The last hour

[Josheb]

Sure thanks, the verses in the OP prove it.

1 John
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Its not about the end of the world because John stated that his time was the last hour, and as you said "Afterall, the planet is still here."

So it must be something else.

The topic of why John knew that it was that the last hour was because the spirit of antichrist entered the church is because verse 19 sates that the reason John said that it was the last hour was because "19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

Why I think that it was also about 70AD is because that was the major event (the physical end of the temple and sacrificial age) that happened at that time

Thanks, but that's inconsistent. John states people went out, not that any came in. It's inconsistent to say some guy entered using a verse stating folks left. The words "entered" and "left" are antonyms. I agree with the basic premise (70AD) but we're not going to persuade anyone without a cogent and impeccable case for that position. We're on solid ground with the use of "age" (Gk: aionos) instead of world. If the "last hour" is correlated to the end(s) of the age that precludes all of the end-of-the-world interpretations. That buys a little ground but the last hour of the age, or the last hour of the end of the age(s) warrants exegetical exposition.

Yes?

 

[Marty]

I

Thanks, but that's inconsistent. John states people went out, not that any came in. It's inconsistent to say some guy entered using a verse stating folks left. The words "entered" and "left" are antonyms. I agree with the basic premise (70AD) but we're not going to persuade anyone without a cogent and impeccable case for that position. We're on solid ground with the use of "age" (Gk: aionos) instead of world. If the "last hour" is correlated to the end(s) of the age that precludes all of the end-of-the-world interpretations. That buys a little ground but the last hour of the age, or the last hour of the end of the age(s) warrants exegetical exposition.

Yes?

f they went out then they would of had to come in first

 

[Josheb]

I

f they went out then they would of had to come in first

Point taken, but that's not what the antichrist is said to have done. I didn't catch this earlier but where does scripture state, "the spirit of antichrist entered the church"?

 

[Marty]

Point taken, but that's not what the antichrist is said to have done. I didn't catch this earlier but where does scripture state, "the spirit of antichrist entered the church"?

I’m not saying that antichrist was ever the church, but there has been and even now many people within the church (physically not spiritually) that fits Johns description of antichrist as in whoever denies that Jesus is and was sent by God

The bible doesn’t always tell us everything but it does tell us how to find the truth

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, Christ's return in AD 70 was preceded by the one Antichrist (coming out of the many antichrists that were already present in John's time). That one Antichrist was Menahem the Zealot leader who rose to tyrannical power in Jerusalem in the summer of AD 66. It was the very brightness of this own man's coming into power as the "King of the Jews" that was his undoing. Just as soon as he "exalted himself" by presenting himself in the temple as the "King of the Jews" with his armed followers, dressed in King Herod's royal regalia he had stolen from Masada, his rival Eleazar had him captured, tortured, and slain. Eleazar was merely avenging Menahem's murder of Eleazar's father, the former high priest Ananias (the one whom Paul was on trial before in Acts 23:2.) That former high priest Ananias was the moderate "restrainer" of 2 Thess. 2:7, who had held the radical Zealots from taking over Jerusalem - for a time - until the Zealot leader Menahem murdered Ananias and "took him out of the way". Josephus recorded all of this for us in Wars 2.17.8-9. The modern-day conception of the almost super-human power of the Antichrist is greatly exaggerated, beyond the level of which Scripture informs us.

That "last hour" was upon John's first-century readers already. Ananias the high priest restrainer was then temporarily holding Menahem's Zealot faction in check, but Menahem was about to rise to power in AD 66, shortly after 1 John was written. This was followed by Christ's appearance at His bodily return to the Mount of Olives, which took place in AD 70, just as Daniel, Christ, and all the NT writers had predicted for this first-century generation. Since we have the historical details, we can now know the very day that Christ's second coming and that second bodily resurrection event took place, since Daniel gave that detailed information to us in Daniel 12:11-13.

