The REAL "man of sin"

[Zao is life]

The Temple was being measured because it was new.

Paul was mentioning this new Temple as led by the Holy Spirit.

Paul never wrote Revelation.

Satan is not omnipresent and cannot sit in the body of many believers.

Of course not. The man of sin is one man. He's not omnipresent either. Niether does Satan sit in any believer. There's no point in that statement.

The church is not identified as having a central authority over the entire earth.

But the harlot is.

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."

Those verses never say the tabernacle was in heaven.

Neither does Revelation 11:1-2. Rev.13:7 says he will make war against the saints. Collectively that's the temple - the same temple which John is told to measure in Revelation 11:1-2. New Jerusalem is the holy city. The one the saints dwell in:

But you have come to Mount Zion
and to the city of the living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable company of angels,
to the general assembly and church of the first-born
who are written in Heaven,
and to God the judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
(Hebrews 12:22-24)​

You are mixing up and conflating the church with some organized religion that may or may not have a central governmental body.

No I'm not. You are mixing up and conflating the collective body of the saints with the harlot.

The Mormans have a central authority. The RCC operates out of the Vatican. Even some Protestant groups have a central authority. The Church herself is simply a group of local believers.

Religion is represented in Revelation as the whore. Religion is symbolically destroyed by the ten horns or kings without a kingdom.

No problem there, except that the destruction of the harlot is not symbolic, it's literal - but it does not disprove anything I said, which you started off trying to argue against, but you've forgotten what your post was about by the time you get to what you say below, because below you've turned off the road and driven up your mountain covered with clouds to show us the lofty view you see through the clouds from up there (I never said anything about the false prophet):

This mention of a false prophet in these verses you quote from Revelation 13 is not about religion nor the church. It is about the removal of God and religion in totality from the earth. It is Satan worship and the worship of Satan's accomplishments.

Which is religion - worship of the beast and the dragon that gives the beast his power, seat and authority, is religion.

OK now you came back below:

Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 is not even talking about any human. That is the point.

No, that's your point. Your point doesn't equate with the actual truth of the identity of the MAN of sin. The word man sounds human to me. He's also called the same thing Jesus called Judas Iscariot - who was a man - the son of perdition.

The rest below is the pictures you've taken from your lofty mountain view blocked by clouds:

Paul is talking about Satan sitting on the throne Jesus set up in the Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus set up.

The Temple is this place where Jesus as King and as God is now sitting in authority over all nations, according the the 7th Trumpet.

So according to what you say above, Jesus has returned, and (according to you) a temple has been erected in Jerusalem, Jesus is seated as King on His throne in that temple, and then the man of sin somehow winds up on that throne instead of Jesus. Where did Jesus go?

Oh I see, above is where your post gets into the area of your guess-work, which continues below:

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

This is still in regards to the Temple mentioned in verse 1. It was given that after this declaration in verse 15, there is still the possibility that the Gentiles would still trample the courtyard 42 months after the 7th Trumpet has sounded. Certainly they had not been trampling 42 months prior to the 7th Trumpet sounding.

OK that's as far as I can go because you've gone into your own private interpretations now. By now you've made me forget what my post was about that you began your post by arguing against. Sorry Tim, but the rest is just not something I want to spend time on. There's almost no truth n it at all. In any case I'm out of this thread after this post.

Interpretation is consistent between Paul and John they are both talking about the authority given to Satan who is this "man of sin" and goes into perdition.

I have a slightly different take on Satan being "bound" in the first century. I think Satan walked more openly and freely and those interacting with Satan knew he was a literal angel of God. Others may have just seen him as another male on earth. But the first coming and the Gospel placed Satan in a self imposed moratorium. If Satan walked around freely with authority that would legitimize the Gospel, Jesus, and God. Every point Satan is trying to eradicate from human understanding. So Satan worked behind the scenes, with religion and knowledge, known as science. Thus he has succeeded in removing what humans accept as truth as far from God's Word as possible, and even the church has been decieved.

