Love_Truth....if you edit the link you posted at the head of the thread, this page would load much better and
would be much easier to read. If you are using Internet Explorer, you can when editing the post, click on the HTML box
and go to the link < A HREF = "http ... .html"> http:// www.biblegospel.com /outrageouslylonghtml... ... .html ,
go into the second url and abbreviate it to something MUCH shorter, like "http:// www.biblegospel.com/ ... /blahblah.html"
Who is ?The Man of Lawlessness??
by Love_Truth 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Leolaia
-
Carmel
Since I do not believe in the personification of evil as an individual entity (Satan) but the egotistical element in each of us, the "man of lawlessness" is also not an individual of literal physical existence. That leaves a "class of people" being the most likely and your idea atheism is as good as any. I would likely expand it to humanists who see no "law of God" to order their lives, only the will of the majority. "All hail Democracy"! The mighty savior of all systems! Really!
carmel
-
-
Love_Truth
JCanon,
Based on what I thought you stated (perhaps I misinterpreted some of your comments?), here is my reply:
The Man of Lawlessness must be part of "THE temple of THE God" who makes himself a god in that temple, thus he is part of "God's house" at first. What is God's house, his temple?
Actually, it says ?so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.? It does not say he must be part of the "THE temple of THE God". He proclaims himself to be God. Is this meant explicitly, or implicitly? That?s unknown. So, perhaps you mean any one who (a) would deny the existence of God, (or at least a god or gods), and proclaim they are God explicitly (or even implicitly?) would be the ?Man of Lawlessness??
It's his recognized anointed followers in the temple organization, which is Jehovah's witness and thus the only entity that could lord over everyone, making himself a god are the leaders of the organization, thus the GB of JWs is this "man of lawlessness".
Your conclusion (as I understand it) presupposes that JWs are God?s organization (no such doctrine provable in Scripture), which I absolutely reject, since there is no proof of that whatsoever. Besides that, they couldn?t ?lord it over everyone?, according to your definition, just other JWs. 2 Thes 2:4 doesn?t say ?lord it over everyone?, it says he ?will exalt himself above God and everything that is worshipped?. Atheists, by rejecting God, do so explicitly. Implicitly, non-atheists could do so as well. (More on this later.)
In practice, since all the anointed are considered "gods" and people of reverence, the Governing Body by creating the entity associated with themselves as the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" has made that entity into a god and mediator between Christ and all the other followers.
They do make the organization into a god (implicitly), and mediator (implicitly), and so do many other Religions, sects, cults, Churches, etc. (I get into more detail on this later in this response.)
Sure, they were responsible to give food at the proper time,
Well, they aren?t really the ?anointed? nor are they the ?"Faithful and Discrete Slave", so they can?t (and haven?t) ?give food at the proper time?, either. That? another subject, methinks.
?but not be worshipped. Thus the apostasy referred to here is the apostasy of the Governing Body who makes itself a god in the organization over the other anointed ones.
With the exception of two statements, I agree. The statement ?over the other anointed ones?---What?s ?anointed?, but another flawed JW interpretation, anyway? And the statement ?the apostasy referred to here is the apostasy[or rebellion] of?? is a separate issue, that comes ?first?, and, other than being a possible step in the order of events, need not necessarily be connected to the ?Man of Lawlessness.
So, let me address the first part of that statement: ??but not be worshipped. Thus the apostasy referred to here is the apostasy of the Governing Body who makes itself a god in the organization??
That interpretation you came to is similar to (I added all religions that do likewise) the one I came to some years ago, and held for quite some time. That?s because it is true that the latter part of the definition in Thessalonians 2:4 would apply to the Governing Body, and by extension to all JWs, as well as all religions that ?seat themselves in the seat of God? by requiring followers to (in actuality) put their faith in the ?Religion?, ?Church?, ?Organization?, ?Clergy?, etc, rather than in God and his Son (even though, at the same time, they give lip service to doing so).
However, none of these actually ?exalt themselves over everything that is called God or is worshiped?, at least not explicitly. Do they do so implicitly? A strong case could be made that they do, by encouraging faith in the ?Religion?, ?Church?, ?Organization?, ?Clergy?, etc, they are implicitly asking for faith properly given only to God and his Son. The guilty or not guilty differentiator, IMO, is placing unscriptural Dogma and Tradition, teachings of men, over Scripture (guilty), or not doing so (not guilty). Also, any religion requiring confession of sins to men would be in the same category, in that Jesus clearly stated that only he is Mediator between God and men.
So, having said all that, I?d summarize it my conclusion this way:
-Atheists seem to definitely fit the description of the ?Man of Lawlessness?;
-In addition, those who implicitly ask for Faith properly placed in God and his Son, and his word the Bible, may be included in the ?Man of Lawlessness? as well, in that they give lip service to a god(s) or God, but implicitly, ask that Faith be placed in them instead of God and his Son.
