• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Paul's Man of Sin Doesn't Enter the Jewish Temple

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
29,952
3,558
Non-dispensationalist
✟412,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I don't disagree that the ten horns are ten kings (leaders) of that kingdom (the fourth empire). But the kingdom spanning the area of 7 mountains - no, that is not implied in the text.

Initially, the little horn is the person over the ten kings. And later the little horn person in the role of the beast (first beast), the ten kings offer up their kingdom to him to rule as dictator.

The second beast, the false prophet, does the miracles in the presence of the first beast (Revelation 13:14 and Revelation 19:20) . Therefore, the second beast is lesser in authority than the first beast.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

The false prophet is not a ruler or king in the same sense as the first beast.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
29,952
3,558
Non-dispensationalist
✟412,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It is because it says there are ten horns on the heads of the beast which means the kingdoms do in fact span the area of 7 mountains.
Do a copy and paste of the verse where you are reading that.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
29,952
3,558
Non-dispensationalist
✟412,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I don't have to. Horns are on the head of a beast...they aren't on the arms or feet of a beast are they?
You made the statement -

"It is because it says there are ten horns on the heads of the beast which means the kingdoms do in fact span the area of 7 mountains."

You cannot produce a text, a verse, because you are making up where the horns are on the beast.

In the above, you also say "the kingdoms". Where-as in Revelation 13, when referring to a kingdom, it is one kingdom because in Revelation 17:12 and Revelation 17:17. it says of the ten horns (those kings) they have no kingdom yet, singular. One kingdom, which is the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7's four kingdoms.

1. It doesn't say in the text where the horns are on the beast. They could be on one head; several heads; all of the heads; none of the heads at all but on the shoulders or back of the beast.

2. It is not a normal beast such as an ox, because it has seven heads and has a composite body parts of four different beasts, including three former kingdoms of a bear, leopard, lion.

If anything, the ten horns are on one head - the 7th head - because the kingdom of the ten horns does not come into power until the little horn person (king 7 of Revelation 17:10) is in place. So for you to say that the kingdom of the little horn or beast spans 7 mountains is without merit. The ten horns are associated with only one of the heads - on the beast. If with any of the heads at all.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
29,952
3,558
Non-dispensationalist
✟412,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You keep making the same wrong assertion - of saying the ten horns are on the "heads (plural)" of the Revelation 13 beast. The ten horns are not on the heads plural but on one of the heads of the Revelation 13 beast.
_______________________________________________________________

In Daniel 7, there is one head on the fourth kingdom. There are a total of 11 horns. Agree?

In Revelation 13 first beast (the fourth kingdom), there are seven heads on the fourth kingdom. Which of the 7 heads have the ten horns?

The 7th head on the Revelation 13 first beast is the little horn of Daniel 7. The ten horns are associated with him. The ten horns are on the 7th head.

The 7th head (the little horn person) + the ten horns (on the 7th head) = the 11 horns on the Daniel 7 fourth kingdom.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
29,952
3,558
Non-dispensationalist
✟412,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You are contradicting everything you said about horns not being on the head/heads. Why even argue against what I said when you end up taking a similar position to what I did. You wasted both of our time doing that.
What I was disagreeing with was your assertion that the horns are on the heads plural.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,494
1,327
72
Sebring, FL
✟834,742.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat




LLOJ,



I first encountered the notion that John of Gischala is the Man of Sin in a book called Leaving the Rapture Behind by Larry Pechawer, who is a seminary professor. Unfortunately, I loaned the book to a minister and never got it back.

There are problems with John of Gischala as the Man of Sin. You say that he was "destroyed" with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. On the contrary, all historical sources agree that he was captured by the Romans, paraded with other captives by the Roman General Titus. He was taken to Rome and sentenced to life imprisonment. All sources agree that he died in a Roman prison, although no one seems to know exactly when. He may have survived for years after 70 AD. An unenviable fate, but it doesn't fit the claim that he was "destroyed" at the destruction of the Temple.

