Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[Rella]

It is my learned opinion that 2 Thessalonians 2 does not say the AC will sit [in the temple]. 2 Thes 2 states the man of lawlessness (MoL) will do the sitting. It is an assumption to conflate the AC and the MoL so BEFORE you start asking about the antichrist sitting in the temple, how about providing a proof for that conflation, because if it cannot be proven the AC is the same person as the MoL then the question has no foundation, the conflation isn't scriptural, and thinking 2 Thes 2 is about the AC is bad teaching. They might be the same guy, but it is my learned opinion there is a reason why the scripture uses two different labels, and those two different labels in particular: they are not the same guy.


Don't make assumptions.


At all.

Especially not because some guy on the television or radio (or in the pages of some book) teaches that assumption.


Therefore, before I answer that question you will have to first prove it's a valid inquiry.

Fine.... it may not be...... yet even the trilogy's of Ais I now reference are confused.....

But you have given me some homework to do and it will be welcomed diversion from downsizing before I move.

I will research the title Man of Lawlessness compared with the title of antichrist. If I learn anything I will report back.

I have already but will wit to gather what I find and source it so will take me a bit

 

[durg]

Right (josh says rhetorically), because the first century readers would have instantly known some guy was going to start a pagan religion 600 years after they read Paul's epistle and they'd have known those pagans were going to force everyone to believe their religion under the threat of death and huge wars would be fought a thousand years later and the pagans would capture Jerusalem and built their temple on the old temple's grounds. They'd have understood that from Paul's epistle. They'd have understood Paul's us of the phrase "the temple" meant ANY temple.

"Interesting" is not the word I would use but "twist" is spot on. That is quite some scripture twisting to say 2 Thes. 2:4 refers to any temple, including an Islamic mosque built 700 years after 2 Thessalonians was written. That's pretty twisted (pun intended) .

Do you realize that the al Aqsa Mosque 'sits upon' Mount Moriah and the Temple Mount is the only piece of ground on earth that God claimed as His own?

Preterism in any form is an abomination. It is pure deceit.

Rev 17:3
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman SIT UPON a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

So tell me how this terminology implies the past...

The kings mentioned here are all end-time people.
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received NO KINGDOM AS OF YET;

...but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

How can these be past ANCIENT kingdoms when, "have received no kingdom as yet," how can they, "receive power as kings one hour with the beast," and how can they, "have one mind," and how can they, "shall give their power and strength unto the beast," AND HOW CAN THEY, "shall make war with the Lamb," ...IF SIX OF THEM EXISTED THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN THE PAST!

 

[Arial]

Do you realize that the al Aqsa Mosque 'sits upon' Mount Moriah and the Temple Mount is the only piece of ground on earth that God claimed as His own?

God actually claims the whole earth as his own.

Psalm 24:1​

A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,

1 Chronicles 29:11​

Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.

Deuteronomy 10:14​

Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.

 

[durg]

God actually claims the whole earth as his own.

Psalm 24:1​

A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,

1 Chronicles 29:11​

Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.

Deuteronomy 10:14​

Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.

I knew this post was coming. Do you see any bit of difference at all?

 

[durg]

Let me correct my quote...

Do you realize that the al Aqsa Mosque 'sits upon' Mount Moriah and the Temple Mount is the only piece of HOLY ground on earth that God claimed as His own?

 

[Josheb]

Fine.... it may not be...... yet even the trilogy's of Ais I now reference are confused..... But you have given me some homework to do and it will be welcomed diversion from downsizing before I move. I will research the title Man of Lawlessness compared with the title of antichrist. If I learn anything I will report back. I have already but will wit to gather what I find and source it so will take me a bit

God willing , neither I nor the posts are going anywhere. Take your time. DO the work and get back to meif and when you can provie actual scriptural justification for the conflation of the AC and the MoL. Scriptural justification, not extra-scriptural sectarian eisegetic arguments.


