The Coming Great Apostasy

[Earburner]

When I asked "can you say the same?" it was in reference to my statement that I only appeal to the Bible and accurate history (not papal revisionist history).

If you're going to include Maccabees, then you actually can't say the same thing I said, which was the Bible and history PERIOD.

Maccabees is HISTORY! Ask any Jew!

 

[SovereignGrace]

It appears to me the the anti-Christ is future and not Antiochus Epiphanes.

8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;[2 Thessalonians]

This lawless one is said to be destroyed by the Christ’s second advent.
> I have already factually proved that in the Textus Receptus Greek text, the word "that" is "the" , and the word "one" is an insertion BY the translators, as so identified in the TR Greek, by the use of brackets.
.
So legitimately, Thes. 2:8 should be read as such:
8 Then the lawless [_ _ _ ] will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;[2 Thessalonians].
Therefore, when 2:8 is correctly written, it is then able to fit with the plural nature of the context of that chapter.
So, in brief:
Error: "then that lawless one will be revealed...
Correct: "then the lawless will be revealed....

Even in the KJV, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 says and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

This is not about a group of ppl being exposed as false, but a man, namely, the antichrist.

 

[Earburner]

Even in the KJV, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 says and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

This is not about a group of ppl being exposed as false, but a man, namely, the antichrist.

I fully explained and proved the reasoning of that error. If you can't accept it, then know that you will be battling with your own indoctrination.
As I did say, Please go and read it

 

[SovereignGrace]

I fully explained and proved the reasoning of that error. If you can't accept it, then know that you will be battling with your own indoctrination.
As I did say, Please go and read it

Uh, no you didn’t. Just because you said you did doesn’t mean you did. I will now leave this thread and go elsewhere. Thank you, my friend, for the discussion.

 

[Earburner]

Uh, no you didn’t. Just because you said you did doesn’t mean you did. I will now leave this thread and go elsewhere. Thank you, my friend, for the discussion.

Uh, yes I DID!
You just can't escape or let go of your indoctrination.
Thank you for the discussion also.

 

[Earburner]

Reposted:
The outline of the 70 weeks:
Dan.9[24] Seventy weeks
1. are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
2. to finish the transgression, and
3. to make an end of sins, and
4. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
5. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
6. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
7. to anoint the most Holy.
.
Now, we can waste all sorts of time going over when this began, and forever split the hairs of setting times and date into oblivion, or we can just line ourselves up with what Jesus said about it!
John.5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
.
OK, here is a trick question:
Looking at the scripture, what is the focus on, concerning the 70 weeks?

Did I catch you sleeping already?
No! It's not about Jerusalem and the Jews!
It's about Jesus the Messiah!

Oh, and BTW, you will need to have a thorough understanding of the interpretations given by the angels in Daniel, and use 1 Maccabees for reference, by learning the importance of who Judas Maccabeus was, as described in Daniel.
If you have not read Daniel with 1 Maccabees yet, then what we shall study here, will encourage you to do so!

 

[Earburner]

One of my favorite quotes from those who served on the front lines in the Battle of the Bibles:

“Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping?”

Les Garett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? Christian Centre Press pg. 91-92

How emotionally charged you are, about those YOU think have "sympathies" for the RCC, has no bearing on me! I presented grammatical facts, and already you are speaking by inuendos of name calling.
I do not hope, for your sake, that you achieve better success "elsewhere", knocking down factual and truthful walls.

"There can always be more than one lie, but there can never be more than one truth"- Earburner

 

[Phoneman777]

Well, the early Church father Irenaeus interpreted that 'man of sin' as sitting in a physical temple in Jerusalem So I guess you disagree with many of the early Church fathers too.

No he didn't, and neither did the other ECFs. Please review this: Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

No matter, because it is impossible for Paul's "temple of God" to mean anything other than the traditional temple in Jerusalem

So, God considers a future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem in which the sacrifices offered therein would be an official, national, Jewish rejection of the sacrifice of God's beloved Son, and a collective Jewish middle finger in the face of the Almighty...the "temple of God"? And not only considers it such, but directs His prophets and His faithful to consider it as such too? Or is the "temple of God" the church, ESPECIALLY when Paul uses the word "temple" (Gr. "naos") over and over when referring to the church?