There were three, and honestly, I don't recall Menahem, but rather John of Gischala, Eleazar, and Simon bar-Giora. Regardless, Bar-Abbas was an anti-christ name as well, translated as,
'Son of the Father.'

But any of the three in the 60s, with their followings, would have qualified as the evil person Dan 9 mentioned and thus in Mt 24. John's succeeded as the most powerful.

 

[Josheb]

I’m not saying that antichrist was ever the church, but there has been and even now many people within the church (physically not spiritually) that fits Johns description of antichrist as in whoever denies that Jesus is and was sent by God

The bible doesn’t always tell us everything but it does tell us how to find the truth

My point is that scripture does not actually state the antichrist enters the Church. That particular belief originates due to a conflation of Thessalonians' mention of a "man of lawlessness" or "lawless man," and the antichrist. Perhaps it should not be assumed the two are the same person. Modern futurists typically conflate the AoD and the MoL with the antichrist but I cannot recall ever reading anyone making the case for that conflation. Everything falls apart if 1) the AoD is not a person, and 2) none of them are the same individual.

I did not say or ask about the antichrist ever being the Church (even though that was the basic argument of the Reformation against the RCC). I asked about this premise the antichrist would enter in the Church.

The topic of why John knew that it was that the last hour was because the spirit of antichrist entered the church is because.....

Where does scripture state the antichrist entered the Church?

If they went out then they would of had to come in first.

Again, where does scripture state the antichrist entered the Church?

.....the spirit of antichrist that infiltrated the church and was exposed and left.
....If you read the topic of John saying the last hour you will see that’s it’s about the spirit of antichrist that had infiltrated the church through false Christian’s that was exposed and they were banished.

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. The entrance is inferred because of the departure but the possibility the "they" did, at some point, believe Jesus is who scripture says he is has to be ignored in order to assert that position. Matthew 7, for one, tells us there are many poseurs in attendance. Where does scripture say the antichrist infiltrated the Church? What my Bible states about the antichrist is very specific and very limited. Where does scripture state the antichrist comes from among those who left the Church? John and his original first century readers knew the last hour had come because many antichrist had [already] come, including the one antichrist they were anticipating. That's what 1 Jn. 2:18 states. The following verse, verse 19, states "they," the many antichrists "went out from us," implying those antichrists had once been members of the congregation (but not necessarily the Church) and implies those individuals' departure proved they "never belonged to us."

So I get where you say they had previously been in the Church, but had they previously been in the Church as antichrists? To answer in the affirmative begs certain questions, such as, "If they never belonged the why was their entrance permitted in the first place?" Was proper oversight failing? When John says they went out from "us," is he referring to the congregation, or is he referring to the apostles (since it was the apostles who sent others out to preach, teach, establish new congregations, etc)? Is John implying the apostles had failed in their discernment?

I’m not saying that antichrist was ever the church, but there has been and even now many people within the church (physically not spiritually) that fits Johns description of antichrist as in whoever denies that Jesus is and was sent by God.

Yes, an antichrist is, among other things, someone who denies Jesus was sent by God. How then would someone enter, or infiltrate, the Church not believing Jesus is from God. One possibility is that the "us" in the relevant text is "us Jews," since John is the most Judaic NT author. Given the overlap between the OT's qahal (=assembly) and the NT's ecclesia (=those called out) it is reasonable to infer John is talking about Jews attempting to Judaize the gospel and deny the divinity of Christ. Jesus is not from God, he did not come in the flesh, and the Father and Son are denied,

Whoever the "us" refers to, it's odd that they'd enter the Church denying the identity of Christ and later leave. I am more inclined to read the text to imply they had professed some degree of intellectual assent but had never been changed by God. They were not actually membersof the Chruch, parts of Christ's body.

This morning, I met with a younger man I am discipling and we discussed how he came to know Jesus. He recounted his upbringing, observing at a very young age the congregations were full of hypocrites, full of Christians but not believers, the latter being people who actually practiced their faith. I, personally, would not use the terms he used but his point is valid. Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians..... but the pew warmers usually profess Jesus came from God in the flesh and don't deny the Father and the Son.

