2Thessalonians 2 From an Orthodox Preterist Perspective

[Rufus]

Powerful demonic being in control of first century Rome and it’s leaders mainly Nero

Marty, are you a preterist? I'm really looking for insights from a preterist perspective.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Another huge hint that this passage is talking about the visible, physical Second Coming is that the "lawless one" will be overthrown by the SPLENDOR of Christ's coming -- clearly suggesting a physical, visible coming.

Pardon me for picking on a detail in your statement here...this is an all-too-common misunderstanding of how the Man of Lawlessness would be destroyed. It would not be the brightness of Christ's coming which would destroy the Man of Lawlessness. It was the very brightness of the Man of Lawlessness' OWN coming (into power) which was the means of his undoing. The "brightness" of the Man of Lawlessness "exalting himself" to appear that he was God was the very cause of his destruction.

If you look at the entire sentence of 2 Thess. 2:8-10, it becomes obvious that the only "coming" being spoken of in these verses is the "coming" of the Man of Lawlessness, "whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

It is impossible that the "coming" described in these three verses could be Christ's, since Christ would never come like Satan, with lies and deceit.

 

[Rufus]

Pardon me for picking on a detail in your statement here...this is an all-too-common misunderstanding of how the Man of Lawlessness would be destroyed. It would not be the brightness of Christ's coming which would destroy the Man of Lawlessness. It was the very brightness of the Man of Lawlessness' OWN coming (into power) which was the means of his undoing. The "brightness" of the Man of Lawlessness "exalting himself" to appear that he was God was the very cause of his destruction.

If you look at the entire sentence of 2 Thess. 2:8-10, it becomes obvious that the only "coming" being spoken of in these verses is the "coming" of the Man of Lawlessness, "whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

It is impossible that the "coming" described in these three verses could be Christ's, since Christ would never come like Satan, with lies and deceit.

Actually, the passage begins in 2:1, which very plainly talks about the "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him".

 

[3 Resurrections]

Actually, the passage begins in 2:1, which very plainly talks about the "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him".

It does, but that bodily coming of Christ would not happen until the believers first saw the coming of the Man of Lawlessness and his destruction. All of the "comings" in those three verses of 2 Thess. 2:8-10 are concerning the coming of the Man of Lawlessness on the scene into power in Jerusalem.

This was the Zealot Menahem, one of the lawless Zealot leaders who was trying to rise to prominence in Jerusalem as a fulfillment of Daniel's Messiah the Prince prophecy. Menahem was the first to actually get into the temple in AD 66 and present himself as the King of the Jews, dressed in King Herod's royal garments which he had stolen from Masada along with armor to outfit all of Menahem's soldiers. His meteoric rise to power as the "King" in Jerusalem made him act the part of a tyrant. He murdered and "took out of the way" the former high priest Ananias, who as a member of the moderate faction in Jerusalem had been restraining the more radical elements of the Zealot cause.

In retaliation for Ananias's murder, his son Eleazar in turn murdered Menahem after a brief period of Menahem's tyrannical leadership of the rebellion in Jerusalem. God used the very splendor of Menaham advancing himself over all the other Zealot leaders (who were likewise attempting to become a military "Messiah" of their people) to bring about Menahem's destruction.

But that destruction in AD 66 of Menahem, the Man of Lawlessness, was not the point in time of Christ's bodily coming.

 

[Marty]

Marty, are you a preterist? I'm really looking for insights from a preterist perspective.

I’m an amil partial preterist

 

[Rufus]

It does, but that bodily coming of Christ would not happen until the believers first saw the coming of the Man of Lawlessness and his destruction. All of the "comings" in those three verses of 2 Thess. 2:8-10 are concerning the coming of the Man of Lawlessness on the scene into power in Jerusalem.

This was the Zealot Menahem, one of the lawless Zealot leaders who was trying to rise to prominence in Jerusalem as a fulfillment of Daniel's Messiah the Prince prophecy. Menahem was the first to actually get into the temple in AD 66 and present himself as the King of the Jews, dressed in King Herod's royal garments which he had stolen from Masada along with armor to outfit all of Menahem's soldiers. His meteoric rise to power as the "King" in Jerusalem made him act the part of a tyrant. He murdered and "took out of the way" the former high priest Ananias, who as a member of the moderate faction in Jerusalem had been restraining the more radical elements of the Zealot cause.

