'attack' a position, only unveil possible errors defending the gospel as how I view it in light of Jn.8:51. Especially for those that really care beyond Church on Sunday for the whole '1" hour as you really care, only try to encourage and at times I do a poor job with my sarcasm....anyway....

All you have to do is find one passage in the N.T. where naos ("Sanctuary") is not specifically grammatically and contextually the central building in the Temple complex consisting of only the Holy Place and Most Holy Place whether it be used symbolically in one's body, the Church, Kingdom of God, or etc., that have been joined of course then I'll recant all. IOW discredit my view of naos would discredit my whole view of the OP. Old Jack patiently waiting.

Old, possibly recanting all, Jack

Thank you so much again for caring about the Word during the week.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Holy Place is an OT location: it specifically relates to being INSIDE the Temple, but in front of the Curtain. It would be where the Priests perform their daily rituals in the Temple.

As far as naos, what the heck are you trying to prove with this silly, yet impossible, word-test?
Regarding 2nd Th 2:3, the Expositor's Bible Commentary has this to say:

"(Paul's) proof of the day's nonpresence consists of citing two phenomena that had not yet occurred. The text does not explicitly say whether these will come before the day of the Lord or immediately after it begins, because the Greek sentence is not complete, but it presupposes something to be added from the previous verse; i. e., "that day will not come" (NIV) or "that day is not present" (cf. note). Grammatically similar constructions elsewhere (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; John 7:51; Rom 15:24) show these two happenings are conceived of as within the day of the Lord, not prior to it. The day of the Lord had not yet arrived because these two conspicuous phenomena that will dominate the day's opening phase had not yet happened."

Trying to force this short, yet important linear narrative of events into the past (Paul's present) misses the point of his message to the Thessalonians.

The verses 1-8 of chapter 2 can be delineated in the following sequence of events:

[SIZE=medium].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Here is the Sequence of Events that Paul gives in 2Th 2:1-8[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]• The rebellion occurs [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• Opposition and exaltation [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• The “one” removed from the midst [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Setting himself up as God in the Temple[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• The man of lawlessness revealed [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jesus comes [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Our being gathering to Him [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium].....o Dead in Christ [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium].....o Those who are alive and are left[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• The man of lawlessness is undone [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• He done away with entirely.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium].[/SIZE]
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Marcus O'Reillius said:
Holy Place is an OT location: it specifically relates to being INSIDE the Temple, but in front of the Curtain. It would be where the Priests perform their daily rituals in the Temple.
it's been awhile and my sometimers, but I do recall the O.T. "Sanctuary" also consisted of not only the Holy Place, but the Most Holy Place just like the N.T. naos. That is, both sides of the curtain sir.



As far as naos, what the heck are you trying to prove with this silly, yet impossible, word-test?
Regarding 2nd Th 2:3, the Expositor's Bible Commentary has this to say:

"(Paul's) proof of the day's nonpresence consists of citing two phenomena that had not yet occurred. The text does not explicitly say whether these will come before the day of the Lord or immediately after it begins, because the Greek sentence is not complete, but it presupposes something to be added from the previous verse; i. e., "that day will not come" (NIV) or "that day is not present" (cf. note). Grammatically similar constructions elsewhere (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; John 7:51; Rom 15:24) show these two happenings are conceived of as within the day of the Lord, not prior to it. The day of the Lord had not yet arrived because these two conspicuous phenomena that will dominate the day's opening phase had not yet happened."
If I was you I would change Commentaries quickly sir. I was more referring to IIThess.2:4, "....seats himself in the naos of God,..." This wretched humble posit may help you sir......

"so that he seats himself into the sanctuary (naos, not ieron) of God showing himself off that he's God." He actually seats himself "into" this sanctuary naos is not temple (ieron), but "Sanctuary." You got it!

The ieron was the entire Temple complex with all its courtyards, altar, and building including the central building, that is the "sanctuary."




Trying to force this short, yet important linear narrative of events into the past (Paul's present) misses the point of his message to the Thessalonians.

The verses 1-8 of chapter 2 can be delineated in the following sequence of events:
Who's forcing this into the past...not me, ie, I'm an Amill. nowist sir...coming to pass right this moment. btw where did I place this specifically in the past?

