What about Paul's "Man of Sin"?

By John Noē

John Noe Study Archive | The Only Defense in the Major Case Against Christ, Christianity, and the Bible. | Armageddon: Past or Future? | Restoring the Kingdom-of-God Worldview to the Church and the World | 12 Most Common Mistakes People Make About Bible Prophecy and the Endtimes | 7 Demanding Evidences Why Christ Returned As and When He Said He Would | What About Paul's Man of Sin? | Are the End Times Behind Us? | The Millennial Book Awards

Who First Had to be Revealed?

The Apostle Paul wrote that the coming (parousia) of the Lord would not take place until the rebellion occurs and the "man of sin" (KJV) or "man of lawlessness" (NIV) was revealed. We suggest you read about it in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 before continuing on. This revealing was a definite prerequisite!

The most popular postponement tradition claims that this wicked one is some future "Antichrist" figure who has yet to be revealed. Over the centuries, he has been variously identified as Attila the Hun, Napoleon, the Pope, Martin Luther, Mohammed, Hilter,  Mussolini, Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Kissinger; and Mikhail Gorbachev. Virtually every unpopular public figure has qualified.  Obviously, this tradition has proven totally inept at identifying Paul's "man of sin" Unfortunately, it's a tradition that has not died.  For a number of scriptural and historical reasons, the identity of Paul's "man of sin" should not be arbitrarily lifted out of its 1st. century context. So here's our pick: a contemporary of Paul's who fulfilled Paul's prophetic prediction and fit his destructive description to a tee. The following is a condensed version of an apologetic presented in The Man of Sin of 2nd Thessalonians 2, by Evangelist John L. Bray .

The Man of Sin. A study of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12. Verses 1-2. concerning the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come."

If the understanding of the nature of the coming (return) of the Lord by Paul's first readers was in keeping with most traditional, modern-day notions of a rapture-removing, visible, world seeing, or world-ending coming, they could not have been led to believe that it had already come (see again our evidences 3 and 4 in the last chapter).

Verses 3-4. "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man lawlessness [man of sin] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction [son of perdition - KJV]. He opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, and even sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

Paul wrote during the time of a literal, standing, second Temple.  He gave no hint that this event would occur centuries later in some other "rebuilt" temple. His first readers apparently expected this fulfillment in their lifetime. That's why some feared that that "day of the Lord" had already occurred. Also, let's note how Paul's prophetic words here match up with Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24). Both speak of the same set of events, use similar language, and convey a strong sense of imminence.

History records that the Jewish rebellion against Rome and apostasy from the faith was already underway in the early 60s, and reached its climax in the Jewish-Roman War of A.D. 66 - 70.  We propose that Paul's "man of sin" was, most likely, a specific person who set himself up in the Temple that was standing when Paul was writing. He could have been (take your pick) Nero, Titus, a Zealot leader; the corrupt chief high priest, or a Christian Zealot. All except Nero physically entered the Temple. Though Paul never calls him "antichrist;' the Apostle John tells us that there were many "antichrists" at work at that time (1 Jn. 2:18; 4:3). No doubt this "man of sin" was one of them. But he was also a special person who had to come on the scene prior to the Lord's return in A.D. 70 and before the Temple was destroyed.

Verses 5-7. "Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way"

Paul had mentioned this power of lawlessness on other occasions (see 1 Th. 2:14-16; 1 Ti. 4:1). The Jews were revolting against Rome and rejecting the sacred practice of biblical Judaism. Some followers of Christ who remained zealous for the Temple system were departing from the new faith and falling back into the old ways. But behind it all was "the secret power of lawlessness." It was "already at work," there and then, but something and/or someone was holding the "man of sin" back at the time Paul wrote this letter (circa A.D. 51 - 52). Whatever that was, Paul reminded his first readers that they already knew its/his identity. So Paul didn't have to tell them. And he didn't.  Since they knew who or what it was, it could not possibly have been something or someone that would not exist for some nineteen or more centuries. But who or what was it?