John even pointed out that Pergamos was Satan's seat of authority. Interestingly the land was sold by a Greek king to a Roman ruler when Greece was ending as the third beast of Daniel and the 4th beast was taking over, Rome. So Satan is symbolized as the beast that was and is not, and will come out of the pit, again to freely walk about among humans. The reason being that Jesus and the angels are also on the earth, and Satan does not need to make people think he does not exist.

The other point about 2 Thessalonians 2 and the wrong claim, about some AC, is the timing.

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 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."

Two distinct points of reference: the Second Coming and the Day of Christ.

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come."

The day of Christ is the entire reign of authority as King. The Second Coming is the means of Jesus accomplishing this rule on earth, by coming to the earth.

Even some pre-mill state this is the last day of the earth, but imply the last "24 hour" day.

Paul is consistent with John that Satan will be ousted prior to the 1,000 year reign, not the Second Coming. It will be the Second Coming and the removal of spiritual blindness that allows Satan to come out of hiding.

One can argue interpretation based on bias. But the bias would be both ways. Many explain away the day of Christ or the Day of the Lord. I embrace the Day.

 

[Timtofly]

No I'm not.

That is exactly how you interpret 2 Thessalonians 2. Unless you think Paul is talking about the Heavenly Temple.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Paul's (Man Of Sin) will be a future literal human man, of Jewish-Hebrew decent

Not going to happen.

2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4

• "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
• who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
• shewing himself that he is God."

The sinful man is seen here in a portrait of a false Christ 'because' he positions himself sitting (signifying ruling) in the Holy Temple of God as if he were God. He is by implication substituting his words for God's word. He is thus the disobedient, the lawless man, the man of sin. For the true Christian, Jesus Christ is the Living Word who rules in the Temple. If man in the spirit of antichrist substitutes his own rules (laws) for God's, he has by the spirit of Antichrist made himself ruler in the Temple. He doesn't have to literally say I am Christ the ruling king, he makes himself the ruler and false Christ by usurping the authority of Christ. By his disobedience to God's laws, He is the man of lawlessness[1]. God illustrates throughout His word that an Antichrist is more than someone who verbally denies Christ in the flesh, he is one who denies Christ by His works. Think about it, why would someone who denies Christ literally or verbally, be ruling in the churches? God's servants would be aware of that and he would deceive no one in the church. That would be an Atheist, and it would make no sense for him to rule the church. On the other hand, it is he that claims to be serving Christ, and yet rationalizes away God's word and cleverly twists God's word, and stealthily removes God's word, that will deceive the church. That's the man of sin's strong delusion, that's the great deception, that's the clever misrepresentation that will seduce an unfaithful congregation. Not an atheist, but an antichrist, a man ruling in place of Christ. It is one who denies the authority of God's law by chicanery substituting his own interpretations, rules and words for God's. Dear souls, it is incumbent upon God's children to examine the 'substitute' aspect of this word as Antichrist. For example, when Christ warns, "for many shall come in My name saying I am Christ and shall deceive many -Matt. 24:5," He wasn't talking about a few mentally deranged individuals who might think or literally claim that they are Christ. At best these could deceive only a few gullible people. Christ was talking about the 'many' antichrists who come looking like a Lamb, but speaking like a Dragon. Many false Christs that praise the Lord with their lips, while they have their own authorities, and are substituting themselves as the rulers of Churches, in opposition to God's divine word. They indeed are not a few deranged individuals, but are the many wolves in sheep's clothing who indeed deceive many "exactly" as prophesied. Show me a man who literally says, "I am Christ," and I'll show you a man who is almost universally mocked, who can at best deceive few. But show me a man of lawlessness in the church, with deceiving lips causing many to fall away from the inerrant authority of the Word, and I'll show you Antichrist. I'll show you the man of sin ruling in the Temple of God 'as if' he was God. I'll will show you the false prophet and the false Christ. A church body that is not ruled by Christ (the word), is ruled by man. Many will be deceived and believe that this is the Christ.

Mark 13:21-23

• "And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
• For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
• But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things."