[SIZE=medium].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Here is the Sequence of Events that Paul gives in 2Th 2:1-8[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]• The rebellion occurs [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• Opposition and exaltation [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• The “one” removed from the midst [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Setting himself up as God in the Temple[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• The man of lawlessness revealed [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jesus comes [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Our being gathering to Him [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium].....o Dead in Christ [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium].....o Those who are alive and are left[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• The man of lawlessness is undone [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]• He done away with entirely.[/quote][/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Quickly change Commentaries sir![/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium].[/SIZE]


Thank you for your response again my brother, doesn't look at you could discredit..however thank you for trying. Maybe you'll have better luck later???

My offer is still open: If anyone can find fault with any of the former...I'll recant all, and will have been successfully discredited.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marcus O'Reillius said:
I think it is important to note that your assertions are only one side.

10. There are many names for the anti-Christ in prophecy; he is a central figure to the end-times. The fact that we don't get a single, simple reference to suit us in black and white belies our desire to have it all spelled out - and that is never done in any prophetic narrative.
9. The entire concept of anti-Christ does not "only" lead people "label people as anti-Christ." People are also watching and will rightfully oppose him when he surfaces. Those that want to 'pin the tail on the anti-Christ' miss the point as far as I'm concerned. It is not judgmental in the negative connotation to watch; nor are we not called to discern! What we are not to do is to judge as in to punish.
8. Trying to understand it as "early readers" leaves the door wide open to any possible interpretation. While we should try to understand the framework of any message in their culture and language so as to draw inference and meaning - we are not bound by the first guess, so to speak.
7. All of eschatology is challenging; most get it wrong if only one way is right because there are a plethora of systems, interpretations and outlooks. They all can't be right. Saying the anti-Christ is in challenging sections could also be saying that those sections are beyond the understanding of the person rendering such a conclusion. I do not find the various sections, mostly in Daniel, to be terribly confusing in their patchwork approach when a holistic one is made.
6. Ah, no. Jesus is not referring to the destruction of the Temple when He answers the two questions the Disciples raise that leads to the Olivet Discourse. In fact, He never really answers when the Temple would be torn down - (A.D. 70). He does refer BACK to Daniel in mentioning the siqqusim mesommen - and He further adds the detail that this will be in the "Holy Place." This is a significant fact in Bible end-time prophecy.
5. The "mark of the beast" - unlike the use of 'ot in the OT for a sign (see DT 6:8) - is a physical impression - charagma - AND it is tied to physical activities - buying and selling. You may not sell your wares or labor nor will you will be able to buy essential goods. Try living off the land while they hunt you down and you'll see why the megas thlipsis is so terrible that most of the Elect won't survive it!
4. Of all the last six actions which only Jesus can accomplish spelled out in 9;24 for what would happen with the conclusion of the seventy 'sevens,' the last two can be said to still await their fulfillment. Saying they already are is an opinion; there is another side to that for which I would argue is still future. In that regard we are at a standstill because neither of our opinions can outweigh the other.
3. It only makes no sense to you. On the other hand, by spelling out certain key facts which must PRECEDE Christ's paraousia on the Day of the Lord, Paul is comforting the Thessalonians that indeed they had NOT missed this critical Day because to be left behind is to suffer God's Wrath and eternal Judgment.
2. No, it does not in my eschatology. There still awaits the seventh "head" at the end of the Millennium who lasts only a short while - just long enough to raise the whole world against God's camp at Jerusalem. Evil is not abolished until they are judged to Hell and death sent packing too.
1. The Greek particle form can convey many various nuances, but here in the depondent fashion - Paul is testifying to the Thessalonians about a future action. Hence the rendering of the present (continual action) only makes sense when translated in the future tense. It is still tied to when he sets himself up in the Temple, which Jesus said would be in the "Holy Place" and proclaims himself God. That has never happened yet - and as the word 'yet' implies: but it will happen.

Your post attacked my position. I offer my post in opposition - defending what I think and not as an attack on you.
Marcus,

Thanks for your response. I will reply numerically to make it easy to follow. I understand this is not an attack on me, as I hope you recognize my objection to this concept is not an attack on you.