Anyone who tries to corrupt the spiritual temple is simply cut off from it, as any true Christian should be able to fathom.

There's too many warnings for us to heed concerning infiltration into the temple of God from without to allow that statement to stand as true. The devil and his angels are the most faithful church attendees the world has ever seen.

Thus understanding Paul was speaking of a literal physical temple in Jerusalem for the end, with that 'man of sin' coming to play God in it, is not an assumption.

It's total assumption. Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Jerome, and anyone else who had anything to say about the Restrainer all agreed that when Paul said he told the Thessalonians who it was that was holding back the rise of the Man of Sin, they all said that he was talking about the Roman Empire, as the above link points out. It would be total idiocy for Irenaeus to believe the Restrainer is the Roman Empire, but then not expect the Man of Sin to arise down at the end of time.

Furthermore, I have already covered in previous posts the 1 John 2:18 Scripture where John mentioned both a singular "antichrist", and the idea of the "many antichrists". I even showed how that is the same teaching our Lord Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse when Jesus warned of 'many' coming in His name only saying... they are Christ (Matt.24:4-5), which is John's idea of the "many antichrists". Then later in that same chapter, our Lord Jesus revealed the coming of a singular antichrist working great signs and wonders that if possible would deceive even His very elect. And that is John's idea of the antichrist the brethren had already heard shall come.

I didn't see that post. But what I do see is that "Anti-" means "in place of", "instead of", "in behalf of", "for" - and "Christos" means "Christ". Does the papacy claim to be just that? The make it their boast.

In 2 Thess.2, Apostle Paul gave the same info, as he warned of the coming singular antichrist first associated with the falling away event, and then he mentioned the "mystery of iniquity" already being at work, which is John's "many antichrists" already at work.

Yes, Paul said there'd be a great apostasy before the coming of Jesus, which was when the papacy took over the Christian church and ran the truth into the ground for over a thousand years.

Paul said that this great apostasy would be orchestrated by the "man of sin, the son of perdition" who would exalt himself above God and seek worship for himself. Did the papacy do that. Brother, just google the blasphemous claims the papacy makes about the pope and priests.

Paul said this man of sin wouldn't rise until the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, and when the Caesars vacated the throne, the Bishops of Rome sat down in their place and almost destroyed the church if not for the mercy of God and His Protestant Reformation.

And here's a little list to make that more plain that all 3 are the same Message...

1 John 2:18-
1. they heard that "antichrist" shall come -- a singular Antichrist
2. "many antichrists" already at work -- Antichrist's servants already at work in the world, i.e., like the tares of Matt.13. Start with Cain, the first murderer; that's how long they've been at work.

Murder doesn't make you "Antichrist". Claiming His prerogatives, His names, His titles, His authority is what make one Antichrist, which the papacy boasts as theirs.

Matthew 24 - 1. verses 4-5 - many that come saying they are Christ. The "many antichrists".
2. verses 23-26 - the singular antichrist coming with supernatural power to deceive the whole world into believing he is Christ.

Did you never read about the many signs and lying wonders of the papacy? They are totally devoid of truth, so such "miracles" are necessary to convince their poor gullible, Biblically illiterate faithful that the pope is God's chosen leader and the catholic church His flock.

There is no such word as "restrainer" in the manuscripts of 2 Thess.2. The idea of restraining as a verb is used in several English translations; the KJV uses the idea of "withholdeth". Certain traditions use that "restrainer" word in their preaching, like those on a Pre-trib Rapture theory. In reality then, you're stance on that terminology as a Futurist.

I only use that term so that Futurists like yourself will know what I'm talking about, instead of the lesser known "lettether" or "withholder". The fact remains that Paul told the early church through the Thessalonians that what was preventing the rise of the man of sin was the Roman Empire.

