Rapture and End Time Beliefs

[Stranger]

I have refuted all of these scriptures; none of them say anything about humans going to live in heaven. You just add that.
What you miss, is the great promises of God to his faithful people, now every born again Christian. Great blessings of peace and prosperity, as we all live in all of the holy Land, being the people He always wanted there; His witnesses, Isaiah 43-10, John 15:27 and His Light to the nations. Isaiah 49:8, Matthew 5:14-16

Nice speech.

You have refuted nothing.

Stranger

 

[Keraz]

Nice speech.

You have refuted nothing.

Stranger

Thanks.
But you have proved nothing. Rapture believers find their ammunition box very empty, when it comes to proving their case.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 This is a word from the Lord; those of His people who are still alive when the Lord comes, will have no advantage over those who have died.
...when Gods trumpet sounds and Jesus descends from heaven, firstly the Christian dead will rise, then we who are still alive will join them. Thus, we shall always be with the Lord. [on the earth]

Zechariah 14:4-5 On that Day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives.....the Lord will appear, attended by all His holy ones. [Angels and those gathered to Him; Matthew 24:31]
Scripture reads clearly – the so called rapture is actually just a gathering, which will occur when Jesus Christ returns at the end of the Great Tribulation.

The doctrine that His “church” people are simply waiting to be whisked away into heaven tends to produce a carefree and careless attitude in those awaiting Christ’s Return. Tragically, millions are now being set up to ‘simply believe in Jesus and don’t worry about anything else”. This is short-sighted, irresponsible thinking.

Many verses show that Christianity involves active effort, at the very least “watch and pray always”.

Many of the Bible’s greatest prophecies culminate in the Return of Jesus. This will be the most wonderful event that the world has seen, but what precedes it will be very different – terrible disasters and tribulations will engulf every society. It will take great trust and faith in Gods power to hold steady until the end.

Luke 18:8 When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?
God wants you to rely on Him, to trust Him completely. In the near future , when others are gripped by fear, uncertainty and confusion and have no idea of where to turn to for answers, God does not want His people to agonize over what may happen next.

Luke 21:18-19 Not a hair of your head will be lost. By standing firm you will win yourselves life.

Revelation 13:10 ..... this calls for the endurance and faithfulness of Gods people.

Matthew 24:30-31 And then shall appear.... the son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. He shall send His angels with the sound of the great trumpet, and they shall gather His faithful people from heaven, [the souls of the martyrs] and the four corners of the earth. [every person who kept their trust in God]

Daniel 7:27 The kingly power and sovereignty of all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the Holy people of the Most High. Their power will last forever and every realm will serve and obey them.
Reference; Revised English Bible, some verses abridged

 

[brakelite]

I'm not sure I totally agree with you here. Those who deceive...deliberately, with the intent of leading others astray, yes, I believe they are our enemies, and the enemies of God. But those who are deceived...those who have been tricked, for want of a better word, into believing that which in not true...I believe that God would have us not looking upon them as enemies, but as the lost who need to find the truth. And I'm not sure that might be achieved if battle lines are drawn, intents of war stated, etc. Especially when it comes to things of God, and what people have been taught in error about him. I truly don't think going on the offense, calling them out for being enemies of God will have any positive outcome. Rather, we should attempt to show them...show all those who are deceived...through the truth of God's word, what is right, and what is in error. Make them think about it in a non-combative way, and let the Spirit work.

I agree with you 100%. And Jesus did precisely as you advocate. And what happened?

 

[Naomi25]

I agree with you 100%. And Jesus did precisely as you advocate. And what happened?

Well, we know what happened. He was crucified. But should we love our own lives more than others? I'm not talking of being foolish, but, I think as Christians, following our Saviour, we need to fundamentally understand that we should have a theology of suffering (persecution wise) and taking up our cross for the sake of 'the great commission'...which is, essentially, saving those who are lost or deceived, is it not? After all, Christ, having been put up on the cross by those very people, said with some of his last breaths, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." They were deceived, and Jesus prayed that they might be forgiven. I think we must do the same, rather than labelling them enemies.

