Breaking News! Man of Lawlessness revealed?

  • 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.
RachelBibleStudent said:
it shows the logical inconsistency to the claim that menahem was the man of lawlessness held back by the temple priesthood...

menahem's sicarii did away with one sitting high priest already...yet he was still being held back by the priesthood?
and then his sicarii assassinate a -retired- high priest...and suddenly the priesthood is now out of the way?
Click to expand...
Rachel, you're in your trench.
I've already adequately refuted 80% of all you've said.
I see no point in going back and forth with you any more.

I could answer every one of your points, and you're still going to be in your trench.


This one is on me for continuing it this long.
 
1still_waters said:
Zone said..



I'd think a guy who convinced an entire group they could overcome the Roman armies is guilty of a lying sign and wonder.

Also, I think you'd consider the wall of Jericho coming down a HUGE sign or wonder right?
Guess what Menahem did?
He gave the illusion of victory by coyly taking down a wall!
A lying sign to a people who had a history of a mighty sign from God that involved a collapsing wall.
Click to expand...

come on...we all know what 'signs and wonders' are...they are more than just people being convincing...talk about taking literal things figuratively...

by the way...it says -power- and signs and false wonders...these are literal miracles paul is predicting...

anyway the practice of undermining a wall was well known at that time...it would not have been seen as a miracle... and if you read just a few lines further you will see that as soon as the first wall came down menahem's force ran into -another- fortification...which had been built while menahem's people were undermining the first tower...this turned out to be a frustration for the zealots...not a wonder...

you are really reaching to make this fit...
 
zone said:
sounds like he was a psychopath...they don't usually really believe in God...they think they are God.
if he really believed in God i doubt he would have done what he did.
Click to expand...

he was an extremist who had convinced himself that he was doing God's work...like the later crusaders...

he probably saw himself as being a lot like joshua or gideon or judas maccabeus...a 'hero complex'

and of course he only believed in the zealot version of God...which isn't quite the way us christians see God...
 
RachelBibleStudent said:
.these are literal miracles paul is predicting...



you are really reaching to make this fit...
Click to expand...
No Rachel, they're not real literal miracles.
They're false ones.
False things are neither literal nor real.
They are false.

[SUP]9 [/SUP]The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan’s working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders,


Beating some Romans on the first go around of a rebellion, and thinking it means you'll beat the Romans, is indeed a false miracle, sign and wonder.

You're looking at this through the now eyes of a Benny Hinn crusade, and not the THEN eyes of what miracle the Jews were really looking for.
 
zone said:
particularly if God had sent them strong delusion in order that they believe it.
hmmm....

so this candidate helped untold numbers continue believing Jesus was not the deliverer.
after so short a time since He had been there.

mkay.
i can dig it.
Click to expand...

there were actually many more credible 'deluders' -after- menahem...like john of giscala...simon bar giora...eleazar ben simon...

menahem was really just a joke...a zimri clone who ruled for a matter of days before being overthrown by his own people...
 
zone said:
hmm...i gotta look into it.

Judas Iscariot, (died c. ad 30), one of the Twelve Apostles, notorious for betraying Jesus. Judas’ surname is more probably a corruption of the Latin sicarius (“murderer” or “assassin”) than an indication of family origin, suggesting that he would have belonged to the Sicarii, the most radical Jewish group, some of whom were terrorists. Other than his apostleship, his betrayal, and his death, little else is revealed about Judas in the Gospels. Always the last on the list of the Apostles, he was their treasurer. John 12:6 introduces Judas’ thievery by saying, “. . . as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.

judas was called the son of destruction from the very beginning.
a devil.
not just a thief.

i'll look into it again.
i had notes years ago.
Click to expand...

Just because one steals from others does not make them a devil, ohzone.

If I remember correctly, Judas only had 'the devil' enter him right before he betrayed Jesuscwith a kiss.

So, no, as rache, said, an extremist yes, a demonic psychopath, no, he was one of The Twelve, appointed by Jesus Himself, who , you can guess, asked every one of the Twelve to drop everything, deny themself, and, follow Him. Judas did, he wanted to be a fisher of men.
 
