-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Great Apostasy
- Thread starter ACF
- Start date
beameup
Member
It is my understanding the the "religion" of the False Christ will eclipse and replace all that have gone before it;
and if possible, this new religion would deceive even the "elect" which I understand as (genetic) Israel.
Genetic Israel got their "religion" directly from God through Moses, and will be the lone "holdouts" leading up to the Great Tribulation.
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, [False Christ in the Holy of Holies]. - Mt 24:15
This will be "the last straw" as far as YHWH is concerned. The warning to flee is directed at those (genetic) Israelites who UNDERSTAND
the implications of this act and FLEE Jerusalem for to the Place of Refuge.
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on
the sabbath day: [the Law of Moses will be in effect]
Im in your camp here.....these things have been happening for centuries.
There is no earthly holy place since the cross. The law of Moses is never to be in effect since the cross has removed it. This happened in 70ad
beameup
Member
Who is the Holy Spirit talking about here?:
...and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God. - 2 Thes 2:3b-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds
of them which believe not - 2 Cor 4:4a
Nero.....sat in the temple before it was destroyed...the actual temple,
5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
He calls upon the thessalonians to remember,he has told them, the mystery of the man of sin ....doth already work..during their lives
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't remember reading about this. To the best of my knowledge, the only Roman who sat in the Temple before AD 70 was Pompey in about BC 60.
Can you point me to an on-line reference, please?
Steve
beameup
Member
I see absolutely no historical evidence for this. I do see historical evidence for Antiochus IV Epiphanes fulfilling this;
however, that would be over 150 years BEFORE Jesus was born.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [apostasia] first,
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; - 2 Thes 2:3 (in context of chapter 2).
So, you are saying the Nero was "the son of perdition"?
Are you also saying that the Devil is forever bound and will never again intervene in human events?
Are you saying as well that the apostasia [departure] took place during the reign of Nero?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject of chapter 2 of 2 Thessalonians:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him,
MM,
I am not even saying I am right:laugh: This is an explanation that makes sense to me. I am in between Amill....and Postmill currently...formerly a premill dispensationalist:laugh:
Listen to this;
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12704141810
Well, let me be more definite then. Having read Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius (albeit a long time ago), I am pretty certain that Nero never visited Judea, much less ever sat in the Temple.
Steve
Steve
nero...the man of sin
http://www.preteristcentral.com/Man of Sin.html
Lactantius (A.D. 260-330) writes:
“And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the rue religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and , condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul; nor did he escape with impunity; for God looked on the affliction of His people; and therefore the tyrant, bereaved of authority, and precipitated from the height of empire, suddenly disappeared, and even the a burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen.”[11]
Reference to Nero as a “noxious, wild beast” is generally understood to be an allusion to the beast of Revelation; reference to Nero’s attempt to raze the temple of God (the church), to Thessalonians’ “man of sin” taking his seat in the temple of God. Sulpicius Severus (A.D. 360-420) makes similar comments:
“In the meanwhile Nero, now hateful even to himself from a consciousness of his crimes, disappears from among men, leaving it uncertain whether or not he had laid violent hands upon himself: certainly his body was never found. It was accordingly believed that, even if he did put an end to himself with a sword, his wound was cured, and his life preserved, according to that which was written regarding him,-"And his mortal wound was healed," -to be sent forth again near the end of the world, in order that he may practice the mystery of iniquity.”[12]
Although Sulpicius Severus erroneously concludes that Nero’s life was somehow wondrously preserved and would appear again at the world’s end, he correctly identified Nero with the “beast” and “man of sin” (cf. Rev. 13:3; II Thess. 2:7). Other evidence that Nero was the “man of sin” will be discussed below.
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/iithess/iithess.pdf nigel lee rejects it and says it was the pope
http://books.google.com/books?id=3L...wBw#v=onepage&q=nero the man of sin&f=false
The temple existed...the holy place......it no longer exists.