 

[brakelite]

Well, we know what happened. He was crucified. But should we love our own lives more than others? I'm not talking of being foolish, but, I think as Christians, following our Saviour, we need to fundamentally understand that we should have a theology of suffering (persecution wise) and taking up our cross for the sake of 'the great commission'...which is, essentially, saving those who are lost or deceived, is it not? After all, Christ, having been put up on the cross by those very people, said with some of his last breaths, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." They were deceived, and Jesus prayed that they might be forgiven. I think we must do the same, rather than labelling them enemies.

Amen. But it wasn't me who labels them as enemies. It was Jesus who said our greatest foes will be those of our own household. And by that, although true, I don't mean exclusively those in in the next room. I speak of the household of faith. I have no doubt that Abel was always gracious and as gentle as he could be with his brother...but his brother was still his enemy. Those two cities we spoke of are sister cities. One a counterfeit of the other. Both claiming to know the true God...both claiming to espouse the right way of worship...but one of them using legislation to enforce their particular brand. That is our SDA message. It isn't one of naming enemies, but merely a message of warning that prophecy reveals a certain group who one day will force under pain of persecution and death, a false form of worship, using the state power to do so. Since the beginning of Adventism in the 1860s, we have been utterly consistent in our belief that the USA will be that state power which enforces that worship on behalf of the papacy. But it is a Protestant US, but fallen. Apostate. And what is it we observe today taking place in American politics? A president who promised "power" to the church and who is now surrounded by a coterie of evangelical pastors and counsellors/advisors ...and to what purpose? Add to that the growing relationship between the US and the Vatican, and all the accompanying signs of submission on the part of the American republic (now a democracy more than republic) to Rome. One being the presentation of the Pope from a balcony higher than any US President before him. Seemingly minor I know, but in Freemason circles highly significant.
Did you watch that video presentation of Revelation 13? I believe that will answer a lot of questions.

 

[brakelite]

I'm not sure I totally agree with you here. Those who deceive...deliberately, with the intent of leading others astray, yes, I believe they are our enemies, and the enemies of God. But those who are deceived...those who have been tricked, for want of a better word, into believing that which in not true...I believe that God would have us not looking upon them as enemies, but as the lost who need to find the truth. And I'm not sure that might be achieved if battle lines are drawn, intents of war stated, etc. Especially when it comes to things of God, and what people have been taught in error about him. I truly don't think going on the offense, calling them out for being enemies of God will have any positive outcome. Rather, we should attempt to show them...show all those who are deceived...through the truth of God's word, what is right, and what is in error. Make them think about it in a non-combative way, and let the Spirit work.

However...back to those who deliberately deceive. And there's plenty of those in every denomination, I would agree...oh yeah they are our enemies. The bible has some pretty heavy things to say about them.

But to begin to glance sideways at fellow-believers and wonder if they are end times deceivers...I don't know. I think that might be very divisive and only lead to mistrust in the body where there should be unity. We need to trust Christ to have and hold all things, and move forward in loving him and loving others. Yes persecution will come. It will probably come from all sides. But that should not be our primary concern...not even up to death. Honestly...if I thought that talking to my daughter about Jesus could be a 50/50 result of death for me or eternal life for her...it's a bit of a no-brainer!

Those who Jesus said would kill us believing they did God a service would surely have been sincerely believing they were doing the right thing? The story of the dark ages is a stark lesson in history as to what will be repeated in the last days, only on a global scale. While some indeed will be sincerely deceived, even most as I believe are Catholics today, yet there are some I am utterly convinced at the top of the woodpile who absolutely know precisely the one they serve. The links between the top echelons of Islam...Catholicism...and Freemasonry are not coincidental nor are they in any way godly or 'sincerely mistaken'. They are a true enemy...but one God will deal with in His own good time, yet we will be witnesses to their wickedness...no rapture as an escape pod. The enemy we need to battle day by day is the one within...the one that is cruscified with Christ but which demands a resurrection.

 

[Stranger]

Thanks.
But you have proved nothing. Rapture believers find their ammunition box very empty, when it comes to proving their case.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 This is a word from the Lord; those of His people who are still alive when the Lord comes, will have no advantage over those who have died.
...when Gods trumpet sounds and Jesus descends from heaven, firstly the Christian dead will rise, then we who are still alive will join them. Thus, we shall always be with the Lord. [on the earth]

Zechariah 14:4-5 On that Day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives.....the Lord will appear, attended by all His holy ones. [Angels and those gathered to Him; Matthew 24:31]
Scripture reads clearly – the so called rapture is actually just a gathering, which will occur when Jesus Christ returns at the end of the Great Tribulation.