The bible doesn’t always tell us everything but it does tell us how to find the truth

Exactly. It directs us to reason through its revelation and it does so for the purpose of out understanding.


And the point I believe four out of five of us can agree upon is that the "last hour" happened two millennia ago and is not still happening or yet to occur. Whatever else it may be, it was the last hour of an age that has come and gone because, whether read literally or figuratively, hours do not last millennia.​

 

[Marty]

My point is that scripture does not actually state the antichrist enters the Church. That particular belief originates due to a conflation of Thessalonians' mention of a "man of lawlessness" or "lawless man," and the antichrist. Perhaps it should not be assumed the two are the same person. Modern futurists typically conflate the AoD and the MoL with the antichrist but I cannot recall ever reading anyone making the case for that conflation. Everything falls apart if 1) the AoD is not a person, and 2) none of them are the same individual.

I did not say or ask about the antichrist ever being the Church (even though that was the basic argument of the Reformation against the RCC). I asked about this premise the antichrist would enter in the Church.

​

​

Where does scripture state the antichrist entered the Church? ​

​

Again, where does scripture state the antichrist entered the Church? ​

​

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. The entrance is inferred because of the departure but the possibility the "they" did, at some point, believe Jesus is who scripture says he is has to be ignored in order to assert that position. Matthew 7, for one, tells us there are many poseurs in attendance. Where does scripture say the antichrist infiltrated the Church? What my Bible states about the antichrist is very specific and very limited. Where does scripture state the antichrist comes from among those who left the Church? John and his original first century readers knew the last hour had come because many antichrist had [already] come, including the one antichrist they were anticipating. That's what 1 Jn. 2:18 states. The following verse, verse 19, states "they," the many antichrists "went out from us," implying those antichrists had once been members of the congregation (but not necessarily the Church) and implies those individuals' departure proved they "never belonged to us."​

​

So I get where you say they had previously been in the Church, but had they previously been in the Church as antichrists? To answer in the affirmative begs certain questions, such as, "If they never belonged the why was their entrance permitted in the first place?" Was proper oversight failing? When John says they went out from "us," is he referring to the congregation, or is he referring to the apostles (since it was the apostles who sent others out to preach, teach, establish new congregations, etc)? Is John implying the apostles had failed in their discernment?​

​

Yes, an antichrist is, among other things, someone who denies Jesus was sent by God. How then would someone enter, or infiltrate, the Church not believing Jesus is from God. One possibility is that the "us" in the relevant text is "us Jews," since John is the most Judaic NT author. Given the overlap between the OT's qahal (=assembly) and the NT's ecclesia (=those called out) it is reasonable to infer John is talking about Jews attempting to Judaize the gospel and deny the divinity of Christ. Jesus is not from God, he did not come in the flesh, and the Father and Son are denied,​

​

Whoever the "us" refers to, it's odd that they'd enter the Church denying the identity of Christ and later leave. I am more inclined to read the text to imply they had professed some degree of intellectual assent but had never been changed by God. They were not actually membersof the Chruch, parts of Christ's body.​

​

This morning, I met with a younger man I am discipling and we discussed how he came to know Jesus. He recounted his upbringing, observing at a very young age the congregations were full of hypocrites, full of Christians but not believers, the latter being people who actually practiced their faith. I, personally, would not use the terms he used but his point is valid. Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians..... but the pew warmers usually profess Jesus came from God in the flesh and don't deny the Father and the Son.​

​

Exactly. It directs us to reason through its revelation and it does so for the purpose of out understanding.​

​

​

And the point I believe four out of five of us can agree upon is that the "last hour" happened two millennia ago and is not still happening or yet to occur. Whatever else it may be, it was the last hour of an age that has come and gone because, whether read literally or figuratively, hours do not last millennia.​