There can no longer be an earthly temple of God...other than the church.
http://www.preteristcentral.com/Man of Sin.html
Lactantius (A.D. 260-330) writes:
“And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the rue religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and , condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul; nor did he escape with impunity; for God looked on the affliction of His people; and therefore the tyrant, bereaved of authority, and precipitated from the height of empire, suddenly disappeared, and even the a burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen.”[11]
Reference to Nero as a “noxious, wild beast” is generally understood to be an allusion to the beast of Revelation; reference to Nero’s attempt to raze the temple of God (the church), to Thessalonians’ “man of sin” taking his seat in the temple of God. Sulpicius Severus (A.D. 360-420) makes similar comments:
“In the meanwhile Nero, now hateful even to himself from a consciousness of his crimes, disappears from among men, leaving it uncertain whether or not he had laid violent hands upon himself: certainly his body was never found. It was accordingly believed that, even if he did put an end to himself with a sword, his wound was cured, and his life preserved, according to that which was written regarding him,-"And his mortal wound was healed," -to be sent forth again near the end of the world, in order that he may practice the mystery of iniquity.”[12]
Although Sulpicius Severus erroneously concludes that Nero’s life was somehow wondrously preserved and would appear again at the world’s end, he correctly identified Nero with the “beast” and “man of sin” (cf. Rev. 13:3; II Thess. 2:7). Other evidence that Nero was the “man of sin” will be discussed below.
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/iithess/iithess.pdf nigel lee rejects it and says it was the pope
http://books.google.com/books?id=3L...wBw#v=onepage&q=nero the man of sin&f=false
The temple existed...the holy place......it no longer exists.
There can no longer be an earthly temple of God...other than the church.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iconolast,
We live in a world where anyone who can do a google search becomes an instant scholar.
Problem is there is a lot of information on the Internet, so true, so false, some nothing more than some unknown person's opinion, some that is even mis-represented historical material, that is massaged a bit to fit someone's "Agenda".
One has to be careful, and understand that even when reading commentaries by note Theologians, that these commentaries are opinons, and theory.
Certainly, such things are not the Word of God.
Nor are John Calvin's writings the Word of God, but I noticed two days ago you said I denied the word of God because I had disagreed with you on Calvin, by saying his teachings were "not my truth".
That post you made saying that, and you posts on this topic, make it unclear to me if you make a similar distinction as I do.
If not, well that is your choice, but I think it a bad one.
I wonder, if you have you read Revelations, or do you just "Post good Links" to what you find out on the Internet?
So, you think Nero was the Antichrist?
That is an interesting idea, that appeals to many, and it would be good for us, if only it were true.
Earlier you said you "think" the Great Apostacy occured before 70 AD.
Well an apostacy may have occured then, and again, that being the "Great Apostacy" is an idea many find appealing, and it would be fortunate for us, if only it were true.
I have heard some of the theories around this sort of thing before.
I do notice that, in your case, inorder to support it you have to rely on sources other than the Holy SCRIPTURES.
I have seen much better support for such "Theory", by people who relied on Scripture to do it.
If you were to take that approach, we could have a debate on Theology.
Do you know that it is "generaly believed" that John outlasted Nero?
Do you know what is "generaly believed" about when Revelations was written?
I am no expert on either of these things, so will not argue with what ever you want to say about them.
We live in a world where anyone who can do a google search becomes an instant scholar.
Problem is there is a lot of information on the Internet, so true, so false, some nothing more than some unknown person's opinion, some that is even mis-represented historical material, that is massaged a bit to fit someone's "Agenda".
One has to be careful, and understand that even when reading commentaries by note Theologians, that these commentaries are opinons, and theory.
Certainly, such things are not the Word of God.
Nor are John Calvin's writings the Word of God, but I noticed two days ago you said I denied the word of God because I had disagreed with you on Calvin, by saying his teachings were "not my truth".
That post you made saying that, and you posts on this topic, make it unclear to me if you make a similar distinction as I do.
If not, well that is your choice, but I think it a bad one.