The doctrine that His “church” people are simply waiting to be whisked away into heaven tends to produce a carefree and careless attitude in those awaiting Christ’s Return. Tragically, millions are now being set up to ‘simply believe in Jesus and don’t worry about anything else”. This is short-sighted, irresponsible thinking.

Many verses show that Christianity involves active effort, at the very least “watch and pray always”.

Many of the Bible’s greatest prophecies culminate in the Return of Jesus. This will be the most wonderful event that the world has seen, but what precedes it will be very different – terrible disasters and tribulations will engulf every society. It will take great trust and faith in Gods power to hold steady until the end.

Luke 18:8 When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?
God wants you to rely on Him, to trust Him completely. In the near future , when others are gripped by fear, uncertainty and confusion and have no idea of where to turn to for answers, God does not want His people to agonize over what may happen next.

Luke 21:18-19 Not a hair of your head will be lost. By standing firm you will win yourselves life.

Revelation 13:10 ..... this calls for the endurance and faithfulness of Gods people.

Matthew 24:30-31 And then shall appear.... the son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. He shall send His angels with the sound of the great trumpet, and they shall gather His faithful people from heaven, [the souls of the martyrs] and the four corners of the earth. [every person who kept their trust in God]

Daniel 7:27 The kingly power and sovereignty of all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the Holy people of the Most High. Their power will last forever and every realm will serve and obey them.
Reference; Revised English Bible, some verses abridged

An empty translation of (1 Thess. 4:17) you give. Why?...since the ammo box is supposed to be so low? "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

(Zech. 14:4-5) is the Second Coming of Christ to the earth. Different event. With the Rapture we meet the Lord in the air. With the Second Coming Christ comes all the way to the earth.

The only people who believe if you believe in the Rapture then you do nothing but wait to be raptured is people like you who don't believe the Rapture. It is a lie, and is just your way to belittle or mock those who hold to the Rapture.

Of course there are many prophecies concerning Christ's Second Coming. And there will be believers there during the Great Tribulation. They just won't be the Church.

All the verses you give are good verses concerning the Second Coming. I have no problem with that.

Stranger

 

[Keraz]

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 IS about the Return of Jesus to earth for His Millennium reign. Paul is talking to those who are still alive when the Lord comes.... His Return in glory.
Making that prophecy out to be a coming to remove the Church, is just wrong and made only to support the 'rapture' theory.

Your ammunition box is empty. The idea of a removal of the Church is serous error and will never happen. Proved by Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:7, where the holy people of God are conquered by the Anti-Christ.

 

[Naomi25]

Amen. But it wasn't me who labels them as enemies. It was Jesus who said our greatest foes will be those of our own household. And by that, although true, I don't mean exclusively those in in the next room. I speak of the household of faith. I have no doubt that Abel was always gracious and as gentle as he could be with his brother...but his brother was still his enemy. Those two cities we spoke of are sister cities. One a counterfeit of the other. Both claiming to know the true God...both claiming to espouse the right way of worship...but one of them using legislation to enforce their particular brand. That is our SDA message. It isn't one of naming enemies, but merely a message of warning that prophecy reveals a certain group who one day will force under pain of persecution and death, a false form of worship, using the state power to do so. Since the beginning of Adventism in the 1860s, we have been utterly consistent in our belief that the USA will be that state power which enforces that worship on behalf of the papacy. But it is a Protestant US, but fallen. Apostate. And what is it we observe today taking place in American politics? A president who promised "power" to the church and who is now surrounded by a coterie of evangelical pastors and counsellors/advisors ...and to what purpose? Add to that the growing relationship between the US and the Vatican, and all the accompanying signs of submission on the part of the American republic (now a democracy more than republic) to Rome. One being the presentation of the Pope from a balcony higher than any US President before him. Seemingly minor I know, but in Freemason circles highly significant.
Did you watch that video presentation of Revelation 13? I believe that will answer a lot of questions.

