The Coming Great Apostasy

[Phoneman777]

The subject of the OP is the time of the Antichrist appearing in a temple in Jerusalem per Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. It is not about the so-called dark ages in Europe nor during the time of Christian persecution by pagan Rome before that.

The final event during the time of the Antichrist's appearance is our Lord Jesus' coming to destroy him. Our Lord Jesus did not return during the dark ages, nor has He returned yet to this day. So it's actually you that is following a doctrine of men that does not align with God's Holy Writ. Because if your arguments were true, then Jesus should have come to gather His Church already back then. And because it's been over a thousand years since that dark age you speak of, it shows just how far your doctrine is skewed away from God's Truth in His Word.

That's assuming the Antichrist has yet to arise, assuming the Antichrist is a single evil person who will arise and sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, assuming that that rebuilt temple is actually the "temple of God".

However, Paul said there was a "restrainer" preventing the rise of this "man of sin" Antichrist, and when it was "taken out of the way" the Antichrist would arise. Now, you probably think according to your Jesuit "left behind" Futurist ideas that this restrainer is "the Holy Spirit filled church" or some other agent of holiness which will be "taken out of the way" by the "secret rapture", after which this evil Antichrist dude will arise.

The problem with all that is Paul told the early church the Restrainer was the Roman Empire, and every Early Church Father who had anything to say on this subject understood the Restrainer to be such - not some "agent of holiness" down at the end of time. This was the belief of Protestantism for over 300 years, but what you are saying is relatively new by comparison - it's Jesuit Futurism that has infiltrated Protestantism and taken over. There are some here who actually argue that although the catholic church can't even get right something so simple as "we're saved by grace through faith, not works", they somehow arrived at a correct understanding of end times prophecy - Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism - when they unveiled these versions as a response to the decades-long Protestant Reformation beatdown of the papacy with their Protestant Historicism interpretation of end times prophecy, which identified the Antichrist as the papacy. The papacy basically said, "hey, look to the past, the future, ANYWHERE BUT AT US for the Anitchrist."

 

[Earburner]

That's assuming the Antichrist has yet to arise, assuming the Antichrist is a single evil person who will arise and sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, assuming that that rebuilt temple is actually the "temple of God".

However, Paul said there was a "restrainer" preventing the rise of this "man of sin" Antichrist, and when it was "taken out of the way" the Antichrist would arise. Now, you probably think according to your Jesuit "left behind" Futurist ideas that this restrainer is "the Holy Spirit filled church" or some other agent of holiness which will be "taken out of the way" by the "secret rapture", after which this evil Antichrist dude will arise.

The problem with all that is Paul told the early church the Restrainer was the Roman Empire, and every Early Church Father who had anything to say on this subject understood the Restrainer to be such - not some "agent of holiness" down at the end of time. This was the belief of Protestantism for over 300 years, but what you are saying is relatively new by comparison - it's Jesuit Futurism that has infiltrated Protestantism and taken over. There are some here who actually argue that although the catholic church can't even get right something so simple as "we're saved by grace through faith, not works", they somehow arrived at a correct understanding of end times prophecy - Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism - when they unveiled these versions as a response to the decades-long Protestant Reformation beatdown of the papacy with their Protestant Historicism interpretation of end times prophecy, which identified the Antichrist as the papacy. The papacy basically said, "hey, look to the past, the future, ANYWHERE BUT AT US for the Anitchrist."

Some Christians live in "Religious Fantasy Land" all their lives, hurling "religious speak" back and forth, talking through the imagination of their minds, according to what the "religious, scholarly learned" says is so.
Fact #1- there is no "little horn" in Revelations, of whom the "religionists" all love to call "THE" Antichrist!
There was only one "little horn" that was ever to be, and his name was Antiochus Epiphanes of the Seleucid empire (of the 3rd beast), one of the "four horns" in Daniel.
Therefore, a singular man, that they call "THE Antichrist, is never going to happen, because it's NOT prophesied to happen!!
.
Try to HEAR how the Holy Spirit speaks.
"The natural man", "that man of sin, the son of perdtion", are all about specific group of people on the earth, and the Holy Spirit called ALL of such people to be "none of His". Rom. 8:9.
.
The context of 2 Thes. 2 speaks in the PLURAL!
Therefore the words "that Wicked" should be read as "the wicked", and when corrected, it can be read in the plural, being 100% in line with with the chapter.
WHY?
Answer: in the Textus Receptus Greek (KJV), there is no word "that" to be translated by the Strong's.
WHY?
The word "that" is simply not there in the TR Greek.
.
However, the word "wicked" begs for a pronoun, and since the context IS PLURAL, a pronoun best suited for the plural, is the pronoun "the".
.
Having said that, there is now NO need for the word "wicked" to be spelled with the upper case "W" .
Both the word "that" and the upper case "W" were insertions, made by the translators.

