Antichrist, past, present, or future?

Dave_L

Here's an idea Augustine (354 - 430 AD) mentioned about who the Antichrist might be. Where Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4;

“[Man of sin] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in [Greek = as] the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4) (KJV 1900)

Instead of the man of sin sitting in the temple of God, he would sit as the temple of God. Which of course is what the Papacy claims for itself. The Papacy claims to be the one true church. The Church = God's temple in the NT.

Says Augustine; "Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not “in the temple of God,” but “for” or “as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church.1405"

NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Most Reformation era churches claimed the Papacy is Antichrist including many post reformation churches including early Baptists and Methodists.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Here's an idea Augustine (354 - 430 AD) mentioned about who the Antichrist might be. Where Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4;

“[Man of sin] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in [Greek = as] the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4) (KJV 1900)
Instead of the man of sin sitting in the temple of God, he would sit as the temple of God. Which of course is what the Papacy claims for itself. The Papacy claims to be the one true church. The Church = God's temple in the NT.

Careful ... the popes do NOT claim that they are the one true church. The Roman Catholic Church does and the popes (papacy) claim to be the representatives of Christ, as being the head of that church.

The translation of "as" of the Gr. preposition εἰς in the expression εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ seems incorrect, while "in the temple of God" would be correct. To base a theological idea on an incorrect translations in order to be able to then "support" an idea should not be done and causes only false understanding and misinterpretations of the Scripture.

Says Augustine; "Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not “in the temple of God,” but “for” or “as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church.1405"

NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

See above ... and, yes, I don't care if Augustin or a pope or whoever else makes such claims based on an incorrect translation.

Most Reformation era churches claimed the Papacy is Antichrist including many post reformation churches including early Baptists and Methodists.

Sure they do ... so what? All of them disregard what quite a number of passages in the NT scriptures state concerning the time of the end of that age and the coming of the Lord and the destruction of the temple of God at Jerusalem.

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Here's an idea Augustine (354 - 430 AD) mentioned about who the Antichrist might be. Where Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4;

“[Man of sin] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in [Greek = as] the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4) (KJV 1900)
Instead of the man of sin sitting in the temple of God, he would sit as the temple of God. Which of course is what the Papacy claims for itself. The Papacy claims to be the one true church. The Church = God's temple in the NT.

Careful ... the popes do NOT claim that they are the one true church. The Roman Catholic Church does and the popes (papacy) claim to be the representatives of Christ, as being the head of that church.

The translation of "as" of the Gr. preposition εἰς in the expression εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ seems incorrect, while "in the temple of God" would be correct. To base a theological idea on an incorrect translations in order to be able to then "support" an idea should not be done and causes only false understanding and misinterpretations of the Scripture.

Says Augustine; "Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not “in the temple of God,” but “for” or “as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church.1405"

NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

See above ... and, yes, I don't care if Augustin or a pope or whoever else makes such claims based on an incorrect translation.

Most Reformation era churches claimed the Papacy is Antichrist including many post reformation churches including early Baptists and Methodists.

Sure they do ... so what? All of them disregard what quite a number of passages in the NT scriptures state concerning the time of the end of that age and the coming of the Lord and the destruction of the temple of God at Jerusalem.

Thanks, Wolfgang for your response. I thought Augustine had a little difficulty using "as" but the word bears out this meaning indirectly. Here's an example for how scripture uses it:

1650 εἰς (eis): prep.; ≡ Str 1519; TDNT 2.420—1. LN 84.16 (always in the accusative) to, toward extend to a goal (Mt 21:1); 2. LN 84.22 into, extend into an area (Mt 8:3; Jn 20:6); 3. LN 83.47 on, upon the surface of an area (Mt 27:30; Mk 5:39); 4. LN 83.13** inside**, within, in a location (Mk 5:3); 5. LN 83.9 among, with in a spacial area (Mt 13:22; Ac 4:17); 6. LN 89.57 in order to, a marker of purpose (Mt 8:4; Lk 2:32; Jn 18:37; 2Th 1:5); 7. LN 89.48 so that, marker of result (Ro 1:20), note: purpose and result often are hard to distinguish; 8. LN 89.76 by means of, through, by (Ac 7:53); 9. LN 90.23 with reference to, concerning, with respect to; a marker of content (Mt 28:19; Ac 2:25; Ro 16:19); 10. LN 78.51 to the point of, to the degree of (2Co 10:15); 11. LN 13.62 from … to; a marker of a change of state (Mt 19:5; Lk 13:19; Ro 4:3); 12. LN 90.59 to, toward, for; a marker of an involved experiencer (Ro 5:8; 8:7; 16:26); 13. LN 90.41 on behalf of, for the benefaction of a person (1Co 16:1; 2Co 8:4); 14. LN 90.30 by, an object or area as the guarantor of an oath (Mt 5:35); 15. LN 67.117 for, in, at; a marker of an extent of time (Lk 12:19); 16. LN 67.160 at, on, for; a marker of a unit of time (Ac 13:42); 17. LN 67.119 until, to, at last, at length; a marker of a continuous extent of time up to a point (Mt 10:22; Jn 13:1), note: see LN index for a fuller treatment of the lexical units.

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So the net result is the same.

Historically most all the reformed and a couple of post reformed churches recognized the Papacy as Antichrist

reformed

Do the reformed churches see the Papacy as THE AntiChrist or A AntiChrist? Because that is not the same thing.

Dave_L

@reformed said:
Do the reformed churches see the Papacy as THE AntiChrist or A AntiChrist? Because that is not the same thing.