Why can't you accept that?

Why do Futurists like yourself dismiss the remarkable unanimity with which the ECF agreed regarding the identity of the Restrainer - the Roman Empire - as not worthy of even the least investigation?

The one who is withholding that Paul spoke of, is most likely Archangel Michael.

Two problems with that:

1) Paul plainly says he told the Thessalonians who the Restrainer was - THE EARLY CHURCH KNEW FULL WELL THE IDENTITY - yet, not one shred of documentation from the ECFs testifying to that, or anything else other than what they did testify to - that it was the Roman Empire. Paul didn't write it in his 2nd letter because just thing of all the Christians that the Caesars would go and make all dead if they got hold of a letter from Paul saying, "Oh, btw, saints, as soon as the PAGAN ROMAN EMPIRE goes down, the Man of Sin is coming up". Anyone familiar with history knows the quickest way to lose your head in those days was to say something about the end of the king and his kingdom.

2) If it's true that the Holy Spirit filled church (I'm aware you said you're post-trib) or some other agent of holiness like Michael is the Restrainer, WHY WAS PAUL SO SECRETIVE ABOUT THAT? God wants us to reason, right? What better way to encourage the early, fledgling, persecuted church than to tell them (and us) the good news that "although the world seems dark and cruel to us as Christians, lift up your heads, for Michael has his celestial boot firmly on the neck of the Man of Sin, and won't let his rise up on this Earth until he says so", right? Why would Paul who never failed to preached Christ from the guttermost to the uttermost many times at great peril to his life suddenly become all mysterious and secretive about the Restrainer's identity? Does that sound reasonable? Please don't appeal to "His ways are higher than our ways", let's stick to what we know, which is Paul was the most intrepid orator of the Gospel who ever lived - he was consumed with Christ and His truth, yet he gets tripped all up when writing to the Thess?

I guess you missed my quote from Irenaeus where he spoke of the coming of the Antichrist in the last days to sit in a physical temple in Jerusalem (see Against Heresies, Book V).

I've reviewed Against Heresies and all I've seen is Irenaeus agree with the other ECFs.

 

[Earburner]

No he didn't, and neither did the other ECFs. Please review this: Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

So, God considers a future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem in which the sacrifices offered therein would be an official, national, Jewish rejection of the sacrifice of God's beloved Son, and a collective Jewish middle finger in the face of the Almighty...the "temple of God"? And not only considers it such, but directs His prophets and His faithful to consider it as such too? Or is the "temple of God" the church, ESPECIALLY when Paul uses the word "temple" (Gr. "naos") over and over when referring to the church?
There's too many warnings for us to heed concerning infiltration into the temple of God from without to allow that statement to stand as true. The devil and his angels are the most faithful church attendees the world has ever seen.
It's total assumption. Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Jerome, and anyone else who had anything to say about the Restrainer all agreed that when Paul said he told the Thessalonians who it was that was holding back the rise of the Man of Sin, they all said that he was talking about the Roman Empire, as the above link points out. It would be total idiocy for Irenaeus to say the Man of Sin was the Roman Empire holding back that rise, believe Paul's words that it would rise when taken out of the way, but then look for the Man of Sin to occupy a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem over 2,000 years later.
I didn't see that post. But what I do see is that "Anti-" means "in place of", "instead of", "in behalf of", "for" - and "Christos" means "Christ". Does the papacy claim to be just that? The make it their boast.
Yes, Paul said there'd be a great apostasy before the coming of Jesus, which was when the papacy took over the Christian church and ran the truth into the ground for over a thousand years.

Paul said that this great apostasy would be orchestrated by the "man of sin, the son of perdition" who would exalt himself above God and seek worship for himself. Did the papacy do that. Brother, just google the blasphemous claims the papacy makes about the pope and priests.