In contrast, Eleazar ben Simon, which I discussed in post #8, was killed by the Romans at the destruction of the Temple.

Many regard John of Gischala as an egomaniac or a madman who provoked the Romans and led the Jews into a war they couldn't win. This is the view of the Preterists. However, Jews have a more positive view of John of Gischala.

LLOJ, you quote John Noe, a Preterist, who describes Josephus as a truthful, impartial eyewitness. Yet Josephus was a Jewish general when Jerusalem was under siege. He is too close to the conflict to be impartial. Many Jews regard Josephus as a traitor and Josephus has been called a "mortal enemy" of John of Gischala. In short, many Jews prefer John of Gischala to Josephus.

Jews do not generally regard John of Gischala as an egomaniac who proclaimed himself to be the messiah and desecrated the Temple. They regard him as a patriot and a military leader who defended Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple. They say that he did not invade the Temple and take its treasures because he thought he was equal to God or some such thing, he only did so as an emergency measure in desperate times.


From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"Here he [John of Gischala] persuaded the people that it was better to repulse the Romans from behind strong walls than to die to no purpose in the small towns of Galilee. "

"When Eleazar disappeared from the scene, John took possession of the Temple."

"As the people had nothing more of which they could be robbed, John laid hands upon the vessels of the Temple."


From the Jewish Virtual Library:
"As the siege intensified, John did not hesitate to melt down the vessels of the Temple to provide weapons and used the Temple's supplies set aside for ritual purposes to ease the famine. "


Links
JOHN OF GISCALA (Johanan ben Levi) - JewishEncyclopedia.com
and
John of Giscala
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,494
1,327
72
Sebring, FL
✟834,742.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat






Let me enlarge on my first reply to your post #12, which was mostly history.


Paul warned the Thessalonians about the Man of Sin. Yet to the Thessalonians, John of Gischala was only one of a number of Jewish leaders who lost a revolt against Rome. The Thessalonians were never tempted to become supporters of John of Giscala. Why would Paul bother to warn the Thessalonians against John of Gischala? From this we see that he cannot be the Man of Sin that Paul warned the churches in Greece about. The person that Paul warned them about would have to be someone who would be a danger to their salvation, or a danger to the salvation of their descendants.
 
Upvote 0

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟48,028.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Not necessarily. Only many centuries later did "that Prophet" that Moses had so vaguely referred to (the Christ) finally show up.

The NT Scriptures repeatedly blame unbelieving Israelites for their having failed to believe on Christ; not once does the NT blame Moses.

In short, your above reasoning has a hole in it.

Nevertheless, Romans 5: 6-8 - in each...our stead.

 
Upvote 0

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
528
36
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟96,184.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

So do you also believe that Jews will be given a greater chance to be saved than non-Jews?
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,494
1,327
72
Sebring, FL
✟834,742.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So do you also believe that Jews will be given a greater chance to be saved than non-Jews?


No, not at all. I do believe that at some point the centuries-old resistance to Jews taking Jesus of Nazareth seriously will be broken down.
 
Upvote 0

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
528
36
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟96,184.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, not at all. I do believe that at some point the centuries-old resistance to Jews taking Jesus of Nazareth seriously will be broken down.
Well I believe it already has as per the 70 Week Prophecy. If you take the 70 week prophecy as all the other time prophecies and do not insert a inexplicable gap in between it, the prophecy would end with the stoning of Stephen If you review Stephen's speech/sermon he recapped the entire history of Israel and made an appeal for them to accept him and the Jewish Leaders not only rejected, but killed him. If you look at the few details about how he died, what he said, etc, it resembles when Jesus died. Then right after this, Paul is converted and sent to the Gentiles. It is no coincidence that Paul gets sent to the gentiles right after the 70 week prophecy was completed.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,020
✟843,047.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, not at all. I do believe that at some point the centuries-old resistance to Jews taking Jesus of Nazareth seriously will be broken down.

It has been broken down since Calvary for all of those who, of their own free will, in faith and obedience, receive and follow Christ.