They taught the Papacy was the biggie, but Luther and Calvin also believed Islam was to join in. Here's a brief intro.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Thanks, Wolfgang for your response. I thought Augustine had a little difficulty using "as" but the word bears out this meaning indirectly. Here's an example for how scripture uses it:

1650 εἰς (eis): prep.; ≡ Str 1519; TDNT 2.420—1. LN 84.16 (always in the accusative) to, toward extend to a goal (Mt 21:1); 2. LN 84.22 into, extend into an area (Mt 8:3; Jn 20:6); 3. LN 83.47 on, upon the surface of an area (Mt 27:30; Mk 5:39); 4. LN 83.13** inside**, within, in a location (Mk 5:3); 5. LN 83.9 among, with in a spacial area (Mt 13:22; Ac 4:17); 6. LN 89.57 in order to, a marker of purpose (Mt 8:4; Lk 2:32; Jn 18:37; 2Th 1:5); 7. LN 89.48 so that, marker of result (Ro 1:20), note: purpose and result often are hard to distinguish; 8. LN 89.76 by means of, through, by (Ac 7:53); 9. LN 90.23 with reference to, concerning, with respect to; a marker of content (Mt 28:19; Ac 2:25; Ro 16:19); 10. LN 78.51 to the point of, to the degree of (2Co 10:15); 11. LN 13.62 from … to; a marker of a change of state (Mt 19:5; Lk 13:19; Ro 4:3); 12. LN 90.59 to, toward, for; a marker of an involved experiencer (Ro 5:8; 8:7; 16:26); 13. LN 90.41 on behalf of, for the benefaction of a person (1Co 16:1; 2Co 8:4); 14. LN 90.30 by, an object or area as the guarantor of an oath (Mt 5:35); 15. LN 67.117 for, in, at; a marker of an extent of time (Lk 12:19); 16. LN 67.160 at, on, for; a marker of a unit of time (Ac 13:42); 17. LN 67.119 until, to, at last, at length; a marker of a continuous extent of time up to a point (Mt 10:22; Jn 13:1), note: see LN index for a fuller treatment of the lexical units.

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So the net result is the same.

The context determines the usage and meaning ... and I do not see how in 2Th 2:4 the word eis could be translated with "as" .... where does the man of sin sit "as" the temple of God ??

Historically most all the reformed and a couple of post reformed churches recognized the Papacy as Antichrist

And they all disregard the timing of the coming of the Lord as given in the various prophecies and passages in NT scriptures ... and then made the papacy the Antichrist for propaganda purposes.

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Thanks, Wolfgang for your response. I thought Augustine had a little difficulty using "as" but the word bears out this meaning indirectly. Here's an example for how scripture uses it:

1650 εἰς (eis): prep.; ≡ Str 1519; TDNT 2.420—1. LN 84.16 (always in the accusative) to, toward extend to a goal (Mt 21:1); 2. LN 84.22 into, extend into an area (Mt 8:3; Jn 20:6); 3. LN 83.47 on, upon the surface of an area (Mt 27:30; Mk 5:39); 4. LN 83.13** inside**, within, in a location (Mk 5:3); 5. LN 83.9 among, with in a spacial area (Mt 13:22; Ac 4:17); 6. LN 89.57 in order to, a marker of purpose (Mt 8:4; Lk 2:32; Jn 18:37; 2Th 1:5); 7. LN 89.48 so that, marker of result (Ro 1:20), note: purpose and result often are hard to distinguish; 8. LN 89.76 by means of, through, by (Ac 7:53); 9. LN 90.23 with reference to, concerning, with respect to; a marker of content (Mt 28:19; Ac 2:25; Ro 16:19); 10. LN 78.51 to the point of, to the degree of (2Co 10:15); 11. LN 13.62 from … to; a marker of a change of state (Mt 19:5; Lk 13:19; Ro 4:3); 12. LN 90.59 to, toward, for; a marker of an involved experiencer (Ro 5:8; 8:7; 16:26); 13. LN 90.41 on behalf of, for the benefaction of a person (1Co 16:1; 2Co 8:4); 14. LN 90.30 by, an object or area as the guarantor of an oath (Mt 5:35); 15. LN 67.117 for, in, at; a marker of an extent of time (Lk 12:19); 16. LN 67.160 at, on, for; a marker of a unit of time (Ac 13:42); 17. LN 67.119 until, to, at last, at length; a marker of a continuous extent of time up to a point (Mt 10:22; Jn 13:1), note: see LN index for a fuller treatment of the lexical units.

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So the net result is the same.

The context determines the usage and meaning ... and I do not see how in 2Th 2:4 the word eis could be translated with "as" .... where does the man of sin sit "as" the temple of God ??

Historically most all the reformed and a couple of post reformed churches recognized the Papacy as Antichrist

And they all disregard the timing of the coming of the Lord as given in the various prophecies and passages in NT scriptures ... and then made the papacy the Antichrist for propaganda purposes.

I think what Augustine was getting at was a false church (temple). Claiming to be God's temple.

If you are a futurist you are still looking for the Antichrist. But the Reformation era churches believed the Papacy was it. Beginning as early as the 10th century people were claiming so.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
I think what Augustine was getting at was a false church (temple). Claiming to be God's temple.

I would think so .... but that is NOT to what the Scriptures in 2Th 2 refer

If you are a futurist you are still looking for the Antichrist.

Since I am not a futurist, I am not looking for the Antichrist.

But the Reformation era churches believed the Papacy was it. Beginning as early as the 10th century people were claiming so.

And were wrong because the man of Sin (whom they call the Antichrist) had lived in the first century AD and sat himself in the temple of God at Jerusalem in the few years immediately preceding the destruction of city and temple

reformed

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
I think what Augustine was getting at was a false church (temple). Claiming to be God's temple.

I would think so .... but that is NOT to what the Scriptures in 2Th 2 refer

If you are a futurist you are still looking for the Antichrist.

Since I am not a futurist, I am not looking for the Antichrist.

But the Reformation era churches believed the Papacy was it. Beginning as early as the 10th century people were claiming so.

And were wrong because the man of Sin (whom they call the Antichrist) had lived in the first century AD and sat himself in the temple of God at Jerusalem in the few years immediately preceding the destruction of city and temple

Of course this also depends on the date of the writing of Revelation...

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:
The context determines the usage and meaning ... and I do not see how in 2 Th 2:4 the word eis could be translated with "as" .... where does the man of sin sit "as" the temple of God ??... And they all disregard the timing of the coming of the Lord as given in the various prophecies and passages in NT scriptures ... and then made the papacy the Antichrist for propaganda purposes.

Wolfgang,
Consider the texts and history, you may be inclined to change your mind. If not, why not? What is your clear position on the matter (Antichrist)? Are you opposed to where the finger points (papacy) or to one's view of 2 Thess 2:3-4?