10. Actually, we do get simple, spelled-out insight in prophetic narratives. Many of Daniel's prophecies have very clear explanations given within the book itself. The same is true for other prophecies. My point remains... The concept of "antichrist" has nothing to do with this end-times figure, which I find to be misleading. Moreover, I do not find any texts that substantiate such an end-times figure.
9. Of course we are supposed to evaluate the actions of everyone, which is fitting. However, I find no reason for Scripture to propose a demon-filled individual to lead the world into chaos which do nothing but naturally lead to guessing as to who the figure is. As a result, numerous Christian leaders have proposed this person to be major figures in their day.
8. I would argue the opposite. To not try to understand the Scriptures as the early readers would have understood it...by evaluating the text historically, grammatically and contextually, then we can make the text say whatever we want. This is what I find to be the result of such "Antichrist" notions.... People spend more time trying to connect passages in the Bible to current events than they do to the early readers.
7. Not sure if you are understanding the point here. What I am saying is that there is no clear teaching about an Antichrist figure anywhere in the NT. The texts used to validate this theological position are all very controversial. I think it is a bad idea to develop an entire theological view based on controversial texts.
6. Yes, the blood of animals sprinkled in the Holy Place would have been an abomination after the sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, in the NT, the Church represents the living Temple of God. If a Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem, it would not be God's Temple...nor a Holy Place. The Temple of God is his people and the Holy Place is where the Holy Spirit dwells...in us. I think this view represents a modern-day Judaizing that highlights Law and flesh rather than grace and faith.
5. This makes no sense to me. So does this mean the "seal of the Holy Spirit" is a literal seal that God will look at to determine who will be spared from God's wrath? Early Christians faced this very issue. If they would not burn incense to the gods, then they could not be a part of the trade guilds. In much of the world today, being a Christian will have devastating impacts on your business and livelihood. Revelation is for all Christians of all ages. It is not a book that only applies to people during a 7 year span of time as your view supposes.
4. Yes, we have differing opinions there. However, my point is that the angel says at the very beginning that the 70 sevens are designated to bring an end to sin and usher in righteousness. That happened at the cross of Christ. Jesus came at sixty-nine sevens...affirmed his covenant halfway through that seven in his three in a half year ministry, and the last 3.5 years are given no conclusion. John's Revelation uses that final 3.5 years symbolically multiple times as designating the age of the church. Those numbers are not to be added to make a 7 year tribulation.
3. I still don't know how this would help them. People could just start saying, "Yes, Nero was the Antichrist..and he is now dead. See, we DID miss it." The focus here is the absolution of evil by exposing the lawless one and destroying him. Revelation substantiates my view on this I believe.
2. Yes, well so far...all such views of counting heads and horns have been shown to be errant. I think that reveals the real fault in such an approach to interpreting Revelation. Such predictions would have been of no value to an early suffering church. They are the original recipients of the letter.
1. I disagree. There is no reason these participles should be translated in the future tense. The ESV translates this better as "exalts" and "opposes."

In sum, I think the entire theology surrounding this Antichrist concept is completely shaky. Its based on a Daniel passage that was fulfilled with Antiochus Epiphanes IV, a 2 Thessalonians passage that (in my opinion) contextually makes no sense to a future man, the image of a "beast" in Revelation...which is pure guesswork, and finally uses the terminology of 1 John that has nothing at all to do with such a figure. I just think if the Lord wanted us to be aware of such a figure and look for his coming, he would have said something explicit about it rather than having us use his Word like a decoder puzzle.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
shturt678s said:
1. it's been awhile and my sometimers, but I do recall the O.T. "Sanctuary" also consisted of not only the Holy Place, but the Most Holy Place just like the N.T. naos. That is, both sides of the curtain sir.

2a. If I was you I would change Commentaries quickly sir. I was more referring to IIThess.2:4, "....seats himself in the naos of God,..." This wretched humble posit may help you sir......

2b. Who's forcing this into the past...not me, ie, I'm an Amill. nowist sir...coming to pass right this moment. btw where did I place this specifically in the past?