In retaliation for Ananias's murder, his son Eleazar in turn murdered Menahem after a brief period of Menahem's tyrannical leadership of the rebellion in Jerusalem. God used the very splendor of Menaham advancing himself over all the other Zealot leaders (who were likewise attempting to become a military "Messiah" of their people) to bring about Menahem's destruction.

But that destruction in AD 66 of Menahem, the Man of Lawlessness, was not the point in time of Christ's bodily coming.

But this is precisely one of the main reasons why I can't hold to a first century "coming of the 'man of lawlessness". The larger context is the Parousia. To my mind it doesn't make any sense for Paul to tell the church that the Parousia won't happen until an event occurs thousands of years before the Second Coming. Yesterday, I listed a few other reasons why I have a tough time buying into a first century "man of lawlessness".

Another huge reason, and the biggest one of all that I forgot to mention yesterday, is that this is the second time that Paul speaks to the Thessalonians about the Parousia. See 1Thess 4:13-5:6. And this passage actually adds some solid historical context to what Paul wrote in his second epistle. Apparently after Paul spoke to the Thessalonians the first time about the Parousia, troublemakers (false prophets) came in and contradicted his teaching, upsetting the faith of some. Ergo, Paul's follow-up in 2Thess 2. And the main topic of this chapter is not the coming of the "man of sin" per se but the Second Coming. The "man of sin" is an added detail to what must occur prior to the second coming of Christ.

The primary topic of both passages in these epistles is the Parousia, and this is why I believe that the revealing of this "man of sin" (whoever or whatever that may be) occurs shortly before the Secondly Coming and not nearly 2,000 years ago that have already elapsed. And it get even more absurd if the Lord comes back 1,000 or 2,000 years from now.

 

[Rufus]

I’m an amil partial preterist

Ok. Kool <g>. I am also, waffling between Amil and Postmil. I was a solid Amil until I started reading Gentry Jr.<g>.

 

[prism]

Oh....this "is not a Preterist Board"??? Are Preterists banned from posting here? Or is classical preterism considered to be heretical? Anyhow...in my introductory post, I did address my questions specifically to preterists. So...I guess you and I are done here, since you have revealed what you are not. Have a nice day.

I see, I get questioned of assuming the beast and man of sin are the same, and in defense show Scriptures indicating they are (#37), and once found out I'm not a Preterist I quickly become a persona non grata. So much for 'free' discourse.

PS, the thread may be a Preterist thread, but the Board is not and I'll have a nice day.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The primary topic of both passages in these epistles is the Parousia, and this is why I believe that the revealing of this "man of sin" (whoever or whatever that may be) occurs shortly before the Secondly Coming and not nearly 2,000 years ago that have already elapsed. And it get even more absurd if the Lord comes back 1,000 or 2,000 years from now.

The revealing of that Man of Sin did occur in AD 66, which was just a little while before the Second Coming. We are not currently waiting for the second bodily coming of our Lord, but the third bodily coming. There is more than just one Great White Throne judgment, and more than just one simultaneous, so-called "general" resurrection.

God planned three resurrection events, as portrayed in the three required harvest feasts under the OT: the first at Passover in AD 33 (Christ and the 144,000 Firstfruits, Matt. 27:52-53 resurrected saints which formed the "First resurrection"), the second at Pentecost day in AD 70 (Daniel's 1,335th day), and the third in our future at the time of year the Feast of Tabernacles would have been celebrated under the OC. That is why this one Feast of Tabernacles is the only one of the three formerly-required festivals to be highlighted after that AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, as mentioned in Zechariah 14:16-19.

 

[Rufus]

I see, I get questioned of assuming the beast and man of sin are the same, and in defense show Scriptures indicating they are (#37), and once found out I'm not a Preterist I quickly become a persona non grata. So much for 'free' discourse.

PS, the thread may be a Preterist thread, but the Board is not and I'll have a nice day.

Well all is not lost for you, is it?