Ok...nuts and bolts of it. I think that Revelation clearly speaks of a spiritual emnity between to "city" types: Jerusalem and Babylon. Babylon has always been, throughout the bible, the city used to describe a city or nation that is in utter rebellion against God. While Jerusalem has been, of course, the city of God...of his people.
The bible is ultimately about Jesus, but we also see the story of rebellous mankind and how God, again and again, is gracious to save a few, to bring them into his fold, so to speak. And so, yes, there is this tension between the two cities.
But when we come to Revelation, which is highly symbolic book, I think there can be room for metaphors. Does the New Jersualem refer to an actual city, or to the people of God as a whole? There is some suggestion it could be both, as we see are told "I saw the Bride", and it was the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. Likewise, does Babylon mean a specific city, or is it talking about all nations who rebel against God? Might it be both?

My point being, there is a lot of...space...around the texts that talk of the Antichrist, Babylon, the Mark, etc. They are fairly symbolic and don't give a lot of details. The problem here is twofold. Because they don't give details, they invite others to do so, but for that very reason, because we strive to fill in some of the blanks, we often find ourselves going places that the bible just doesn't say we can. It ends up being supposition.

The problem I see with labelling the RCC the Antichrist, Rome Babylon, and America...well, whatever it is, complicit. Is that, while you feel you may have arrived there logically, there is still no way to draw that from scripture. It's still just a guess. And when we become dogmatic over something that is, essentially, just a guess, then aren't you becoming exactly that which you are writing about in essence? Perhaps not in the sense of death and imprisionment, but I suppose it's troubling to me that you warn of the enemy in the next room, but admit that the SDA's have faithfully taught America will hunt, tag and bag, so to speak. And, forgive me, but scripture just doesn't say that.

I did watch that video. And while interesting, I found that a lot of the information he 'started' from, to make his points, was just assumed. He would make statements to found the points he went on to make, and I'm afraid I didn't feel comfortable to just assume many of those founding assumption, many I didn't agree with. So while his logic may have made sense, his starting presuppositions often were off (I felt), or were stated in such a way that seemed true, but may not have been. I didn't take the time to check each one...I don't have that sort of free time! Some of them may have been. But my point is, when you build everything you're saying, all your points, on various things, and those things you just say are, because they are, and you don't seem to lay that foundation, you just say them like you expect everyone else to accept it as true because you said it was...then that concerns me a little. Take a little time to lay some foundation for what your building.
But, perhaps most of his audience had had that foundation and agreed with him. Either way, I could not. I'm sorry.

 

[brakelite]

Ok...nuts and bolts of it. I think that Revelation clearly speaks of a spiritual emnity between to "city" types: Jerusalem and Babylon. Babylon has always been, throughout the bible, the city used to describe a city or nation that is in utter rebellion against God. While Jerusalem has been, of course, the city of God...of his people.
The bible is ultimately about Jesus, but we also see the story of rebellous mankind and how God, again and again, is gracious to save a few, to bring them into his fold, so to speak. And so, yes, there is this tension between the two cities.
But when we come to Revelation, which is highly symbolic book, I think there can be room for metaphors. Does the New Jersualem refer to an actual city, or to the people of God as a whole? There is some suggestion it could be both, as we see are told "I saw the Bride", and it was the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. Likewise, does Babylon mean a specific city, or is it talking about all nations who rebel against God? Might it be both?

My point being, there is a lot of...space...around the texts that talk of the Antichrist, Babylon, the Mark, etc. They are fairly symbolic and don't give a lot of details. The problem here is twofold. Because they don't give details, they invite others to do so, but for that very reason, because we strive to fill in some of the blanks, we often find ourselves going places that the bible just doesn't say we can. It ends up being supposition.

The problem I see with labelling the RCC the Antichrist, Rome Babylon, and America...well, whatever it is, complicit. Is that, while you feel you may have arrived there logically, there is still no way to draw that from scripture. It's still just a guess. And when we become dogmatic over something that is, essentially, just a guess, then aren't you becoming exactly that which you are writing about in essence? Perhaps not in the sense of death and imprisionment, but I suppose it's troubling to me that you warn of the enemy in the next room, but admit that the SDA's have faithfully taught America will hunt, tag and bag, so to speak. And, forgive me, but scripture just doesn't say that.