In Second Thessalonians 2, Paul continues his subject of the “day of the Lord.” He warns against the illusion that this tremendous “day” is just at hand.

-- First, he says, there will be a dread “falling away” (apostasia, foretold by Christ in Matthew 24 and Daniel 7).

-- Secondly, the appearing, historically, of the “man of sin,” or “son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3).

-- Thirdly, the “Antichrist,” whose activities he described in these words:

• “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” (v. 4).

Paul reminds the Thessalonians that he had forewarned them orally of the great apostasy to come into the Christian church, which would be held back only by the iron might of a unified pagan Rome (vs. 5, 6). But that would pass and the apostasy would appear. He declares that the seeds of spiritual departure were already germinating in his own day:

• “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [katecho, “to restrain,” “to hold back”] will let [restrain], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming’ (vs. 7, 8).

This power would be characterized by signs and wonders and deceit, becoming an overpowering “strong delusion” (vs. 9-11). Appealing to the church to hold to the “truth” they had been taught, he solemnly warns that those who believe and receive this “lie” will be “damned” (vs. 11, 12). That is Paul’s teaching on the “last things,” in the setting of the antecedent great apostasy that would be established before the Second Advent, and would cease only with the second coming of Christ at the end of the age.

Futurism basically views the book of Revelation as being fulfilled in a brief period just prior to the second advent of Christ. This school of interpretation is termed "futurist" because it passes over the whole historical period and applies apocalyptic prophecies only to the immediate period before the Second Advent.

The originator of this theory was a Spanish Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribeira, who, in1585, published a commentary on Revelation in which he worked to turn aside the Protestant application of the apocalyptic antichrist prophecies and symbols from pointing to the Church of Rome.

The Protestant interpretation was that...

• The "little horn" of Daniel (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-26).
• The "antichrist" of John (1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7).
• The "man of sin" mentioned by Paul (2 Thess 2:3-12).
• The apocalyptic "beast" (Rev 13:1-10) were all identical and all pointed to the papacy.

All the leading Reformers had believed and taught that Rome met all specifications of the great apostasy specified by Paul and indicated by Daniel and John. Ribeira's commentary on Revelation was a counter-interpretation—part of the counter-Reformation of the Church of Rome. Ribeira applied all of Revelation, except the earliest chapters, to the end time rather than to the history of the Church.

Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem, abolish Christianity, deny Christ, persecute the Church, and rule the world for three and a half years.

To allow a teaching equating the Papacy with the Antichrist to go unchallenged was potentially damaging to the Roman Catholic institution. So pronounced was the threat that a Jesuit priest by the name of Francisco Ribera undertook an intensive study of Bible prophecy. Ribera’s extensive research and study resulted in the publication of a five-hundred-page commentary concerning Babylon and the Antichrist. In order to deflect attention from the Papacy, Ribera adopted a futuristic interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 commonly called the ‘Seventy Weeks of Daniel’. This Jesuit’s commentary became the foundation stone of Premillennial Dispensationalism. The work of another Jesuit, Cardinal Robert Bellarine, supplanted that of Ribera.

-- Kyle, Richard. Awaiting the Millennium. Leicester: I.V.P. 1998., pg 62.

John does make mention of the issue of “antichrist” (I John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). It seems possible that there was a teaching in circulation that spoke of a particular individual who was to come in the future. John questions such a view by pointing out that many antichrists were already in circulation.

Polycarp saw the prophesied “antichrist” (1 John 4:3) appears in chapter seven in connection with a denial of the resurrection, where he described such perverters of the gospel. Warning of the dangers of the time he said:

• “ ‘For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;’ and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the [suffering on the] cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan.”

-- The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, chap. 7, in ANF, vol. 1, p. 34.

What says ye? CM

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
I think what Augustine was getting at was a false church (temple). Claiming to be God's temple.

I would think so .... but that is NOT to what the Scriptures in 2Th 2 refer

If you are a futurist you are still looking for the Antichrist.

Since I am not a futurist, I am not looking for the Antichrist.

But the Reformation era churches believed the Papacy was it. Beginning as early as the 10th century people were claiming so.

And were wrong because the man of Sin (whom they call the Antichrist) had lived in the first century AD and sat himself in the temple of God at Jerusalem in the few years immediately preceding the destruction of city and temple

That's an interesting thought Wolfgang. I believe the Abomination of Desolation was the continued animal sacrifice "standing" as a formal rejection of Christ by the Jews. So I need to look further into your claims.

The "Temple" in the NT also = Christ and the Church = individual Christian. Or, Christendom. So That too makes Augustine's theory possible.

[Deleted User]

@reformed said:
Of course this also depends on the date of the writing of Revelation...

There are basically two views on the date of writing of the book of Revelation. The internal evidence of what is written in the book when viewed in harmony with Jesus other prophecies concerning his coming (such as the ones recorded in Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21) point to an early date, that is a few years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple while John was on the island of Patmos during the reign of Cesar Nero (which, by the way, some Aramaic copies of the book have a short explanatory remark to that effect)

The late dating (ca 96 AD) does not really coincide with the eternal evidence of what certain passages in the text do say.

C Mc

@ Dave_L said: "That's an interesting thought Wolfgang. I believe the Abomination of Desolation was the continued animal sacrifice "standing" as a formal rejection of Christ by the Jews. So I need to look further into your claims".

Dave,
Do the words of Christ in Matthew 24:15-30 predict a religious persecution of Jews in the modern state of Israel within seven years after the church has been raptured from earth to heaven? A note of Matthew 24:15-20 in The New Scofield Reference Bible speaks of "a future crisis in Jerusalem after the manifestation of the 'abomination.'"

Do the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 refer to a future, post-rapture tribulation for Jews? Can such a position be sustained by careful exegesis of the passage? The dispensational exegesis of Matthew 24 is a clear example of futurism that denies the clearly recognized complementary function of the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Jesus' prophetic discourse is recorded by all three Synoptic Gospels and therefore should be studied in the light of all three records. However, dispensationalists exclude Luke from their interpretation of Christ's Olivet discourse because Luke's account does not favor their exegesis of the "abomination of desolation." Yet many New Testament students consider Luke's narrative to be historically more full and complete than either of the first two Gospels. Luke stands first in length and completeness.