 

[Rufus]

The revealing of that Man of Sin did occur in AD 66, which was just a little while before the Second Coming. We are not currently waiting for the second bodily coming of our Lord, but the third bodily coming. There is more than just one Great White Throne judgment, and more than just one simultaneous, so-called "general" resurrection.

God planned three resurrection events, as portrayed in the three required harvest feasts under the OT: the first at Passover in AD 33 (Christ and the 144,000 Firstfruits, Matt. 27:52-53 resurrected saints which formed the "First resurrection"), the second at Pentecost day in AD 70 (Daniel's 1,335th day), and the third in our future at the time of year the Feast of Tabernacles would have been celebrated under the OC. That is why this one Feast of Tabernacles is the only one of the three formerly-required festivals to be highlighted after that AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, as mentioned in Zechariah 14:16-19.

Okay...I only see "two" resurrection events: The eschatological Already which is the raising of all the spiritual dead, i.e. the "first resurrection" in this age and the eschatological Not Yet which is the bodily resurrection at the end of this age.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The eschatological Already which is the raising of all the spiritual dead, i.e. the "first resurrection" in this age

The "First resurrection" cannot be referring to the raising of all the spiritual dead, because that spiritual resurrection to eternal life takes place individually on a case-by-case basis over the course of time. To connect the first resurrection event with the raising of the "spiritual dead" runs counter to the way 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 speaks of the ranked, chronological order of resurrection events IN TIME. "But NOW is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept...But every man in his own order: Christ the First-fruits; afterward, they that are Christ's at His coming."

The "First-fruits" was a group resurrection event pictured back in the OT as the First-fruits of the barley harvest wave sheaf offered in the temple, along with a single he-lamb without blemish (Leviticus 23:10-12). Christ became the fulfillment of that single he-lamb without blemish, along with the Matthew 27:52-53 group of First-fruits saints resurrected that same day as Christ. Both Christ and those 144,000 were called the "First-fruits" because together they composed the "First resurrection" event. They shared the same title be cause they shared the same "First resurrection" event involving glorified bodies raised out of the ground.

The timing of the millennium in Revelation 20 was scheduled to end with this "First resurrection" event of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 First-fruits. These Matt. 27 saints were the "remnant of the dead" which "came to life again" when the millennium had "expired" and was "finished".

"Afterward", (on Pentecost day in AD 70) the next, second bodily resurrection event occurred at Christ's bodily coming to the Mount of Olives, as Zechariah 14:4-5 predicted. The scriptures from Matthew 24 and Zechariah 14 (and others) show that there has to be no less than three comings of Christ. The bodily resurrection events connected with each of these comings were timed to match those three OT harvest feast celebrations in Israel during those very specific times of the year.

 

[prism]

Well all is not lost for you, is it?

Nope, Jesus saves!

 

[Rufus]

The "First resurrection" cannot be referring to the raising of all the spiritual dead, because that spiritual resurrection to eternal life takes place individually on a case-by-case basis over the course of time. To connect the first resurrection event with the raising of the "spiritual dead" runs counter to the way 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 speaks of the ranked, chronological order of resurrection events IN TIME. "But NOW is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept...But every man in his own order: Christ the First-fruits; afterward, they that are Christ's at His coming."

The "First-fruits" was a group resurrection event pictured back in the OT as the First-fruits of the barley harvest wave sheaf offered in the temple, along with a single he-lamb without blemish (Leviticus 23:10-12). Christ became the fulfillment of that single he-lamb without blemish, along with the Matthew 27:52-53 group of First-fruits saints resurrected that same day as Christ. Both Christ and those 144,000 were called the "First-fruits" because together they composed the "First resurrection" event. They shared the same title be cause they shared the same "First resurrection" event involving glorified bodies raised out of the ground.

The timing of the millennium in Revelation 20 was scheduled to end with this "First resurrection" event of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 First-fruits. These Matt. 27 saints were the "remnant of the dead" which "came to life again" when the millennium had "expired" and was "finished".

"Afterward", (on Pentecost day in AD 70) the next, second bodily resurrection event occurred at Christ's bodily coming to the Mount of Olives, as Zechariah 14:4-5 predicted. The scriptures from Matthew 24 and Zechariah 14 (and others) show that there has to be no less than three comings of Christ. The bodily resurrection events connected with each of these comings were timed to match those three OT harvest feast celebrations in Israel during those very specific times of the year.