And realize how unnecessary this is because you could all along phrased your commentary and inquiries in the stated context of the MoL. There wasn't a single reason for asserting the AC. AND realize you were baited. You were baited into discussing the AC/MoL sitting in the temple when this thread is not about the MoL or the AC. This op is about the prospect of a third temple being built. Because Dispies cannot provide a verse that actually, specifically, explicitly states another temple will be built, they 1) appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 claiming the text "says" another temple will be built when that is self-evidently not the case, and 2) try to change the subject to the MoL and other teachings of DPism.

You took that bait .



That's okay; I still love you . The fact is there is no verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. Why then do modern futurists think there will be another temple? They think there will be another because they eisegetically infer that is what scripture implies BUT they rarely ever acknowledge the eisegesis or the inferential nature of modern futurist eschatology. They rarely, if ever, use the words "imply" and "infer." If you want to trade posts with me then prepare yourself for these kinds of questions and comments. If you cannot provide an explicit scriptural foundation based on what is stated, AND if you prove either unable or unwilling to explain your inferences and consider alternatives then I am going to point out all of that subterfuge. Now you know my expectations. Try to anticipate all the possible points of inquiry and critique so you're not found without an answer. Do better than every other futurist in this thread.

I patiently await your findings .

 

[CrowCross]

Right (josh says rhetorically), because the first century readers would have instantly known some guy was going to start a pagan religion 600 years after they read Paul's epistle and they'd have known those pagans were going to force everyone to believe their religion under the threat of death and huge wars would be fought a thousand years later and the pagans would capture Jerusalem and built their temple on the old temple's grounds. They'd have understood that from Paul's epistle. They'd have understood Paul's us of the phrase "the temple" meant ANY temple.

???????? What in the world are you talking about?????

 

[Josheb]

Do you realize that the al Aqsa Mosque 'sits upon' Mount Moriah and the Temple Mount is the only piece of ground on earth that God claimed as His own?

Yes, I do realize that.

Preterism in any form is an abomination. It is pure deceit.

Scripture says otherwise but that is irrelevant. My comments pertained to the exegetical prinicple that teaches to first understand the text as written, with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage (unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text providing a reason to do otherwise and try to understand the text as the author and his original readers would have understood it.

That's not a preterist thing.

Those ar two principles every Christian should be applying.

So tell me how this terminology implies the past...

No, there won't be any attempts to change the subject with me. You will either address the principle of original understanding, or we won't be discussing anything. I'll be pointing out your obfuscation and move on.


So either provide an explanation for how the original first century readers living in Thessalonica would have understood the mention of the word, "the temple," would have been understood as 1) any temple, and 2) a pagan mosque built 700 years later. No more attempts to change the subject. No delays and no other forms of obfuscation. You say 2 Thes. 2:3-4 applies to the al Aqsa Mosque.

Prove it, and prove it from the text itself.

Or..... acknowledge the premise is speculation.







Note: None of the verses modern futurists use to infer a third temple actually state that temple has to be built where the old one was located.
.

 

[durg]

Another reason Christians believe that a temple will be rebuilt is because of Mathew 24:15.

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

The holy place in Mathew 24:15 is not the Holy of Holies but simply the surrounding area of it as described in Strong's #5117.

1) place, any portion or space marked off, as it were from surrounding space
a) an inhabited place, as a city, village, district
a place (passage) in a book
2) metaph.
a) the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly
opportunity, power, occasion for acting

If Jesus wanted to indicate the "Holy of Holies" in Mathew 24:15 He would have used this word...

2665. katapetasma kat-ap-et'-as-mah from a compound of 2596 and a congener of 4072; something spread thoroughly, i.e. (specially) the door screen
(to the Most Holy Place) in the Jewish Temple:--vail.
{{\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK http://www.eliyah.co...on&isindex=2665 }}{\fldrslt{http://www.eliyah.co...on&isindex=2665\ul0\cf0}}}}\f0\fs22\par

 

[durg]

Yes, I do realize that.

Scripture says otherwise but that is irrelevant. My comments pertained to the exegetical prinicple that teaches to first understand the text as written, with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage (unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text providing a reason to do otherwise and try to understand the text as the author and his original readers would have understood it.