I agree with this thanks it makes sense and one of the best descriptions of antichrist was apostate Israel in the first century

To clarify I don’t see antichrist as the same as the man of lawlessness or the sea beast of revelation it was a deceiving spirit who’s purpose was to have people reject Jesus as came from and was God

 

[Josheb]

I agree with this thanks it makes sense and one of the best descriptions of antichrist was apostate Israel in the first century

To clarify I don’t see antichrist as the same as the man of lawlessness or the sea beast of revelation

Good point. I neglected including the beast as part of the conflation.

it was a deceiving spirit who’s purpose was to have people reject Jesus as came from and was God

John appears to make it both a spirit, a group of individuals thusly influenced, and an individual person. The three are not mutually exclusive conditions.

 

[Marty]

Good point. I neglected including the beast as part of the conflation.

John appears to make it both a spirit, a group of individuals thusly influenced, and an individual person. The three are not mutually exclusive conditions.

Yes but the same spirit

 

[Josheb]

Yes but the same spirit

Amen.

I'd like to express my personal appreciation for the exchange because it was an example of us reasoning together to reach a consensus and doing so without contempt. Well done.

So..... what did we decide? The last hour pertained to the end of the age that was drawing to a close in the NT era (whether or not that end had anything specific to do with 70AD)?

 

[Marty]

Amen.

I'd like to express my personal appreciation for the exchange because it was an example of us reasoning together to reach a consensus and doing so without contempt. Well done.

So..... what did we decide? The last hour pertained to the end of the age that was drawing to a close in the NT era (whether or not that end had anything specific to do with 70AD)?

Yes thanks it was a good respectful open to reason and learn discussion

 

[3 Resurrections]

There were three, and honestly, I don't recall Menahem, but rather John of Gischala, Eleazar, and Simon bar-Giora.

Yes, those three Zealot contenders managed to rise to top leadership positions at varying times during the AD 66-70 "days of vengeance". Along with yourself, I would also consider these as being some of the "many antichrists" during the first century, as well as Barabbas, who was a Zealot who had "done murder in the insurrection", along with those two Zealot "thieves" crucified with Christ. After all, Christ had warned His disciples about "false christs" who would attempt to present themselves as Daniel's "Messiah" prophesied to come. Besides these three you mentioned, however, Josephus also testified of many other Zealots who tried to gain the upper hand during those days by deluding the people of Israel with their prophecies and promises of deliverance. So 1 John was correct in stating that there were then "many antichrists" who had gone out from among them in those days. None of these admitted that Christ Jesus had already come in the flesh as the fulfillment of the "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9.

But this single "Antichrist" Menahem was the first one of all those Zealot contenders for the Messiah role to get into the temple in AD 66. He "showed himself" in the Jerusalem temple itself as being the King of the Jews, by dressing himself in Herod's stolen royal robes of state and "exalting himself" over all other Zealot contenders who were being called "gods" in those days. But he was merely a "flash in the pan", with the very ostentatious presumption of his Messiah claim causing his own downfall in a matter of a few weeks.

But any of the three in the 60s, with their followings, would have qualified as the evil person Dan 9 mentioned and thus in Mt 24. John's succeeded as the most powerful.

Leadership power tended to see-saw between the various Zealot factions over those AD 66-70 years. But it was Simon bar Giora - not John of Gischala - who ended up with the largest number in his army of 40,000 in AD 69 when he came to demand the leadership in Jerusalem - and got it by becoming a tyrant over the city. I believe Simon bar Giora became the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophesied "Gog" who came against Israel "like a storm" in AD 69, with his army's combatants being culled from multiple nations. The army of Simon bar Giora as "Gog" fell on the mountains of Israel in AD70 - but he was not the single "Antichrist" Menahem who was destroyed back in AD 66.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, those three Zealot contenders managed to rise to top leadership positions at varying times during the AD 66-70 "days of vengeance". Along with yourself, I would also consider these as being some of the "many antichrists" during the first century, as well as Barabbas, who was a Zealot who had "done murder in the insurrection", along with those two Zealot "thieves" crucified with Christ. After all, Christ had warned His disciples about "false christs" who would attempt to present themselves as Daniel's "Messiah" prophesied to come. Besides these three you mentioned, however, Josephus also testified of many other Zealots who tried to gain the upper hand during those days by deluding the people of Israel with their prophecies and promises of deliverance. So 1 John was correct in stating that there were then "many antichrists" who had gone out from among them in those days. None of these admitted that Christ Jesus had already come in the flesh as the fulfillment of the "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9.