1still_waters said:
I've already adequately refuted 80% of all you've said.
Click to expand...

you have not refuted anything...all you have done is attempted to support your pet theory against scripture and common sense with increasingly absurd arguments...
 
GreenNnice said:
Just because one steals from others does not make them a devil, ohzone.

If I remember correctly, Judas only had 'the devil' enter him right before he betrayed Jesuscwith a kiss.

So, no, as rache, said, an extremist yes, a demonic psychopath, no, he was one of The Twelve, appointed by Jesus Himself, who , you can guess, asked every one of the Twelve to drop everything, deny themself, and, follow Him. Judas did, he wanted to be a fisher of men.
Click to expand...

we're talking about two different ppl green.

as for Judas:

John 6:70
Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

this was before satan entered into him green.
 
1still_waters said:
No Rachel, they're not real literal miracles.
They're false ones.
False things are neither literal nor real.
They are false.

[SUP]9 [/SUP]The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan’s working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders,


Beating some Romans on the first go around of a rebellion, and thinking it means you'll beat the Romans, is indeed a false miracle, sign and wonder.

You're looking at this through the now eyes of a Benny Hinn crusade, and not the THEN eyes of what miracle the Jews were really looking for.
Click to expand...

to appear credible a false wonder would have to resemble a real wonder...it would be either a demonic work or a convincing illusion...

your emphasis on the word 'false' is just a matter of semantics...in matthew 24 and mark 13 jesus warns of false prophets performing 'signs and wonders' without the qualification of 'false' on the signs...

i am looking at this based on what the bible says about signs and wonders...such as in revelation 13 where an example of the second beast's signs is to make fire come down from heaven...

what you are doing is redefining scriptural terms to make them fit your pet theory...
 
RachelBibleStudent said:
there were actually many more credible 'deluders' -after- menahem...like john of giscala...simon bar giora...eleazar ben simon...

menahem was really just a joke...a zimri clone who ruled for a matter of days before being overthrown by his own people...
Click to expand...
No not really

john of giscala - survived after the war. Wasn't killed within the timeline like Menahem was.
simon bar giora - never entered the temple in royal garb like Menahem did.
eleazar ben simon - no record of him entering temple in royal garb.
 
RachelBibleStudent said:
to appear credible a false wonder would have to resemble a real wonder...it would be either a demonic work or a convincing illusion...

your emphasis on the word 'false' is just a matter of semantics...in matthew 24 and mark 13 jesus warns of false prophets performing 'signs and wonders' without the qualification of 'false' on the signs...

i am looking at this based on what the bible says about signs and wonders...such as in revelation 13 where an example of the second beast's signs is to make fire come down from heaven...

what you are doing is redefining scriptural terms to make them fit your pet theory...
Click to expand...
Again, not really.

As a satanically lead leader, his wonder of defeating the romans appeared to be a sign/wonder/miracle.

Read the Bible.
Victories in battle are often attributed to the miraculous hand of God.
 
1still_waters said:
No not really

john of giscala - survived after the war. Wasn't killed within the timeline like Menahem was.
simon bar giora - never entered the temple in royal garb like Menahem did.
eleazar ben simon - no record of him entering temple in royal garb.
Click to expand...

again you are assuming your theory beforehand...

it is your assumption that the man of lawlessness has to be killed by AD 70...
it is also your assumption that the man of lawlessness had to enter the temple in royal garments...the bible says nothing about that...

anyway i was just naming people who were far more effective at deluding the people than menahem the one hit wonder with his fifteen minutes of fame...

simon ben giora for example was regarded as the hero of jerusalem...he had coins minted to commemorate the 'redemption of zion' when he took control there...
 
if you insist on having the abomination of desolation take place before the fall of jerusalem...i suggest looking at the event described in wars of the jews 5.1.3...where 'the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves' after a massacre of priests and levites at the altar...

josephus himself reflecting on that event writes...''thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God, nor couldst thou longer continue in being, after thou hadst been a sepulchre for the bodies of thine own people, and hadst made the holy house itself a burying-place in this civil war of thine!''

i would be more willing to consider that than this vacuous menahem theory...
 
zone said:
mmm...frustrating.
is josephus all we have?
Click to expand...

pretty much...

some people claim that a 'menahem the essene' mentioned in the talmud is the same as menahem ben judah...but chronologically this is unlikely as he would have been around ninety by the time of the rebellion...also there was practically no overlap between the essenes and the zealots...
 
zone said:
hmm...i gotta look into it.