Throughout Church history endless speculation has revolved around the identity of this restrainer. However, we do know that this restraint was in force when Paul wrote,- and was actively holding back a "man of sin" alive at that time. This fact is a time indicator and should answer the question of when.  Some have suggested that the "who" was Nero or the Roman government, which held back Jewish persecution of the early Jewish Christians. Futurists say it's the gospel, the Church, the Holy Spirit, or an angel. But if any of these is what was really meant, why did the writer use such veiled language? None of these things is ever portrayed in Scripture as restraining lawlessness or being removed from the world.

The best answer-we believe-is that it was both an office (the "what") and a person (the "one who" or "he").  More specifically, it was the institution of the Jewish priesthood led by Ananus, the high priest. The priesthood opposed the Jewish, Zealot-led rebellion. And Ananus wanted peace with Rome. As long as he and the priesthood stood in the way, the lawlessness of the Jewish Zealots was held back, the "work of Satan" couldn't reach its full realization, and the "man of sin" couldn't appear on the scene and cause the final destruction. In A.D. 68, however, Jewish Zealots, with the assistance of the Idumaeans, murdered Ananus and over 12,000 other priests and left their bodies unburied-a violation of the Jewish Law Thus, the priesthood was "taken out of the way" As Josephus wrote in his history of the fall of the city:

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city; and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her walls, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high-priest, and the procurer of their preservation; slain in the midst of their city;. for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed: to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived that would have certainly compounded matters... and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these great defenders and wellwishers.

Verses 8-10. a Ad then the lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming [parousia].  The coming [parousia] of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved!" All this happened in the very Temple that was standing until A.D. 70. As the war between the Jews and Rome developed, a strong leader of the Jewish Zealots emerged who would fulfill Paul's prophecy. He would soon become the key man in inciting the Jews against Rome, in bringing abominations into the Temple area, and in causing the final destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.  After Ananus' murder and the removal of the priesthood. Josephus records that a man named John, the son of Levi, fled to Jerusalem from the Roman conquered area of Gischala in Galilee and became the treacherous leader of the Jewish Zealots in control of the Temple area. Also Josephus wrote, "Now this was the work of God, who therefore preserved this John, that he might bring on the destruction of Jerusalem."

Josephus also records that before this John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was established as the Zealot leader in control of the Temple area (there were three Zealot factions), the power of Satan was already doing his deceitful and treacherous work. This John physically entered the Temple, presented himself to the Zealots as a God-sent ambassador; and persuaded them to defy the laws of Rome and go to war to gain independence. He also instigated the calling in the Idumaeans to keep the Jewish sympathizers from submitting to Rome. He ordered the death of Ananus and the removal of the priesthood. After these atrocities, he became the official leader of the Zealot group m control of theTemple area-john held the temple" and began disregarded the laws of Rome, God, and man, and promising deliverance from the Romans. Then he broke off from the Zealots and began "setting up a monarchial power." He "set on fire these houses that were full of corn, and of all other provision which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years"  He deceived the Jews about the power of the Roman armies In possession of the Temple and the adjoining parts, he cut the throats of anyone suspected of going over to the Romans.13 He performed many sacrileges, such as melting down the sacred utensils used in Temple service, and defiled the Temple.

In short, this John established himself in the Temple, the one standing when Paul wrote, and put himself above Rome and above God, thereby taking the place of God in the Temple.  All this happened, right then and there, and exactly as Paul had said the "man of sin" would do.

After the coming of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, John of Gischala was "condemned to perpetual imprisonment" by the Roman authorities. Thus was fulfilled Paul's prophetic and symbolic language that this man would be destroyed by "the spirit of his Jesus mouth and brightness of his [parousia] coming" (see Isa. 11:4; 30:27-33; Hos. 6:5; also Da. 7:8, 19-28).

Verses 11-12. "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but delighted In wickedness."

