The Abomination of Desolation

Achilles6129 said:

The papacy is an interesting interpretation but I have some very real doubts.

Click to expand...

SwordFall said:

All which were invented by protestants the past 500 years.

And you can't find any evidence against that. It's all new age nonsense, where one debates over Peter and his relevance to Rome, the same lineage which even Luther did not deny but simply called the Antichrist.

It used to be theological, but now protestants have turned it into an alleged historical mistake, and that just goes to show you how wrong protestantism is. It's progression is simply heretical beyond extent. To go beyond bishopric power is absurd in and of it itself, but that just crosses the line.

Click to expand...

shturt678 said:

IIThess.2:4 as the result of IIThess.2:10b, ie, all the above after the three Lutheran chuches first, broadly speaking, unionized for sure, ie, 1930.

Click to expand...

Achilles6129 said:

Well, the interesting thing is that the beast in many ways resembles Christ. There is a very clear parallel drawn between Christ/the beast in Revelation, and that may very well indicate that the antichrist comes out of Christianity. If that is the case, the papacy would be a prime candidate, for obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

SwordFall said:

Well that's what he's supposed to do.

If you think about it, the AC is definitively a false replica of God- he brings peace, and then sends the unbeliever to Hell.

Click to expand...

Achilles6129 said:

Then isn't the antichrist coming out of Christianity, and in particular, the papacy, a perfectly viable interpretation?

Click to expand...

SwordFall said:

Well that's what he's supposed to do.

If you think about it, the AC is definitively a false replica of God- he brings peace, and then sends the unbeliever to Hell.

But do you see what is truly wicked in that? See, the Antichrist sends unbelievers to Hell, but God sends the wicked to the depths.


Which is why I'm forced to believe the AC will be a Reformed Jewish Protestant of sorts, and if that sounds crazy, well so does the papacy being the AC.
Pot meeting kettle, and all that good stuff

Click to expand...

LittleLambofJesus said:

The only Jewish Protestants I know of are of the Messianic Jewish sect....

http://www.christianforums.com/f34/
Messianic Judaism

Reve 3:9
Behold! I-am-giving out of the synagogue of the Satan, the ones saying themselves Jews to be and not they are, but are false.
Behold! I shall be making them that they shall be arriving, and they shall be worshipping before the feet of thee, and they may be knowing that I love thee.



.

Click to expand...

SwordFall said:

All which were invented by protestants the past 500 years.

And you can't find any evidence against that. It's all new age nonsense, where one debates over Peter and his relevance to Rome, the same lineage which even Luther did not deny but simply called the Antichrist.

It used to be theological, but now protestants have turned it into an alleged historical mistake, and that just goes to show you how wrong protestantism is. It's progression is simply heretical beyond extent. To go beyond bishopric power is absurd in and of it itself, but that just crosses the line.

Click to expand...

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

I completely agree with you about Nero (as I'd laid out on this and other threads), but the idea of a papal antichrist precedes the reformers by several centuries and is part of intra Catholic discourse. It assumes that the papacy is has central importance for the church. As I've said before, see chapters 4 and 5 of Bernard McGinn's Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination With Evil.

Moreover, Luther's justification for being outside of the church had little to nothing to do with his belief in a papal antichrist. While the chronology is a little muddled, it seems that in his mature theology, when he believed in a papal antichrist, he had already come to the conclusion that he wasn't outside the church at all. Luther believed that the church is fully present wherever the word of law and gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments of baptism and communion are rightly administered. With that as the center of his doctrine of the church, the papacy (and the episcopate) became historical niceties, even preferred forms, but not essential. He had no theological need to justify being "outside" the church because as far as he was concerned, he wasn't.