3. Thank you for your response again my brother, doesn't look at you could discredit..however thank you for trying. Maybe you'll have better luck later???

4. My offer is still open: If anyone can find fault with any of the former...I'll recant all, and will have been successfully discredited.
1. What the heck is a "sometimers?" -- Stuttgart: you're playing word games. When the talking image of the anti-Christ is set IN the Temple, in the Holy Place, it is STILL IN the Temple even if the Temple encompasses more than just the Holy Place.

2a & 2b. The rest of my post was not meant for you but Wormwood. When you make two posts in a row, this message board combines them. I was not addressing you; it's not all about you. Sorry to hear about your Amillism; I hope you recover from it. What the heck is a "nowist?" (What we have here is a failure to communicate.)

3. I am not even trying to discredit you, so don't think yourself a champion of some contest. I think that you're not very good at being a translator either. I am always wary of people who make the Bible say what they want it to say. I am more wary of people who actually re-write it to suit themselves. Thanks for caring about me getting lucky; I did get lucky tonight but then that's just my good looks put into action.

4. I refuse to play by your fool's game, and I really don't care what you recant as long as it's your sins to the Holy Spirit.

Wormwood said:
In sum, I think the entire theology surrounding this Antichrist concept is completely shaky. Its based on a Daniel passage that was fulfilled with Antiochus Epiphanes IV, a 2 Thessalonians passage that (in my opinion) contextually makes no sense to a future man, the image of a "beast" in Revelation...which is pure guesswork, and finally uses the terminology of 1 John that has nothing at all to do with such a figure. I just think if the Lord wanted us to be aware of such a figure and look for his coming, he would have said something explicit about it rather than having us use his Word like a decoder puzzle.
Again, in reverse order:

10. The term 'anti-Christ' has everything to do with the wickedness which propels God to act. Even the term is apt considering he suffers a mortal wound (not necessarily a head wound - he is the "head," the sixth "head" of the dragon nation-state) but does not die! This is a false death. He then recovers; this is a false resurrection! He opposes God and seeks to take His Place! This is a falsehood too! False death; false resurrection; false God -- false Christ - hence: anti-Christ.

9. The fact that you find no reason has nothing to do with God having a reason for this man. Like all super-hero stories, it is the evildoer who advances the plot and the hero who rushes in to save the day. It is not unlike that in the Bible. At the apex of his power, the midpoint of the one 'seven,' when he has conquered Israel and is rewarded with a talking image of himself and he has the hubris to proclaim himself God inside the Holy Place - THAT is when his fall begins because God begins to act! (The first to arrive are God's Marines: the Two Witnesses.)

8. Your proposed exegesis methodology - which is not any systematic method of interpretation - allows you to literally put words in their mouths! If we are to go on the earliest readers - what did they think? Do we really know? The writings that survived from that period are scant, fragmented, and hardly indicative of the entire body of thought or even consistent within themselves! Scholars have a name for the earliest readers' eschatology: Historic Pre-Millennialism. That is a far cry from what you are proposing to do.

7. I do not think as you do. I think what we have in the Olivet Discourse, 2nd Th 2, and Rev 13 is quite understandable. Controversy is not a valid point. ALL eschatology is controversial. We're having a controversy right now. This whole board is controversial! STILL! There are valid, contradicting, and sundry eshatologies to be found and held. Hardly any two people share each others thinking on every point even if they agree on a single brand of eschatology. This is not a valid point for dismissing something you don't like.

6. Animal sacrifice in accordance with Levitical Law is not an abomination. Abomination in the Bible overwhelmingly refers to idol worship. It is the talking image of a man set up in the Temple which is an abomination! The worst abomination imaginable! Even Isaiah laughed at idols because they couldn't speak! Well this one does!

5. From something I wrote years ago:

“To seal up vision and prophecy,” the word seal has not changed much since Hebrew times. Coming from the word, chatham, a prime root, means to seal, affix a seal, or seal up (ECOTB). Professor Lewis of Harding Graduate School of Religion denotes the word chatham (or hatam) as:

“The basic meaning of this root is “to seal.”…Also an unintelligible prophecy is said in a simile to be sealed (Isa 29:11) Hence sealing designates that which is securely enclosed (Dan 12:9) by lying under a seal…Isaiah was to seal up his teaching in his disciples, that is, to keep it securely (Isa 8:16).”—TWOT p.334.