 

[Enoch111]

Fact #1- there is no "little horn" in Revelations, of whom the "religionists" all love to call "THE" Antichrist!

The Little Horn is in Daniel and the Beast is in Revelation. But they are one and the same person. See my detailed post on "Who is the Little Horn of Daniel?" just posted recently.

Here's the proof that they are one and the same:
How do we know that the Little Horn is none other than the Antichrist (Q) The key fact is that he is the Arch Blasphemer of God and Christ. All these Scriptures say the same thing:

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. (Rev 13:6) 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. (2 Thess 2:4) And he shall speak great words against the most High... (Dan 7;25) And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them...Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host... And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. (Dan 8:10,11,25) And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. (Dan 11:36-38)

 

[Earburner]

The Little Horn is in Daniel and the Beast is in Revelation. But they are one and the same person. See my detailed post on "Who is the Little Horn of Daniel?" just posted recently.

Here's the proof that they are one and the same:
How do we know that the Little Horn is none other than the Antichrist (Q) The key fact is that he is the Arch Blasphemer of God and Christ. All these Scriptures say the same thing:

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. (Rev 13:6) 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. (2 Thess 2:4) And he shall speak great words against the most High... (Dan 7;25) And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them...Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host... And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. (Dan 8:10,11,25) And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. (Dan 11:36-38)

I am pleased to see you using the KJV.
Unfortunately, you have a very poor understanding of the angel Gabriel's interpretation, given to Daniel.
.
Did you know that 1 Maccabees goes hand and hand with Daniel, and that Revelations has little to do with Daniel? In fact, virtually all of Daniel was fulfilled over 2000 years
If more Christians would read and study 1 Mac. With Daniel, there wouldn't be so many fantastical, fabrications that are out there.
.
It's amazing how the books of 1&2 Mac. are not included in the Old Testament of today's Protestant Bibles. However, it is found in the Catholic Bibles.
I am not surprised.
BTW, I am not Catholic!
.
So then, if you can't take the time to discover for yourself, why 1 Mac. is so necessary, for understanding the angel Gabriel's interpretation, then why should I speak to someone who is not willing to listen.
Oh, and BTW, the fact that you are reading the KJV, it is the only Protestant Bible whereby you can truly connect with 1 Mac.
Clue #1: study only the interpretations of Gabriel! They are the words of God! As for Daniel himself, he only described his vision by his OWN words.

Clue #2: NEVER combine Daniel's own words about his visions, with the authoritive words of Gabriel!
Daniel's own words about his visions, should only be a reference. NEVER mix the vision with the interpretation!!

 

[bbyrd009]

Ok, wow.

It appears that you are grouping random scriptures, stringing them along together, so that you can say what YOU want it to say.
The KJV wrecks your purposeful manipulation:

quoting is manipulating now? I'd grant that you might prefer a diff interp @ the one below, fine, but I note you also chose the um thorniest one?
What manip do you see at the others if you would, ty.


Ezek.18 [19] Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.[20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
.
The Father of Jesus is God the Father. Does God the Father have iniquity?[/QUOTE]No. But does the Son? Might be the Q there

 

[bbyrd009]

Everytime I hear the word "symbology", I can't help but think of this scene back when I was a Hollywood watching heathen.

Ha well ty, symbolism is much better I guess :)

 

[Earburner]

Ok, wow.
quoting is manipulating now? I'd grant that you might prefer a diff interp @ the one below, fine, but I note you also chose the um thorniest one?
What manip do you see at the others if you would, ty.


