If you can't expound on that, and prove it so, then your accusations against me have no bearing at all.Your doctrine is from the "synagogue of Satan".
Waiting...
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!
If you can't expound on that, and prove it so, then your accusations against me have no bearing at all.Your doctrine is from the "synagogue of Satan".
It saddens me that Post-Tribbers are looking forward to the start of the 7-year Tribulation Period. They are essentially looking to see who the Antichrist will be. They are busy like ants prepping by stockpiling water, dried food, guns, bullets, batteries, axes, etc., and constructing off the grid underground shelters.
The question was:I am a baptized Protestant Christian, and if you had kept to the simplicity that is God's written Word instead of trying to support a false doctrine of Judaizers about the temple Paul mentioned in 2 Thess.2, then you would have known early on how I am a true servant of Jesus Christ. But when someone like you brings a doctrine of Judaizers trying to change Apostle Paul's Message of warning about a coming Antichrist to Jerusalem to sit in a literal temple there, then that makes me have doubts about you being a true believer.
As I did say: "Say your sorry to Jesus Christ when He comes. I see no repentance in your words for comparing my Lord Jesus Christ's body with that temple in 2 Thess.2 that the future Antichrist is to come and sit in to play God in Jerusalem.
No, quite the opposite is true!You are miles away from being able to lecture me on having the Mind of Christ. Your trying to change the simplicity of the Scriptures shows you've left Christ's Word.
For mixing the Greek Manuscripts, so that you can pick and choose, you stand corrected!So brethren, it appears that the Scripture proof of a coming singular Antichrist at the end of this world has been established beyond all doubt. The OP is without Scripture witnesses, nor is any offered besides a 'play' on a couple of phrases in 2 Thessalonians 2. The OP's argument that the KJV "that Wicked" was a political ploy by the KJV translations is moot, simply because the Greek definite article "that" (ho-3588), and the Greek for "Wicked" (anomos-459) are there in the Greek manuscripts, establishing the singular tense of "that Wicked" being about a specific person, i.e., the coming Antichrist.
True. It means "man" in the plural, and refers to a succession of popes that are at the head of the papacy.I don't believe a hydra-headed monster is meant by "man" (singular). And that man cannot possibly be a pope.
The papacy is not just "a church" - it is the "church/state" union which is "diverse from the first", because it is a religio-political kingdom.Have you ever considered that Israel once was "a church", being "called out ones"?
.
Remember, a church is ALWAYS spoken of in the feminine gender, even if fallen. KJV- Acts 7:38
SDATrue. It means "man" in the plural, and refers to a succession of popes that are at the head of the papacy.
I can relate to that understanding, but a "church" (feminine) is not ever a "beast" (masculine).The papacy is not just "a church" - it is the "church/state" union which is "diverse from the first", because it is a religio-political kingdom.
"The only question remaining is whether "man" refers to a single man or a plurality of men."I'm saying you're research is unnecessary because whether the correct words are "that Wicked" or "the wicked" doesn't matter for they BOTH point to the subject of the passsage: the MAN OF SIN. The only question remaining is whether "man" refers to a single man or a plurality of men.
You didn't address my question, but ran it over with your own conclusion.The papacy is not just "a church" - it is the "church/state" union which is "diverse from the first", because it is a religio-political kingdom.
Hmmm...not so fast.True. It means "man" in the plural, and refers to a succession of popes that are at the head of the papacy.
CoreIssue, if you stop attributing to SDAs that which was MAINSTREAM PROTESTANT DENOMINATION DOCTRINE before there was ever such a thing as an SDA, that would be great.
It's very far removed from a simple adherence to local church activities summarized in Acts 2.41-42.The papacy is not just "a church" - it is the "church/state" union which is "diverse from the first", because it is a religio-political kingdom.
So also, were the Pharisees blown out of proportion, as to how the people of Israel were to worship God.It's very far removed from a simple adherence to local church activities summarized in Acts 2.41-42.
I like the way you critically analyze the details. We all could benefit greatly from not only shaking the fruit tree, but also climbing up to look behind the leaves and branches.I can relate to that understanding, but a "church" (feminine) is not ever a "beast" (masculine).
The Beast in KJV- Rev. "carries" the "fallen woman". She does not "ride" the beast as some believe.
In such a scenario for "carrying" the "fallen woman", the beast in control. If she was to "ride" the beast, the fallen woman would be in control.