The last gasp of Imperialism in Europe?

[Douggg]

So why even distinguish them by their different roles, if they are all the "Antichrist?"

The different roles are not as the Antichrist. Just like you would not call the President of the United States - Senator.

By understanding the different roles the person goes through, a timeline of events can be accurately made.

Also, by knowing the role of being the Antichrist is when the person is anointed the King of Israel - the confirmation for 7 years in Daniel 9:27 is that of the Mt. Sinai covenant (and not a peace treaty). Because as the King of Israel, it will be his responsibility to see to it that the law of Moses is read to the nation of Israel - as Moses required of all future leaders of Israel to do in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 - on a 7 year cycle.

If I might suggest, instead of calling the person the Antichrist (as everyone does) in general conversation/discussion , refer to him as "the person who becomes the Antichrist." You may get a response, of "What do you mean?" Which you can then enlighten your discussion partner about the different roles the person goes through. Just like I am doing with you...

 

[Douggg]

At any rate, how can you have a Rapture of the Church without a 2nd Coming?

It is not "a" second coming - but "the" Second Coming".

The Second Coming refers to Jesus's return to this earth, to stand on the Mt. of Olives, to end the great tribulation.

The rapture/resurrection is Christians leaving this world, and avoiding having to go through the great tribulation. That's why it says "escape" in Luke 21:34-36.

 

[RandyPNW]

It is not "a" second coming - but "the" Second Coming".

The language I used did not suggest otherwise. You're reading too much into how I worded the statement. There is only one "2nd Coming,* I agree. I'm suggesting that the Rapture of the Church requires an essential link to THE 2nd Coming of Christ. You tried to exclude it--that was the point.

The Second Coming refers to Jesus's return to this earth, to stand on the Mt. of Olives, to end the great tribulation.

The rapture/resurrection is Christians leaving this world, and avoiding having to go through the great tribulation. That's why it says "escape" in Luke 21:34-36.

I believe the "escape" was a reference to the escape to Pella in 66-70 AD. Again, the Rapture of the Church cannot happen unless Christ comes.

 

[trophy33]

I believe that Paul identified Roman leadership as the restraining entity in 2 Thes 2, keeping Antichrist from rising to power. He would not say so publicly, but likely referred his followers to Daniel 7, where Antichrist arises out of a 4th Empire, after its leadership dissolves into a multiplicity of 10 powers.

We have seen the Eastern and Western branches of the ancient Roman Empire both Christianized and gradually dissolve into a multiplicity of states. However, the Roman Imperial Tradition has kept the rise of Antichrist in check, both by its Christian leadership and by its imperial hold on Western culture.

The Holy Roman Empire has long since passed, but a variety of imperial forces coming out of Europe have persisted, keeping Antichrist in check. One of the last of these imperial forces is Russia, who is making one last gasp to rebuild the Russian Empire.

But I believe imperialism is about to finally be completely dissolved in Europe, making way for the rise of Antichrist. His will be a new kind of Empire, returning Europe to its original paganism and attempting to drive Christianity into oblivion. That spirit is already at work, but soon it will be very much a political reality all across Europe.

Context:
2 Thes was written shortly after the 1Thes, to correct some misunderstandings readers got from the first one. The first was written around 52 AD, the second one soon after that.

1. The church in Thessaloniki knew the end was near and that they will experience the coming of Jesus. They feared that they may miss it:
"... we ask you, brothers, not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come"

2. Paul calms them down, saying that the man of sin must be revealed first, that he is already present ("the mystery of lawlessness is already working"), but is still being "hindered by somebody who will be taken out of way". And Thessalonians knew who that is ("you know who hinders his being revealed in his own time").

Though Paul told them in person (they knew), he had to talk in mysteries in letters, to save Christians from persecution, in the case the letter fell into the hands of Romans.

The most probable explanation:
The man of sin was Nero and the one who was hindering him from being manifested as such was Claudius, his step-father, who was poisoned in 54 AD. Nero ruled from 54 AD to 68 AD.

 

[RandyPNW]

2 Thes was written shortly after the 1Thes, to correct some misunderstandings readers got from the first one. The first was written around 52 AD, the second one soon after that.