But this single "Antichrist" Menahem was the first one of all those Zealot contenders for the Messiah role to get into the temple in AD 66. He "showed himself" in the Jerusalem temple itself as being the King of the Jews, by dressing himself in Herod's stolen royal robes of state and "exalting himself" over all other Zealot contenders who were being called "gods" in those days. But he was merely a "flash in the pan", with the very ostentatious presumption of his Messiah claim causing his own downfall in a matter of a few weeks.


Leadership power tended to see-saw between the various Zealot factions over those AD 66-70 years. But it was Simon bar Giora - not John of Gischala - who ended up with the largest number in his army of 40,000 in AD 69 when he came to demand the leadership in Jerusalem - and got it by becoming a tyrant over the city. I believe Simon bar Giora became the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophesied "Gog" who came against Israel "like a storm" in AD 69, with his army's combatants being culled from multiple nations. The army of Simon bar Giora as "Gog" fell on the mountains of Israel in AD70 - but he was not the single "Antichrist" Menahem who was destroyed back in AD 66.

What about Eleazar ben Ya'ir? (ben ya'ir, not ben simon) It was ben Ya'ir who took over after Menahem's death in 66 (ben Ya'ir may have even been the one to have killed him) and he remained in Jerusalem until the Romans captured it and destroyed in in 70 and he then fled to Masada where he continued the war until his defeat in 74.

66 to 74 = seven years

Just saying

 

[3 Resurrections]

What about Eleazar ben Ya'ir? (ben ya'ir, not ben simon) It was ben Ya'ir who took over after Menahem's death in 66 (ben Ya'ir may have even been the one to have killed him) and he remained in Jerusalem until the Romans captured it and destroyed in in 70 and he then fled to Masada where he continued the war until his defeat in 74.

Menahem was murdered in revenge by Eleazar son of Ananias, who was the former high priest "restrainer" who had kept the radical Zealot Menahem in check up until AD 66. The Zealot Menahem murdered the moderate former high priest Ananias ben Nebedeus, who preferred to keep peace with Rome. This was Menahem the "man of lawlessness" having Ananias the "restrainer" "taken out of the way". Eleazar the son of Ananias, in contrast to his father, was in favor of the Zealot cause, but resented that Menahem, the murderer of his father, had become a tyrannical upstart who was claiming to be the King of the Jews in the very temple itself. So Eleazar had Menahem captured and tortured before murdering him in revenge. This was Eleazar the governor of the temple (not Eleazar ben Ya'ir - which I would consider to be yet another one of the "many antichrists" found in 1 John).

Menahem was likely a cousin of the ill-fated Eleazar ben Ya'ir who ended up at Masada. Menahem was also either the son or grandson of the slain Judas the Galilean insurrectionist in Acts 5:37, whose two sons Jacob and Simon were also crucified around AD 46-48 for participating in a Zealot uprising. This whole family was devoted to the Zealot cause, which earned Menahem the title "son of destruction" in 2 Thess. 2:3.

Ananias ben Nebedeus, the "restrainer" of Menahem the Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness was the very high priest which commanded the apostle Paul to be struck while he was on trial. Paul predicted at that point in AD 60, "God is about to strike thee, thou whited wall!", which actually was fulfilled in the AD 66 year when Menahem murdered the former high priest Ananias. The 2 Thess. 2 passage about the "restrainer" mentions that it is a "HE" which restrains, as well as a "WHAT" that restrained the Antichrist. This fits Ananias ben Nebedeus, since this was a single man as well as being a member of the high priesthood institution which was opposing and restraining the more radical Zealot factions in those days.