Josephus records that the Roman General Titus had no intention of destroying the Temple. The Romans wanted to preserve it as a trophy and monument of their conquest. Even Josephus personally pleaded with John of Gischala to surrender.  But such a "madness" swept through him and his Jewish followers that they taunted the powers of Rome and refused to listen. This man, John, through the power of Satan and the delusion sent by God upon the Jewish people, forced the Roman armies to act. Instead of accepting Jesus as Messiah, King, and Deliverer, the unbelieving Jews placed their hopes in this false messiah a man of deceit and wickedness. They looked to the "man of sin" to lead them to victory and independence. The priesthood, which stood in their way, had been removed. And by August or September of A.D. 70, Paul's entire "man of sin" prophecy of  2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12 was fulfilled. The city and the Temple were burned and destroyed. The covenant nation of Israel and biblical Judaism were forever destroyed.

Only within this first century context does the Apostle Paul's "man of sin prophecy make sense and have its greatest significance. No justification exists for separating Paul's words from either the Temple standing at the time of his writing or the end of the Jewish age. John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was a contemporary of Paul. He was Paul's "man of sin." The eyewitness account of Josephus, a Jewish-Roman historian, truthfully and impartially documents his treachery and his critical role in
Jerusalem's demise. No one else in history-Gains Caesar, Nero, Titus, or Domitian comes as close to fulfilling this prophecy as this most influential and deceiving Zealot leader John of Gischala took over the forces of iniquity He stood in the Temple itself and exalted himself above all that is called God. He put himself above both God and Caesar.  He regarded neither the laws of God nor those of man. He therefore "set himself up" in the Temple, taking the place of God.

Judas betrayed Jesus. John of Gischala betrayed the Jews, fulfilling Paul's "man of sin" prophecy to a tee.

In dramatic paralleled fashion, Scripture gives this "man of sin" John of Gischala, the son of Levi- the name of" the one doomed to destruction" or "the son of perdition," the same name given to another infamous betrayer, Judas Iscariot (compare Jn. 17:12 with 2Th. 2:3 KJV). Both appeared in the same "last days" time frame of the Old Covenant age. Judas betrayed Jesus. John of Gischala betrayed the Jews, fulfilling Paul's "man of sin" prophecy to a tee. 

He was that 1st-century man who had to be revealed before the day of Christ in A.D. 70, and who was destroyed when it came. No future "man of sin" need come and fulfill this prophecy; it has already been fulfilled.

 

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..

Date:

18 Oct 2002

Time:

13:36:26

Comments

Great stuff! Where can I buy this book??

Date:

18 Oct 2002

Time:

20:17:21

Comments

More nonsense. The man of sin of 2 Thes. and the 11th horn of Dan. 7 and the first beast of Rev. 13 were one and the same person. The 11th horn clearly was a Roman, namely, Domitian, the 11th emperor of first-century Rome. Was John of Gischala a Roman? Did he follow 10 other horns? Did his kingdom "devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and break it in pieces" (Dan. 7:23)? Did the whole world have to worship him as it had to worship Domitian (Rev. 13:4)? Did he appear to have a natural resurrection (Rev. 13:3), as was true concerning Domitian, who appeared to have been Nero brought back to life?

Date:

19 Oct 2002

Time:

08:34:14

Comments

The truncated typology of preterists, resulting from their Lk. 21:22 blunder, prevents them from understanding that the "consume" and "destroy" of Dt. 7:22,23, which occurred AFTER Israel's 40 years in the wilderness, typified the "consume" and "destroy" of Dan. 7:26 and 2 Thes. 2:8, which occurred AFTER the 40 years AD 30-70.

Date:

19 Oct 2002

Time:

13:02:32

Comments

The truncated typology of preterists, resulting from their Lk. 21:22 blunder, prevents them from understanding that the "consume" and "destroy" of Dt. 7:22,23, which occurred AFTER Israel's 40 years in the wilderness, typified the "consume" and "destroy" of Dan. 7:26 and 2 Thes. 2:8, which occurred AFTER the 40 years AD 30-70.