That's not a preterist thing.

Those ar two principles every Christian should be applying.

No, there won't be any attempts to change the subject with me. You will either address the principle of original understanding, or we won't be discussing anything. I'll be pointing out your obfuscation and move on.


So either provide an explanation for how the original first century readers living in Thessalonica would have understood the mention of the word, "the temple," would have been understood as 1) any temple, and 2) a pagan mosque built 700 years later. No more attempts to change the subject. No delays and no other forms of obfuscation. You say 2 Thes. 2:3-4 applies to the al Aqsa Mosque.

Prove it, and prove it from the text itself.

Or..... acknowledge the premise is speculation.







Note: None of the verses modern futurists use to infer a third temple actually state that temple has to be built where the old one was located.
.

Nobody is trying to change the subject big guy. Get over it.

 

[Rella]

God willing , neither I nor the posts are going anywhere. Take your time. DO the work and get back to meif and when you can provie actual scriptural justification for the conflation of the AC and the MoL. Scriptural justification, not extra-scriptural sectarian eisegetic arguments.


And realize how unnecessary this is because you could all along phrased your commentary and inquiries in the stated context of the MoL. There wasn't a single reason for asserting the AC. AND realize you were baited. You were baited into discussing the AC/MoL sitting in the temple when this thread is not about the MoL or the AC. This op is about the prospect of a third temple being built. Because Dispies cannot provide a verse that actually, specifically, explicitly states another temple will be built, they 1) appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 claiming the text "says" another temple will be built when that is self-evidently not the case, and 2) try to change the subject to the MoL and other teachings of DPism.

You took that bait .



That's okay; I still love you . The fact is there is no verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. Why then do modern futurists think there will be another temple? They think there will be another because they eisegetically infer that is what scripture implies BUT they rarely ever acknowledge the eisegesis or the inferential nature of modern futurist eschatology. They rarely, if ever, use the words "imply" and "infer." If you want to trade posts with me then prepare yourself for these kinds of questions and comments. If you cannot provide an explicit scriptural foundation based on what is stated, AND if you prove either unable or unwilling to explain your inferences and

Wait a minute..... "AND if you prove either unable or unwilling blaw,blaw,blaw.....???????????????????

When did I ever run from something I was unable to prove? I always have been one to admit I was wrong or I misunderstood and embraced learning a truth I did not know before.

I freely admit I am not the smartest on here.... possibly in the lower 10% My measure IQ was only 135 , boith times it was done....

But I do study, and I do learn,

AND I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT I HAD ALWAYS '' READ'' THE MoL AND THE AC WERE ONE IN THE SAME..... The fact that the "men" of the "cloth" that taught that were wrong????? is not my fault any more the those whgo taught the antichrist will sit in a temple of God on 7 hills.

I learned that was wrong, right here.....

So I will so as soon as I can......

consider alternatives then I am going to point out all of that subterfuge. Now you know my expectations. Try to anticipate all the possible points of inquiry and critique so you're not found without an answer. Do better than every other futurist in this thread.

I patiently await your findings .

 

[durg]

Been lots of theories on if or when this will happen.
The main discussion about it is from scripture that says the beast will have it's image there and people will worship the beast.
You even hear there are some Christians groups that contribute (money or other support) to assure this temple is built.

So here's my question about the above .....
WHY would any Christian have the desire to contribute to a temple building that will specifically promote the false worship of a false god??????

There isn't a temple coming anyway. That idea comes from an abundance of misinterpretations.

 

[EarlyActs]

Coming...Parousia..
presence
the coming, arrival, advent

the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God.

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Mathew was written about 55 AD. Maybe you can tell me what wars took place, what nations rose against one another, which kingdom were against one another, what famines and pestilences and earthquakes to place in 'diverse places between 55 and 70 AD!