The New Scofield Reference Bible even goes so far as to declare that Jesus' words in Luke 21:20-24—the undeniable parallel of Matthew 24:15-22—predict the very opposite of what He says in Matthew's account! _

• "The passage in Luke refers in express terms to a destruction of Jerusalem which was fulfilled by Titus in A. D. 70; the passage in Matthew alludes to a future crisis in Jerusalem after the manifestation of the 'abomination.' See Beast (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 19:20, note); and Armageddon (Rev. 16:13-16; 19:17, note). In the former case Jerusalem was destroyed: in the latter it will be delivered by divine interposition_."

R. H. Gundry, himself a dispensationalist theologian, acknowledges that it is irresponsible to impose a Jewish application on Matthew's Gospel (rather than applying it to the church) and thus relate chapter 24 to another, future, dispensation after the church has been raptured from earth. His major argument:

• "The Olivet discourse appears in substantially the same form in Mark and in a somewhat altered form in Luke. Consequently, it may still relate to the church from the latter gospels."

Furthermore, Christ addressed the discourse to His apostles who represented, of course, the church, not the Jewish nation.

All three Synoptic evangelists record Christ's warning prediction that before the desolating abomination would appear in Jerusalem, the Palestinian Christians must experience the trials of false christs, of wars and rumors of wars, of famines and earthquakes (see Matt. 24:4-8; Mark 13:5-8; Luke 21:8-11). These predictions became a historical reality between A.D. 35 and A.D. 55. Yet Christ had emphasized, "'All these are the beginning of birth pains'" (Matt. 24:8; cf. Mark 13:8). See the historical reference detailed report by Reicke in the sources below.

Think about it. CM

SOURCES:

• -- The New Scofield Reference Bible, C. I. Scofield, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 1034.
• -- R. H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), chapter 9, "The Olivet Discourse." p. 130.
• -- B. Reicke, "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem," in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature (essays in honor of A. P. Wikgren), D. E. Aune, ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 121-134; esp. 130 ff.

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:

@ Dave_L said: "That's an interesting thought Wolfgang. I believe the Abomination of Desolation was the continued animal sacrifice "standing" as a formal rejection of Christ by the Jews. So I need to look further into your claims".

Dave,
Do the words of Christ in Matthew 24:15-30 predict a religious persecution of Jews in the modern state of Israel within seven years after the church has been raptured from earth to heaven? A note of Matthew 24:15-20 in The New Scofield Reference Bible speaks of "a future crisis in Jerusalem after the manifestation of the 'abomination.'"

Do the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 refer to a future, post-rapture tribulation for Jews? Can such a position be sustained by careful exegesis of the passage? The dispensational exegesis of Matthew 24 is a clear example of futurism that denies the clearly recognized complementary function of the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Jesus' prophetic discourse is recorded by all three Synoptic Gospels and therefore should be studied in the light of all three records. However, dispensationalists exclude Luke from their interpretation of Christ's Olivet discourse because Luke's account does not favor their exegesis of the "abomination of desolation." Yet many New Testament students consider Luke's narrative to be historically more full and complete than either of the first two Gospels. Luke stands first in length and completeness.

The New Scofield Reference Bible even goes so far as to declare that Jesus' words in Luke 21:20-24—the undeniable parallel of Matthew 24:15-22—predict the very opposite of what He says in Matthew's account! _

• "The passage in Luke refers in express terms to a destruction of Jerusalem which was fulfilled by Titus in A. D. 70; the passage in Matthew alludes to a future crisis in Jerusalem after the manifestation of the 'abomination.' See Beast (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 19:20, note); and Armageddon (Rev. 16:13-16; 19:17, note). In the former case Jerusalem was destroyed: in the latter it will be delivered by divine interposition_."

R. H. Gundry, himself a dispensationalist theologian, acknowledges that it is irresponsible to impose a Jewish application on Matthew's Gospel (rather than applying it to the church) and thus relate chapter 24 to another, future, dispensation after the church has been raptured from earth. His major argument:

• "The Olivet discourse appears in substantially the same form in Mark and in a somewhat altered form in Luke. Consequently, it may still relate to the church from the latter gospels."

Furthermore, Christ addressed the discourse to His apostles who represented, of course, the church, not the Jewish nation.

All three Synoptic evangelists record Christ's warning prediction that before the desolating abomination would appear in Jerusalem, the Palestinian Christians must experience the trials of false christs, of wars and rumors of wars, of famines and earthquakes (see Matt. 24:4-8; Mark 13:5-8; Luke 21:8-11). These predictions became a historical reality between A.D. 35 and A.D. 55. Yet Christ had emphasized, "'All these are the beginning of birth pains'" (Matt. 24:8; cf. Mark 13:8). See the historical reference detailed report by Reicke in the sources below.

Think about it. CM

SOURCES:

• -- The New Scofield Reference Bible, C. I. Scofield, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 1034.
• -- R. H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), chapter 9, "The Olivet Discourse." p. 130.
• -- B. Reicke, "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem," in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature (essays in honor of A. P. Wikgren), D. E. Aune, ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 121-134; esp. 130 ff.

I think Jesus words "when you see" = then, not in the future. This according to the tense of the verb.

reformed

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:
Of course this also depends on the date of the writing of Revelation...

There are basically two views on the date of writing of the book of Revelation. The internal evidence of what is written in the book when viewed in harmony with Jesus other prophecies concerning his coming (such as the ones recorded in Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21) point to an early date, that is a few years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple while John was on the island of Patmos during the reign of Cesar Nero (which, by the way, some Aramaic copies of the book have a short explanatory remark to that effect)

The late dating (ca 96 AD) does not really coincide with the eternal evidence of what certain passages in the text do say.

It only works with an early date if you ignore historical evidence and force a reading of what Jesus said in the Gospels that is not mandated by the text itself.

[Deleted User]

@reformed said:

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:
Of course this also depends on the date of the writing of Revelation...