Paul said this man of sin wouldn't rise until the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, and when the Caesars vacated the throne, the Bishops of Rome sat down in their place and almost destroyed the church if not for the mercy of God and His Protestant Reformation.
Murder doesn't make you "Antichrist". Claiming His prerogatives, His names, His titles, His authority is what make one Antichrist, which the papacy boasts as theirs.
Did you never read about the many signs and lying wonders of the papacy? They are totally devoid of truth, so such "miracles" are necessary to convince their poor gullible, Biblically illiterate faithful that the pope is God's chosen leader and the catholic church His flock.
I only use that term so that Futurists like yourself will know what I'm talking about, instead of the lesser known "lettether" or "withholder". The fact remains that Paul told the early church through the Thessalonians that what was preventing the rise of the man of sin was the Roman Empire.

Why can't you accept that?

Why do Futurists like yourself dismiss the remarkable unanimity with which the ECF agreed regarding the identity of the Restrainer - the Roman Empire - as not worthy of even the least investigation?

Two problems with that:

1) Paul plainly says he told the Thessalonians who the Restrainer was - THE EARLY CHURCH KNEW FULL WELL THE IDENTITY - yet, not one shred of documentation from the ECFs testifying to that, or anything else other than what they did testify to - that it was the Roman Empire. Paul didn't write it in his 2nd letter because just thing of all the Christians that the Caesars would go and make all dead if they got hold of a letter from Paul saying, "Oh, btw, saints, as soon as the PAGAN ROMAN EMPIRE goes down, the Man of Sin is coming up". Anyone familiar with history knows the quickest way to lose your head in those days was to say something about the end of the king and his kingdom.

2) If it's true that the Holy Spirit filled church (I'm aware you said you're post-trib) or some other agent of holiness like Michael is the Restrainer, WHY WAS PAUL SO SECRETIVE ABOUT THAT? God wants us to reason, right? What better way to encourage the early, fledgling, persecuted church than to tell them (and us) the good news that "although the world seems dark and cruel to us as Christians, lift up your heads, for Michael has his celestial boot firmly on the neck of the Man of Sin, and won't let his rise up on this Earth until he says so", right? Why would Paul who never failed to preached Christ from the guttermost to the uttermost many times at great peril to his life suddenly become all mysterious and secretive about the Restrainer's identity? Does that sound reasonable? Please don't appeal to "His ways are higher than our ways", let's stick to what we know, which is Paul was the most intrepid orator of the Gospel who ever lived - he was consumed with Christ and His truth, yet he gets tripped all up when writing to the Thess?
I've reviewed Against Heresies and all I've seen is Irenaeus agree with the other ECFs.

Again! ALL of the above, concerning what the ECFs believed about prophetic events, are as outdated as the Prophecies of Ellen G. White, or any other church pronouncement.
Tme is always moving us forward, and to sit in what was said yester-century, is to SIT IN concrete. Prophecy is progressive, and once fulfilled, it does not repeat!!

 

[Phoneman777]

Maccabees is HISTORY! Ask any Jew!

I know that - but only a small speck on the timeline.

 

[Phoneman777]

How emotionally charged you are, about those YOU think have "sympathies" for the RCC, has no bearing on me! I presented grammatical facts, and already you are speaking by inuendos of name calling.
I do not hope, for your sake, that you achieve better success "elsewhere", knocking down factual and truthful walls.

"There can always be more than one lie, but there can never be more than one truth"- Earburner

Since that comment wasn't for you, it seems that it is YOUR emotions that convinced you it was. Be that as it may, I assure you I'm one of the most left brain guys out there. That's why I was able to walk away from my former Jesuit ideas and embrace the truth.

 

[Phoneman777]

Again! ALL of the above, concerning what the ECFs believed about prophetic events, are as outdated as the Prophecies of Ellen G. White, or any other church pronouncement.
Tme is always moving us forward, and to sit in what was said yester-century, is to SIT IN concrete. Prophecy is progressive, and once fulfilled, it does not repeat!!

You sound like liberals who reject the Bible because "it's outdated" without offering any arguments against it. Just as well.