I did watch that video. And while interesting, I found that a lot of the information he 'started' from, to make his points, was just assumed. He would make statements to found the points he went on to make, and I'm afraid I didn't feel comfortable to just assume many of those founding assumption, many I didn't agree with. So while his logic may have made sense, his starting presuppositions often were off (I felt), or were stated in such a way that seemed true, but may not have been. I didn't take the time to check each one...I don't have that sort of free time! Some of them may have been. But my point is, when you build everything you're saying, all your points, on various things, and those things you just say are, because they are, and you don't seem to lay that foundation, you just say them like you expect everyone else to accept it as true because you said it was...then that concerns me a little. Take a little time to lay some foundation for what your building.
But, perhaps most of his audience had had that foundation and agreed with him. Either way, I could not. I'm sorry.

I completely get that. That video however was number something in a series of about 30 odd. The detail you need is in the previous lectures. Those blogs I posted on my web site , the characteristics of the Antichrist, also offer those details. So what we teach our have been teaching regarding the Antichrist is based on 5-600 years of study and experience... Which began with the reformers and continues to this day. Biblically, the Antichrist is described in detail probably more than any other entity in scripture apart from Jesus himself . God has offetrd sufficient information that we need not guess. In fact, it is because people refuse to believe the scriptures concerning the Antichrist that they come up with all manner of wild guesses. The papal system is the only one that does in fact meet all the criteria. Hence the confidence of professor Veith in his lectures.
It is a good thing that you question those foundations. I came to my own understanding of these matters as a direct result of the same sort of questioning. I came out of a church system that placed great emphasis on the rising of a Jewish dictator in Europe who would enter the literal temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God. Frankly, I began to question the foundations for that, and found them very flimsy indeed.

 

[brakelite]

The problem here is twofold. Because they don't give details, they invite others to do so, but for that very reason, because we strive to fill in some of the blanks, we often find ourselves going places that the bible just doesn't say we can. It ends up being supposition.

At the great risk if derailing this conversation completely, and it collapsing into a deep impenetrable ravine, the above I would apply to the trinity doctrine as upheld by the church... Including my own. There is actually more information on the Antichrist than there is on a trinity. Yet it is belief in the trinity that had become the standard of acceptance in order to identify the'real' Christian.

 

[CoreIssue]

At the great risk if derailing this conversation completely, and it collapsing into a deep impenetrable ravine, the above I would apply to the trinity doctrine as upheld by the church... Including my own. There is actually more information on the Antichrist than there is on a trinity. Yet it is belief in the trinity that had become the standard of acceptance in order to identify the'real' Christian.

What information on the Trinity do you think we are missing?

I just think there's a lot about the Trinity we are just incapable of understanding.

Just like there's a lot about Satan. Demons and fallen Angels we cannot understand.

Good grief, there's a lot about humans we do not understand.

 

[brakelite]

What information on the Trinity do you think we are missing?

I just think there's a lot about the Trinity we are just incapable of understanding.

Just like there's a lot about Satan. Demons and fallen Angels we cannot understand.

Good grief, there's a lot about humans we do not understand.

Precisely. So what right, given that we have so little information, does the church have to create a formula (trinity doctrine) to describe God?

 

[CoreIssue]

Precisely. So what right, given that we have so little information, does the church have to create a formula (trinity doctrine) to describe God?

That is two separate issues to me.

I do not abide by denominational doctrine. I abide by the Bible.

My description of the Trinity is what is revealed in the Bible. I know that part is accurate.

 

[brakelite]

My description of the Trinity is what is revealed in the Bible. I know that part is accurate.

How is that possible when there is no such description in the Bible?

 

[brakelite]

@CoreIssue Put it this way. There are many versions of the 'trinity'. And not many know precisely what they believe in regards the Godhead, and may in fact not be strict trinitarians without knowing it.
I think the 'core' criteria as far as the orthodox trinity is concerned is that

• all members are co-eternal
• co-equal
• and indivisibly united as one 'God'.

The ramifications of these criteria are not completely considered by the average Christian who automatically accepts it as being fundamental Christian doctrine without question. Happy to continue with this discussion if you like but not here as it isn't fair on the current conversations with others. I knew better to not bring it up...but couldn't help myself.

 

[CoreIssue]

@CoreIssue Put it this way. There are many versions of the 'trinity'. And not many know precisely what they believe in regards the Godhead, and may in fact not be strict trinitarians without knowing it.
I think the 'core' criteria as far as the orthodox trinity is concerned is that

• all members are co-eternal
• co-equal
• and indivisibly united as one 'God'.