Nero never became the abomination of desolation because he never stood in the temple, and died in 68 AD! When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Every verse that uses the word 'synteleia' (END) it is used with the word WORLD/'aion' in reference to, "THE END OF THE WORLD." It is never used to imply the end of a generation. To imply that it does is a violation of good hermeneutics, especially when the word SYNTELEIA/END is ONLY used with the word 'AION.'...i.e. implying..."The End of the World!"

VINE'S SAYS ABOUT AION/WORLD, "The phrases containing this word should not be rendered literally, but consistently with its sense of indefinite duration. The Greeks contrasted that which came to an end with that which was expressed by this phrase, which shows that they conceived of it as expressing interminable duration. The word occurs most frequently in the Gospel of John, the Hebrews and Revelation. It is sometimes wrongly rendered "world."

When the disciples asked about the end of the world,\rdblquote they were asking when the "course of things of the era of this age would be completely terminated." 'aion or END...is the word, 'COURSE' in Eph 2:2.... according to the course(aion) of this world.

Vines also says...
Aion is always to be distinguished from kosmos, even where the two seem to express the same idea, e.g., 1Cr 3:18, aion, 1Cr 3:19, kosmos; the two are used together in Eph 2:2, lit., "the age of this world."

soon-tel'-i-ah; from G4931; entire completion, i.e. consummation (of a dispensation.
End, Ending:

signifies "a bringing to completion together" (sun "with," teleo, "to complete," akin to No. 1), marking the "completion" or consummation of the various parts of a scheme. In Mat 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20, the rendering "the end of the world" (AV and RV, text) is misleading; the RV marg., "the consummation of the age," is correct. The word does not denote a termination, but the heading up of events to the appointed climax. Aion is not the world, but a period or epoch or era in which events take place. In Hbr 9:26, the word translated "world" (AV) is in the plural, and the phrase is "the consummation of the ages." It was at the heading up of all the various epochs appointed by Divine counsels that Christ was manifested (i.e., in His Incarnation) "to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

Other than world which is NOT a good translation, AION is also translated, ever, never, ever and ever, course, ages, eternal, evermore, worlds, standeth....1 Cor 8:13 while the world standeth. You'll never convince me, or any unbiased good steward of God's Word that this word indicates the world ended in 70 AD.

Uses of the Word in the New Testament
This word has been indiscriminately used for four different Greek words of entirely different meanings. In Matthew 24 we read of the end of the world (v. 3), and of the gospel being preached in all the world (v. 14) by the disciples. It is obvious from other Scriptures that the world is not coming to an end, and it is also obvious that the disciples did not preach the gospel in China, Britain, India etc. Understanding the Greek words used and marking them in our Bibles will better enable us to understand the scriptures.

If Mathew wanted to imply that the end of the world ended in 70 AD, he would have used different words than the ones he did.

Mathew 24 and Luke 21 speak of a time when there are no longer any stones upon one another. I say we can watch and follow the signs that precede Jesus' return, and the completion of the age, where all the events mentioned in chapter 24 pass, and book of Revelation pass. I'm convinced that Preterism is bogus and a serious denial of God's prophetic Word. Mathew 24 and Revelation are written in real time as a progression of events. Prophecy will pass and we'll be able to watch and follow it.

Durg if you want to talk further , it needs to be one item per post. If you keep putting out 20 per post it becomes a labyrinth of communication.

So, one of your first items is ‘where are events like this in that generation’s decades?’ I ask it that way bc Christ said this about that generation, not after Matthew wrote.

The answer is that they are plenty. I have historical training in this and a book (this forum prohibits naming things.). My masters thesis project began as ‘Luke-Acts and the Jewish revolt.’

Every Christian should back up to the Maccabean period and notice one thing: that most of the intertestament period was one or another form of revolt by Judaism against the succession of powers God raised up. Even settling into Rome’s many great cities was for fund-raising for a break from Rome someday. There was a tax collected among foreign Jews by Jews and sent to the temple.

That’s why, when Rome got proof of weapon purchases, they seized temple tax money. Florus, April 66. This ignited complete revolt.

What is your next question?

 

[Josheb]

Nobody is trying to change the subject big guy. Get over it.

What's the op about?