Luther's belief in a papal antichrist had much more to do with his growing conviction (which sprung from his personal devastation at Pope Leo's bull Exsurge Domine) that the papacy had been corrupted by Satan into suppressing the doctrine of justification. Prior to 1520 Luther believed that the papacy was largely innocent of what he saw as a corrupt conspiracy on the part of certain cardinals and bishops to warp the doctrine of justification in order to raise funds through the illegal sale of indulgences; after 1520, he believed that the papacy was thoroughly implicated in this conspiracy, and was therefore a tool of Satan to take out the "doctrine of on which the church stands or falls," justification. Even after the publication of Exsurge Domine, though, he still was unsure whether the papacy was an unwitting tool of the devil or a willing participant, hence his dedication of his On Christian Liberty, published after his reception of the papal bull in late 1520, to Pope Leo X. I, personally, don't think he was fully committed to the view that the pope or papacy was antichrist until after his excommunication at Worms.

In any case, his doctrine of the antichrist didn't have much of anything to do with his doctrine of the church. I'm not saying I agree with his doctrine of the antichrist, or even that his thinking was entirely consistent. But his belief in a papal antichrist had much more to do with his understanding of the history of the doctrine of justification within the church than with his establishment of a counter-/para-church.

Click to expand...

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

I completely agree with you about Nero (as I'd laid out on this and other threads), but the idea of a papal antichrist precedes the reformers by several centuries and is part of intra Catholic discourse. It assumes that the papacy is has central importance for the church. As I've said before, see chapters 4 and 5 of Bernard McGinn's Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination With Evil.

Moreover, Luther's justification for being outside of the church had little to nothing to do with his belief in a papal antichrist. While the chronology is a little muddled, it seems that in his mature theology, when he believed in a papal antichrist, he had already come to the conclusion that he wasn't outside the church at all. Luther believed that the church is fully present wherever the word of law and gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments of baptism and communion are rightly administered. With that as the center of his doctrine of the church, the papacy (and the episcopate) became historical niceties, even preferred forms, but not essential. He had no theological need to justify being "outside" the church because as far as he was concerned, he wasn't.

Luther's belief in a papal antichrist had much more to do with his growing conviction (which sprung from his personal devastation at Pope Leo's bull Exsurge Domine) that the papacy had been corrupted by Satan into suppressing the doctrine of justification. Prior to 1520 Luther believed that the papacy was largely innocent of what he saw as a corrupt conspiracy on the part of certain cardinals and bishops to warp the doctrine of justification in order to raise funds through the illegal sale of indulgences; after 1520, he believed that the papacy was thoroughly implicated in this conspiracy, and was therefore a tool of Satan to take out the "doctrine of on which the church stands or falls," justification. Even after the publication of Exsurge Domine, though, he still was unsure whether the papacy was an unwitting tool of the devil or a willing participant, hence his dedication of his On Christian Liberty, published after his reception of the papal bull in late 1520, to Pope Leo X. I, personally, don't think he was fully committed to the view that the pope or papacy was antichrist until after his excommunication at Worms.

In any case, his doctrine of the antichrist didn't have much of anything to do with his doctrine of the church. I'm not saying I agree with his doctrine of the antichrist, or even that his thinking was entirely consistent. But his belief in a papal antichrist had much more to do with his understanding of the history of the doctrine of justification within the church than with his establishment of a counter-/para-church.

Click to expand...

SwordFall said:

I choose to believe what should be obvious (yet isn't, which grinds my gears), that the Antichrist will simply be the Jew's long wanted Messiah that comes out the big ol' blue.

Click to expand...

Edward65 said:

The Roman Catholic understanding of the Papacy as the seat of absolute authority in the world-wide Church (i.e. encompassing all Christians) to which all owe obedience because it alone is endowed with infallibility in matters of faith and belief is the Biblical definition of the Antichrist as described by Paul in 2 Thess. 2. To hold that the Papacy and the popes who occupy that office have the power and authority to teach everyone is to believe in the Antichrist and a succession of false Christs as no one in the Church has that absolute authority. To claim absolute authority and infallibility is the same as claiming to be God and Christ.

The Roman Catholic understanding of church rule is based on Scriptural misinterpretation. Peter didn’t have any more authority than the other Apostles, and they didn’t hand down their authority to others. The Apostles were distinct from bishops. The Apostles alone could teach the faith without error. The idea of apostolic succession and that the pope is the successor to St Peter (who it can’t be proved even went to Rome), and that the popes have as much authority as St Peter is unbiblical. Roman Catholics have been deceived by the popes into believing something which is untrue.

