Man of Lawlessness

[Douggg]

Chapter and verse on this, please. I have yet to encounter a text that says the False prophet was going to anoint the Antichrist King of Israel.

That the messiah will be anointed the King of Israel by a known prophet is a belief in Judaism based on the three prior King of Israel (the united kingdom) were by a known prophet.

Saul and David by the prophet Samuel.
Solomon by the prophet Nathan.

There is not anything in the bible that states directly that the false prophet is going to anoint the Antichrist King of Israel.

I was giving information of what the Jews (Judaism) believe in regards to the messiah and how they will be fooled for a while to think the Antichrist person is their messiah.

I am just trying - in a friendly form - to give information about what Judaism believes that most Christians are unaware of. I am not trying to be combative.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I was giving information of what the Jews (Judaism) believe in regards to the messiah and how they will be fooled for a while to think the Antichrist person is their messiah.

Okay, I see why you brought that up. But don't you see that this makes no difference? Because the Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness was a first-century individual KNOWN to both Paul and the Thessalonians he wrote to. This would disqualify any individual that would arise either now or in the future as being the fulfillment of this former discussion.

 

[Douggg]

Okay, I see why you brought that up. But don't you see that this makes no difference? Because the Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness was a first-century individual KNOWN to both Paul and the Thessalonians he wrote to. This would disqualify an individual that would arise either now or in the future.

There has just not been anyone anointed the King of Israel (coming in his own name ) yet.

The man of lawlessness (the man of sin in the kjv) being revealed was written about Paul as being on of the two things to happen before the Day of Christ (the Lord) begins.

The person will already be the Antichrist before (by about three years) he reveals himself to be the man of sin (lawlessness).

Jesus is going to destroy that person at His Second Coming, casting him alive into the lake of fire.

 

[jgr]

You question is improperly phrased.

What would someone who couldn't distinguish between "cut off" and "cutoff" know about that?

The question is proper.

Why were the reformers incorrect concerning the Antichrist?

We've been over this innumerable times before. The Reformation doctrine of antichrist (not a futurized dispensationalized Antichrist) was integral and indispensable to the success of the Reformation.

Thank God that the Reformers were not dispensationalized futurists. We'd be in the Darker Ages.

God did not say that the Pope was the Antichrist anywhere in the bible. The reformers were the ones making that claim.

God did not say that a Riberan counter-reformationist futurized dispensationalized counterfeit would be antichrist anywhere in the Bible.

That is you making that claim.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If the "restrainer" of the "Man of Lawlessnes" was presently doing this restraining of the Man of Lawlessness in Paul's days when He was writing to the Thessalonians (as stated in 2 Thess. 2:6-7), then BOTH individuals were at that time already in existence back then (around AD 52 when this epistle was written).

 

[jgr]

If the "restrainer" of the "Man of Lawlessnes" was presently doing this restraining of the Man of Lawlessness in Paul's days when He was writing to the Thessalonians (as stated in 2 Thess. 2:6-7), then BOTH individuals were at that time already in existence back then (around AD 52 when this epistle was written).

The early church recognized the Roman empire as the restrainer.

 

[Douggg]

What would someone who couldn't distinguish between "cut off" and "cutoff" know about that?

It was a typo, get over it.

 

[jgr]

It was a typo, get over it.

My question is proper, get over it.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The early church recognized the Roman empire as the restrainer.

The early church waded through a lot of uncertainty and controversies on many spiritual matters. This is another topic that they had some flawed perceptions about. In one way, however, the Roman empire was involved with the "restrainer", since the high priesthood members whom Rome had appointed in Israel were the ones opposing, or "restraining" the Zealots' influence before the AD 66 rebellion broke out.

 

[Valletta]

I don't deny that there could be misquotes in the list. However, it is highly unlikely that all of them are errant.

So the reasonable approach is to consider those which appear legitimately attributed.

Is the following citation accurate?

"The Canon Law in the Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII, AD 1316-1334, calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope."