I see no contradictions or any other kind of problem with spiritual resurrections preceding bodily resurrections. 1Cor 15:20-23 does no violence to other passages which teach spiritual resurrection, e.g. Jn 3:3; 1Pet 1:23; Rom 6:4; Eph 2:1,5-6; Col 2:12-13. If none us have had eternal life imparted to our souls in this age, then we're in very big trouble. That means we're still dead in our trespasses and sins. What is regeneration (being born again) if not the infusion of spiritual life into a dead soul? And if this infusion of life by the Holy Spirit into a soul is not raising us up from our spiritual tombs, then what is it? Scripture says that we walk in the NEWNESS of LIFE!

The passage you cite in 1Cor 15 has no bearing on this issue of spiritual life since the topic is the bodily resurrection. Spiritual resurrection is nowhere in view in this chapter. You're confusing categories here.

As far as the OT passages you cite, I don't have the time to delve into those. Plus as a New Covenant Theology student, I interpret OT passages in light of the New Covenant (NT scriptures), not the other way around. The primary reason for this is because the eternaL NC, of which Christ himself is the embodiment, fulfills all in the OT.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The passage you cite in 1Cor 15 has no bearing on this issue of spiritual life since the topic is the bodily resurrection. Spiritual resurrection is nowhere in view in this chapter. You're confusing categories here.

All I'm saying is that the "First resurrection" event was a one-time only occurrence back in AD 33 with "Christ the First-fruits" and the Matthew 27:52-53 group of resurrected saints.

I've no argument with you at all that we are raised to spiritual life while still in this life, and that this precedes our bodily resurrection in the future. But a spiritual awakening to life happens many, many multiplied millions of times, with each individual being spiritually raised to new life in salvation over the span of human history. That means the single "First resurrection" event is not the same as those many spiritual resurrections.

You are quite right that 1 Corinthians 15 is not speaking of spiritual resurrection. That's my point. "Christ the First-fruits" bodily resurrection with the Matthew 276:52-53 saints raised that same day was one single resurrection event. Afterward, an even larger second bodily resurrection event would follow at Christ's coming (in AD 70).

as a New Covenant Theology student, I interpret OT passages in light of the New Covenant (NT scriptures), not the other way around

But I am interpreting the OT in light of the NT. The NT compares Christ's coming to resurrect his saints to a "harvest". God the "husbandman" had long patience for those harvests (PLURAL), until the early and the latter rains came . If you have no idea what time of year the "early" and "latter" rains came in Israel's agricultural system, and how they were connected to Israel's festal calendar, then this NT passage in James becomes meaningless for you.

The NT was not created in a vacuum. And the scriptures are a homogenous whole. We can't neglect any part of it without detriment to our theology. Christ and the NT writers constantly quoted passages from the OT to shed light on what had already been fulfilled, what was being fulfilled, and what would be fulfilled in the future. That's all I'm doing.

 

[Rufus]

All I'm saying is that the "First resurrection" event was a one-time only occurrence back in AD 33 with "Christ the First-fruits" and the Matthew 27:52-53 group of resurrected saints.

I've no argument with you at all that we are raised to spiritual life while still in this life, and that this precedes our bodily resurrection in the future. But a spiritual awakening to life happens many, many multiplied millions of times, with each individual being spiritually raised to new life in salvation over the span of human history. That means the single "First resurrection" event is not the same as those many spiritual resurrections.

You are quite right that 1 Corinthians 15 is not speaking of spiritual resurrection. That's my point. "Christ the First-fruits" bodily resurrection with the Matthew 276:52-53 saints raised that same day was one single resurrection event. Afterward, an even larger second bodily resurrection event would follow at Christ's coming (in AD 70).

But I am interpreting the OT in light of the NT. The NT compares Christ's coming to resurrect his saints to a "harvest". God the "husbandman" had long patience for those harvests (PLURAL), until the early and the latter rains came . If you have no idea what time of year the "early" and "latter" rains came in Israel's agricultural system, and how they were connected to Israel's festal calendar, then this NT passage in James becomes meaningless for you.

