Breaking News! Man of Lawlessness revealed?
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Anonimous
Guest
I have a feeling I'll be kicking myself later....I'll check this out anyway...
ya Bethy
we have some good posts/threads/members happening lately.
i love you!
it's happenin sis!
A
Anonimous
Guest
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
menahem ben judah could not have been the man of lawlessness...this is just another example of preterists making tenuous identifications with practically insignificant historical events in order to cram nearly all bible prophecy into the first jewish war...
first and foremost...the menahem theory contradicts scripture... according to 2 thessalonians 2 the man of lawlessness takes his seat in the temple to exalt himself over every god and every object of worship and claims himself to be God...in contrast according to flavius josephus' account menahem went up to the temple to worship... how can someone who goes up to the temple to worship...even as pompously as menahem did...be exalting himself over every object of worship?
josephus also makes it sound as if menahem did not even have a chance to 'take his seat' in the temple as 2 thessalonians 2 requires...he was actually violently driven out of the temple by his fellow rebels when he came to worship in his royal garments...
additionally 2 thessalonians 2 says that the man of lawlessness is slain by the breath of jesus' mouth and destroyed by the appearance of his coming...in contrast josephus writes that menahem was tortured to death by his fellow rebels shortly after the beginning of the war in AD 66... this strains even the preterists' farcical interpretation of the 'coming' of jesus which they identify with the destruction of jerusalem in AD 70...
another problem is that paul mentions that the thessalonian church knew what restrained the man of lawlessness...i see no reason why paul or the greek church he was writing to would be at all familiar with sicari politics...and what if anything would have been 'restraining' menahem is not at all clear...
also in 2 thessalonians 2 paul says that all who did not believe the truth are deceived by the man of lawlessness...and according to josephus menahem was rejected by the majority of jerusalem a matter of days after he claimed leadership of the rebellion...
finally 2 thessalonians 2 mentions that the coming of the man of lawlessness would be in accord with satanic activity such as power and signs and false wonders...on the other hand josephus reports no such thing about menahem...instead portraying him as a conventional violent rebel leader and king claimant...
significantly there is no mention of menahem ben judah in any early christian writings...let alone any identification of menahem with the man of lawlessness... evidently the church completely ignored this person for 1,900 years...either having no knowledge at all of him due to his lack of importance...or correctly disregarding him as a petty pretender who 'reigned' for literally mere days and had no relevance whatsoever to prophecy...
first and foremost...the menahem theory contradicts scripture... according to 2 thessalonians 2 the man of lawlessness takes his seat in the temple to exalt himself over every god and every object of worship and claims himself to be God...in contrast according to flavius josephus' account menahem went up to the temple to worship... how can someone who goes up to the temple to worship...even as pompously as menahem did...be exalting himself over every object of worship?
josephus also makes it sound as if menahem did not even have a chance to 'take his seat' in the temple as 2 thessalonians 2 requires...he was actually violently driven out of the temple by his fellow rebels when he came to worship in his royal garments...
additionally 2 thessalonians 2 says that the man of lawlessness is slain by the breath of jesus' mouth and destroyed by the appearance of his coming...in contrast josephus writes that menahem was tortured to death by his fellow rebels shortly after the beginning of the war in AD 66... this strains even the preterists' farcical interpretation of the 'coming' of jesus which they identify with the destruction of jerusalem in AD 70...
another problem is that paul mentions that the thessalonian church knew what restrained the man of lawlessness...i see no reason why paul or the greek church he was writing to would be at all familiar with sicari politics...and what if anything would have been 'restraining' menahem is not at all clear...
also in 2 thessalonians 2 paul says that all who did not believe the truth are deceived by the man of lawlessness...and according to josephus menahem was rejected by the majority of jerusalem a matter of days after he claimed leadership of the rebellion...
finally 2 thessalonians 2 mentions that the coming of the man of lawlessness would be in accord with satanic activity such as power and signs and false wonders...on the other hand josephus reports no such thing about menahem...instead portraying him as a conventional violent rebel leader and king claimant...
significantly there is no mention of menahem ben judah in any early christian writings...let alone any identification of menahem with the man of lawlessness... evidently the church completely ignored this person for 1,900 years...either having no knowledge at all of him due to his lack of importance...or correctly disregarding him as a petty pretender who 'reigned' for literally mere days and had no relevance whatsoever to prophecy...
wow rachel.
okay....that makes sense.
homework done.
ty.
so he is lower on the Antichrist Candidate
list.
BUT:
2 Thessalonians 2:4
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.
naos: a temple
Original Word: ναός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: naos
Phonetic Spelling: (nah-os')
Short Definition: a temple, shrine
Definition: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides.
3485 naós (from naiō, "to dwell") – properly, a sanctuary (divine dwelling-place); a temple (sacred abode), the place of divine manifestation. 3485 (naós) refers to the sanctuary (the Jewish Temple proper), i.e. with just its two inner compartments (rooms).
if we're going to make this Rome, did God ever consider the Vatican or any other place His sanctuary?
and the popes themselves bow to idols.
and, if it's a future Temple, that's not predicted, and would not be where God would make His sanctuary.
so...what's your position again?
okay....that makes sense.
homework done.
ty.
so he is lower on the Antichrist Candidate
list.BUT:
2 Thessalonians 2:4
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.
naos: a temple
Original Word: ναός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: naos
Phonetic Spelling: (nah-os')
Short Definition: a temple, shrine
Definition: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides.