There are basically two views on the date of writing of the book of Revelation. The internal evidence of what is written in the book when viewed in harmony with Jesus other prophecies concerning his coming (such as the ones recorded in Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21) point to an early date, that is a few years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple while John was on the island of Patmos during the reign of Cesar Nero (which, by the way, some Aramaic copies of the book have a short explanatory remark to that effect)
The late dating (ca 96 AD) does not really coincide with the eternal evidence of what certain passages in the text do say.

It only works with an early date if you ignore historical evidence and force a reading of what Jesus said in the Gospels that is not mandated by the text itself.

Exactly the opposite of what you claim is the case ... those looking for these things to come to pass in a yet future time even after almost two millenniums have passed are the ones ignoring historical evidence.
They also base their idea of a late date for the writing of the book of Revelation on a disputed reading and interpretation of a quote from an extra biblical source ... not realizing that their interpretation causes contradictions to the Biblical records.

Here's a link to an article which has information on both early and late date ideas:

https://ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

reformed

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:
Of course this also depends on the date of the writing of Revelation...

There are basically two views on the date of writing of the book of Revelation. The internal evidence of what is written in the book when viewed in harmony with Jesus other prophecies concerning his coming (such as the ones recorded in Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21) point to an early date, that is a few years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple while John was on the island of Patmos during the reign of Cesar Nero (which, by the way, some Aramaic copies of the book have a short explanatory remark to that effect)
The late dating (ca 96 AD) does not really coincide with the eternal evidence of what certain passages in the text do say.

It only works with an early date if you ignore historical evidence and force a reading of what Jesus said in the Gospels that is not mandated by the text itself.

Exactly the opposite of what you claim is the case ... those looking for these things to come to pass in a yet future time even after almost two millenniums have passed are the ones ignoring historical evidence.
They also base their idea of a late date for the writing of the book of Revelation on a disputed reading and interpretation of a quote from an extra biblical source ... not realizing that their interpretation causes contradictions to the Biblical records.

Here's a link to an article which has information on both early and late date ideas:

https://ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

Trust me, I have studied the issue. There are no contradictions coming from a late date.

C Mc

@ Reformed said: "Trust me, I have studied the issue. There are no contradictions coming from a late date".

Brethren,

John wrote Revelation while on Patmos (like an ancient Alcatraz), a small rocky island in the Aegean Sea some fifty miles off the southwest coast of Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Possibly, labor camp to which the Roman authorities sent offenders.

John was on this island in exile for some time. He states that he was on Patmos “because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1:9). Whether he was exiled to Patmos as a result of persecution or had gone there voluntarily as a missionary. Is not clear. He was exiled to Patmos during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (A.D. 81–96) where he was forced to work in the quarries. He was later released by Nerva and permitted to return to Ephesus. While on Patmos, John received the visions of Revelation which he was instructed to write on a scroll and send as a pastoral letter to the churches in Asia (Rev. 1:11).

The letter was sent because the Christians in Asia were troubled by an increasing number of problems coming from outside and inside the church. The book of Revelation was written in a time of Roman hostility toward Christianity that eventually turned into direct persecution. Generally, two different views exist among scholars on the exact date of the writing of the book.

1. It was written during the persecution of Christians under Nero (A.D. 54–68).
   • Also, Nero’s persecution of Christians was of a personal nature.
2. The Bk Revelation (letter) was written during the time of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). It is equally held that the Fourth Gospel was written after Revelation.

Why The Late Date Is Preferred:

• First, John stayed in Jerusalem for a number of years, eventually leaving Palestine shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He subsequently settled in Ephesus in Asia Minor. The churches which he refers to in his book had been in existence for a considerable number of years. At the time of the writing of Revelation, they were in a condition of spiritual decline and apostasy, one that was rapid for some of the churches. The early date does not fit into such a historical situation, because the churches in Asia Minor were not founded until the early sixties. They were still prospering during the reign of Nero.
• Second, early Christian writers, including Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp (A.D. 60–150), held that the book of Revelation was written during the time of Domitian.
• Third, the book of Revelation was written in a time when Christians were experiencing hardship and pressure because of their refusal to comply with popular demands for emperor worship.

While worship of the living emperor had been fostered by Romans since

• Augustus Octavian (27 B.C.–A.D. 14).
• Gaius Caligula (A.D. 37–41).
• The emperor to demand worship (alive) for himself was Domitian (A.D. 81–96).

Although widely spread, the worship of Caesar was especially practiced in Asia where Christians came into conflict with the authorities because of their opposition to such worship. The persecution of Christ was initiated under Domitian was not on a wide scale.

The book of Revelation was originally written as a letter. I hope this clears things up. CM

SOURCES:

-- Merrill Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 15.
-- Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.30.3 (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:559–560).
-- Eusebius Historia Ecclesiae 3.18.1 (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 1:148).
-- Jerome Lives of Illustrious Men 9 (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 3:9).

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:

@ Reformed said: "Trust me, I have studied the issue. There are no contradictions coming from a late date".

Brethren,

John wrote Revelation while on Patmos (like an ancient Alcatraz), a small rocky island in the Aegean Sea some fifty miles off the southwest coast of Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Possibly, labor camp to which the Roman authorities sent offenders.

John was on this island in exile for some time. He states that he was on Patmos “because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1:9). Whether he was exiled to Patmos as a result of persecution or had gone there voluntarily as a missionary. Is not clear. He was exiled to Patmos during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (A.D. 81–96) where he was forced to work in the quarries. He was later released by Nerva and permitted to return to Ephesus. While on Patmos, John received the visions of Revelation which he was instructed to write on a scroll and send as a pastoral letter to the churches in Asia (Rev. 1:11).

The letter was sent because the Christians in Asia were troubled by an increasing number of problems coming from outside and inside the church. The book of Revelation was written in a time of Roman hostility toward Christianity that eventually turned into direct persecution. Generally, two different views exist among scholars on the exact date of the writing of the book.

1. It was written during the persecution of Christians under Nero (A.D. 54–68).
   • Also, Nero’s persecution of Christians was of a personal nature.
2. The Bk Revelation (letter) was written during the time of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). It is equally held that the Fourth Gospel was written after Revelation.