Date:

20 Oct 2002

Time:

09:00:33

Comments

I appreciate the effort brother Noe has made to fit the pieces together, but there are several reasons why I believe that John of Gischala could not have been the "man of sin": 1)He NEVER sat in the temple and proclaimed that He himself was God. History does not record ANY first century individual who ever did that. Such a thing would have been unthinkable and blasphemous to any Jewish zealot who had a modicum of sensibility. 2) Although John of Gischala's love for his nation and religion (traits undoubtedly considered heroic and admirable by his countrymen) were corrupted by a lust for power and an irrational fanaticism, he hardly seems to be sin PERSONIFIED, as the title "man of sin" suggests. 3) We would think that if John of Gischala worked "all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders" that at least a few of those events, which would have been so remarkable, would have been recorded by Josephus. Josephus records other events that went on in besieged Jerusalem with lurid detail. Why did Josephus not record these counterfeit miracles? Most likely it is because they never happened. 4)The man of sin DID NOT have to be alive at that time. Noe probably did not realize this, but whatever translation he used when he quoted verses 5-7 inaccurately translates verse 5. The Greek DOES NOT read "holding him back." It literally reads "what is holding back," or "what is restraining." The KJV and the literal translations, such as Young’s and Green’s, render this verse accurately. Since there were many antichrists (with a little "a") living at that time, as Noe admits, such restraint still would have been necessary even if the man of sin were not alive at that time. I wrote an article on this scripture passage, entitled "What must happen before the Day of Christ Comes?" which explains more reasons why I believe that only a future fulfillment of this passage is possible, which you may read at http://www.thingstocome.org/DayofChrist.htm - Rusty Entrekin

Date:

20 Oct 2002

Time:

18:44:48

Comments

Sorry, dear futurist. Christ's parousia and the spiritual judgment of the world were future from AD 70 for one reason only -- because they occurred on the last day of the true first century in fulfillment of the universal flood, the natural judgment of the ancient world, that occurred on the last day of Noah's last 100 pre-flood years. (The flood also came in the clouds.) The man of sin and son of perdition was Domitian, the 11th first-century emperor and the 11th horn of Dan. 7 and the first beast of Rev. 13, who demanded that all of the first-century world worship him. In his last 100 pre-flood years Noah brought three natural sons into the world and built the ark, and in the 100 years from the birth of Christ in autumn of 5 BC to the death of Domitian in autumn of AD 96 (in the day and hour of Mt. 24:36) Christ brought countless spiritual sons into the world and built the church.

Date:

21 Oct 2002

Time:

08:35:04

Comments

For futurists to refer people to an article citing clever, even demonic, deceptions would be amusing if it weren't so sick. Scofield, the futurists' guiding light, was the greatest deceiver of all. Because he arrogantly and demeaningly claimed that Christ failed to fulfill the last three of the seven feasts of Lev. 23, the church has to be listen every autumn to the futurists' arrogant and demeaning babbling about the "imminent" fulfillment of the feast of tabernacles.

Date:

21 Oct 2002

Time:

12:15:05

Comments

In the article I referenced above, I was not accusing any true believer of being "demonic" or of trying to intentionally mislead anyone. You are right - that would be a sick thing to do. My intention was only to point out the possibility that sincere believers can be deceived concerning this matter. Because of your comment, I have made some changes in the article to clarify that. Thanks for pointing that out, because your impression was definitely not the message I wanted to convey. - Rusty Entrekin

Date:

21 Oct 2002

Time:

15:53:05

Comments

Thanks. Perhaps now you'd also like to agree that C. I. Scofield was wrong when he made the outrageous and demeaning claim that "soon" the restored law of Moses will swiftly accomplish what the Holy Spirit has been unable to accomplish for the last 2,000 years, namely, the conversion of the whole world. It was the weak, external law of Moses, not the mighty, indwelling Holy Spirit, that was the failure (Ro. 8:3,4; Heb. 7:18,19).

