The Coming Great Apostasy

[Earburner]

I understand foolishness when I see it. Your application of that 1 Cor.2:14 Scripture in no way will modify or change what Apostle Paul warned the Church in 2 Thess.2 about the Wicked one coming to sit in a temple in Jerusalem and exalt himself over all that is called God, or that is worshiped.

Now, that is REAL foolishness!!
So in your mind, there is no other temple, that you can think of, whereby "the natural man" sits in??
Think on this:
John 2[19] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
[20] Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
[21] But he spake of the temple of his body.

"Whosoever HATH NOT the Spirit of God, he is none of his." Rom. 8:9
If the Holy Spirit is NOT dwelling within a person, then who is dwelling within them?
Ans. THE man of sin, THE son of perdition, aka the natural man.

 

[Phoneman777]

The temple was destroyed in 70 AD because the Jews worshipped the temple rather than entering into a right relationship with God. Many believe that rebuilding the temple will enable the Jews to restore their relationship with God, but they will not be allowed to rebuild the temple because their is a new way/process to gain redemption from God.

It was the starting point of the visitation of their iniquities upon them where they had no means of offering up a sin sacrifice because the blood of the cross changed the process for repentance 40 years earlier, but they missed that being played out before them.

I agree that the AOD didn't happen in Daniel's day.

What I do know is that the AOD will happen in our distant future when Satan, the beast and the false prophet is released from the Bottomless pit after being imprisoned for 1,000 years during the little while period before the final time of judgement.

Shalom

I just realized i wrote "didnt' happen in Daniel's day". That's pretty obvious. What I meant was, didn't happen in Daniel's chapter 8 prophecy...which it is claimed was conducted by Antiochus Epiphenes. Since Daniel's and Jesus' words are so descriptive of what happened in 70 AD, it has to apply to that, but if we allow for the idea of "dual prophecy", then the AOD has end time application, as well. A textbook example of dual prophecy is "the return of Elijah", which Jesus said applied to both John the Baptist and also to the end time people of God preaching what Elijah preached: the message of revival and reformation.

 

[Phoneman777]

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.

Nope, I've been trying to find something wrong with the message for a long time and so far I've not turned up anything. With regard to YOUR Jesuit beliefs, I assure you that they're not Biblical.

 

[Earburner]

Well, at least we agree on that!

Amen!!
Along with my post, I sent a correction:
"...the 1611-KJV Bible is the only one that does NOT impose upon the reader, slanted religious terms or phrases."
Thanks, Earburner
.
BTW, most christians are not aware of how much they are being duped by "religious" phrases and terminology, that is being used in "religious speak".
.
For example, in the KJV, you will NOT find the terms such as "The Rapture", "The Great Tribulation", "The Antichrist", "The Millennium", etc.
All of those terms, put a religious spin on a topic, that manipulates a believer to think in a certain and specific way about them.
.
The KJV Bible never says "The Antichrist" , but God forbid that one should address it differently, than what their "religious speak" tells them.

 

[Willie T]

Amen!!
Along with my post, I sent a correction:
"...the 1611-KJV Bible is the only one that does NOT impose upon the reader, slanted religious terms or phrases."
Thanks, Earburner
.
BTW, most christians are not aware of how much they are being duped by "religious" phrases and terminology, that is being used in "religious speak".
.
For example, in the KJV, you will NOT find the terms such as "The Rapture", "The Great Tribulation", "The Antichrist", "The Millennium", etc.
All of those terms, put a religious spin on a topic, that manipulates a believer to think in a certain and specific way about them.
.
The KJV Bible never says "The Antichrist" , but God forbid that one should address it differently, than what their "religious speak" tells them.

Wow! Do I ever agree with all the things that somehow got "THE" stuck in front of them to try and make them a specific religious happening. It is complete gaslighting of a gullible Christianity.

 

[Earburner]

I just realized i wrote "didnt' happen in Daniel's day". That's pretty obvious. What I meant was, didn't happen in Daniel's chapter 8 prophecy...which it is claimed was conducted by Antiochus Epiphenes. Since Daniel's and Jesus' words are so descriptive of what happened in 70 AD, it has to apply to that, but if we allow for the idea of "dual prophecy", then the AOD has end time application, as well. A textbook example of dual prophecy is "the return of Elijah", which Jesus said applied to both John the Baptist and also to the end time people of God preaching what Elijah preached: the message of revival and reformation.

I believe that account that Luke gave, is the most telling and most accurate of what took place in 70AD as being completely fulfilled.
Luke 19[41] And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
[42] Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
[43] For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
[44] And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

 

[Earburner]

Wow! Do I ever agree with all the things that somehow got "THE" stuck in front of them to try and make them a specific religious happening. It is complete gaslighting of a gullible Christianity.