ISA 29:11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't; it is sealed."

DA 12:9 He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.

ISA 8:16 Bind up the testimony
and seal up the law among my disciples.

Likewise to seal up can also be to contain as in to signify “that which is closed up”—(ibid p.334) and marries our present day usage in sealing a vessel, making it complete by making it tight. So, one aspect of sealing is the visions and prophecies are then to be securely enclosed in the time described within the verse. Another can be said that this verse was not to be understood plainly to those before the coming of Christ; it was part of the mystery of God revealed in Christ Jesus. But as prophecy continues until His return so the sealing here must continue until Christ’s reign in the Millennium. This then would close up the timeframe when visions and prophecy will be necessary.

To close up the words as the Man in Linen says in Daniel 12:9 not only implies that the words should be kept safely until the time when they were needed, but also that it put God’s indelible stamp on it. Seals were imprinted with an impression to authenticate the authorship of the document. So the fact that Daniel’s prophecy is sealed has the double sense of preserving the message and authenticating it.

Another aspect to sealing up has to do with the principle of prophecy itself: there will be a day when it is not necessary. Two main sections in the Bible discuss the Millennial Period: Revelations and the last part of Ezekiel starting in verse 43:10. After the end-times, prophecy as conveyed from God will not exist (ZEC 13:1-6). Thus, Christ’s return results in deep ramifications. A contention here is that a new paradigm will exist with Christ’s earthly return in the Millennium. One particular result will be that prophecy will no longer be necessary after the end times. However, it is for the end times that Daniel’s prophecy is intended as stated by the Man in Linen in Daniel 12:9.

The last phrase, “to anoint the most holy” occurs after the seal or the visions of end times contained in Daniel. Holy in the noun form qodesh connotes the concept of “holiness,” i.e. the essential nature of that which belongs to the sphere of the sacred and which is thus distinct from the common or profane.”—TWOT Vol. II page 787. “The verb mashah with its derivatives occurs about 140 times…in the prophets it is found as a verb only twice with its religious connotation of sacred anointing (Isa 61:1; Dan 9:24).”—TWOT Vol. I page 530. So we have a religious anointing rather than a physical anointing and the object or subject is the embodiment of holy.

With the last reference having a holy basis, it could be likened to the anointing of the Messiah after the period covered by the prophecy which has been sealed and would come at the conclusion of the seventy ‘sevens.’ So while (only) the NASB adds the word “place” to “holy,” qodesh may not refer to a place. This would be in line with the celebration of the Lamb after the defeat of the world and the rule of man described in end time prophecies.
4. Jesus did come after the sixty-two 'sevens' and He was cut off (karat) after that. He did not "confirm" (gabar) a covenant with many for one 'seven!' Jesus' covenant, which He made at the Last Supper and completed with the shedding of His Blood is for the whole Church Age. The last three and a half years are given a conclusion in Daniel 9:27 - the desolations poured out as enumerated in Revelation chapters 15-16 upon the desolator - a man. (God's Wrath is never pointed at a condition; only beings.) The Great Tribulation is not seven years long - but only starts at the midpoint of the one 'seven' and it is abruptly cut short by the sudden and otherwise unexpected arrival of the Day of the Lord.

3. Nero may have been one of the previous five "heads" of the dragon nation-state. HOWEVER! He is not the one because he DID NOT DO what Paul says the anti-Christ, the man of perdition, will do! Only after that does Jesus come!

2. I think my counting of "heads" is sufficiently valid for an interpretation model. If you want to dismiss it before hearing it in total, then you can say what you say, but you will say it out of your ignorance. Contempt prior to investigation will only lock you into your own mindset. I take a literal view of Revelation, not discounting its figurative language - which I surmise reveals a deeper truth about the subject being described. Furthermore, how you approach the book of Revelation is most important. I have discerned a pattern based on a solid rule for partitioning it into various parallel accounts.