Why The Late Date Is Preferred:

• First, John stayed in Jerusalem for a number of years, eventually leaving Palestine shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He subsequently settled in Ephesus in Asia Minor. The churches which he refers to in his book had been in existence for a considerable number of years. At the time of the writing of Revelation, they were in a condition of spiritual decline and apostasy, one that was rapid for some of the churches. The early date does not fit into such a historical situation, because the churches in Asia Minor were not founded until the early sixties. They were still prospering during the reign of Nero.
• Second, early Christian writers, including Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp (A.D. 60–150), held that the book of Revelation was written during the time of Domitian.
• Third, the book of Revelation was written in a time when Christians were experiencing hardship and pressure because of their refusal to comply with popular demands for emperor worship.

While worship of the living emperor had been fostered by Romans since

• Augustus Octavian (27 B.C.–A.D. 14).
• Gaius Caligula (A.D. 37–41).
• The emperor to demand worship (alive) for himself was Domitian (A.D. 81–96).

Although widely spread, the worship of Caesar was especially practiced in Asia where Christians came into conflict with the authorities because of their opposition to such worship. The persecution of Christ was initiated under Domitian was not on a wide scale.

The book of Revelation was originally written as a letter. I hope this clears things up. CM

SOURCES:

-- Merrill Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 15.
-- Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.30.3 (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:559–560).
-- Eusebius Historia Ecclesiae 3.18.1 (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 1:148).
-- Jerome Lives of Illustrious Men 9 (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 3:9).

Thanks CM!

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
1. It was written during the persecution of Christians under Nero (A.D. 54–68).
* Also, Nero’s persecution of Christians was of a personal nature.
3. The Bk Revelation (letter) was written during the time of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). It is equally held that the Fourth Gospel was written after Revelation.

Indeed, there are these two possibilities ... and I would suggest to carefully consider the following points:

Instead of turning to extra biblical sources, we can turn to the book itself to find evidence for the dating of Revelation! Within the book itself there are clear indications mentioned for the dating of the writing of the book! This internal evidence shows rather plainly that the book of Revelation was written before the events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

(1) The first point to consider is a statement found in Rev 10, that John must prophesy again. John was told that he "must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings" (Rev 10:11).
If Revelation was written in AD 96, John would have been already over 90 years old, making it very difficult for him to go to various "nations and…many kings" and prophesy and preach.
On the other hand, if Revelation was written at the earlier date, John would have been in his mid 60's and his traveling would have been more feasible.

(2) A second point concerns the Seven Churches in Asia, seeing that John wrote the book of Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia (cp. Rev 1:4). This statement is important and should be noted (rather than being overlooked as has been done by many scholars).
There is only a small period of time during which there were only seven churches in Asia, and that time was in the early AD 60's. Paul had established nine churches in that province of Asia, but only seven of them were addressed in Revelation. A plausible reason for this situation is that the cities of Colosse, Hierapolis and Laodicea had been destroyed by an earthquake around AD 61. Of these three, Laodicea was rebuilt soon afterwards, whereas the other two cities were not, so that indeed only seven churches were left in Asia during the five years just prior to the beginning of the Roman/Jewish war.

Another important point here is that in the message to the church of Philadelphia in verses 10-11, Christ told John to inform that church that an "hour of temptation" was "about to come upon all the world [i.e., the Roman Empire]" (cp. Rev 3:7-13) Furthermore, Christ then told them that He was coming quickly and that they should hold fast. The reason this is important is the fact that the first persecution of Christians took place under Caesar Nero in AD 64. Therefore, Revelation must have been written before that time.

(3) The third point to consider is that the Temple at Jerusalem was still standing. In Rev 11:1-2 we read "And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
Now, how would we know that this was the temple at Jerusalem in the first century and not some future yet to be built temple? For one, there is not one verse in the entire Bible that speaks of a "rebuilt" Jewish Temple. Not one. That alone should be proof enough.
Furthermore, this passage in Rev 11 is rather similar to Luke 21:20-24. Jesus told the disciples they would see this event. They had asked Him about their temple (Lk 21:5) and Jesus told them it would be destroyed before their generation passed away (Lk 21:32). Jesus also said (Lk 21:24), "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles." This is the same thing Christ told John in Revelation 11:2.
Now, since the disciples' generation has long since passed away, the book of Revelation must have been written before the Gentiles trampled Jerusalem under foot and destroyed it and the temple in AD 70.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

@C_M_ said:
1. It was written during the persecution of Christians under Nero (A.D. 54–68).
* Also, Nero’s persecution of Christians was of a personal nature.
3. The Bk Revelation (letter) was written during the time of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). It is equally held that the Fourth Gospel was written after Revelation.

Indeed, there are these two possibilities ... and I would suggest to carefully consider the following points:

Instead of turning to extra-biblical sources, we can turn to the book itself to find evidence for the dating of Revelation! Within the book itself there are clear indications mentioned for the dating of the writing of the book! This internal evidence shows rather plainly that the book of Revelation was written before the events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Good. However, truth in all its forms can stand close examinations. I know the Bible is its own expositor, but history has its role. A composite of information helps the "non-believer" who has no faith in the Word to help with understanding.

(1) The first point to consider is a statement found in Rev 10, that John must prophesy again. John was told that he "must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings" (Rev 10:11).
If Revelation was written in AD 96, John would have been already over 90 years old, making it very difficult for him to go to various "nations and…many kings" and prophesy and preach.

Yes, John was old. Young or old, messages were passed on by runners or letters. Like the one to the seven churches. You make a very weak point above.

On the other hand, if Revelation was written at the earlier date, John would have been in his mid 60's and his traveling would have been more feasible.

See above. Besides, what we know, as the Book of Revelation, was a letter to be read publicly (or openly in the churches.

(2) A second point concerns the Seven Churches in Asia, seeing that John wrote the book of Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia (cp. Rev 1:4). This statement is important and should be noted (rather than being overlooked as has been done by many scholars).

It was honest of you to point this out. After providing the very basic information about the purpose and contents of his work, John addresses the original recipients of the book. Rev 1:4, contains the Trinitarian greetings that merge into a climatic song of praise to the glorified Christ for his great acts of salvation on behalf of his people.