 

[3 Resurrections]

One of the main reasons why there were "MANY antichrists" in John's days is that the Jewish leadership, (especially among the Qumran community), had been writing about their expectations for not just ONE Messiah, but actually either TWO or THREE Messianic type figures - to fulfill the anointed roles of a prophet, a priest, and a king who would unite together to restore Israel as an independent nation once more. This is why Christ taught in Matthew 24 against those "false prophets" as well as the "false christs" who would be coming to press their false claims either in the wilderness, or in the "secret chambers" ("chamber of secrets") of the inner temple itself.

This is also why the Pharisees sent a delegation to John the Baptist in John 1:19-25, asking if he were #1, "the Christ", or #2, "Elias", or #3 "that prophet". "The Christ" figure, they thought, would be the military king coming to wage war on Israel's enemies, and "that prophet" would be a high priest, the king's spiritual superior that supported the king's endeavors, and the one named "Elias" would be the prophet which immediately preceded the coming of these two.

With these inflated expectations, there was multiplied opportunity for various Zealot members or the priesthood to make their own efforts at advancement to one of these three roles in those turbulent years surrounding the Jewish / Roman revolt.

If anyone wishes to read some of the written documents backing up this Jewish expectation of two or three Messiahs, check into www.livius.org and its article "Qumran's dual Messianism".

 

[Marty]

One of the main reasons why there were "MANY antichrists" in John's days is that the Jewish leadership, (especially among the Qumran community), had been writing about their expectations for not just ONE Messiah, but actually either TWO or THREE Messianic type figures - to fulfill the anointed roles of a prophet, a priest, and a king who would unite together to restore Israel as an independent nation once more. This is why Christ taught in Matthew 24 against those "false prophets" as well as the "false christs" who would be coming to press their false claims either in the wilderness, or in the "secret chambers" ("chamber of secrets") of the inner temple itself.

This is also why the Pharisees sent a delegation to John the Baptist in John 1:19-25, asking if he were #1, "the Christ", or #2, "Elias", or #3 "that prophet". "The Christ" figure, they thought, would be the military king coming to wage war on Israel's enemies, and "that prophet" would be a high priest, the king's spiritual superior that supported the king's endeavors, and the one named "Elias" would be the prophet which immediately preceded the coming of these two.

With these inflated expectations, there was multiplied opportunity for various Zealot members or the priesthood to make their own efforts at advancement to one of these three roles in those turbulent years surrounding the Jewish / Roman revolt.

If anyone wishes to read some of the written documents backing up this Jewish expectation of two or three Messiahs, check into www.livius.org and its article "Qumran's dual Messianism".

One reason that Israel missed who Jesus was is because they didn't know that the Messiah would also be God

 

[Josheb]

Menahem was murdered in revenge by Eleazar son of Ananias, who was the former high priest "restrainer" who had kept the radical Zealot Menahem in check up until AD 66. The Zealot Menahem murdered the moderate former high priest Ananias ben Nebedeus, who preferred to keep peace with Rome. This was Menahem the "man of lawlessness" having Ananias the "restrainer" "taken out of the way". Eleazar the son of Ananias, in contrast to his father, was in favor of the Zealot cause, but resented that Menahem, the murderer of his father, had become a tyrannical upstart who was claiming to be the King of the Jews in the very temple itself. So Eleazar had Menahem captured and tortured before murdering him in revenge. This was Eleazar the governor of the temple (not Eleazar ben Ya'ir - which I would consider to be yet another one of the "many antichrists" found in 1 John).