Judas Iscariot, (died c. ad 30), one of the Twelve Apostles, notorious for betraying Jesus. Judas’ surname is more probably a corruption of the Latin sicarius (“murderer” or “assassin”) than an indication of family origin, suggesting that he would have belonged to the Sicarii, the most radical Jewish group, some of whom were terrorists. Other than his apostleship, his betrayal, and his death, little else is revealed about Judas in the Gospels. Always the last on the list of the Apostles, he was their treasurer. John 12:6 introduces Judas’ thievery by saying, “. . . as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.

judas was called the son of destruction from the very beginning.
a devil.
not just a thief.

i'll look into it again.
i had notes years ago.
Click to expand...

GreenNnice said:
Just because one steals from others does not make them a devil, ohzone.

If I remember correctly, Judas only had 'the devil' enter him right before he betrayed Jesuscwith a kiss.

So, no, as rache, said, an extremist yes, a demonic psychopath, no, he was one of The Twelve, appointed by Jesus Himself, who , you can guess, asked every one of the Twelve to drop everything, deny themself, and, follow Him. Judas did, he wanted to be a fisher of men.
Click to expand...
Psychopath? No. Extremist? Certainly. But, I think, 'narcissist' best describes Judas Iscariot. He was out for himself.

zone said:
we're talking about two different ppl green.

as for Judas:

John 6:70
Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

this was before satan entered into him green.
Click to expand...

What person are you speaking of, ohzone? I'm speaking of Judas , one of The Twelve, who believed but betrayed, "For Jesus jlkbew from the beginning who they were who did not believe AND (also) who would betray Him.'
Judas believed, but then he betrayed whom he followed.


Judas was 'a devil,' John 6:70 says, which is defined in this context as someone who was chosen by Jesus as one of the Twelve who Jesus, yes, chose, but who knew Judas would betray Him. Judas was 'a devil,' but the Devil did not enter him, ohzone, until just before Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss.
 
GreenNnice said:
Just because one steals from others does not make them a devil, ohzone.

If I remember correctly, Judas only had 'the devil' enter him right before he betrayed Jesuscwith a kiss.

So, no, as rache, said, an extremist yes, a demonic psychopath, no, he was one of The Twelve, appointed by Jesus Himself, who , you can guess, asked every one of the Twelve to drop everything, deny themself, and, follow Him. Judas did, he wanted to be a fisher of men.
Click to expand...

Sorry,

Jesus called Him a devil long before Judas was to betray Him. This is the next day after feeding the 5,000

John 6

[SUP]60 [/SUP]On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
[SUP]61 [/SUP]Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? [SUP]62 [/SUP]Then what if you see the Son of Manascend to where he was before! [SUP]63 [/SUP]The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[SUP][e][/SUP] and life. [SUP]64 [/SUP]Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. [SUP]65 [/SUP]He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
[SUP]66 [/SUP]From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
[SUP]67 [/SUP]“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
[SUP]68 [/SUP]Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. [SUP]69 [/SUP]We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
[SUP]70 [/SUP]Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” [SUP]71 [/SUP](He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
 
GreenNnice said:
What person are you speaking of, ohzone? I'm speaking of Judas , one of The Twelve, who believed but betrayed, "For Jesus jlkbew from the beginning who they were who did not believe AND (also) who would betray Him.'
Judas believed, but then he betrayed whom he followed.


Judas was 'a devil,' John 6:70 says, which is defined in this context as someone who was chosen by Jesus as one of the Twelve who Jesus, yes, chose, but who knew Judas would betray Him. Judas was 'a devil,' but the Devil did not enter him, ohzone, until just before Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss.
Click to expand...

Judas was the FIRST of a long line of FALSE prophets to come in His name. Jesus says one of you IS not WILL BE a devil. Judas was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

wolf_in_sheeps_cloth.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back