"Grace to you and peace"

• This greeting formula is used by Paul and Peter at the beginning of their letters (cf. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:2).
• This could have been a common greeting in the early church. It actually combines the customary Greek greeting word charis (“grace”) with the Hebrew greeting word shalom (“peace”; Gr. eirēnē), which became a greeting widely used among the early Christians.

"The One who is and who was and who is coming"

• This tripartite title refers most likely to the great Old Testament covenant name Yahweh (cf. Exod. 3:14), expressing the eternal existence of God in the past, present, and future.
  • See Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), 101–105.

This phrase refers to God the Father is seen in Rev. 1:8 and Rev. 4:8 where it is associated with another divine title, the Almighty. The title “the One who is and who was and who is coming” refers to “the eschatological ‘visitation’ of God” (See Aune).

The phrase here indicates at the very beginning that the end-time presence of God in the book of Revelation must be understood in light of both his past and future actions.

The seven Spirits.

• The plurality of the Holy Spirit occurs also in Revelation 22:6.
• “The seven Spirits before the throne of God” are identical to “the seven Spirits of God” in Rev. 3:1.
• Elsewhere in the book, “the seven Spirits of God” are portrayed as “seven torches of fire” burning before the throne (4:5) and “seven eyes … sent out into all the earth” (Rev. 5:6).
• The Old Testament background of this imagery is found first in the Greek translation (Septuagint) of Isaiah 11:2 where seven designations of the Spirit of the Lord are mentioned: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and the spirit of the fear of God.
• Another reference is in Zechariah 4 where the prophet saw the seven lamps (Rev. 4:2) which were to denote “the eyes of the Lord which range throughout the earth” (Rev. 4:10).

These refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world (Zech. 4:6). John uses Zechariah’s images in portraying the Holy Spirit in his sevenfold fullness.

The fact that “the seven Spirits” are here (Rev. 1:4–6) associated with the Father and Christ as the equal source of grace and peace strongly suggests that in Rev. 1:4. We have a reference to the sevenfold activity of the Holy Spirit on behalf of the churches. The number “seven” must, of course, be taken symbolically as divine fullness and perfection.

The seven “Spirits” parallel the seven churches in which the Spirit operates.

• Each of the letters to the seven churches concludes with this exhortation: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

If the churches are a symbolic representation of the universality of the Christian church, then the meaning is clear:

• “The seven Spirits” seem to refer to the fullness and universality of the activity of the Holy Spirit on behalf of God’s faithful people.

What a Revelation! CM

SOURCES:

-- Aune. Revelation 1–5, 30–32
-- Aune, Revelation 17–22, 939–940.
-- Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 162–166.
-- Swete, Henry Barclay, ed. The Apocalypse of St. John. 2d. ed. Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1906. pg 6.

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:

@Wolfgang said:
(1) The first point to consider is a statement found in Rev 10, that John must prophesy again. John was told that he "must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings" (Rev 10:11).
If Revelation was written in AD 96, John would have been already over 90 years old, making it very difficult for him to go to various "nations and…many kings" and prophesy and preach.

Yes, John was old. Young or old, messages were passed on by runners or letters. Like the one to the seven churches. You make a very weak point above.

I would rather say that you are trying to weaken the statement in Rev 10:11.

(2) A second point concerns the Seven Churches in Asia, seeing that John wrote the book of Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia (cp. Rev 1:4). This statement is important and should be noted (rather than being overlooked as has been done by many scholars).

It was honest of you to point this out. After providing the very basic information about the purpose and contents of his work, John addresses the original recipients of the book. Rev 1:4, contains the Trinitarian greetings that merge into a climatic song of praise to the glorified Christ for his great acts of salvation on behalf of his people.

There is NO "Trinitarian greeting" found in Rev 1:4 ... just as there is NO Trinitarien greeting found in the opening of any other NT writing.

Your extensive quotes from other sources given to support such an idea are mute, in that they all are nothing but a speculative interpretation with partly far fetched ideas.

You know, while I do appreciate all the time and effort you put in to find and collect and quote these theological sources, I would value more to have a simple exchange with "straight forward Bible" ... especially so, since you yourself several times encourage to stick with the Bible, but then you yourself go to extra-biblical sources.

Dave_L

Here's something else I'd like to put up for discussion pertaining to the Antichrist. First;

“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy **comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat **in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4) (NASB95)

The question is, could Antichrist take his seat Doctrinally in the temple of God (the church according to Paul)? That would be through the false doctrines that make the papacy or any other institutional church the dispenser of salvation through the sacraments? Also the Roman Catholic free will doctrine that exalts the human will over God's will in matters of salvation. If so, it would make Antichrist a present reality in many evangelical churches today.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Here's something else I'd like to put up for discussion pertaining to the Antichrist. First;
“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy **comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat **in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4) (NASB95)

This revolt/rebellion (translated in most Bibles as "apostasy") concerns the rebellion of Jews against Rome which then caused Roman armies to besiege and evnetually take Jerusalem. The "man of lawlessness" was most likely the John of Gischala, a leader of Jewish anarchists who took over the rule at Jerusalem, including entering the temple, etc ....

The question is, could Antichrist take his seat Doctrinally in the temple of God (the church according to Paul)?

No .... for one, text in 2Th 2 has "man of lawlessness" and not "antichrist". Next, overall context and historical background of the epistle points to the temple of God that was still standing at the time at Jeruslaem.
"taking his seat doctrinally ..." appears more like an "artifical" / "far fetched" interpretation than anything else.

That would be through the false doctrines that make the papacy or any other institutional church the dispenser of salvation through the sacraments? Also the Roman Catholic free will doctrine that exalts the human will over God's will in matters of salvation. If so, it would make Antichrist a present reality in many evangelical churches today.

There was no Roman Catholic church in existence at the time, nor in the near future time which is in view in 2Th 2. Trying to put the label of "the Antichrist" on the RCC and/or papacy via its doctrines seems a forceful attempt to assign something to someone to whom it doesn't refer in the first place.

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Here's something else I'd like to put up for discussion pertaining to the Antichrist. First;
“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy **comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat **in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4) (NASB95)

This revolt/rebellion (translated in most Bibles as "apostasy") concerns the rebellion of Jews against Rome which then caused Roman armies to besiege and evnetually take Jerusalem. The "man of lawlessness" was most likely the John of Gischala, a leader of Jewish anarchists who took over the rule at Jerusalem, including entering the temple, etc ....