Menahem was likely a cousin of the ill-fated Eleazar ben Ya'ir who ended up at Masada. Menahem was also either the son or grandson of the slain Judas the Galilean insurrectionist in Acts 5:37, whose two sons Jacob and Simon were also crucified around AD 46-48 for participating in a Zealot uprising. This whole family was devoted to the Zealot cause, which earned Menahem the title "son of destruction" in 2 Thess. 2:3.

Ananias ben Nebedeus, the "restrainer" of Menahem the Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness was the very high priest which commanded the apostle Paul to be struck while he was on trial. Paul predicted at that point in AD 60, "God is about to strike thee, thou whited wall!", which actually was fulfilled in the AD 66 year when Menahem murdered the former high priest Ananias. The 2 Thess. 2 passage about the "restrainer" mentions that it is a "HE" which restrains, as well as a "WHAT" that restrained the Antichrist. This fits Ananias ben Nebedeus, since this was a single man as well as being a member of the high priesthood institution which was opposing and restraining the more radical Zealot factions in those days.

Thank you for the (unnecessary) history lesson. Tell me how that answers my question. How can Menahem be relevant if he's dead before the timeline f relevant prophecy fulfillment got started? How can he be relevant during the seven years of the war when he was dead at its beginning? Do you realize "it fits with" is no different than what modern futurists do? They simply inject future speculations instead of past ones and both are post hoc arguments attempting to answer the misguided, red herring inquiry "When did that happen?"

It happened exactly when scripture stated t happened: In the lives of the first century Christians, the original readers of the original letters and NT prophecies.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Maybe Paul's "ends of the ages" has some correlation to John's "last hour." Maybe history should be subjugated to scripture (and not the other way around) and maybe we should be honest and forthcoming about two very blunt facts: 1) one speculation compared to another speculation is still speculation and speculation opens the door for fallacious appeals to incredulity, 2) those believing scripture exactly as written have faith because God has kept His promises, not because He will keep His promises, but it is much easier to sell books and sermons with speculations about the future, and 3) no set of speculations proves anything to the critic.


Good content, @3 Resurrections, but we (the preterists in current attendance) don't need a history lesson to discuss the identification of the last hour.

How would the Thessalonians know about ben Nebedeus? How do you get from the MoL to the antichrist when scripture never states the two are the same person? How would anyone in Ephesus (600 miles away from Jerusalem), or Corinth (800 miles away) know what was going on in Jerusalem? The answer has to be someone sufficiently famous to have at least been heard of far away. That's one of the presuppositional reasons some prefer Rome over Jerusalem as the explanation. Some do so because they do not understand the relevance of Jerusalem (a city, like Rome, that was also built on seven hills, for example) or Judaism to Jewish prophecy.

 

[EarlyActs]

One reason that Israel missed who Jesus was is because they didn't know that the Messiah would also be God

I don't think so. I think they realized the Anointed was at least acting as God. But somehow, through the grinding difficulties of their history after exile, the only form they thought he would show up as was a victorious liberator/conqueror. The sacrificial Lamb and that sort of power was not on the table.

 

[Marty]

I don't think so. I think they realized the Anointed was at least acting as God. But somehow, through the grinding difficulties of their history after exile, the only form they thought he would show up as was a victorious liberator/conqueror. The sacrificial Lamb and that sort of power was not on the table.

Jesus Before the Sanhedrin​

57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64&nbsp;“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[<a href="Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 26 - New International Version" title="See footnote e">e</a>]

65&nbsp;Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66&nbsp;What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67&nbsp;Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68&nbsp;and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”

Jesus wasn't killed for claiming to be the Messiah many people claimed that, Jesus was killed for claiming to be God. Notice in verse 63 that they stated that the Messiah was only the son of God and not God?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Thank you for the (unnecessary) history lesson. Tell me how that answers my question. How can Menahem be relevant if he's dead before the timeline f relevant prophecy fulfillment got started? How can he be relevant during the seven years of the war when he was dead at its beginning?

My mention of the Qumran community's expectations for 2 or 3 Messiahs was meant to give evidence of why there were so very "many antichrists" present in those first-century days. This is not extraneous information. It is supportive.