These false Christs that rise are showing great signs, signifying that they are of Christ, and our Lord says that they will be so convincing that it might even deceive the very elect of God if that were possible. Obviously it is not a few lunatics thinking they are literally Christ, it is Pastors, Ministers, Theologians and other church rulers convincing thousands upon thousands that their rule is in love and sanctioned by God. They substitute their beliefs for His laws, and man's word for His works, and they substitute their sentiments for His commandments, and for His will they substitute their own will. These are the only false Christs who can deceive so greatly and so convincingly that they would even deceive the very elect if they were not divinely sealed by the Spirit of promise. This lawless man ruling in the Temple as if he was God, can only be recognized as such by those possessing the Spirit of truth.

Stop searching for one man, instead, "He who hath an ear, let him hear."

 

[Hobie]

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

Ephesians 2:21-22
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:4
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.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

Very eye opening, we see the 'temple' was also that of spiritual belief, which the corruption of the 'man of sin' would bring.

 

[Truth7t7]

Not going to happen.

2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4

• "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
• who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
• shewing himself that he is God."

The sinful man is seen here in a portrait of a false Christ 'because' he positions himself sitting (signifying ruling) in the Holy Temple of God as if he were God. He is by implication substituting his words for God's word. He is thus the disobedient, the lawless man, the man of sin. For the true Christian, Jesus Christ is the Living Word who rules in the Temple. If man in the spirit of antichrist substitutes his own rules (laws) for God's, he has by the spirit of Antichrist made himself ruler in the Temple. He doesn't have to literally say I am Christ the ruling king, he makes himself the ruler and false Christ by usurping the authority of Christ. By his disobedience to God's laws, He is the man of lawlessness[1]. God illustrates throughout His word that an Antichrist is more than someone who verbally denies Christ in the flesh, he is one who denies Christ by His works. Think about it, why would someone who denies Christ literally or verbally, be ruling in the churches? God's servants would be aware of that and he would deceive no one in the church. That would be an Atheist, and it would make no sense for him to rule the church. On the other hand, it is he that claims to be serving Christ, and yet rationalizes away God's word and cleverly twists God's word, and stealthily removes God's word, that will deceive the church. That's the man of sin's strong delusion, that's the great deception, that's the clever misrepresentation that will seduce an unfaithful congregation. Not an atheist, but an antichrist, a man ruling in place of Christ. It is one who denies the authority of God's law by chicanery substituting his own interpretations, rules and words for God's. Dear souls, it is incumbent upon God's children to examine the 'substitute' aspect of this word as Antichrist. For example, when Christ warns, "for many shall come in My name saying I am Christ and shall deceive many -Matt. 24:5," He wasn't talking about a few mentally deranged individuals who might think or literally claim that they are Christ. At best these could deceive only a few gullible people. Christ was talking about the 'many' antichrists who come looking like a Lamb, but speaking like a Dragon. Many false Christs that praise the Lord with their lips, while they have their own authorities, and are substituting themselves as the rulers of Churches, in opposition to God's divine word. They indeed are not a few deranged individuals, but are the many wolves in sheep's clothing who indeed deceive many "exactly" as prophesied. Show me a man who literally says, "I am Christ," and I'll show you a man who is almost universally mocked, who can at best deceive few. But show me a man of lawlessness in the church, with deceiving lips causing many to fall away from the inerrant authority of the Word, and I'll show you Antichrist. I'll show you the man of sin ruling in the Temple of God 'as if' he was God. I'll will show you the false prophet and the false Christ. A church body that is not ruled by Christ (the word), is ruled by man. Many will be deceived and believe that this is the Christ.

Mark 13:21-23

• "And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
• For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
• But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things."

These false Christs that rise are showing great signs, signifying that they are of Christ, and our Lord says that they will be so convincing that it might even deceive the very elect of God if that were possible. Obviously it is not a few lunatics thinking they are literally Christ, it is Pastors, Ministers, Theologians and other church rulers convincing thousands upon thousands that their rule is in love and sanctioned by God. They substitute their beliefs for His laws, and man's word for His works, and they substitute their sentiments for His commandments, and for His will they substitute their own will. These are the only false Christs who can deceive so greatly and so convincingly that they would even deceive the very elect if they were not divinely sealed by the Spirit of promise. This lawless man ruling in the Temple as if he was God, can only be recognized as such by those possessing the Spirit of truth.