Regards,
Love_Truth
-
Love_Truth
Leolaia,
Thanks for the links- I?ll read them and get back if I have thoughts to expand on after reading them. Also, thank you for showing me what the HTML button on the bottom of the editor is for- I get it now. I used to have to code the links in HTML in other Boards I?ve posted on, so I?m familiar with it now.
Special K,
Thanks to Leolaia, I found the problem with why some of my posts were coming out so ?wide?. Fixed now, glad you enjoy ?em!!
Carmel,
If I understand you correctly, you are referring to Theological Humanitarianism, the doctrine holding that Jesus was human only and not divine. However, I?d say that some humanitarianists (humanists) likely believe in a god (other than a Christian God), which according to the definition given in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 would mean they would not necessarily be in this ?class? of the ?Man of Lawlessness?. But I see what you mean, in general.
-
got my forty homey?
I AM THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS!
GOT MY FORTY HOMEY
REWARD $10,000
DEAD OR ALIVE
-
Love_Truth
LOL@got my forty homey!!!
I'm not convinced!!!!!!!
-
JCanon
-Atheists seem to definitely fit the description of the ?Man of Lawlessness?;
HI Love_Truth, thanks for your analysis.
This interpretation will always be subjective so I can only share what my view is. But I don't see atheists qualifying as the "man of lawlessness" since they never sit in god's house nor do they have control over it, though they may dispise what could be called a god and make themselves a god.
The "man of lawlessness" is part of the apostasy and thus this is a Christian setting that is established in order to be fulfilled.
As far as a "temple class", that reference is to Daniel's saying that only after "2300 evenings and mornings" would the "temple be in it's right condition". That at least implies there was no temple or no recognized temple organization for those 2300 evenings and mornings.
The witness connection is applied by counting 490-year periods from 36CE, when we know 70 weeks ended, down to our day which ends in 1996 after 1960 years. The "time, times and a half" apostasy is 1260 days or 1260 years and thus begin in 736BCE (1996 minus 1260 is 736). The 2300 evenings and mornings break down to 1150 years since one evening and morninng becomes a full day. Take 1150 from 1260 and you get 110 years left for the "temple to be in its right condition". This is the TEMPLE OF GOD in which the Man of Lawlessness rises up in to make itself a god. 110 years from 1996 is 1886. In 1886 the first volume of "Studies in the Scriptures" was published, the first in a series of 6 others that became the foundation doctrine of a new religion later called Jehovah's witnesses. It is this temple organization who would have the special duties of "preaching the good news" and would suffer specifically to fulfill other prophecies, such as being singled out with the Jews for persecution during the Holocaust. It is my belief that this is that special organization that would be used to pull in converts from Christendom, "the sea" and then later, among their members, Christ would choose his own faithful ones, "fine fish" and throw the rest back.
J.C.
-
trumangirl
I have wondered about this too. I think atheists don't fit the picture. When you consider that the 'great apostasy' happened after the apostles died out, leading to the institution of the catholic church with the Pope as the infallible 'word of God' - I think the man of lawlessness, who sits down in the 'temple of God', must mean religious people who gain such control as if they are Godlike - also antichrist in the sense of replacing Christ.
THe crusaders and inquisitor who committed terrible atrocities in the name of God, were told by the Pope that killing muslims was good, in complete reverse of conscience and the Bible, but because the Pope was speaking supposedly on God's authority, any kind of twisted rationalisations were acceptable . It is the same process that happens, albeit not so atrocious, when a group of men set themselves up as the GB and F&D slave - normal conscientious principles go out the window and hypocrisy is allowed - in other words 'lawlessness'. There are many examples in history of this type of thing. I think the 'man of lawlessness' could mean these sorts of people, which christians should avoid (ie in the form of leaving controling organised religions), in favour of true christian freedom, principles and personal integrity - following Jesus ways, not those of men. Alternatively, there could be an ultimate 'man of lawlessness' - collective or singular - in the last days (ie the end of this system of things, not the WT's interpretation of 'last days').
Ewatchman has an interesting take on man of L and antichrist, which I have borrowed from but dont completely agree with him because he still thinks JWs are special.
Interesting topic, Picard dude.
trumangirl
-
A Paduan
Well, not the athiests When Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature what the law requires......They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts
I ponder that it's about the unspiritual (We know that the law is spiritual ), who do not restrain the literal / fleshly ( worldly ) types of belief and righteousness (the mystery of lawlessness is already at work), condemning other's religions / ritual and ideas of God (exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship), but believing a lie as a substitute for truth (with all wicked deception) - the pharisee "generation" ( this Jesus, ... you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men).
Do any jws fit the description ? And do you think it's a mystery how physically headstrong they are about total codswallop ? (God sends upon them a strong delusion)