If someone were a fanatical anti-Catholic and they had an actual instance of the Church teaching that the Pope was God, why not give detailed citations so everyone could find it? Why include fabrications along with the real statement, it would only produce doubt?
But I took a look anyways. First, I don't know what an "Extravanganza of John XXII" would be. So I Google searched using those words in quotations and found identical wording (Our Lord God the Pope) that you used on site after site, nothing else. The story dated as far back as 2010, and just appears to have been copied and copied. The most common usage of the word "gloss" for Catholics is writings that go with a text, often in the margin. In Biblical text a popular Catholic gloss was the doxology "for thine is the Kingdom . . ." Catholics sometimes wrote this Catholic prayer in the margins of Biblical text to say at the end of the "Our Father." When Saint Jerome translated the Bible he knew enough to of course not include the gloss in the translation, but the writers of the King James (over a thousand years later) mistakenly obtained a text with that gloss and thought it was part of Biblical text and included it in the King James as part of the Word of God. My point is that anyone can write anything in the margins if they wish, Protestants or Catholics, and that does not make it part of the text. Again, I have not yet found any real existence of the "Extravanganza of John XXII."

 

[jgr]

If someone were a fanatical anti-Catholic and they had an actual instance of the Church teaching that the Pope was God, why not give detailed citations so everyone could find it? Why include fabrications along with the real statement, it would only produce doubt?
But I took a look anyways. First, I don't know what an "Extravanganza of John XXII" would be. So I Google searched using those words in quotations and found identical wording (Our Lord God the Pope) that you used on site after site, nothing else. The story dated as far back as 2010, and just appears to have been copied and copied. The most common usage of the word "gloss" for Catholics is writings that go with a text, often in the margin. In Biblical text an popular Catholic r gloss was the doxology "for thine is the Kingdom . . ." Catholics sometimes wrote this Catholic prayer in the margins of Biblical text to say at the end of the "Our Father." When Saint Jerome translated the Bible he knew enough to of course not include the gloss in the translation, but the writers of the King James (over a thousand years later) mistakenly obtained a text with that gloss and thought it was part of Biblical text and included it in the King James as part of the Word of God. My point is that anyone can write anything in the margins if they wish, Protestants or Catholics, and that does not make it part of the text. Again, I have not yet found any real existence of the "Extravanganza of John XXII."

The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4, "Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium", Column 140 (Paris, 1685).
In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam ("Our Lord God the Pope") can be found in column
153.

 

[jgr]

The early church waded through a lot of uncertainty and controversies on many spiritual matters. This is another topic that they had some flawed perceptions about. In one way, however, the Roman empire was involved with the "restrainer", since the high priesthood members whom Rome had appointed in Israel were the ones opposing, or "restraining" the Zealots' influence before the AD 66 rebellion broke out.

There's no evidence of any uncertainty and controversies on this issue.

The ECFs reveal the identity of the restrainer. So does history.

John Chrysostom explains why Paul declined to do so.

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Century)
ON THE RESURRECTION, CHAP. XXIV
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)?
APOLOGY, CHAP. XXXII.
There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock im (43) pending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes---is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire.

John Chrysostom (c. 347-407)
Homilies on Second Thessalonians
HOMILY IV. 2 THESSALONIANS ii. 6--9.
"Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way," that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way...

Augustine of Hippo (345 - 430)
City of God, Book XX, Chapter 19
For what does he [Paul] mean by "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?" [2 Thess 2] I frankly confess I do not know what he means. ... However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, "Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way," refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, "Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he be taken out of the way." "And then shall the wicked be revealed:" no one doubts that this means Antichrist.

While not commenting directly upon the 2 Thessalonians 2 passage, Cyril of Jerusalem affirmed the historical consensus that antichrist would not appear until the Roman empire had disappeared:

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386)
Catechetical Lectures
LECTURE XV.
ON THE CLAUSE, AND SHALL COME IN GLORY TO JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD; OF WHOSE KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END, DANIEL vii. 9--14.
12. But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled...