 

[Josheb]

Wait a minute..... "AND if you prove either unable or unwilling blaw,blaw,blaw.....??????????????????? When did I ever.........................................................................

I never said you did. I am simply covering the base and letting you know my expectations. If you're not a runner (or obfuscator) then you have absolutely nothing about which to be concerned. Just show me the proof the AC is the MoL.

So I will so as soon as I can......

Good. I am patiently waiting.

 

[Rella]

https://christcentered.community.fo...-temple-in-jerusalem.2937/page-19#post-131752

God willing

, neither I nor the posts are going anywhere. Take your time. DO the work and get back to meif and when you can provie actual scriptural justification for the conflation of the AC and the MoL. Scriptural justification, not extra-scriptural sectarian eisegetic arguments.


And realize how unnecessary this is because you could all along phrased your commentary and inquiries in the stated context of the MoL. There wasn't a single reason for asserting the AC. AND realize you were baited. You were baited into discussing the AC/MoL sitting in the temple when this thread is not about the MoL or the AC. This op is about the prospect of a third temple being built. Because Dispies cannot provide a verse that actually, specifically, explicitly states another temple will be built, they 1) appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 claiming the text "says" another temple will be built when that is self-evidently not the case, and 2) try to change the subject to the MoL and other teachings of DPism.

You took that bait

.



That's okay; I still love you

. The fact is there is no verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. Why then do modern futurists think there will be another temple?

They think there will be another because they eisegetically infer that is what scripture implies BUT they rarely ever acknowledge the eisegesis or the inferential nature of modern futurist eschatology. They rarely, if ever, use the words "imply" and "infer." If you want to trade posts with me then prepare yourself for these kinds of questions and comments. If you cannot provide an explicit scriptural foundation based on what is stated, AND if you prove either unable or unwilling to explain your inferences and
Click to expand...

Josheb said:
consider alternatives then I am going to point out all of that subterfuge. Now you know my expectations. Try to anticipate all the possible points of inquiry and critique so you're not found without an answer. Do better than every other futurist in this thread.

I patiently await your findings

.

@Josheb ,

Ok... This was a good exercise for me because I got to memorize a little more scripture.

I believe I can offer proof they are one in the same.......!

I apologize for rambling a bit as I start this but even with scripture involved I find it difficult to cut things short.

I learned that while checking from time to time into outside sources they just don't opine the way I do... so you also will knock what I say but IDC because even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a long while....

You are correct in wanting scriptural references in my reply.

As I was starting I ran the gamut of opinions in the drop down list under man of lawlessness and antichrist being the same or different biblical figures and who will sit in the temple of God at the end.

I am not using any of them for my points but one that actually supports me with scriptures is teaching they are one in the same... no wonder people get confused.... since you are certain they are not.

Who is the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12? | GotQuestions.org

The man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 is the Antichrist who will come on the world scene at the beginning of the Day of the Lord. This Day, sometimes called the “end times,” starts after the rapture of the church in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11). It is good to note that the Day of the Lord is not a twenty-four-hour period of time; rather, it is an extended period of time that includes the seven-year tribulation, the return of Christ to put down all rebellion against Him, the 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth, the final defeat of Satan, and the Great White Throne Judgment.

The Antichrist is given the title “man of lawlessness” because he will oppose in every way the biblical God and His law. He will be completely lawless. Daniel 7 speaks of this man as a “boastful” king who will “try to change the set times and the laws” (verses 11 and 25)

So, Got Questions says they are one in the same....
_________________________________
I went to Daniel to see if there was mention of either MoL or the AC and found neither specific name...

“He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven, but in the middle of that seven, he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” – Daniel 9:27

But did find the 7 year mention... so there is that without an ID.

Then I looked into the 4 times the word antichrist appeared in scriptures and into 2 Thessalonians and I admit to being surprised to not see the two in the same scriptures as being one in the same.

Reading scriptures do seemingly indicate that the MoL and the AC are separate.... yet I still have
that unholy trinity in my mind of Satan, who is opposite God, the antichrist who is opposite Jesus and
the False Prophet as opposite the Holy Spirit.