1. The church in Thessaloniki knew the end was near and that they will experience the coming of Jesus. They feared that they may miss it:
"... we ask you, brothers, not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come"

2. Paul calms them down, saying that the man of sin must be revealed first, that he is already present ("the mystery of lawlessness is already working"), but is still being "hindered by somebody who will be taken out of way". And Thessalonians knew who that is ("you know who hinders his being revealed in his own time").

Though Paul told them in person (they knew), he had to talk in mysteries in letters, to save Christians from persecution, in the case the letter fell into the hands of Romans.

The man of sin was Nero and the one who was hindering him from being manifested as such was Claudius, his step-father, who was poisoned in 54 AD. Nero ruled from 54 AD to 68 AD.

I'm not hostile to your viewpoint, but have a different take on it. I don't think Nero was anything more than a symbol of the coming Antichrist. The Man of Sin would be a leader, coming out of Europe, who would amass 10 nations and 7 leaders under him, forming a pagan coalition in opposition to traditional Christianity. He will burn Rome, after using it.

I agree that Paul spoke somewhat obscurely in public letters, due to Roman persecution. I don't think 2 Thes was written only to respond to misconceptions coming out of 1 Thes. He said his 2nd letter was designed to deal with a cult group of Christians who were claiming they were some kind of "2nd Coming," or an arrival of Christ's Kingdom on earth. Jesus had warned about those who said "he is here" or "he is there." He is coming *from heaven!*

Yes, the Man of Sin must be revealed 1st. The thing or person to be removed from hindering the coming of Antichrist is, I think the imperial authority coming out of Rome. It has kept European Culture resistant to revamping under anything other than its traditional power.

Antichrist will be "different." He will reorganize Europe into a structure like old pagan Rome, and yet in a final opposition to Christianity.

That opposition has been put off so that the Gospel can be preached throughout the world. Although traditional Rome opposed Christianity, as well, it came to extend its own culture by adopting Christianity as its religion.

This is all changing now, and in the end, Antichrist will take advantage of it to restart opposition to Christianity, to defeat it. That's when Christ will come to defeat him.

 

[trophy33]

I'm not hostile to your viewpoint, but have a different take on it. I don't think Nero was anything more than a symbol of the coming Antichrist. The Man of Sin would be a leader, coming out of Europe, who would amass 10 nations and 7 leaders under him, forming a pagan coalition in opposition to traditional Christianity. He will burn Rome, after using it.

I agree that Paul spoke somewhat obscurely in public letters, due to Roman persecution. I don't think 2 Thes was written only to respond to misconceptions coming out of 1 Thes. He said his 2nd letter was designed to deal with a cult group of Christians who were claiming they were some kind of "2nd Coming," or an arrival of Christ's Kingdom on earth. Jesus had warned about those who said "he is here" or "he is there." He is coming *from heaven!*

Yes, the Man of Sin must be revealed 1st. The thing or person to be removed from hindering the coming of Antichrist is, I think the imperial authority coming out of Rome. It has kept European Culture resistant to revamping under anything other than its traditional power.

Antichrist will be "different." He will reorganize Europe into a structure like old pagan Rome, and yet in a final opposition to Christianity. That opposition has been put off so that the Gospel can be preached throughout the world.

There is zero evidence in the letter that Paul was talking about events and persons 2,000 years after all of the addressees of this letter will be dead.

The immanency and fear of missing the day is clear from the letter. And they knew, Paul told them everything personally, without mysteries. The letter was just a reminder of what he told them.

The letter was written soon after 52 AD, Nero came to power 54 AD. It fits perfectly. If we realize to whom the letter was written and read it this way, all speculations about future Russia or Europe do not make any sense.

 

[RandyPNW]

There is zero evidence in the letter that Paul was talking about events and persons 2,000 years after all of the addressees of this letter will be dead.

You mean there is zero evidence *for you!* For most Christian scholars that I have read, 2 Thes 2 is dealing with the Man of Sin addressed in Dan 7--the Antichrist. Futurists believe the Man of Sin, or "the Antichrist," will indeed appear in the last of the Last Days, forming a final coalition in Europe against Christianity and God.

The immanency and fear of missing the day is clear from the letter.