The ramifications of these criteria are not completely considered by the average Christian who automatically accepts it as being fundamental Christian doctrine without question. Happy to continue with this discussion if you like but not here as it isn't fair on the current conversations with others. I knew better to not bring it up...but couldn't help myself.

Uniplural is a daily reality. The Bible is loaded with examples, the Hebrew language recognized it. Yet, people struggle with it.

Doctrine is a crutch to make people believe they are learning without doing a lot of work.

Doctrines have errors, such as your SDA Ellen G White. a false prophet, Sanctuary Judgement and End Times.

John made it quit clean such division is not good.

 

[Naomi25]

I completely get that. That video however was number something in a series of about 30 odd. The detail you need is in the previous lectures. Those blogs I posted on my web site , the characteristics of the Antichrist, also offer those details. So what we teach our have been teaching regarding the Antichrist is based on 5-600 years of study and experience... Which began with the reformers and continues to this day.

Well, I may need a bit more time to catch up on all that then!

Biblically, the Antichrist is described in detail probably more than any other entity in scripture apart from Jesus himself . God has offetrd sufficient information that we need not guess. In fact, it is because people refuse to believe the scriptures concerning the Antichrist that they come up with all manner of wild guesses. The papal system is the only one that does in fact meet all the criteria. Hence the confidence of professor Veith in his lectures.
It is a good thing that you question those foundations. I came to my own understanding of these matters as a direct result of the same sort of questioning. I came out of a church system that placed great emphasis on the rising of a Jewish dictator in Europe who would enter the literal temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God. Frankly, I began to question the foundations for that, and found them very flimsy indeed.

I agree that there is quite a bit of detail on the Antichrist in scripture. Sufficient so as that we might be confident that he will show up on the scene. But as for the details pointing to who he must be, or where he must come from...those details, I don't think are quite so clear. I have heard quite convincing arguments that he must be muslim, and come from the Islamic Empire...possibly the Turkey area. Is that correct? I don't know. But the person backing it had carefully gone through the scriptures that talk of the Antichrist, as well as ancient literature to show where civilizations were actually situated, etc. In other words, he wasn't just guessing, he'd put sound work and biblical study into it. And the same could be said for those who expec the AC to come out of the EU (but not the Pope).
My point being, these things also fit scripture, or seem to. And that is because the passages that speak of him are suitably vague in regards to these things. And when things are vague like that, you can plug things in and go "wow, that fits like a glove!" And it does. But so does other things.
So, I think we must be cautious, and not dogmatic on these things.

 

[farouk]

Well, I may need a bit more time to catch up on all that then!



I agree that there is quite a bit of detail on the Antichrist in scripture. Sufficient so as that we might be confident that he will show up on the scene. But as for the details pointing to who he must be, or where he must come from...those details, I don't think are quite so clear. I have heard quite convincing arguments that he must be muslim, and come from the Islamic Empire...possibly the Turkey area. Is that correct? I don't know. But the person backing it had carefully gone through the scriptures that talk of the Antichrist, as well as ancient literature to show where civilizations were actually situated, etc. In other words, he wasn't just guessing, he'd put sound work and biblical study into it. And the same could be said for those who expec the AC to come out of the EU (but not the Pope).
My point being, these things also fit scripture, or seem to. And that is because the passages that speak of him are suitably vague in regards to these things. And when things are vague like that, you can plug things in and go "wow, that fits like a glove!" And it does. But so does other things.
So, I think we must be cautious, and not dogmatic on these things.

John's First Epistle has useful verses about Antichrist...

 

[Naomi25]

At the great risk if derailing this conversation completely, and it collapsing into a deep impenetrable ravine, the above I would apply to the trinity doctrine as upheld by the church... Including my own. There is actually more information on the Antichrist than there is on a trinity. Yet it is belief in the trinity that had become the standard of acceptance in order to identify the'real' Christian.

I also, will attempt to keep this conversation from falling into a black hole! And just say, I disagree completely. The doctrine of the Trinity is pulled from multiple and many, many different parts of scripture, woven together until a large, complete picture was seen. An undeniable doctrine.
The Man of Sin, while undoubtably talked about, remains 'faceless' in scripture. We are assured of his arrival on the scene at some point. We are assured of his character, and his intent. And we are assured of his demise. We are given hints of where he may come from, but as i've said, those hints are very much up for interpretation.