The early church believed that the pagan Roman empire, under which the church was then living, was the restrainer which would eventually be "taken out of the way", and which was forestalling the emergence of the papal Roman empire, which Paul describes as the lawless one; and its eventual apostasy. Notice in the related verses in 2 Thess. 2 that Paul does not reveal the identity of the restrainer. If Paul had believed that the Holy Spirit was the restrainer, there would have been no reason for him not to explicitly identify Him. But Paul did have a reason. John Chrysostom reveals it:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him...But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end."

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities.

History subsequently confirmed the validity of Paul's inspired prescience.

The Reformers recognized and understood both Paul and history.

 

[Timtofly]

God's infallibility does not translate into man's infallibility. He has always used flawed instruments to accomplish His purpose.

I learned a very hard lesson early on by sitting in a cult-like church for the first 16 years of my married life, until I got out by God's mercy. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER trust the one holding the Book more than the Book itself. That applies to the Reformers also, though I do have agreement with many of them on various key doctrines of soteriology.

Paul's "Man of Lawlessness" was presently in place as he was writing II Thessalonians 2; being restrained by someone with whom the Thessalonians were well familiar, because Paul said they knew what was restraining that Man of Lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:6). That meant BOTH the "Man of Lawlessness" and his "restrainer" were individuals known to the Thessalonians. By studying the history of the times, I know exactly who both men were: Menahem the first Zealot leader who managed to get into the temple in AD 66, presenting himself as the King of the Jews, exalting himself over every other Zealot leader contending for that title, and the man who did his best to restrain Menahem's purpose - the former high priest Ananias, before whom Paul went on trial in Acts 23:2. Menahem murdered that high priest Ananias who had been working against him, but in revenge, Menahem was consequently murdered by Ananias's son, Eleazar, only a few weeks later. Paul when on trial actually prophesied the death of that high priest Ananias who commanded that he be struck on the mouth, when he retorted "God is about to smite thee, thou whited wall." Sure enough, soon after Paul's trial in AD 60, Ananias was murdered by Menahem in AD 66.

But the very brightness of Menahem's coming on the scene as King of the Jews was snuffed out almost as soon as it began, which is the way Paul described this man's very brief, meteoric rise to power, and his consequent destruction.

So Paul was writing an historical account?

 

[Valletta]

The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4, "Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium", Column 140 (Paris, 1685).
In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam ("Our Lord God the Pope") can be found in column
153.

So in the Antwerp version only? What is Extravagantes and can you provide us with the entire text?

 

[jgr]

Paul's "Man of Lawlessness" was presently in place as he was writing II Thessalonians 2

2 Thessalonians 3
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

The "Man of Lawlessness" was not in place when Paul wrote.

The mystery of iniquity was.

The "Man of Lawlessness" (papal Rome) would begin to emerge subsequently, after the restrainer (the Roman empire) was taken out of the way.

History confirms the beginning of the emergence of papal Rome after the dissolution of the Roman empire.

 

[jgr]

So in the Antwerp version only? What is Extravagantes and can you provide us with the entire text?

I cannot. I was hoping that you could.

I'm willing to accept a credible rebuttal.

 

[Valletta]

I cannot. I was hoping that you could.

I'm willing to accept a credible rebuttal.

I cannot. I was hoping that you could.

I'm willing to accept a credible rebuttal.

How fortunate I was to find information right here on Christian forums. I am not sure how to link to a post in another thread, it is post #2 from a thread "this is why I don't like GT.." Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by MoNiCa4316, Sep 22, 2008.
JoabAnias posts that the Vatican library found the original (dated more than 160 years before the Parisian version) which does NOT contain those words. Here is what he posted: Vatican Library, Reference Service. "Re: Fwd: Verifying Information." E-mail to Marno Retief. 2 June 2004.
'It is, of course, a huge mistake. With much pain and time we found the passage you are quoting in the original manuscripts (Vaticanus latinus 2583, f. 258 v; Vat. lat. 1404, f. 22 r, both from 14th century), and in both it is clearly said "Dominum nostrum Papam". The wrong formulation, "Dominum Deum nostrum Papam", we found in an edition of the end of the 16th century, but these old editions cannot be philologically trusted. The original manuscripts have the correct version, and there is no word "Deum" in that sentence.'
-----------------------------------------------------
No one knows who the forger may be, it seems improbable to me that such a word would be added accidentally. The long post also addresses another one of the anti-Catholic stories: ""It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."