Only these three in the dastardly trio of endtimes... so where exactly would #4... the Man of Lawlessness... fit?


So I am reviewing 2Thes 2: 1-12 to see if there is any insight there, one way or the other..... because I had always understood their panic and unrest when they thought the Day of the Lord was at hand... but then I also thought that this man
of lawlessness was the antichrist.

I use the NASB95 for my studies.... ( I have added my comments in parentheses where appropriate)

1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,

2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

3 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, (I see there is no identification of this MoL... and we are told there will be.)

4 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. (I also had always heard the antichrist will claim to be God)

5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?

6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; ( Right here it says the lawless one will be revealed so the MoL is
someone/thing else. ( My understanding has been the ultimate fate of the Antichrist is one of destruction, as foretold in the Scriptures. In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 , Paul assures believers of the Antichrist's demise: "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate.)

9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, (This is not the Anntichrist?)

10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. This is not the antichrist?)

11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,

12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

I find no discrepancy re-reading this again from my original beliefs that they are one and the same.....

This MoL

Opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God​

Sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God​

We read in 1 John 2:18

“You have heard that Antichrist is coming” (singular)

and 1 John 2:22

Antichrist denies the Father and the Son

Daniel 11:36–37 prophesies

36 “Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he will prosper until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done.

37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all therefore: I still believe The Antichrist and the Man of Lawlessness are two titles for the same final individual.

From what I have studied yesterday and today.....​

Scripture describes one final blasphemous figure who exalts himself as God (Dan 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 13:6). Paul calls him the Man of Lawlessness; John calls him the Antichrist. Same actions, same time, same destiny — different titles, same person.​

What we know of him all comes from scripture... not conjecture.

He’s a man — a human, not an angel, not a demon. A “man of lawlessness.”

He is quintessentially lawless. That is, he’s called a man of lawlessness. He considers himself absolutely above law. He is lawless in considering himself subject to no law and no lawgiver and no authority.

Since there’s only one person who’s above law — namely, God, who writes it — the man of lawlessness claims to be God. He says so explicitly. Verse 4: “. . . who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”

So, this man of lawlessness claims is the final climactic antichrist. “I am a man. I am God. But I’m not Jesus. And I don’t believe in Jesus. I’m against Jesus.”

That’s the ultimate expression of antichrist. “Many antichrists have come,” John says (1 John 2:18). And this one is the last. He’s going to be destroyed by the mouth of Jesus, and the fire of heaven, when he comes.

And 2 Thes 2: 8 says " Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

So we have 1 John 2:18 who says the antichrist will be destroyed by Jesus' mouth
and we have 2 Thes 2:8 who says the MoL will be destroyed by the Lords breath.

THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME.

 

[Josheb]

From what I have studied yesterday and today.....

Scripture describes one final blasphemous figure who exalts himself as God (Dan 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 13:6). Paul calls him the Man of Lawlessness; John calls him the Antichrist. Same actions, same time, same destiny — different titles, same person.​

What we know of him all comes from scripture... not conjecture.

Nope. It was not proven they share the same attributes, and it has been assumed two men with the same attributes are the same person. You and I share the same beliefs in God but that does not make us the same person.

Try again.


And don't be so disorganized with the highlighting. Place the common attributes in bold face so they will be readily and easily recognized by the reader.

 

[Josheb]

@Rella

Consider this possibility: The label "man of lawlessness" inherently implies a law is being disregarded (Gk: anomias = absent the law). This begs the question, "Which law?" So we must ask ourselves which to what law would God inspire Paul to reference in the prophecy God gave Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2? To what law would Paul be referring as he wrote the saints in Thessalonica? Would that be Roman Law? Greek law? Jewish law? I will suggest to you that the law in the man of lawlessness is a reference to the Law of Moses. Why? Because the only law Paul ever cites in his epistles is the laws of God, and the Law of Moses in particular. ALL the New Testament writers quote, cite, reference the Old Testament Law. None of them quote, cite, or reference any other law. Therefore, the lawless man of 2 Thessalonians 2 is a man who eschews the Law, not the law. This, in turn, begs the next set of questions: "Who is expected to obey the Law?" because expecting an inherently lawless person to consider the law is foolishness. We do not expect criminals to obey the laws of any nation. They are criminals. Criminals are, by definition, all lawless people. Paul is, therefore, NOT referring to a person who is criminal, and definitely not someone who is criminally and chronically criminal. He's referring to someone expected to obey the law, and the law he's expected to obey is the Law of Moses.