1. Again, the whole point of Paul's explanation to the Thessalonians is future-oriented. While the participles he uses are in the present tense, the meaning is forward-looking, i.e., they need not fear because these events, exalts, opposes; have not yet come to be. However, the Greek logic naturally allows that they will follow at some time when the "one" is removed.
__________________________________________________________

So, there is ample evidence in the Bible to support a view which includes the anti-Christ as a single man.
-- Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the jumping off point of "Dual Focus" for Daniel to switch from the near-term to the far-term future.
-- Paul's order of events compliments the Olivet Discourse and Revelation concerning the anti-Christ.
-- The beast of a man in Revelation is an apt description in figurative speech for the person found in Isaiah 14:3-21.
-- John acknowledges the person of the anti-Christ, yet warns the earliest readers of anti-Christs all around. We still have all kinds of anti-Christs today!
-- The Lord DID say something about this man - and the admonishment is IN the Bible for the reader to understand Daniel's writings! Furthermore, Jesus revealed even more to John about this man in Revelation chapter 13. So to say Jesus did not say something explicit is to miss the point altogether, and hence, no wonder you do not see it - because you don't see it at all.
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Marcus O'Reillius said:
Thank you for your response again! Brother RANDOR is right, I sinfully enjoy myself too too much on these threads...sorry again! I'm not nearly as sharp as I was decades ago for sure...an old age thing.



1. What the heck is a "sometimers?" -- Stuttgart: you're playing word games. When the talking image of the anti-Christ is set IN the Temple, in the Holy Place, it is STILL IN the Temple even if the Temple encompasses more than just the Holy Place.
IIThess.2:4 If there was not a Greek term for the whole Temple complex that includes the four courtyards, golden altar, and etc., I would agree to agree with you...sorry with the repeated "sirs" also, enjoyed too much, however I am of a lower paygrade. But there is, ieron, "Temple." Then the central building structure within the 'whole Temple complex' is exactly the naos, "Sanctuary." One cannot help but agape that ol' exact ancient Koine.



2a & 2b. The rest of my post was not meant for you but Wormwood. When you make two posts in a row, this message board combines them. I was not addressing you; it's not all about you. Sorry to hear about your Amillism; I hope you recover from it. What the heck is a "nowist?" (What we have here is a failure to communicate.)
I coined the term "Nowist" to complement my Amillennium position, that is, the visions in Revelation and IIThess.2:3-12 are coming to pass "Now." One of the advantages of being such a low paygrade, one has more latitude with precious on the money Scriptures...exact Koine for a higher purpose, eg, ieron vs. naos.



3. I am not even trying to discredit you, so don't think yourself a champion of some contest. I think that you're not very good at being a translator either. I am always wary of people who make the Bible say what they want it to say. I am more wary of people who actually re-write it to suit themselves. Thanks for caring about me getting lucky; I did get lucky tonight but then that's just my good looks put into action.
I think you need to scrutinize Jn.8:51 (not a champion of some contest, however guarding His precious Word at my lower paygrade) again, that is, what I'm all about my brother. A word of encouragement...place a valid rendition before you to work off of as this passage is also really messed up in today's time. We can agree to agree that our Lord doesn't expect that much out of me regarding "not very good being a translator either" at my lower paygrade....Amen!



4. I refuse to play by your fool's game, and I really don't care what you recant as long as it's your sins to the Holy Spirit.
Thank you again my brother...hopefully you're correct and all or most of my response is fallacious, and all will 'pan' out in the end???



Again, in reverse order:

10. The term 'anti-Christ' has everything to do with the wickedness which propels God to act. Even the term is apt considering he suffers a mortal wound (not necessarily a head wound - he is the "head," the sixth "head" of the dragon nation-state) but does not die! This is a false death. He then recovers; this is a false resurrection! He opposes God and seeks to take His Place! This is a falsehood too! False death; false resurrection; false God -- false Christ - hence: anti-Christ.