The NT was not created in a vacuum. And the scriptures are a homogenous whole. We can't neglect any part of it without detriment to our theology. Christ and the NT writers constantly quoted passages from the OT to shed light on what had already been fulfilled, what was being fulfilled, and what would be fulfilled in the future. That's all I'm doing.

Yes, the first BODILY resurrection occurred on Easter Sunday. But we shouldn't forget that we are now living in the Age of the New Creation, and this new creation is precisely the spiritual resurrection of all God's elect in this "1,000-year" period that precedes the Second Coming. Since this resurrection also precedes the General Resurrection, it can indeed be called the "first resurrection" (Rev 20:4-6). Of course, I understand not everyone sees things this way. And that's okay. I tend to err on the side of Occam's Razor in that I keep my eschatology simple <g>.

And I wouldn't put too much weight on Mat 25:52-53 since we don't know if those people died again and will be raised again on the last day.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And I wouldn't put too much weight on Mat 25:52-53 since we don't know if those people died again and will be raised again on the last day.

Why shouldn't we put "weight" on this account given by Matthew? We certainly do know that they did not die again. "It is appointed unto man ONCE to die...", and not twice, according to Hebrews 9:27. The resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints never died again. Neither did any other saint resurrected in the OT, or in the NT by Christ and His disciples and apostles.

The Matt. 27 saints were the ones Paul was referring to in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 & 17 who were "alive", and who had "remained" on the earth at that time. Together, they would meet the Lord in the air with the next bodily resurrection event to come (on Pentecost day in AD 70) when they would all ascend to heaven with Christ from their gathering point at the Mount of Olives location.

The Matt. 27 saints were the ones Paul was referring to in Romans 8:23. Paul said the church had the "First-fruits" among them still at that time.

The Matt. 27 saints were the ones that Hymenaus and Philetus based their incorrect doctrine upon, saying that the resurrection was already past. These men were mistaken in one respect, because there was going to be yet another second bodily resurrection in the near future for that generation (in AD 70, as well as one for us in our future).

The Matt. 27 saints were the ones Ephesians 4:8-12 was talking about - the "multitude of captives" which Christ brought out of the grave that day and gave as "gifts" to men. Those "gifts" of the Matt. 27 saints acted as apostles (meaning "sent ones"), prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the early church. They provided a living, deathless example of what the saints could expect to receive for themselves should they be martyred for the faith in those years of various persecutions from all sides.

The Matt. 27 saints were the 144,000 "First-fruits" of Revelation 7:4-8 and Revelation 14:1-5, redeemed out of the earth, with no guile in their mouth, standing with the resurrected Christ (literally) in Jerusalem on Mount Zion.

The Matt. 27 saints are also the ones in Revelation 6:9-11 under the altar who were given white robes of resurrected righteousness. They were told to "rest" for a little while in that state, until their brethren which were "about to be" put to death in that generation had also died under persecution.

The Matt. 27 saints are also the ones in Revelation 14:14-16 who were the first "sickle" harvest out of the earth, resurrected by the newly-crowned Son of Man at His resurrection-day ascension to His Father.

The Matt. 27 saints were also the "remnant of the dead" which came to life again in Revelation 20:5 at the end of the millennium in AD 33. They were what composed that Revelation 20:5 "First resurrection" event.

And this is not even a complete list. You are missing quite a lot if you disregard the identity and the actions of the Matthew 27:52-53 saints.

 

[Red Baker]

I agree; it was the Second Coming. And it was visible to every eye of those who pierced Christ.

Wrong~It was not the second coming! That is a corruption of the truth. But, I agree, me saying that it is a corruption of the truth and proving it is a corruption of God's word is labor that few will engage in, but I will, for time is short, especially so with me, being on the door steps of the lotted years God grants to people.


2nd Thessalonians 2:1-3~"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. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,"...
Paul said: "Let no man deceive you by ANY MEANS"....These words are almost exactly what the Lord Jesus said when he was discoursing on the same subject.
Matthew 24:4,5~"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

Daniel, ( 7-12 ) Christ ( Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21, etc. ) Paul ( here in 2nd Thess 2 )and John (in 1st John 2:18 and in Revelation; all taught the same truth, and it is this: "In the latter days of the last day, this world will be overflowed with false prophets, and with the children of the wicked one taking over the temple of God ( NT churches ).