 

[Earburner]

Thanks for acknowledging that. Maccabees was written by the Jews in

I know that - but only a small speck on the timeline.

Since Israel was centrally involved with the AoD, that Jesus spoke of in Daniel, I strongly disagree that the history of Israel was a small speck.
You have not yet learned who "the holy people" were- Dan. 8:24 or who "the host of heaven" were- Dan. 8:10.

 

[Earburner]

Correction: 1 Maccabees was authored by a Jew in approx. 1st century. Though that which was written in Hebrew is mostly now lost, the Greek version remains somewhat in tact. In any case, that part of Jewish history is well known of by any Jew who is a student of Israeli history.

 

[Earburner]

You sound like liberals who reject the Bible because "it's outdated" without offering any arguments against it. Just as well.

I reject all bibles that are translated from the Westcott and Hort Greek text. I strongly support the Textus Receptus Greek text- KJV
Since all bibles are translations, it is the Greek text that spells the difference. Of all the bibles out there, the 1611-KJV Bible is the only one that does impose upon the reader, slanted religious terms or phrases.

 

[Earburner]

Since that comment wasn't for you, it seems that it is YOUR emotions that convinced you it was. Be that as it may, I assure you I'm one of the most left brain guys out there. That's why I was able to walk away from my former Jesuit ideas and embrace the truth.

I apologize for the misread.

 

[Earburner]

I reject all bibles that are translated from the Westcott and Hort Greek text. I strongly support the Textus Receptus Greek text- KJV
Since all bibles are translations, it is the Greek text that spells the difference. Of all the bibles out there, the 1611-KJV Bible is the only one that does impose upon the reader, slanted religious terms or phrases.

Correction: ...does not impose upon the reader...

 

[Earburner]

Reposted again:
The outline of the 70 weeks:
Dan.9[24] Seventy weeks
1. are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
2. to finish the transgression, and
3. to make an end of sins, and
4. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
5. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
6. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
7. to anoint the most Holy.
.
Now, we can waste all sorts of time going over when this began, and forever split the hairs of setting times and date into oblivion, or we can just line ourselves up with what Jesus said about it!
John.5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
.
OK, here is a trick question:
Looking at the scripture, what is the focus on, concerning the 70 weeks?

Did I catch you sleeping already?
No! It's not about Jerusalem and the Jews!
It's about Jesus the Messiah!

Oh, and BTW, you will need to have a thorough understanding of the interpretations given by the angels in Daniel, and use 1 Maccabees for reference, by learning the importance of who Judas Maccabeus was, as described in Daniel.
If you have not read Daniel with 1 Maccabees yet, then what we shall study here, will encourage you to do so!

 

[Earburner]

Since that comment wasn't for you, it seems that it is YOUR emotions that convinced you it was. Be that as it may, I assure you I'm one of the most left brain guys out there. That's why I was able to walk away from my former Jesuit ideas and embrace the truth.

You are only half way there to the truth. You only walked away from one pile of religious baggage, and exchanged it for other religious baggage.

 

[Davy]

So why do you make the words "the natural man" to be in the plural?
In the Greek, the word "the" in 1 Cor. 2:14 Is an insertion, as is the word "that" in 2 Thes. 2:8- "that" Wicked.
How much do you want to ignore the fact, that BOTH 1 Cor. 2:14 and 2 Thes. 2:8 ARE to be read and understood in the plural?

I don't know where you are getting the doctrine that Paul was speaking in the plural about the false one in 2 Thess.2 being revealed in his time. The Scripture is not supporting such a view. The context of the "man of sin" being revealed is in the singular, and that's who Paul was referring to with "that Wicked".

So your plural doctrine idea applied to that isn't coming from the Bible manuscripts either. It's a doctrine I've heard from some before, so you didn't think it up either. All you're presenting is confusion by trying to separate Paul's phrase "that Wicked" into a plural meaning when he was speaking of the singular "man of sin" who is to come and play God in Jerusalem.