The question is, could Antichrist take his seat Doctrinally in the temple of God (the church according to Paul)?

No .... for one, text in 2Th 2 has "man of lawlessness" and not "antichrist". Next, overall context and historical background of the epistle points to the temple of God that was still standing at the time at Jeruslaem.
"taking his seat doctrinally ..." appears more like an "artifical" / "far fetched" interpretation than anything else.

That would be through the false doctrines that make the papacy or any other institutional church the dispenser of salvation through the sacraments? Also the Roman Catholic free will doctrine that exalts the human will over God's will in matters of salvation. If so, it would make Antichrist a present reality in many evangelical churches today.

There was no Roman Catholic church in existence at the time, nor in the near future time which is in view in 2Th 2. Trying to put the label of "the Antichrist" on the RCC and/or papacy via its doctrines seems a forceful attempt to assign something to someone to whom it doesn't refer in the first place.

Thanks Wolfgang. I use a late date for Revelation which I believe allows for my interpretation.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

@C_M_ said:
Yes, John was old. Young or old, messages were passed on by runners or letters. Like the one to the seven churches. You make a very weak point above.

I would rather say that you are trying to weaken the statement in Rev 10:11.

In what way?

It was honest of you to point this out. After providing the very basic information about the purpose and contents of his work, John addresses the original recipients of the book. Rev 1:4, contains the Trinitarian greetings that merge into a climatic song of praise to the glorified Christ for his great acts of salvation on behalf of his people.

There is NO "Trinitarian greeting" found in Rev 1:4 ... just as there is NO Trinitarien greeting found in the opening of any other NT writing.

Your extensive quotes from other sources given to support such an idea are mute, in that they all are nothing but a speculative interpretation with partly far-fetched ideas.

"A speculative interpretation with partly far-fetched ideas", Wolfgang, you may disagree, but let's not go that far. How and why do say such? Is not history and other minds can contribute when the Scriptures are the base foundation of truth?

You know, while I do appreciate all the time and effort you put in to find and collect and quote these theological sources, I would value more to have a simple exchange with "straight forward Bible" ... especially so, since you yourself several times encourage to stick with the Bible, but then you yourself go to extra-biblical sources.

Have we forgotten how the Bible was written? The Bible writers were God's "penmen" not God's pen. The Bible is a Divine-human product. Under "inspiration" "Holy men wrote as they were "moved by the Spirit".-- Using their education, cultural examples, the language of their past, personal experiences, history, etc.

I don't agree that my usage and/or efforts to direct you to other sources (especially, historical and word/language usage connections) for further study is being unfaithful to the texts.

Are you requiring me to be an extreme literalist, when it comes to the Word? Regardless, the Bible canon, Old and New Testaments, is the authority of heaven's revelation, second only to, Jesus, the Christ. So, please, re-read my post above and note my Scriptural usage and connections. Besides, other voices in the conversation (albeit, not a member of CD) enriches the discussion.

God used prophets as his "mouthpiece" to convey His message. I am not God, but can I use other scholars, history, language, etc., as my helpers? There are a few others (not to mention, silent readers) appreciates the source inclusions. Moving forward, I hope you don't find them to be too annoying. CM

PS. F Y I, in my sharing, I don't do so as a "Tabula rasa".

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:

@Wolfgang said:
There is NO "Trinitarian greeting" found in Rev 1:4 ... just as there is NO Trinitarien greeting found in the opening of any other NT writing.

Your extensive quotes from other sources given to support such an idea are mute, in that they all are nothing but a speculative interpretation with partly far-fetched ideas.

"A speculative interpretation with partly far-fetched ideas", Wolfgang, you may disagree, but let's not go that far. How and why do say such?

Because that is what I would say regarding those quotes trying to prove a "Trinitarian greeting" .... since the text does not contain such a Trinity greeting, these interpretations are speculative and - in part at least - use far fetched ideas to link together unrelated pieces of information in order to support their "Trinitarian greeting"

Is not history and other minds can contribute when the Scriptures are the base foundation of truth?

Obviously it depends if indeed the Scriptures are the base or whether perhaps some theology is the base and scripture passages are "pieced together" to supposedly support the theology.

Have we forgotten how the Bible was written?

I would claim that I am well aware of how the Bible was written ...

The Bible writers were God's "penmen" not God's pen. The Bible is a Divine-human product. Under "inspiration" "Holy men wrote as they were "moved by the Spirit".-- Using their education, cultural examples, the language of their past, personal experiences, history, etc.

Indeed ... the inspired writers were inspired in harmony with their language, their vocabulary and their understanding of terms, understanding of their culture, customs, etc.
For illustration, God might have inspired you in accordance with your understanding and your language etc in order to express what He wanted expressed and declared .... it would have been in English and used language and idioms typical for the cultural setting in which you live. Similarly, God may have done the same with me, but the same truth would be expressed in a different language and using idioms typical for the cultural setting in which I live. Point is, the truth conveyed would have been the same .... provided we both wrote in obedience to how we were inspired and without adding any personal ideas deviating from what God inspired us to write.

I would say therefore, that the Bible as originally given and written is only a Divine-human product in the above sense ... it is not a Divine-human product in the sense that humans wrote some stuff they were not inspired to write and added some of their own ideas in place of or in addition to what God had inspired them to write

I don't agree that my usage and/or efforts to direct you to other sources (especially, historical and word/language usage connections) for further study is being unfaithful to the texts.

See above .... that depends on what these sources provide.

Are you requiring me to be an extreme literalist, when it comes to the Word?

No ...

God used prophets as his "mouthpiece" to convey His message. I am not God, but can I use other scholars, history, language, etc., as my helpers? There are a few others (not to mention, silent readers) appreciates the source inclusions. Moving forward, I hope you don't find them to be too annoying. CM

See above ... as long as other sources are indeed helpful, there is benefit. Other sources promoting theological doctrines by taking passages out of context, linking topically unrelated passages together, etc. are more than just annoying.