Now, very briefly~the second coming of Christ will not come until certain signs are fulfilled, one such sign is the man of sin taking over the churches of Christ. The man of sin, the antichrist, and the abomination of desolation are all one and the same!

The man of sin is a collective noun meaning just what the word said: man of sin...MAN of sin...all men who live under the power of sin. Man of God is all men who serve and are God's servants doing his will. Man of war are all men who engage in warfare~etc.

The day of Christ's coming and our gathering together unto him, has not happen~I can give you severals proof that it has not happened in spite of you believing that it has~you, sir have truly been deceived by the preterist camp whom you have been following instead of the word of God. Sir, that day of our gathering together unto Christ will 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 worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Sir, the man of sin was not FULLY revealed in any time in history since the apostles, until around 1880, plus or minus~that's when this world's floodgate was open, to many different versions of the scriptures, with an attack upon the scriptures once delivered to us~but MORE THAN THAT, this world hatched many of today's big time religions, such as The SDA, Jehovah Witnesses, and the Mormons all started around the same time and within a few hundred miles of each other! ANtichrist have ALWAYS worked in thsi world, just as Paul said: "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." Only, once the Spirit of God removes his restraining power, and Satan is loose for a little season, then all hell will break out AS WE NOW SEE and witness on every hand. True believers are fleeing JUdea, (or the profess churches of Christ, because they SEE the abomination that God WILL make desolate set in in almost every professing churches of God.

3 Resurrections you MUST use extra biblical source for your teachings, we stay totally within the pages of the word of God for our truths.

I'll come back, and discuss this with us, if you will just show up.

 

[Rufus]

Why shouldn't we put "weight" on this account given by Matthew? We certainly do know that they did not die again. "It is appointed unto man ONCE to die...", and not twice, according to Hebrews 9:27. The resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints never died again. Neither did any other saint resurrected in the OT, or in the NT by Christ and His disciples and apostles.

You do not know this for a fact. Those resurrections were not the norm. They were miraculous exceptions to the general truth of Heb 9:27. For example, where did the OT resurrected saints spend their time after they were raised from the dead? Insofar as 1Thess 4:15-17 is concerned, Paul is talking about those who are alive at the Parousia. The rapture is clearly in view in v.17. Also, notice the first person plural personal pronoun "WE" in v.15. But Paul died! Ditto for Rom 8:23 -- "but we ourselves".

The Matt. 27 saints were the ones Paul was referring to in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 & 17 who were "alive", and who had "remained" on the earth at that time. Together, they would meet the Lord in the air with the next bodily resurrection event to come (on Pentecost day in AD 70) when they would all ascend to heaven with Christ from their gathering point at the Mount of Olives location.

The Matt. 27 saints were the ones Paul was referring to in Romans 8:23. Paul said the church had the "First-fruits" among them still at that time.

The Matt. 27 saints were the ones that Hymenaus and Philetus based their incorrect doctrine upon, saying that the resurrection was already past. These men were mistaken in one respect, because there was going to be yet another second bodily resurrection in the near future for that generation (in AD 70, as well as one for us in our future).

The Matt. 27 saints were the ones Ephesians 4:8-12 was talking about - the "multitude of captives" which Christ brought out of the grave that day and gave as "gifts" to men. Those "gifts" of the Matt. 27 saints acted as apostles (meaning "sent ones"), prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the early church. They provided a living, deathless example of what the saints could expect to receive for themselves should they be martyred for the faith in those years of various persecutions from all sides.

The Matt. 27 saints were the 144,000 "First-fruits" of Revelation 7:4-8 and Revelation 14:1-5, redeemed out of the earth, with no guile in their mouth, standing with the resurrected Christ (literally) in Jerusalem on Mount Zion.

The Matt. 27 saints are also the ones in Revelation 6:9-11 under the altar who were given white robes of resurrected righteousness. They were told to "rest" for a little while in that state, until their brethren which were "about to be" put to death in that generation had also died under persecution.

The Matt. 27 saints are also the ones in Revelation 14:14-16 who were the first "sickle" harvest out of the earth, resurrected by the newly-crowned Son of Man at His resurrection-day ascension to His Father.