 

[3 Resurrections]

So Paul was writing an historical account?

No, Paul was writing a prediction about the coming actions of individuals that were presently alive at the time he was writing to the Thessalonians. Those individuals were the lawless Zealots, and the high priesthood which was then restraining an Israelite rebellion of the Zealots against Rome.

Paul's obscure language to the Thessalonians was veiled deliberately in speaking of these individuals, because...

#1, he didn't want to malign the high priesthood in a written epistle. As a former "Pharisee of the Pharisees", Paul knew the laws against speaking disparagingly of the high priest ruler of the Jews, and he didn't want to be accused of reviling the high priest (as he said in Acts 23:5).

#2, Paul did not want to name the Zealots in particular either, because this was a fiercely unscrupulous group who did not hesitate to use their weapons in murder and theft against anyone they thought would injure their cause. Paul did not want any repercussions coming against the church by his written epistle, which might have fallen into the wrong hands as it circulated among the churches.

The "Man of Lawlessness" was not in place when Paul wrote.

The mystery of iniquity was.

Paul's reference to "the mystery of iniquity" was to the Zealot cause which had been simmering in Israel for quite a while. We know that scripture used this "Lawless" term specifically in reference to the Zealots, because it was prophesied in Isaiah 53:12 that Christ would be "numbered with the lawless" in his death. Both of those two thieves which had taken part in the insurrection against Rome (two Zealots) were called "lawless ones" in Mark 15:28 (YLT), in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

"And the writing was fulfilled that is saying, 'And with lawless ones he was numbered.' ."

 

[jgr]

Paul's reference to "the mystery of iniquity" was to the Zealot cause which had been simmering in Israel for quite a while. We know that scripture used this "Lawless" term specifically in reference to the Zealots, because it was prophesied in Isaiah 53:12 that Christ would be "numbered with the lawless" in his death. Both of those two thieves which had taken part in the insurrection against Rome (two Zealots) were called "lawless ones" in Mark 15:28 (YLT), in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

"And the writing was fulfilled that is saying, 'And with lawless ones he was numbered.' ."

2 Thessalonians 2:8 uses a Greek rendering of "lawless" unique to it:
ὁ ἄνομος (κατ' ἐξοχήν), he in whom all iniquity has as it were fixed its abode, 2 Thessalonians 2:8;

The expression "mystery of iniquity" occurs nowhere else in Scripture.

The Zealot cause was not a mystery.

But the iniquity of which Paul spoke was unique and unprecedented. It was a mystery, for it was conceived and born within the Church. It grew slowly, subversively, and unrecognizably for centuries within the Church. For centuries it sapped and diluted and compromised the spiritual strength and vitality of the Church. Ultimately, enthroned within the Church, it declared itself to be God and the head of the Church on the earth, while simultaneously making war on, and wearing out, the saints of the Church of the most High.

It was indeed nothing less than a mystery of iniquity.

 

[3 Resurrections]

But the iniquity of which Paul spoke was unique and unprecedented. It was a mystery, for it was conceived and born within the Church.

Actually, you are right on this point. John wrote that many antichrists would come out from among them, making it obvious that none of them really belonged among those to whom he was writing to.

"Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye have heard that The Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 John 2:18-19).

The error you are making is presuming that this development needed many centuries to grow. John said that The Antichrist (ho antichristos)`was a present reality among the many antichrists that were already apparent at that "last hour". They were not "unrecognizable" as you suppose, because John said these many antichrists had already made their identity manifestly obvious to all by their not remaining among them.

John had apparently read Paul's previous letter to the Thessalonians about the Man of Lawlessness, which told the saints that the gathering of the resurrected believers at Christ's coming would not take place until just after this Man of Lawlessness (The Antichrist) had come and gone. John was reminding the believers of Paul's words on this matter, and telling them that the "last hour" before Christ's return had already arrived by then, as proved by the many antichrists that had already been manifested among them.