Originally posted by jdl79
How ever I am not completely convinced that it is accurate, as man in himself since the establishment of the modern church has been causing what you
would call abominations. The simple greed that runs through many modern church leaders could be considered an abomination by that definition, as they
pillage wallets in the name of God and charity only to pocket the money themselves.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe these type of people were truly ever part of the church of God, though they may even think they
are. Notice that the son of perdition exalts himself above God, just as Lucifer did.....
ISAIAH 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the
mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
That verse is almost a mirror of what Paul says the Son of perdition will do. Lucifer was once a loyal servant of God, but the position of power he
was in went to his head, and it became all about himself. It wasn't about money, it was about power, pride, deluding himself into thinking he knew
better than God. His actions also led astray one third of the angels, a great falling away within the angelic realm. This is also another hint I
believe that shows us the patern of how the Son of Perdition was to behave. The very term Son of Perdtion itself hints at this. Perdtion in the greek
is apoleia, which means destruction, (the son of destruction, or son of the destroyer, another name for Satan)
Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek
tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Apollyon means a destroyer, or the destoryer. I don't mean to say that the son of perdition will be a literal son of satan, just symbolically, just
as Christ called those who rejected what he had to say the sons of the devil (John 8:44). But one thing to remember also is that the first son of
perdition, Judas Iscariot, was said to have had satan enter into him...
JOHN 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot,
the son of Simon.
27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Originally posted by jdl79
Daniel also states he will boast great things against the most high and exalt himself and claim to be God. John confirms this when he states the false
prophet causes all to worship him. Now before we get to deep into who or how the false prophet is, according to the way we are to interpret scripture
as laid out in Daniel with Nebudchanezzars dream, a beast represents both a king and a kingdom. So to state the false prophet is simply a religous
leader or the son of perdition is simply a religous leader is a huge misinterpretation. As John describes both as beasts. As such no religous leader
has the ability to pass or instate law, such as would be needed to require a mark. Are you familiar with all that has happened within the EU? Do you
know anything of the UNs Aliance of Civilizations?
I understand what you are saying that the beast is a kingdom, but I don't believe the son of perdition and the beast are the same thing, for this
very reason. I agree the beast is a kingdom, and I agree it is formed out of the EU, with the Roman church being the woman riding the beast. I believe
this church is where the false prophet comes out of, being the Pope.
The beast is a kingdom, the son of perdition is said to be a man...
2Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is God.
...and only somebody in the church could cause a great falling away, and when we're talking changing spiritual laws, a church leader is the prime
person. Paul makes it quite clear that every time he mentions the temple of God in every other verse, that he is talking of the church, and now he
says this man will sit in the temple of God, and cause a great falling away.
For Paul to even call something the temple of God, it would have to refer to where God dwells. God would not dwell in a building which in essence is a
giant symbol of the rejection of christ and his sacrifice, which is what the temple the jews want to build would be, just as God can not dwell in
those who reject Christ. That would be like calling Richard Dawkins the temple of God. Paul states over and over exactly where God dwells, and that is
in his church, so for Paul to say that a man will come and sit in the temple and raise himself up above God, I personally would think it should be
clear exactly what Paul is saying.
Enjoying this conversation by the way