So, the MoL is probably a Jew.

The antichrist, on the other hand, could be Jewish or Gentile but he (or she) could also be the MoL only if the antichrist is Jewish. If the antichrist is Gentile, then he's not likely to be the lawless man because the law Paul refers to is the Mosaic code. No one expected Caesar or the Pope, or Rondald Reagan or Donald Trump to ever obey the Law of Moses. The minute Paul mention "law" that stipulated a context, a context by which the identity of the man in question could be recognized. And it had to be recognizable by the first century Thessalonians. Otherwise, Paul's words were meaningless.

Scripture is never meaningless. No interpretation of scripture can render it meaningless to any generation of people.

Therefore, whoever the MoL was/is, it has to be someone the original readers would have recognized, could have identified. That one fact is going to exclude a huge ginormous pile of speculation, including all the modernist speculations (like the Pope, Ronald Wilson Raygun, or the Al Aqsa Mosque). People, institutions, or systems that did not exist in the first century are out of the realm of possibility. This same kind of reasoning can be applied to the John's antichrist. Even if you disagree, this should help you anticipate criticisms of your next attempt to prove the MoL and AC are the same person.


See how italics, bold-face and formatting were used to highlight the specific relevant points to make them recognizable?

.

 

[EarlyActs]

https://christcentered.community.fo...-temple-in-jerusalem.2937/page-19#post-131752







@Josheb ,

Ok... This was a good exercise for me because I got to memorize a little more scripture.

I believe I can offer proof they are one in the same.......!

I apologize for rambling a bit as I start this but even with scripture involved I find it difficult to cut things short.

I learned that while checking from time to time into outside sources they just don't opine the way I do... so you also will knock what I say but IDC because even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a long while....

You are correct in wanting scriptural references in my reply.

As I was starting I ran the gamut of opinions in the drop down list under man of lawlessness and antichrist being the same or different biblical figures and who will sit in the temple of God at the end.

I am not using any of them for my points but one that actually supports me with scriptures is teaching they are one in the same... no wonder people get confused.... since you are certain they are not.

Who is the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12? | GotQuestions.org

The man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 is the Antichrist who will come on the world scene at the beginning of the Day of the Lord. This Day, sometimes called the “end times,” starts after the rapture of the church in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11). It is good to note that the Day of the Lord is not a twenty-four-hour period of time; rather, it is an extended period of time that includes the seven-year tribulation, the return of Christ to put down all rebellion against Him, the 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth, the final defeat of Satan, and the Great White Throne Judgment.

The Antichrist is given the title “man of lawlessness” because he will oppose in every way the biblical God and His law. He will be completely lawless. Daniel 7 speaks of this man as a “boastful” king who will “try to change the set times and the laws” (verses 11 and 25)

So, Got Questions says they are one in the same....
_________________________________
I went to Daniel to see if there was mention of either MoL or the AC and found neither specific name...

“He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven, but in the middle of that seven, he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” – Daniel 9:27

But did find the 7 year mention... so there is that without an ID.

Then I looked into the 4 times the word antichrist appeared in scriptures and into 2 Thessalonians and I admit to being surprised to not see the two in the same scriptures as being one in the same.

Reading scriptures do seemingly indicate that the MoL and the AC are separate.... yet I still have
that unholy trinity in my mind of Satan, who is opposite God, the antichrist who is opposite Jesus and
the False Prophet as opposite the Holy Spirit.