3485 naós (from naiō, "to dwell") – properly, a sanctuary (divine dwelling-place); a temple (sacred abode), the place of divine manifestation. 3485 (naós) refers to the sanctuary (the Jewish Temple proper), i.e. with just its two inner compartments (rooms).
if we're going to make this Rome, did God ever consider the Vatican or any other place His sanctuary?
and the popes themselves bow to idols.
and, if it's a future Temple, that's not predicted, and would not be where God would make His sanctuary.
so...what's your position again?
1
1still_waters
Guest
You kinda back up the Menahem theory in your rebuttal.
Actually Josephus presents it much differently. He describes Menahem in this way.
3. Came to Jerusalem as a king.
4. Barbarously cruel
5. No antagonist to dispute the management of affairs with him.
6. Insupportable tyrant.
7. Having a pompous manner.
8. Adorned in royal garments as he went in the temple.
He did put himself over every object of worship, and all gods.
He thought he was greater than the Roman emperor and his army. The emperor thought he was what? GOD!
He was described as entering the temple as king, adorned in royal garments.
He viewed himself as the deliverer of the Jews.
So a guy who views himself as deliverer, and as a king, and enters the temple....
In our view, anyone claiming to be messiah is claiming the same status as Jesus.
Who do we say Jesus is?
GOD!
So in our view, YES Menahem DID declare himself God by presenting himself as the kingly deliverer of the people as he entered the temple.
It's all right there for you to see Rachel.
1
1still_waters
Guest
No not really. His death happened just as the Romans were preparing their response to the Jewish rebellion. The chaos in the city was God's hand in his judgement coming of the city. Jesus was beginning his coming in judgement right in the midst of the chaos. The chaos was part of his coming in judgement.
The chaos did in Menahem.
It all fits together Rachel.
abiding just posted in Millenium (?) Thread. there's a thousand right now
me tinks you're right Still.
bad guy fits the bill.
i recant my recant
1
1still_waters
Guest
Yes yes he did get violent resistance.
But read Joesphus closely.
The assault was IN THE TEMPLE.
He had already entered the temple as king. He was adorned with royal garments.
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
wow rachel.
okay....that makes sense.
homework done.
ty.
so he is lower on the Antichrist Candidate
BUT:
2 Thessalonians 2:4
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.
naos: a temple
Original Word: ναός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: naos
Phonetic Spelling: (nah-os')
Short Definition: a temple, shrine
Definition: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides.
3485 naós (from naiō, "to dwell") – properly, a sanctuary (divine dwelling-place); a temple (sacred abode), the place of divine manifestation. 3485 (naós) refers to the sanctuary (the Jewish Temple proper), i.e. with just its two inner compartments (rooms).
if we're going to make this Rome, did God ever consider the Vatican or any other place His sanctuary?
and the popes themselves bow to idols.
and, if it's a future Temple, that's not predicted, and would not be where God would make His sanctuary.
so...what's your position again?
what does the bible say jesus was referring to when he said 'this temple'?
his body
what is the body of christ today?
the church
1
1still_waters
Guest
Oh come on!
It was the temple priest system that was holding him back before the rebellion.
The Christians in Thessalonica had knowledge of the Jewish system and belief. They weren't just "Greek Christians".
Acts 17
17 When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said.
And as we know from Acts 2, Jews from all over the world visited Jerusalem.
So yes, the believers in Thessalonica had knowledge of the temple political system. They weren't simply detached Greeks.
1
1still_waters
Guest
Josephus below...
as he thought he had no antagonist to dispute the management of affairs with him--Josephus
who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship---Bible
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
came to jerusalem as a king...people have come to jerusalem as kings before without being messiah claimants...
barbarously cruel...people have been barbarously cruel before without being the man of lawlessness...
no antagonist to dispute the management of affairs with him...you left out some of josephus' words...menahem '-thought- he had no antagonists to dispute the management of affairs with him'...and clearly he was wrong about that since shortly afterwards his fellow rebel eleazar did just that...
insupportable tyrant...people have been insupportable tyrants before without being the man of lawlessness...
having a pompous manner...people have been pompous before without being messiah claimants or the man of lawlessness...
adorned in royal garments as he went into the temple...people have gone into the temple wearing royal garments before without being messiah claimants or the man of lawlessness...
basically all of these are generic enough to apply to numerous people throughout biblical history and beyond...yet not specific enough to match 2 thessalonians 2...
if menahem went to the temple to worship then he was not exalting himself above everything that is worshipped...you don't worship someone you are claiming to be above...
jews have viewed themselves as deliverers and aspired to kingship before without being messiah claimants...an obvious example would be the maccabees...
so there is little if any indication that menahem ben judah actually claimed to be the messiah...
and furthermore...if he had claimed to be the messiah...that would actually have disqualified him from being the man of lawlessness right then and there... christ rejecting jews in new testament times did not believe that the messiah would be God in the flesh...no non christian jew could have seriously claimed to be both at the same time...
1
1still_waters
Guest
And what lie did all them Jews who rebelled believe?
They believed they would win over the Romans.
That was the lie.
It says they would believe the lie, not just the person.
They didn't believe Jesus as the Messiah. Instead they rebelled and thought they'd be delivered from the romans. That is THE LIE they believed. And as we know, in AD70, those in Jerusalem who believed that lie, they did indeed perish.
But those who believed Jesus fled the city just as Jesus had told them.
15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’[c] spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
1
1still_waters
Guest
Yes some others do kinda fit it.
But none within the timeline and period Jesus and Paul were speaking of.
But at this point I feel as if I'm entering an I'm-right-athon.
I'll let my finding speak for itself.
Those who see it will see it.
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
so now christ's coming lasted more than three years?
preterism sinks to a new level of absurdity...
R
RachelBibleStudent
Guest
he was in the temple...josephus never says he took a seat or proclaimed anything...much more likely he was attacked within a few steps of the entrance and driven out...