Ezek.18 [19] Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.[20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
.
The Father of Jesus is God the Father. Does God the Father have iniquity?

No. But does the Son? Might be the Q there[/QUOTE]
You are questioning if God the Son has iniquity??
.
You better back up quickly, and retract that question!
It may be, that not many Christians will want to talk to you, if you really think/believe that the Lord Jesus had/has sin within Himself.

 

[bbyrd009]

You are questioning if God the Son has iniquity?

Ah no, sorry, I already know what hanged on a stake signifies wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

It may be, that not many Christians will want to talk to you, if you really think/believe that the Lord Jesus had/has sin within Himself

I guess Quoting the refs wouldn't help much either huh

 

[bbyrd009]

The amazing name Judas: meaning and etymology

can't import Gsearches I guess, but "Judas scapegoat" has some even more interesting reflections imo

"...After his death his empire too destabilized and formed four lesser successors that continued to battle each other. In the chaos that ensued, the Jews led by Judas Maccabee created their own state and monarchy, namely that of the Hasmoneans, but in 63 BC the Roman general Pompey annexed it and its neighbors to Rome (Daniel 8)..."
emphasis mine,
The amazing name Mary: meaning and etymology

The amazing name Iscariot: meaning and etymology

 

[Earburner]

"...After his death his empire too destabilized and formed four lesser successors that continued to battle each other. In the chaos that ensued, the Jews led by Judas Maccabee created their own state and monarchy, namely that of the Hasmoneans, but in 63 BC the Roman general Pompey annexed it and its neighbors to Rome (Daniel 8)..."
emphasis mine,
The amazing name Mary: meaning and etymology

The amazing name Iscariot: meaning and etymology

??
Is the above an error, being a combination of posts, from 3 different posters?
It doesn't make sense!

 

[Earburner]

I guess Quoting the refs wouldn't help much either huh

Why didn't you do tha

I guess Quoting the refs wouldn't help much either huh

Why didn't you do that in the first place?

 

[bbyrd009]

??
Is the above an error, being a combination of posts, from 3 different posters?
It doesn't make sense!

I tagged myself to indicate the subject and then refed a quote from the Mary link, and tossed in "Iscariot" for further reflection. Sorry that doesn't make sense, I'm bad about working backward from a revelation I guess

 

[bbyrd009]

Why didn't you do tha

Why didn't you do that in the first place?

not sure tbh, normally I would have.
I feel as though I would be participating in...a distraction, for some reason there

 

[Earburner]

"Post reply" is in the wrong place on my screen!!
It's too close to where I am typing!!
It seems the site builders never get that straightened out!
Here is any idea for preventing the accidental sending of posts: put in a caution screen that says: "Are you sure you want to send?"

 

[bbyrd009]

"...After his death his empire too destabilized and formed four lesser successors that continued to battle each other. In the chaos that ensued, the Jews led by Judas Maccabee created their own state and monarchy, namely that of the Hasmoneans, but in 63 BC the Roman general Pompey annexed it and its neighbors to Rome (Daniel 8)..."
emphasis mine,
The amazing name Mary: meaning and etymology

The amazing name Iscariot: meaning and etymology

"but in 63 BC the Roman general Pompey annexed it" might be the more pertinent phrase there

 

[bbyrd009]

"Post reply" is in the wrong place on my screen!!
It's too close to where I am typing!!
It seems the site builders never get that straightened out!
Here is any idea for preventing the accidental sending of posts: put in a caution screen that says: "Are you sure you want to send?"

There is a "xenforo mobile app" I think, dunno if you're in it?

 

[Earburner]

bbyrd009 wrote:
"...After his death his empire too destabilized and formed four lesser successors that continued to battle each other."
> I am assuming that you are referring to Alex The Great. Correct?

 

[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.

 

[Earburner]

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 realize that most people can't/won't accept that
2 Thes. 2:8 is an insertion by the translators. I provided the means whereby one can search it for themselves. It's not "that Wicked" , but rather "the wicked" in the Textus Receptus Greek (KJV).
See my prev. Posts on that.
There no longer any need to stand in the dark and speak "religious church-anity's" foolishness.