Date:

01 Feb 2003

Time:

14:51:28

Comments

The idea that a Galilean rebell who led a rag-tag bunch of desert mauraders in a doomed rebellion against Rome meets the description of the man of sin seems implausible. The whole tenor of Paul's description shows that this was to be an individual of world proportion; an individual of world infamy set out upon a career of lawless and blood lust against the church. The better view is that the man of sin was Nero. Nero was restrained from obtaining the throne of the empire while Claudius remained in power. Claudius was "he who lets will let until he be taken out of the way." With the poisoning of Claudius by Nero and his mother, Claudius was taken "out of the way" and Nero came to power and was revealed as the man of sin who opposed all that is called God or worshipped. Taking his seat in the temple of God so as to show himself as God was not in reference to Zealot occupation of the Jerusalem temple, but to Nero's rage against the church and all that is held sacred. His takeing his seat in the temple is similar to the Babylonian king's setting his seat on the "sides of the north" (Jerusalem) ruling over the stars of God (children of Israel." His aspiration to be like the Most High, which is the thrust of the man of sin's ambitions, did not require actual occupation of the temple. (Isa. 14) Similar language occurs regarding the king of Tyre who thought he was like God sitting in the heart of the sea. (Ezek. 28) These other examples of men lifting themselves up in their hearts, thinking they are gods, mirrors the language of II Thess.2. The language in both Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28 spoke to world leaders. Hence, we expect the same of II Thess. 2. John of Gischala may be safely dismissed as a realistic candidate in favor of Nero Caesar. Kurt Simmons, President, Bimillennial Preterist Assoc. www.preteristcentral.com

Date:

01 Feb 2003

Time:

14:57:13

Comments

The idea that a Galilean rebell who led a rag-tag bunch of desert mauraders in a doomed rebellion against Rome meets the description of the man of sin seems implausible. The whole tenor of Paul's description shows that this was to be an individual of world proportion; an individual of world infamy set out upon a career of lawless and blood lust against the church. The better view is that the man of sin was Nero. Nero was restrained from obtaining the throne of the empire while Claudius remained in power. Claudius was "he who lets will let until he be taken out of the way." With the poisoning of Claudius by Nero and his mother, Claudius was taken "out of the way" and Nero came to power and was revealed as the man of sin who opposed all that is called God or worshipped. Taking his seat in the temple of God so as to show himself as God was not in reference to Zealot occupation of the Jerusalem temple, but to Nero's rage against the church and all that is held sacred. His taking his seat in the temple is similar to the Babylonian king's setting his seat on the "sides of the north" (Jerusalem) ruling over the stars of God" (children of Israel). His aspiration to be like the Most High, which is the thrust of the man of sin's ambitions, did not require actual occupation of the temple. (Isa. 14) Similar language occurs regarding the king of Tyre who thought he was like God sitting in the heart of the sea. (Ezek. 28) These examples of world kings lifting themselves up in their hearts, thinking they are gods, mirrors the language of II Thess.2. The language in both Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28 spoke to world leaders. Hence, we expect the same of II Thess. 2. John of Gischala may be safely dismissed as a realistic candidate in favor of Nero Caesar. Kurt Simmons, President, Bimillennial Preterist Assoc. www.preteristcentral.com

Date:

13 Mar 2003

Time:

23:22:54

Comments

John, Very interesting,well done, and right on. Here's a question for you, "what and where is the bottomless pit (abyss) of Revelation? respond to barldranch@sdplains.com

Date:

13 Mar 2003

Time:

23:26:43

Comments

John, Very interesting,well done, and right on. Here's a question for you, "what and where is the bottomless pit (abyss) of Revelation? respond to barldranch@sdplains.com

Date:

21 Mar 2003

Time:

21:26:20

Comments

I would like to know more about the sings and wonders this John son of levi had performed I don't think you adressed that The coming [parousia] of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved!"