Amen! The Lord's Holy Spirit is speaking to you, and not the religion of men. Isa. 55:8-9; John 16:13

 

[Jay Ross]

Wow! Do I ever agree with all the things that somehow got "THE" stuck in front of them to try and make them a specific religious happening. It is complete gaslighting of a gullible Christianity.

A gas engineer claim just after the electric light bulb had been invented, that the electric light bulb would not amount to anything. How wrong he was.

 

[Earburner]

A gas engineer claim just after the electric light bulb had been invented, that the electric light bulb would not amount to anything. How wrong he was.

It's apparent that the "tares" won't amount to anything either. How right He is.

 

[Earburner]

Nope, I've been trying to find something wrong with the message for a long time and so far I've not turned up anything. With regard to YOUR Jesuit beliefs, I assure you that they're not Biblical.

My Jesuit beliefs??
Why? Because I KNOW that the Lord Jesus is my "rest" (sabbath) 24/7, and not 24/1.

 

[Earburner]

Don't have to try and redo everything the KJV translators gave there in 2 Thess.2. It's a simple matter to follow the context, because even the context in the Greek of 2 Thess.2:9 which Jesus comes to destroy reveals Paul was speaking of a singular false one.

KJV with Textus Receptus Greek corrections:
2Thes.2
[1] Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
[2] That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
[3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and [the] man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
[4] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
[5] Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
[6] And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
[7] For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
[8] And then shall [the] wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
[9] [_ _ _ _ ] [_ _ _ ] whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
[10] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
[12] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
.
> All of the above can be read and understood in the plural, when correctly translated from the TR Greek.
Unfortunately, it does appear that the translators did have an agenda in 1611.
Since the KJV Bible did come to be, right in the midst of the Protestant Reformation, the Pope couldn't help but be, the most notable candidate, for their fabrication of an antichrist.
A little word manipulation, and there it (he) is, the most hated singular non-entity in the world.
I just know that some day, I will meet old st, nick too!

 

[Phoneman777]

But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds,

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

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

While I hate to agree with Rome on anything, facts are facts. And it is fact that the ECFs looked for the Antichrist "man of sin" to arise as soon as the Roman Empire fell based on what Paul told the early church and what teaching became associated with Paul's words on the same. If you'd like more proof of their belief that the Roman Empire was the Restrainer - not some current agent of holiness - check out this link:
Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

There we go with that word fallacy operation Judaizers like to try and use against God's Word, in attempt to change the context of the Scripture. Greek 'naos' for the KJV word "temple" is the same word the Gospel uses when Jesus described the physical temple at Jerusalem.

Your doctrine on that sole word does not change it into always meaning the spiritual temple idea in Ephesians. Even with Paul's spiritual temple idea in Ephesians 2, it is still about the idea of a temple that is sacred, only it is applied in the spiritual sense there. One cannot just go slapping that connotation on every use of the word temple, for that is foolishness, and that's what you've tried to do.

All this doesn't change the fact that Paul referred to the church symbolically as a "temple" (Gr. "naos"), the same exact word that he uses when describing the "temple (Gr. "naos") of God" in 2 Thessalonians. Since no building in which the animal sacrifices offered would be an official rejection of the Lamb of God and a middle finger in His face would ever be considered by God to be "of God", we find that my idea stands while yours must be abandoned.

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

 

[Phoneman777]

No, no pope has ever fulfilled that 2 Thess.2 prophecy. Reason is because no pope has ever sat in a physical temple in Jerusalem and exalted himself over all that is called God, or that is worshiped.

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

Also, even though Lord Jesus called Judas who betrayed Him as a "son of perdition"

He's called "son of perdition" and so is the man of sin, so we should look for similarities between Judas and the Man of Sin:

• rise from within the church
• claims to embrace Christ and His doctrine
• under cover of darkness opposes Christ/the saints
• ultimately commits full blown apostasy
• betrays Christ with a kiss

There is no other institution that will ever grace the topside of the Earth whose modus operandi more closely resembles the work of Judas than the papacy.

 

[Phoneman777]

Paul said no such thing about the Roman Empire being taken away in 2 Thess.2. That is a doctrine from men, and not what Paul was pointing to. Paul's idea was about the false one of verse 3 & 4 being revealed in his time (2 Thess.2:6). Paul's context is about that false one being withheld until it's time for his being revealed sitting in a temple in Jerusalem.

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

That is the event Paul was pointing to. It's when Archangel Michael makes a stand in Heaven against Satan and his angels, and then Satan and his angels are cast out of Heaven, just like Revelation 12:7-9 does declare by Apostle John from Lord Jesus.