The Matt. 27 saints were also the "remnant of the dead" which came to life again in Revelation 20:5 at the end of the millennium in AD 33. They were what composed that Revelation 20:5 "First resurrection" event.

And this is not even a complete list. You are missing quite a lot if you disregard the identity and the actions of the Matthew 27:52-53 saints.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The man of sin, the antichrist, and the abomination of desolation are all one and the same!

No, not all three of these are the same. The man of sin - THE Antichrist - was one of the many antichrist which John said were presently among them at that "last hour" in that first century (1 John 2:18-19). However, this is not the same thing as the "abomination of desolation". That AOD Luke 21:20 said was "Jerusalem surrounded by armies", something which Christ's disciples would literally see happening in their generation.

The man of sin is a collective noun meaning just what the word said: man of sin...MAN of sin...all men who live under the power of sin.

The "man of sin" phrase was never used as a collective noun in scripture. It was one particular individual, just as 2 Thess. 2 presented him: one single "Son of destruction", (not "sons"), and not the whole collective group of mankind that lives under the power of sin. This has been a condition for all men since the Fall. Nothing has been "restraining" the revealing of the collective wickedness of mankind since the Fall. It has been an obvious fact since then until now, and will be the same until Christ's final THIRD coming.

Sir, the man of sin was not FULLY revealed in any time in history since the apostles, until around 1880, plus or minus~that's when this world's floodgate was open, to many different versions of the scriptures, with an attack upon the scriptures once delivered to us

This is a rather myopic view of the history of mankind. You are forgetting the promises that Christ made for the progress of His kingdom in this world. The mustard seed will inevitably grow to be the largest of all. The leaven will inevitably grow to fill the bread dough. The stone kingdom will inevitably grow to fill the whole habitable world. And "of the increase of His government and of His peace there shall be no end".

ANtichrist have ALWAYS worked in thsi world

No, they haven't. You aren't really understanding the meaning behind this term Christ and John used of "false Christs" and "false prophets" in Matthew 23-24 and 1 John 4:1-3. These "false Christs" and "false prophets" were linked to the 70-week prophecy of Daniel, who prophesied the exact year for the coming and the death of "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9:25-26. There was also going to be a messenger that came before Messiah the Prince, as Malachi 3:1 foretold, to "prepare the way" before the Messiah. John the Baptist was that prophet messenger, who came "in the spirit and power of Elijah", as the angel told Zechariah in Luke 1:17.

As you know, both John the Baptist and Christ Jesus came as the fulfillment of both those prophecies, in those exact years predicted beforehand. But the Jews in general "received Him not" (John 1:11). Those who wanted a military-type Messiah to deliver them from Rome's control went about desperately trying to seek a substitute to fulfill those particular prophecies, and as close to that AD 30 time frame as possible, or their deception would not have fooled the Israelites who had been keeping close track of Daniel's 70-week timeline for their Messiah to come.

Those "many antichrists" in John's days were telling everyone that the Messiah had not yet come in the flesh (1 John 4:3) as Daniel's timeline had predicted. Out of all those many antichrists, the one single "THE Antichrist" was Menahem the Zealot leader: the first to get into the second temple and claim to be that Messiah - the "King of the Jews". Even at the crucifixion, it was manifested that this title belonged exclusively to Christ Jesus the Lord. For Menahem to claim this title "King of the Jews" was his claiming to be Daniel's Messiah the Prince.

Both Paul and the Thessalonians knew exactly who was THEN restraining the revealing of the one Son of destruction, the "Man of Lawlessness". Paul had told them in person who that restrainer was (2 Thess. 2:5-6), and it was the high priest Ananias before whom Paul stood on trial in Acts 23:2 in the year AD 60. Paul predicted then that "God is about to smite thee, thou whited wall". Which God did accomplish through Menahem the Zealot leader, who would murder his restrainer Ananias in AD 66 and have him "taken out of the way". This left Menahem exalting himself as "King of the Jews" in power in Jerusalem.

"THE Antichrist", Menahem the son or grandson of Judas from Galilee (Acts 5:37) was only following in the footsteps of his Zealot fathers. This earned him the title "Son of Destruction" from 2 Thess. 2:3, because his family was immersed in the Zealot cause.