Date:

31 Oct 2003

Time:

12:55:14

Comments

Why the worry over "proclaiming" ?? One does not need to speak a word of proclamation for it to be so - when actions make the more clearer statement! Did not the Father "proclaim" Jesus as Lord "when He raised Him from the dead" ?? I say yes! There were no recorded loud, thundering, words from the heaven at the resuurection of Jesus, the act itself outspoke any words to be uttered. The fact that John of Gischala set himself up in the temple and trampled on the High Priest and levites - killing them even in a slaughter, speaks loudly enough of his own proclaimation that he sees himself greater than God. Badda bing, so we sing.

Date:

02 Nov 2003

Time:

03:08:48

Comments

this tells you nothing. i want to know why henry broke with rome not about the man of sins. why did henry brake with rome

Date:

24 Jan 2004

Time:

20:12:20

Comments

If this is true, what about the prophecies that say thatRev 13:11-18 KJV And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. (12) And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. (13) And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, (14) And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. (15) And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. (16) And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: (17) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (18) Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Did this man have a prophet unto him who did these things? Or did he die by a sword and live again? What do you do with these verses?

Date:

13 Jun 2004

Time:

17:31:56

Comments

It would be very insightful for Preterists to identify the IMAGE OF THE FIRST beast from the sea that the second beast deceived the people of earth-Judea to make. How was this image given breath to speak.. Revelation 13

Date:

11 Dec 2004

Time:

15:17:57

Comments

IT IS A WRITTEN TRUTH: MATTHEW 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. IN NOE THERE WERE PAIR OF CREATURES, IF"FOR A DOG THERE'S A BICTH AND FOR A BICTH A THERE'S A DOG" "FOR A FEMALE FLY A MALE FLY" THEN "FOR A FAITHFUL MAN THERE'S A FAITH WOMAM FOR A FAITHFUL WOMAN THERE'S A FAITH MAN" OR "FOR AN ELECT MAN AN ELECT WOMAN" "FOR AN ELECT WOMAN AN ELECT MAN" SEE: THIS RESEARCH FOR DETAILS alpha and omega

Date:

11 Dec 2004

Time:

15:19:57

Comments

by: balconcillofc (29/M/Lima - Perú) 12/11/04 05:56 pm Msg: 184310 of 184320 ALL BIBLE IS ORIENTED TO JUSTICE; more cruel is righteous vengeance than the attack of the envy for this Truth: it is written the last "ark of NOE" MATTHEW 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. IN NOE THERE WERE PAIR OF CREATURES, IF"FOR A DOG THERE'S A BICTH AND FOR A BICTH A THERE'S A DOG" "FOR A FEMALE FLY A MALE FLY" THEN "FOR A FAITHFUL MAN THERE'S A FAITH WOMAM FOR A FAITHFUL WOMAN THERE'S A FAITH MAN" OR "FOR AN ELECT MAN AN ELECT WOMAN" "FOR AN ELECT WOMAN AN ELECT MAN" SEE: THIS RESEARCH FOR DETAILS alpha and omega

Date: 27 Mar 2005
Time: 14:14:03

Comments:

In Corinthians 15:6 " After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen Asleep." (Explain: some are fallen asleep.)


I know this was doing the time of Paul's writing and preaching when he was telling the Corinthians the controversey between believing the resurrection and if there was not resurrection them our living is in vain.


Please clearfy what kind of sleep was this?  "out of Chirst or those who believed and saw Christ had died in Chirst?


send me your comments.

Date: 01 Jun 2007
Time: 08:28:32

Comments:

That article is nonsense. The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him (2 Thess 2:1) is yet future, therefore so is the revealing of the man of sin. I recommend people check out the amillenial idealist view which is far more balanced than either the futurist or preterist views. Many people think all amillenialists are preterists, but that is not the case.

Date: 16 Jan 2011
Time: 15:40:59

Your Comments:

Does anybody know for how long the Man of Sin is to appear before the second advent of the Christ Messiah.

I am writing a book about this and you can leave me the answer here or in the comments of this blog http://son-of-perdition.blogspot.com/. Or, you can email me at Norman(.)C(.)Hoffmann @ Gmail(.)com