I wonder, if you have you read Revelations, or do you just "Post good Links" to what you find out on the Internet?
So, you think Nero was the Antichrist?
That is an interesting idea, that appeals to many, and it would be good for us, if only it were true.
Earlier you said you "think" the Great Apostacy occured before 70 AD.
Well an apostacy may have occured then, and again, that being the "Great Apostacy" is an idea many find appealing, and it would be fortunate for us, if only it were true.
I have heard some of the theories around this sort of thing before.
I do notice that, in your case, inorder to support it you have to rely on sources other than the Holy SCRIPTURES.
I have seen much better support for such "Theory", by people who relied on Scripture to do it.
If you were to take that approach, we could have a debate on Theology.
Do you know that it is "generaly believed" that John outlasted Nero?
Do you know what is "generaly believed" about when Revelations was written?
I am no expert on either of these things, so will not argue with what ever you want to say about them.
Iconolast,
Certainly, the insane Nero was a man of sin.
As Revelations is a book of phophesy, and not a historical account, the time of it's writing has to be determined prior to 70 AD to fit within the theory that John foretold events of that time.
Were I you, I would be very careful of such a theory, as there is preponderance of evidence suggesting it simply is not so.
The first thing I thought to say, which is often the best thing to say, is one reason I choose not to believe the theory that Revelations was written in 64 AD is a simple one.
It begins because of the teaching of a first century church leader named "Cerinthus", whose church existed about thirty years after that date.
God preserves His truths in ways that do not require your vigorous defense, though there is nothing wrong with your making the attempt, but only when it is called for.
Thank you for being more civil this time.
Certainly, the insane Nero was a man of sin.
As Revelations is a book of phophesy, and not a historical account, the time of it's writing has to be determined prior to 70 AD to fit within the theory that John foretold events of that time.
Were I you, I would be very careful of such a theory, as there is preponderance of evidence suggesting it simply is not so.
The first thing I thought to say, which is often the best thing to say, is one reason I choose not to believe the theory that Revelations was written in 64 AD is a simple one.
It begins because of the teaching of a first century church leader named "Cerinthus", whose church existed about thirty years after that date.
God preserves His truths in ways that do not require your vigorous defense, though there is nothing wrong with your making the attempt, but only when it is called for.
Thank you for being more civil this time.
Wow....how is postmill even relevant today?
This article is as good as any I've read concerning this 'man of sin'. John of Gischala was one of the tyrants that wrecked so much destruction upon his own people, and he and his cohorts did indeed take over the temple and used it as a base to wreck their havoc upon the people.
beameup
Member
So, you are saying that John of Gischala was destroyed with the brightness of Christs coming?
And then shall that Wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,
and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming - 2 Thes 2:8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject of 2 Thessalonians ch. 2:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him,
Hello EWF,
After world wars 1 and 2 that is what many people said.But whatever view we have needs to be bible based, not newspaper based.
I posted in another thread that in times past...before 1800.postmill and amill came to be understood as more biblical than other views.
Rather than the church hiding in a bunker , or sinking like the titanic,waiting to be rescued by Jesus in the rapture...some viewed the church as victorious like in these verses....
27All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
28For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations. 29All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.
30A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
31They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.
8He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
So...many of the puritans looked for the gospel to Go worldwide converting souls...
So...as in Psalm 110....Jesus rules in the midst of His enemies. We do not chritianize the world like the caricature says....but by preaching and teaching the gospel spreads and grows as in the parable of the mustard seed.
Amill and premill look for things to get worse and worse[ I can see why they think this] ...but basically
it gives the idea that the gospel cannot overcome evil.
Amill does have some who would be considered optimistic amill[ I thought i was, but am re-examining this teaching]
in that the gospel always triumphs...both in salvation and the damnation of sinners.
I am trying to live and serve God using the postmill model of bringing the gospel to all men ,praying for growth, but do keep in mind that others
believe scripture to say things will continue on a downward slant.
Absolutely, just as the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali saw a bright light.