What other "breaking down" is necessary?
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,494
1,327
72
Sebring, FL
✟834,742.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
It has been broken down since Calvary for all of those who, of their own free will, in faith and obedience, receive and follow Christ.

What other "breaking down" is necessary?


I don't understand why I'm being pummeled with questions on this subject. I haven't said anything about the Jews that is controversial. I believe that Jews should convert to Christianity. I believe that they should accept that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. I am in favor of evangelism. Beyond that, when it happens is between them and God.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,020
✟843,047.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

No pummeling intended. Simply attempting to reinforce Scripture's message that God's criteria for identifying His Chosen People are faith and obedience exclusively.

And that ethnicity, bloodline, and physical DNA are irrelevant.

That is, spiritual DNA; and nothing else.
 
Upvote 0

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
528
36
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟96,184.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Well understand that it is in keeping with the topic. The idea that an Antichrist is going to stand in a rebuild Jewish Temple comes from an interpretation of the 70 week prophecy in Daniel 9 that was proposed by Jesuit Priest, Francisco Ribera. So in terms of my questioning, it is to point out that understanding this properly is important to this entire subject.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,494
1,327
72
Sebring, FL
✟834,742.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat



RT: "The Man of Sin, Little Horn, Anti-Christ are all the same, a MAN/Beast. Rev, 12 is the Dragon Beast Satan as denoted by the CROWNS on the 7 Heads, in Luke 4 we see Satan tells Jesus that ALL these Kingdoms are his to do as he wills with, so the CROWNS on the 7 Heads denote Satan as that Beast. "

I don't know how you claim to know that the Little Horn in Daniel, a political and military leader, is the same person as Paul's Man of Sin, a religious leader. You say that "Satan tells Jesus that ALL these Kingdoms are his" during the Temptation of Christ. Maybe Satan exaggerates what he can deliver.

RT: "The Rev. 17 Beast is Apollyon, the King of the Bottomless Pit who WAS....IS NOT....YET IS. He has NO CROWNS."

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Revelation Chapter 9 tells us that Apollyon is the King of Locusts. Most likely Apollyon is another name for Satan and calling him the King of Locusts is simply portraying the horror people will feel as their food supply is consumed by hordes of insects. Since Apollyon is King of Locusts, he must have a crown in that capacity so it makes no sense to identify him as having no crowns. In addition, you just called him "the King of the Bottomless Pit," awarding another crown to Apollyon. You are saying that Apollyon does and doesn't, have a crown. A title like King of the Bottomless Pit plainly shows us that Apollyon is almost certainly another name for Satan.

RT: "THE MAN OF SIN IS HERE..........That was 1986. The bible easily confirms who the Man of Sin is."

I don't see how the Man of Sin was evident in 1986 or the present.

RT: "The False Prophet will also be a High Priest who tries to turn the Jews into WORLDLY TYPES and tries to get them to forsake their God. "

The Second Beast, or False Prophet, is introduced in Revelation 13. Let's look at the passage.

14 Because of the signs it [the Second Beast] was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it [the Second Beast] deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It [the Second Beast] also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads ...
Revelation 13: 14-17 NIV


RT, your interpretation says that the Second Beast/False Prophet is a Jewish High Priest, presumably at a Temple that hasn't been built yet. Yet the text of Revelation doesn't say that the First Beast or the Second Beast are Jews. It doesn't say that they have set up their headquarters in Israel. What it does say is that the Second Beast deceives "the inhabitants of the earth" and forces "all people" to receive the Mark of the Beast. It sounds much more like this is a worldwide occurrence, a worldwide movement, not something that happens in Israel or among Jews.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
45,335
6,883
✟1,017,991.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single


Christ also said that Satan was the ruler of the world (John_14:30) so what Satan claimed there is true. Satan also performed a type miracle or expression of power as well:

Luk 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

But as we know, Christ was not impressed by any of this and rebuked satan.
 
Upvote 0