Menahem is relevant because he served as a sort of "mile marker" in 2 Thess. 2, whose coming into power in AD 66 prior to the Romans' arrival was the first thing that alerted the Christians as to the exact timing of Christ's expected first-century return. Paul in 2 Thess. 2 was telling the believers to first look for this one particular "man of lawlessness" coming into power and "exalting himself" ("the lawless ones" being just another name for the Zealots in Scripture - the "mystery of iniquity" cause that Paul said was already working in those days).

Christ had already told His disciples that the "days of vengeance" (immediately followed by His bodily return in the clouds and the gathering of the resurrected saints) would be initiated by their seeing "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (the AOD of Daniel 12:11). This occurred in October of AD 66 with the arrival of Cestius Gallus' Roman army "standing where it ought not" by making contact with the temple gate in their efforts to undermine it and burn it. Also by the Zealot armies present in Jerusalem who were opposing them. This event in October of AD 66 combined with Eleazar the temple governor having earlier removed the daily sacrifice (for Rome and the Roman emperor) were the two events which started the 1,335-day countdown to the resurrection at Christ's return, as described in Daniel 12:11-13.

The Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness was not going to last until Christ's coming. Neither was the Antichrist promised to last 7 years, nor even the duration of the siege of Jerusalem. That isn't what 2 Thess. 2 or any other Scripture text tells us. The very brightness of the Man of Lawlessness' OWN coming into power is what caused his own destruction. By Menahem "exalting himself" over everything that was CALLED "god" (such as his fellow Zealot claimants for the Messiah role), this exaltation of himself as "King of the Jews" provoked a jealous response from his fellow Zealot competitors that caused Menahem to be slain in Jerusalem. Menahem the Antichrist was merely a "flash in the pan", whose power in Jerusalem only lasted a few weeks. This Antichrist role has been inflated FAR beyond what Scripture predicted this person would do.

How would the Thessalonians know about ben Nebedeus?

Because Paul reminded them in 2 Thess 2:5-6 that he had already told them who both the "restrainer" and the "Man of Lawlessness" were when he was physically present among them earlier. "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now YE KNOW what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time." It was not safe for Paul to mention in a letter anything deemed derogatory about the high priesthood or of Ananias ben Nebedeus (high priest from AD 47-59 who would put Paul on trial coming up in AD 60). Neither would it have been wise for Paul to mention the name in writing of the Zealot leader who was then being restrained by the high priesthood which was favoring Rome. So he had already told them in person.

How would anyone in Ephesus (600 miles away from Jerusalem), or Corinth (800 miles away) know what was going on in Jerusalem?

As you know, the pilgrim feasts in Jerusalem brought individuals from continents away into the city. Word got around via the Apostles' and disciples' ministries and the letters which were shared around the Christian communities of the known world. Plus, we have the miraculous taking place in those days, with incidents like Philip the evangelist being transported from one locale to another, like Azotus. And never discount the ministry of the 144,000 "First-fruits" - the glorified, resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints who were still on earth serving in the early church in those days. There is no limit to the evangelistic outreach that just one glorified saint could have accomplished - let alone 144,000 Jewish "First-fruits" who the ascending Christ had raised from the dead and given as "gifts to men".

How do you get from the MoL to the antichrist when scripture never states the two are the same person?

Because the description of their actions and belief are the very same. An "antichrist" is the same as a "pseudo-christ" - a "false christ" - which Christ warned in Matt. 24:5 & 23-26 would be claiming "I am Christ" - an attempt at being a false substitute for the Messiah, which had already come as God in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of Man. The 2 Thess. 2 Man of Lawlessness was going to appear in the temple "showing himself that he IS God" - an attempt to present himself as the prophesied Messiah. Same claim; same false deception.

However, as many do, I do NOT identify any of the three Beast figures in Revelation as being the Antichrist. Biographies of all these evil characters are totally different.