9. The fact that you find no reason has nothing to do with God having a reason for this man. Like all super-hero stories, it is the evildoer who advances the plot and the hero who rushes in to save the day. It is not unlike that in the Bible. At the apex of his power, the midpoint of the one 'seven,' when he has conquered Israel and is rewarded with a talking image of himself and he has the hubris to proclaim himself God inside the Holy Place - THAT is when his fall begins because God begins to act! (The first to arrive are God's Marines: the Two Witnesses.)

8. Your proposed exegesis methodology - which is not any systematic method of interpretation - allows you to literally put words in their mouths! If we are to go on the earliest readers - what did they think? Do we really know? The writings that survived from that period are scant, fragmented, and hardly indicative of the entire body of thought or even consistent within themselves! Scholars have a name for the earliest readers' eschatology: Historic Pre-Millennialism. That is a far cry from what you are proposing to do.

7. I do not think as you do. I think what we have in the Olivet Discourse, 2nd Th 2, and Rev 13 is quite understandable. Controversy is not a valid point. ALL eschatology is controversial. We're having a controversy right now. This whole board is controversial! STILL! There are valid, contradicting, and sundry eshatologies to be found and held. Hardly any two people share each others thinking on every point even if they agree on a single brand of eschatology. This is not a valid point for dismissing something you don't like.

6. Animal sacrifice in accordance with Levitical Law is not an abomination. Abomination in the Bible overwhelmingly refers to idol worship. It is the talking image of a man set up in the Temple which is an abomination! The worst abomination imaginable! Even Isaiah laughed at idols because they couldn't speak! Well this one does!

5. From something I wrote years ago:


4. Jesus did come after the sixty-two 'sevens' and He was cut off (karat) after that. He did not "confirm" (gabar) a covenant with many for one 'seven!' Jesus' covenant, which He made at the Last Supper and completed with the shedding of His Blood is for the whole Church Age. The last three and a half years are given a conclusion in Daniel 9:27 - the desolations poured out as enumerated in Revelation chapters 15-16 upon the desolator - a man. (God's Wrath is never pointed at a condition; only beings.) The Great Tribulation is not seven years long - but only starts at the midpoint of the one 'seven' and it is abruptly cut short by the sudden and otherwise unexpected arrival of the Day of the Lord.

3. Nero may have been one of the previous five "heads" of the dragon nation-state. HOWEVER! He is not the one because he DID NOT DO what Paul says the anti-Christ, the man of perdition, will do! Only after that does Jesus come!

2. I think my counting of "heads" is sufficiently valid for an interpretation model. If you want to dismiss it before hearing it in total, then you can say what you say, but you will say it out of your ignorance. Contempt prior to investigation will only lock you into your own mindset. I take a literal view of Revelation, not discounting its figurative language - which I surmise reveals a deeper truth about the subject being described. Furthermore, how you approach the book of Revelation is most important. I have discerned a pattern based on a solid rule for partitioning it into various parallel accounts.

1. Again, the whole point of Paul's explanation to the Thessalonians is future-oriented. While the participles he uses are in the present tense, the meaning is forward-looking, i.e., they need not fear because these events, exalts, opposes; have not yet come to be. However, the Greek logic naturally allows that they will follow at some time when the "one" is removed.
__________________________________________________________

So, there is ample evidence in the Bible to support a view which includes the anti-Christ as a single man.
-- Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the jumping off point of "Dual Focus" for Daniel to switch from the near-term to the far-term future.
-- Paul's order of events compliments the Olivet Discourse and Revelation concerning the anti-Christ.
-- The beast of a man in Revelation is an apt description in figurative speech for the person found in Isaiah 14:3-21.
-- John acknowledges the person of the anti-Christ, yet warns the earliest readers of anti-Christs all around. We still have all kinds of anti-Christs today!
-- The Lord DID say something about this man - and the admonishment is IN the Bible for the reader to understand Daniel's writings! Furthermore, Jesus revealed even more to John about this man in Revelation chapter 13. So to say Jesus did not say something explicit is to miss the point altogether, and hence, no wonder you do not see it - because you don't see it at all.
We can agree to disagree,

Old Jack's opinion only...not the facts for sure.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marcus,

False Christs and anti-christs are always referred to in the Bible as plural. The images in Revelation are referring to nations, empires, and cities. There is nothing to indicate it is anywhere referring to an individual. Personally, I think my views line up much more closely with what the church believed early on and has believed throughout history.