Stop searching for one man, instead, "He who hath an ear, let him hear."

I disagree with your claims of symbolic allegory trying to remove the future physical literal

Scripture clearly teaches that (Daniel's Little Horn) (Paul's Man Of Sin) (John's The Beast) will be the same future individual living human man, that will have a human body that dies

 

[TribulationSigns]

I disagree with your claims of symbolic allegory trying to remove the future physical literal

Scripture clearly teaches that (Daniel's Little Horn) (Paul's Man Of Sin) (John's The Beast) will be the same future individual living human man, that will have a human body that dies

LOL. Good luck with finding your fantasy man like many false prophets before you. Your interpretation is all mess up because it’s based on speculation of men looking for a single man to fit your flawed doctrine.

For example,

Beast = one man
Little horn = one man
Man of sin = one man

The Bible doesn't say that. Man did.

 

[Davy]

I said according to your post, what Antiochus IV did was impossible, because God's sanctuary where the Holy Spirit met with His people could not be defiled, according to what you said in your post.

I NEVER SAID any such idea as the above about Antiochus. I pointed to the "abomination of desolation" event Jesus quoted being about what the future coming final Antichrist will do at the end of this world.

And of course you'd like to report posts of rebuke against your false teaching, because it just puts you in a bad light, doesn't it?


For my Christian brethren:
The subject of Antiochus IV (or Epiphanes), that Fullness of the Gentiles is trying to push here is Preterist doctrines of men.

Men's doctrines of Preterism treats what Antiochus IV did in 165 B.C. Jerusalem with spiritually desolating the 2nd temple as being what the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus quoted in His Olivet discourse is about, thus wrongly pushing that event into past history. But you have to sharpen up just a little to catch the difference with what Jesus said in Matthew 24:15, because Jesus quoted the "abomination of desolation" event from the Book of Daniel about 200 years after... Antiochus IV had been dead!

So how... in the world could the "abomination of desolation" event of Daniel 11:31 apply to Antiochus IV in 165-170 B.C., if Jesus quoted that from Daniel 11 two hundred years later?! ? It's so easy... to know that men's false Preterist doctrines are simply telling a LIE with claiming Antiochus IV already fulled it. It just requires one to think a little bit.

Now per the Jewish historian Josephus (100 A.D.), he did record that Antiochus IV took Jerusalem with an army, went inside the 2nd temple and spiritually desolated it by sacrificing swine on the altar, and setting up an idol to Zeus, and demanding all to bow to it. Antiochus IV did that in 170 B.C. though, and was already dead by the time of Jesus' 1st coming when Jesus quoted the "abomination of desolation" event from Daniel 11 and Daniel 9:27, while giving the main SIGNS of the end which are the Seals of Rev.6.

Thus Antiochus IV served as 'blueprint' for the FUTURE "abomination of desolation" IDOL event placed inside a JEWISH stone temple in Jerusalem for the END.

 

[Davy]

Also by the way... there have been 27 sieges of Jerusalem in past history. There will be a final 28th one at the time of the END when Jesus returns. The following is a list documented by the 19th century Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger...

1. "By the tribe of Judah against the Jebusites, about 1443 B.C. This was some 700 years before Rome was founded. It was only partial, for in David's reign we still find the Jebusites occupying the citadel (the future Zion). The solemn words in Judg. 1:8, describing this first siege, vividly portray the after history of the city.
   
2. By David against the Jebusites (2Sam. 5:6-10; 1Chron. 11:4-7), about 960 B.C.
   
3. By Shishak king of Egypt, against Rehoboam (1Kings 14:25, 26. 2Chron. 12:2-12), about 875 B.C. To this there was only a feeble resistance; and the Temple was plundered.
   
4. By the Philistines, Arabians, and Ethiopians, against Jehoram (2Chron. 21:16, 17), about 794 B.C. In this siege the royal palace was sacked, and the Temple again plundered.
   