Only these three in the dastardly trio of endtimes... so where exactly would #4... the Man of Lawlessness... fit?


So I am reviewing 2Thes 2: 1-12 to see if there is any insight there, one way or the other..... because I had always understood their panic and unrest when they thought the Day of the Lord was at hand... but then I also thought that this man
of lawlessness was the antichrist.

I use the NASB95 for my studies.... ( I have added my comments in parentheses where appropriate)

1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,

2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

3 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, (I see there is no identification of this MoL... and we are told there will be.)

4 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. (I also had always heard the antichrist will claim to be God)

5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?

6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; ( Right here it says the lawless one will be revealed so the MoL is
someone/thing else. ( My understanding has been the ultimate fate of the Antichrist is one of destruction, as foretold in the Scriptures. In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 , Paul assures believers of the Antichrist's demise: "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate.)

9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, (This is not the Anntichrist?)

10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. This is not the antichrist?)

11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,

12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

I find no discrepancy re-reading this again from my original beliefs that they are one and the same.....

This MoL

Opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God​

Sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God​

We read in 1 John 2:18

“You have heard that Antichrist is coming” (singular)

and 1 John 2:22

Antichrist denies the Father and the Son

Daniel 11:36–37 prophesies

36 “Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he will prosper until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done.

37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all therefore: I still believe The Antichrist and the Man of Lawlessness are two titles for the same final individual.

From what I have studied yesterday and today.....​

Scripture describes one final blasphemous figure who exalts himself as God (Dan 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 13:6). Paul calls him the Man of Lawlessness; John calls him the Antichrist. Same actions, same time, same destiny — different titles, same person.​

What we know of him all comes from scripture... not conjecture.

He’s a man — a human, not an angel, not a demon. A “man of lawlessness.”

He is quintessentially lawless. That is, he’s called a man of lawlessness. He considers himself absolutely above law. He is lawless in considering himself subject to no law and no lawgiver and no authority.

Since there’s only one person who’s above law — namely, God, who writes it — the man of lawlessness claims to be God. He says so explicitly. Verse 4: “. . . who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”

So, this man of lawlessness claims is the final climactic antichrist. “I am a man. I am God. But I’m not Jesus. And I don’t believe in Jesus. I’m against Jesus.”

That’s the ultimate expression of antichrist. “Many antichrists have come,” John says (1 John 2:18). And this one is the last. He’s going to be destroyed by the mouth of Jesus, and the fire of heaven, when he comes.

And 2 Thes 2: 8 says " Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

So we have 1 John 2:18 who says the antichrist will be destroyed by Jesus' mouth
and we have 2 Thes 2:8 who says the MoL will be destroyed by the Lords breath.

THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME.

There is something you can do to complete this study which tried to touch each reference, and that is to deal with Dan 8, because we don't know what ch 9 means without it.

What it is saying is that when the 4th occupying power comes (Rome) there will be a rebellion that desolates the country. This line in v13 sets up so much about ch 9, because it is telling us to distinguish between the ruler to come (Rome ) and Christ and an evil desolating figure or an opposite of Christ.

Later in ch 8 we hear that he is quite evil, and I don't know how we can miss that this is the person Paul meant. The 70 weeks were concluding. There was a massive rebellion. There was the rebellion in the theological sense in that Judaism did not become the missionaries which God wanted, like Paul. This created a climate that was ripe for rebellion, because it kept encouraging Judaism's youth to try to do something that would break Rome's control in the way of the Maccabbeans, but not the way of the Christians. The only direction Israel could go was into rebellion, and Paul (through Luke) makes numerous warnings about this direction.

With that in mind, you can now go read Dan 9 and the Thess material and you will find timely 1st century warnings to that generation about what was going to happen.

Btw, the expression is "one and the same."

 

[EarlyActs]

The word TEMPLE is used to imply ANY temple. He'll authenticate himself in the courtyard of the al-Aqsa mosque.

This is horrible interpretation Durg. Historical-grammatical means that the most weight goes on the nearest reference. That’s that generation and the zealots of Judaism who used the temple as a fort.