How am I putting words into anyone's mouths? I am examining the text contextually and grammatically. I am proposing possible interpretations that fit the language and the context. There is nothing futuristic about 2 Thess. 2 in the verbs other than the elements speaking of Christ's return. The ESV gets the verb tenses correct:

“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.” (2 Thessalonians 2:1–17, ESV)
Consider how this so closely matches Revelation 20...
“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while...
“And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
The only thing "future" oriented in 2 Thess 2 is reference to Christ's second coming. The activity of the lawless one is a present participle...NOT FUTURE TENSE. This means he is currently setting himself up against and opposing God. If Paul wanted this to be a future event, then he would have used that tense.

As far as my dismissal of this doctrine... I think it is very valid to dismiss a doctrine that has no solid foundation in the Scriptures. For instance, the Mormons baptize for the dead based on one obscure text from Paul about "baptism for the dead." No one really knows what this means, and yet this group had created an entire doctrine around it. I figure if God wanted us to baptize for the dead, then some clear instruction and teaching in the NT would be given to this regard. Thus, I dismiss that text as something, perhaps cultic, Paul was referring to in order to make a point. I choose not to build entire theologies around obscure texts. When it comes to the Second Coming, I allow the clear teaching of Christ, Paul and Peter to guide me. More controversial texts are certainly considered, but they are not the foundation of my eschatology. Concepts about a secret rapture and Anti-Christ, demon-possessed world ruler are simply not clearly taught in the Bible...anywhere.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The only future thing in Paul's linear narrative, you say, is Christ's coming.

However, Paul sets that up as conditionally dependent upon other factors which all must be satisfied. Let's look at your ESV, which I don't use.

“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

First of all, the WHOLE reason we get this discourse is because the Thessalonians thought the Day of the Lord had already come. Remember, they don't have the Drudge Report, CNN, television, or even radio.

However, Paul consoles them, that Day will not come UNTIL - and that's what sets the rest in the future - because it hasn't happened yet!

1. The rebellion occurs
2. Opposition and exaltation
3. Sets himself up in the Temple proclaiming himself God
4, He is revealed.

Now I put the revealing last because of people like you. I think there will be plenty of Christians who doggedly hold onto their eschatological notions for either a Pre-Trib Rapture or an Amillennium position (as the two extremes, there are other variants) who will suddenly realize that what they thought impossible - a literal, physical, anti-Christ persecuting them to death - has literally and physically come to pass.

I think this is the reason Jesus warned us in the Olivet Discourse not to panic and go looking for "Him" in all the wrong places...

So, if you want to put this as a continual action, which would apply to all time; fine. I can't stop you from thinking whatever you want to think. Just remember that just because we think something, doesn't mean it's the true. We often think that.

HOWEVER! For the reader, I will also posit the notion that all four things must happen and #3 has NEVER happened --- yet. But it will.

P.S.

I will add that my eschatology is not built upon the anti-Christ as you seem to insinuate I have done in your last paragraph. I build my eschatology upon a sequence of events as distilled through the combination of all the major linear prophetic narratives found in the Gospel, Epistles, Revelation and the book of Daniel.

I am not afraid to tackle "controversial" subjects, nor will I limit myself to "safe" areas just to be warm and cozy. All of the Bible is meant to be used; that's why we have it.

In the whole of end-time prophecy, the anti-Christ plays a major role. He starts the one 'seven,' causes the major upset at its midpoint which acts as a catalyst for God's response, and is the final culprit upon whom God's desolations are directed upon at the end of the one 'seven,' and he even is figured afterward in the Heavenly realm getting his just rewards.
 

shturt678s

New Member
Apr 16, 2014
211
5
0
Thank you for caring again brother Marcus, and your responses!

Rarely at my lower paygrade do I receive complements on these Forums, however I'm one of those "people like you" thus thanking our Lord kickstarting my day.

Lastly I sinfully found too much humor with your "3. Sets himself up in the Temple proclaiming himself God." Trying not to offend our Lord so much thus will let this posit regarding your last post slide for now putting on my serious cap.

Old Jack's opinion