You still have yet to answer these challenges to your objections that Paul didn't say who was the Restrainer because he knew saying "the Roman Empire is going down and the man of sin is going up" would be instant death to Christianity if the authorities found out:

There's no reason for him to conceal the restrainer is an agent of holiness.
To do so is so out of character of Paul it makes the church question his mental state.
To deny the early church such encouraging news about the might and power of God over the man of sin is a disservice to the church.
Every ECF said Paul told the early church the restrainer was Pagan Rome.
Not even a shred of evidence that the ECFs identified the restrainer as an agent of holiness.

Do you have any evidence that makes the above points plausibly deniable?

 

[Phoneman777]

I believe that account that Luke gave, is the most telling and most accurate of what took place in 70AD as being completely fulfilled.
Luke 19[41] And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
[42] Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
[43] For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
[44] And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

How does any of this establish that Antiochus' pork BBQ was the AOD when I've shown you that it had yet to happen even when Jesus was here?

 

[Phoneman777]

My Jesuit beliefs??
Why? Because I KNOW that the Lord Jesus is my "rest" (sabbath) 24/7, and not 24/1.

The commandment is to work six days and rest the seventh. If you're resting everyday, you're not holy, you're lazy.

 

[Earburner]

I

The papacy is the man of sin because the temple over which it sits is the the church. By your refusal to condemn its professed authority, you sanction it.
He's called "son of perdition" and so is the man of sin, so we should look for similarities between Judas and the Man of Sin:

• rise from within the church
• claims to embrace Christ and His doctrine
• under cover of darkness opposes Christ/the saints
• ultimately commits full blown apostasy
• betrays Christ with a kiss

There is no other institution that will ever grace the topside of the Earth whose modus operandi more closely resembles the work of Judas than the papacy.

When he [satan] speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44

1. Before you came to faith in Jesus, were you a man of sin, or a man of God's Righteousness?

2. Pending your answer to my first question, were you the son of destruction, or the son of salvation?

3. How you answered the above, determines who your father was, prior to coming to Christ in faith.

4. The results of your situation of belief or unbelief, is casted in the following:

How does any of this establish that Antiochus' pork BBQ was the AOD when I've shown you that it had yet to happen even when Jesus was here?

The commandment is to work six days and rest the seventh. If you're resting everyday, you're not holy, you're lazy.

The sabbath observance is not that which makes one holy! The presence of Christ within us makes us to be Holy, before God the Father.
John.3[18] He that believeth on him
is not condemned [will not be destroyed]:
Aka- IS HOLY!

but he that believeth not
is condemned already, [will be destroyed]
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Aka- IS NOT HOLY!
.
Do you not understand?
Col.3
[1] If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
[2] Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
[3] For ye are dead, and your life is HID with Christ in God.

That which is made to be Holy, cannot be destroyed!

 

[bbyrd009]

Thanks for pointing this out. This phrase "temple at Jerusalem" could be symbolic as much as Paul referring to the church as "the Israel of God"

I agree, even if you seem to be comparing the two whereas I would contrast them, iow I would maybe consider "temple at Jerusalem" might be trying to say "Roman Catholic Church" in our particular lexicon, as maybe bad as that sounds at first. Temple at Jerusalem was, after all, razed to the ground right after we read there about it, right.

And Catholics pls understand I use RCC there strictly as a symbol, and as easily any Prot Principality might be inserted.

 

[Earburner]

How does any of this establish that Antiochus' pork BBQ was the AOD when I've shown you that it had yet to happen even when Jesus was here?

AoD- listen to the words of how it was described in Daniel-KJV:
Dan.11[31] And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place [set up] the abomination that maketh desolate (strongs- 8074- to devastate, waste, destroy)

Dan.12[11] And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up [placed], there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
.
> Those words declare that It is the abomination that "maketh" causes to make something desolate.

Jesus told the Jews:
Luke.13[35] Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
> So, the question remains, What was the abomination, that made (caused) the house (of Israel) to be desolate?
Let's go back to Daniel in ch. 9
[27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation,...
> Question: who is being spoken of, as being "he" in that verse?
Was it Jesus, or the Roman commander Titus in 70AD.

 

[bbyrd009]

Better to read what Irenaeus himself actually said:

Irenaeus:
4. "But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as "he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition,"(1) as one who has no existence; so neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed. But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (Against Heresies, book 5.30.4)




There we go with that word fallacy operation Judaizers like to try and use against God's Word, in attempt to change the context of the Scripture. Greek 'naos' for the KJV word "temple" is the same word the Gospel uses when Jesus described the physical temple at Jerusalem.

Your doctrine on that sole word does not change it into always meaning the spiritual temple idea in Ephesians. Even with Paul's spiritual temple idea in Ephesians 2, it is still about the idea of a temple that is sacred, only it is applied in the spiritual sense there. One cannot just go slapping that connotation on every use of the word temple, for that is foolishness, and that's what you've tried to do.

Irenaeus' own words show he understood the "temple of God" in 2 Thess.2:4 as a literal physical temple in Jerusalem for the end.

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