5. By Jehoash king of Israel, against Amaziah king of Judah (2Kings 14:13, 14), about 739 B.C. The wall was partially broken down, and the city and Temple pillaged.
   
6. By Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, against Ahaz (2Chron. 28), about 630 B.C. The city held out, but Ahaz sought the aid of Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, for whom he stripped the Temple.
   
7. By Sennacherib king of Assyria, against Hezekiah (2Kings 24:10-16), about 603 B.C. In this case the siege was raised by a Divine interposition, as foretold by Isaiah the prophet.
   
8. By Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, against Jehoiakim (2Chron. 36:6-7), about 496 B.C., when the Temple was partly pillaged.
   
9. By Nebuchadnezzar again, against Jehoiachin (2Chron. 36:10), about 489 B.C., when the pillage of the Temple was carried further, and 10,000 people carried away.
   
10. By Nebuchadnezzar, against Zedekiah (2Chron. 36:17-20), 478-477 B.C. In this case the Temple was burnt with fire, and the city and the Temple lay desolate for fifty years.
    
11. By Ptolemy Soter king of Egypt, against the Jews, 320 B.C. More that 100,000 captives were taken to Egypt.
    
12. By Antiochus the Great, about 203 B.C.
    
13. By Scopus, a general of Alexander, about 199 B.C., who left a garrison.
    
14. By Antiochus IV, surnamed Epiphanes, 168 B.C. This was the worst siege since the 10th. The whole city was pillaged; 10,000 captives taken; the walls destroyed; the altar defiled; ancient manuscripts perished; the finest buildings were burned; and the Jews were forbidden to worship there. Foretold Dan. 11.
    
15. By Antiochus V, surnamed Eupator, against Judas Maccabaeus, about 162 B.C. This time honorable terms were made, and certain privileges were secured.
    
16. By Antiochus VII, surnamed Sidetes king of Syria, against John Hyrcanus, about 135 B.C.
    
17. By Hyrcanus (son of Alex. Jannaeus) and the priest Aristobulus. The siege was raised by Scaurus, one of Pompey's lieutenants, about 65 B.C.
    
18. By Pompey against Aristobulus, about 63 B.C. The machines were moved on the Sabbath, when the Jews made no resistance. Only thus was it then reduced; 12,000 Jews were slain. [Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, with a Parthian army, took the city in 40 B.C.; but there was no siege, the city was taken by a sudden surprise.]
    
19. Herod with a Roman army besieged the city in 39 B.C. for five months.
    
20. By Titus, A.D. 69 (See Ap. 50. VI, p. 61). The second Temple (Herod's) was burnt, and for fifty years the city disappeared from history, as after the 10th siege (Jer. 20:5).
    
21. The Romans had again to besiege the city in A.D. 135 against the false Messiah, Bar-Cochebas, who had acquired possession of the ruins. The city was obliterated, and renamed AElia Capitolina, and a temple was erected to Jupiter. For 200 years the city passed out of history, no Jews being permitted to approach it. This siege was foretold in Luke 19:43, 44; 21:20-24.
    
22. After 400 years of so-called Christian colonization, through the country; thousands were massacred, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed. The Emperor Heraclius afterwards defeated him, and restored the city and the church.
    
23. The Caliph Omar, in A.D. 636-7, besieged the city against Heralius. It was followed by capitulation on favorable terms, and the city passed into the hands of the Turks, in whose hands it remains to the present day.
    
24. Afdal, the Vizier of the Caliph of Egypt, besieged the two rival factions of Moslems, and pillaged the city in 1098.
    
25. In 1099 it was besieged by the army of the first Crusade.
    
26. In 1187 it was besieged by Saladin for seven weeks.
    
27. The wild Kharezmian Tartar hordes, in 1244, captured and plundered the city, slaughtering the monks and priests.
    
28. There will be a 28th according to Zech. 14, which will be raised by Messiah, even as the 7th was by Jehovah."

(from Appendix 53 of The Companion Bible)