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 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. 2Thess.2:2-4, ESV)

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. (Matt. 24:4-5, ESV)

Click to expand...

Edward65 said:

I've read some of Josephus's account of what happened and it was truly horrifying. He said 1,100,000 were killed during the siege. Comparing this to the Holocaust, although greater numbers were involved here, the level of suffering wasn't commensurate. Many Holocaust victims were lured to their deaths through deception - thinking they were taking a shower when they entered the gas chambers. Here are two short excerpts from Josephus:

“Throughout the city people were dying of hunger in large numbers, and enduring unspeakable sufferings. In every house the merest hint of food sparked violence, and close relatives fell to blows, snatching from one another the pitiful supports of life. No respect was paid even to the dying; the ruffians [anti-Roman zealots] searched them, in case they were concealing food somewhere in their clothes, or just pretending to be near death. Gaping with hunger, like mad dogs, lawless gangs went staggering and reeling through the streets, battering upon the doors like drunkards, and so bewildered that they broke into the same house two or three times in an hour. Need drove the starving to gnaw at anything. Refuse which even animals would reject was collected and turned into food. In the end they were eating belts and shoes, and the leather stripped off their shields. Tufts of withered grass were devoured, and sold in little bundles for four drachmas”

“Men and women, old and young, insurgents and priests, those who fought and those who entreated mercy, were hewn down in indiscriminate carnage. The number of the slain exceeded that of the slayers. The legionaries had to clamber over heaps of dead to carry on the work of extermination”.

Click to expand...

Krillin said:

I tried doing some research on the term and I'm still a little unsure. It seems that it has something to do with an idol of some sorts?

I could be mistaken, but from what I gather this will be brought about by the anti christ, and we are to avoid it all all costs.

Anyone have better insight on this?

Click to expand...

shturt678 said:

Broadly speaking, have to absolutely agree to agree with you on this post.

Humble pie Jack,

btw where we have to agree to disagree is the Protestants are in worse shape with their mini-popes, ie, at the highest levels including our most esteemed Protestant Seminaries. (Ie, the one is closer to the Truth with suble errors in the essentials, the more damnable the lie, is, the Protestants.

Click to expand...

Michael Collum said:

well it's an abomination . so that could mean anything from being a homosexual ritual to eating lobster in the holiest of holies . but which specific abomination .. who really can say?

the abomination that made Sodom desolate according to ezekiel is that they were very well nourished and rich but had no concern for the poor and apparently this is a type and shadow of the lake of fire incarnation of God at the end of time .. or the end of your life however one reads the holy script .

and the whole idea of "the temple" is made figurative by Jesus saying his body is a temple kind of obscures the whole idea .

as with most prophecy .. when it happens . we'll know clearly afterward .. not so much before .

Click to expand...

Edward65 said:

I don't belong to any church precisely because I don't see that any of them are truly faithful to the teaching of the Apostles. Subtle errors in the essentials are indeed damnable as you say. The true Church lies hidden from view whilst the false church is everywhere on view.

I'd like to add that I don't see Protestantism in a worse shape than Catholicism. I mean what could be worse than being deceived by the Antichrist?

Click to expand...

Edward65 said:

I don't belong to any church precisely because I don't see that any of them are truly faithful to the teaching of the Apostles. Subtle errors in the essentials are indeed damnable as you say. The true Church lies hidden from view whilst the false church is everywhere on view.

I'd like to add that I don't see Protestantism in a worse shape than Catholicism. I mean what could be worse than being deceived by the Antichrist?

Click to expand...

Rev Randy said:

So, do you consider your self to be truly faithful to the teachings of the Apostles?

Click to expand...

Edward65 said:

I’m not aware that I believe anything differently to what the Apostles taught, and if I became aware that I was believing differently I’d want to change so that I was believing as they taught.

Click to expand...