Yes, cults have the annoying capacity to inflict doubt upon others, suggesting that somehow they've missed some mystical experience or some supernatural move of God. In this case, these cultists were trying to portray their movement as special and elitist, paving the way for the inception of the Kingdom in and amidst their own group! Some were bound to ask if somehow they had missed that particular movement.

And they knew, Paul told them everything personally, without mysteries. The letter was just a reminder of what he told them.

The letter was written soon after 52 AD, Nero came to power 54 AD. It fits perfectly. If we realize to whom the letter was written and read it this way, all speculations about future Russia or Europe do not make any sense.

Many biblical prophecies were future prophecies, and some a very long ways off from the time the prophecies were given. For example, the prophecy given to Adam and Eve about the Messiah crushing the head of the Serpent was a prophecy far off into the future, when Christ died on the Cross and perhaps even farther, when Christ will come back to imprison the Beast and Satan.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Absolutely true. However, the Scriptures are also true, which say:

Dan 7.21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them.

The defeat of the Church by Antichrist is somewhat illusory and temporary, since Christ returns to utterly defeat him and those who follow him. Our defeat is actually our victory.

These saints are the Jewish/Israelite ones that come to faith when "they look on Me whom they pierced, and mourn for Him..." They being the 144,000, and those whom they lead. This period of 3-1/2 times is post-trib and post-rapture.

Daniel is written solely to Israelites; it does not address the Church at all: the Church remained an undisclosed and unreferenced mystery to the pre-Christian Jews.

 

[WilliamLhk]

We have seen the Eastern and Western branches of the ancient Roman Empire both Christianized and gradually dissolve into a multiplicity of states. However, the Roman Imperial Tradition has kept the rise of Antichrist in check, both by its Christian leadership and by its imperial hold on Western culture.

The United States and Great Britain, under their partially Roman-based law, enforced by the Pax Americana and Pax Britannica, have been the culminating restrainers of the Antichrist spirit. But that restraint is disappearing fast, as witnessed by the rapidly-increasing worldwide lawlessness.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Randy, 2Thessalonians2 is not about keeping the Antichrist from rising to power.

Paul was indicating that rapture would happen before the Antichrist commits the transgression of desolation act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to have achieved God-hood.

Once the church is removed from earth, then the Antichrist is no longer restrained from doing that act.

A common but incorrect view. Here is why:

Besides 2 Thes. 2:3, the only other use of the noun apostasia in the Bible is in Acts 21:21 --

And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews which are among the Gentiles apostasia from Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs...

-- where the term clearly means apostasy in the religious sense. The same meaning applies to 2 Thes. 2:3.

The departure from earth cannot be meant, because the passage in its full context clearly teaches that "the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1) will not come 3) until 'the Lord will destroy the Lawless One with the brightness of His Parousia." Meaning that the Lawless On/Son of Perdition must come before the Parousia and its consequent rapture, not after it.

 

[WilliamLhk]

For most Christian scholars that I have read, 2 Thes 2 is dealing with the Man of Sin addressed in Dan 7--the Antichrist.

The Man of Sin/Son of Perdition is pre-Parousia. Whereas the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is post-Parousia, during the 3-1/2 times of "Jacob's trouble."

 

[WilliamLhk]

The most probable explanation:
The man of sin was Nero and the one who was hindering him from being manifested as such was Claudius, his step-father, who was poisoned in 54 AD. Nero ruled from 54 AD to 68 AD.

Nero was not "destroyed with the brightness of His [the Lord's] Parousia." 2 Thes. 2:8

Ergo, Nero was not the Man of Sin.

 

[Douggg]

A common but incorrect view. Here is why:

Besides 2 Thes. 2:3, the only other use of the noun apostasia in the Bible is in Acts 21:21 --

And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews which are among the Gentiles apostasia from Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs...

-- where the term clearly means apostasy in the religious sense. The same meaning applies to 2 Thes. 2:3.

The departure from earth cannot be meant, because the passage in its full context clearly teaches that "the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1) will not come 3) until 'the Lord will destroy the Lawless One with the brightness of His Parousia." Meaning that the Lawless On/Son of Perdition must come before the Parousia and its consequent rapture, not after it.

The falling away in 2Thessalonians2:3 is not talking about the rapture/resurrection event, but instead about a falling away within Christianity of people no longer believing that Jesus is the messiah, but instead will think the Antichrist person who will be anointed the King of Israel, thought to be messiah by the Jews.

To the ones who fall away at that time, it will appear that the Jews were right all along. The false messianic age will last about 3 years, and suddenly end when the Antichrist goes into the temple, sits, claims to have achieved God-hood. Revealing himself to be the man of sin and not the messiah after all.

The Jews will be mortified by his act and will reject him as continuing as their King of Israel, ending the stage of the person being the Antichrist. The next stage will be as the beast-king of Revelation 13.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Man of Sin/Son of Perdition is pre-Parousia. Whereas the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is post-Parousia, during the 3-1/2 times of "Jacob's trouble."

Sorry, that's where we disagree, though it's just a matter of opinion/interpretation. The way I read it, 2 Thes 2 is based on Dan 7, which speaks of the Little Horn/Antichrist ruling for 3.5 years, followed by the coming of the Son of Man to set up God's Kingdom.

The Little Horn is the Antichrist that the Apostle John spoke of, and the Beast that he spoke of in the book of Revelation. And he is the Lawless One, or Man of Sin, that Paul spoke of.

All of the NT references to this end time figure goes back to Dan 7 as their source, in my view. To separate them would cause a lot of confusion for me, resulting in subjective interpretation, leading to many different opinions and endless disagreement.

 

[Jipsah]

So it seems that things seem to be falling place.

That'sbeen the slogan of every End Times enthusiast since roughly ever.

 

[Douggg]

The Man of Sin/Son of Perdition is pre-Parousia. Whereas the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is post-Parousia, during the 3-1/2 times of "Jacob's trouble."

All stages of the person are before the Second Coming of Jesus. At Jesus's Second Coming, the person will be cast alive into the lake of fire, Revelation 19:20.

 

[trophy33]

Nero was not "destroyed with the brightness of His [the Lord's] Parousia." 2 Thes. 2:8

Ergo, Nero was not the Man of Sin.

The brightness of something is light that precedes the object.

Therefore, the verse means "he will be destroyed soon before the coming". As a sign the coming is imminent. Its not about being destroyed by a literal light or something like that.

Ergo, Nero fits perfectly. He died 68 AD and the end has come in 70 AD.

 

[WilliamLhk]

2 Thes 2 is based on Dan 7, which speaks of the Little Horn/Antichrist ruling for 3.5 years, followed by the coming of the Son of Man to set up God's Kingdom.

The Little Horn is the Antichrist that the Apostle John spoke of, and the Beast that he spoke of in the book of Revelation. And he is the Lawless One, or Man of Sin, that Paul spoke of.

If you believe these things, then by necessity you believe that the Church will go through the time of God's wrath, which begins at the sixth seal: "the great day of His wrath has come." Rev. 6:17 But "God did not appoint us to wrath." 1 Thes. 5:9
The Lawless One is pre-Parousia and therefore pre-wrath; whereas the Beast kingdom clearly is subject to the wrath.

 

[WilliamLhk]

The brightness of something is light that precedes the object.

Therefore, the verse means "he will be destroyed soon before the coming". As a sign the coming is imminent. Its not about being destroyed by a literal light or something like that.

Ergo, Nero fits perfectly. He died 68 AD and the end has come in 70 AD.

The Parousia of Christ is when He snatches up His Church (1 Thes. 4:14-17), which did not occur in 70 AD.

 

[WilliamLhk]

All stages of the person are before the Second Coming of Jesus. At Jesus's Second Coming, the person will be cast alive into the lake of fire, Revelation 19:20.

The testimony of 2 Thes. 2 is that the Son of Perdition is destroyed at the Parousia of Christ. The testimony of 1 Thes. 4 is that the Parousia is when Christ comes for his Church. Deny these things if you will.
For a detailed review of all the Parousia passages and what they testify, go here:

The Parousia of the Son of Man

Index and summaries of all articles is here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1403-index-and-summaries-of-articles/ The Parousia of the Son of Man The Greek term παρουσíα/parousia has become a stumbling block to many in the modern Church, particularly so among those who teach a p...

www.worthychristianforums.com