Was Titus the Man of Sin

[grahamcracker]

While not quite a full fledged Preterist, I have jettisoned premillenialsm/pre-trib a long time ago. In a discussion regarding 2 Thess 2:4, I was challenged that the anti-christ has not entered the Temple of God, proclaimed himself God and been worshiped. I found serveral websites which said he did but they were lacking in source support. Apparently, something in the Talmud makes the claim but it is deemed unreliable by my opponent. It wouldn't bother me if I were wrong, but surely there is some reliable source material besides implication or secondary commentary. Can anyone help me?

[Thoughtful Monk]

Considering the temple burned at the end of the siege of Jerusalem, I'm not sure Titus could have then entered the Holy of Holies. In my reading of Roman history, I don't recall Titus claiming to be a god. I am skeptical of any claim that Titus is the man of sin.

[Obsidian]

Honestly, I think the "man of sin" is probably just talking generally about false prophets within the church. Paul uses the word "temple" to refer to the church or to the individual Christian. I can't think of any time where he ever uses it to refer to the literal temple.

[grahamcracker]

Considering the temple burned at the end of the siege of Jerusalem, I'm not sure Titus could have then entered the Holy of Holies. In my reading of Roman history, I don't recall Titus claiming to be a god. I am skeptical of any claim that Titus is the man of sin.

Josephus says he raised his ensign or ensigns, Roman symbols placed in locations of conquest, like the American flag. As I understand it, Josephus describes holy things (like furniture) in The Holy Place but the commentary says the Holy of Holies did not contain furniture. Presumably, he could not have described it without being present. Those ensigns were supposedly worshiped.

In Judea, Titus was proclaimed emperor by his men after learning that his father Vespasian died. And Roman emperors were sometimes worshiped. The claim that he was the Man of Sin is not implausible, but so far unproved. That's where I stop. I thought there might be more information out there.

And, according to the Jewish sources other than Josephus, he laid with a prostitute in the temple, profaning it. They even provide her name. Josephus says that a soldier threw a fire brand over the temple walls against Titus' wishes, setting the fire. Titus had planned to make the temple a shrine to the Roman pantheon.

[seanD]

Honestly, I think the "man of sin" is probably just talking generally about false prophets within the church. Paul uses the word "temple" to refer to the church or to the individual Christian. I can't think of any time where he ever uses it to refer to the literal temple.

This is why I'm a futurist.

[Paprika]

Surely it is clear that the parousia in 2 Thes 2:4 isn't the "coming on the clouds" of the Son of Man.

[One Bad Pig]

You might want to take a look at what Paul means by "the temple of God."

[grahamcracker]

Surely it is clear that the parousia in 2 Thes 2:4 isn't the "coming on the clouds" of the Son of Man.

Far from it.
"Behold the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols tremble and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear." ( Isaiah 19:1)

Just trying to be fair. Btw, if you want to convert me to futurism, this isn't the place and I'm not interested. And if you don't believe there is any historical evidence that Titus was the man of sin, you only have to say so. I'm not here to debate the overall merits of Preterism. That door is closed for the time being. Thanks for your interest.

[grahamcracker]

You might want to take a look at what Paul means by "the temple of God."

I assume it is straight forward. For now, I have no reason to believe he meant anything other than the second temple which still stood in his earthly lifetime. Currently, I'm not aware of any viable alternatives.

Blessings to you.

[Paprika]

Far from it.
"Behold the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols tremble and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear." ( Isaiah 19:1)

When Paul talks elsewhere about the parousia of Christ, he says it is when the general resurrection occurs (1 Cor 15, 1 Thes 4).

[One Bad Pig]

I assume it is straight forward. For now, I have no reason to believe he meant anything other than the second temple which still stood in his earthly lifetime. Currently, I'm not aware of any viable alternatives.

Blessings to you.

I suggest that you do a search in the Pauline epistles (at, say, biblegateway.com) for the word "temple." The results may surprise you.

[Bill the Cat]

Source: The Didache cf. 100 AD

16:3 For in the last days false prophets and corrupters will be plenty, and the sheep will be turned into wolves, and love will be turned into hate.

16:4 When lawlessness increases, they will hate and persecute and betray one another, and then the world-deceiver will appear claiming to be the Son of God, and he will do signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will do iniquitous things that have not been seen since the beginning of the world.

16:5 Then humankind will enter into the fire of trial, and many will be made to stumble and many will perish; but those who endure in their faith will be saved from under the curse itself.

16:6 And then the signs of the truth will appear: the first sign, an opening of the heavens; the second sign, the sounding of the trumpet; and the third sign, the resurrection of the dead—

16:7 not of every one, but as it is said: "Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him."

16:8 Finally, "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory."

© Copyright Original Source

The Early Church was expecting the "World-Deceiver" to come in the future. So, it couldn't have been Titus.

[grahamcracker]

When Paul talks elsewhere about the parousia of Christ, he says it is when the general resurrection occurs (1 Cor 15, 1 Thes 4).

That assumes there is only one, or depending on one's futurist persuasion, two. But "coming" language appears several times in the OT, if I am not mistaken. And it usually preceded and referred to some sort of impending judgment. Maybe I am wrong, but I would not be surprised if those other "comings" were translated with the word "parousia" in the LXX.

Question: If you know your gospels, remember that the disciples were puzzled and apparently unaware of Jesus suffering, death and resurrection--- even though Jesus mentioned it several times. That said, what sort of coming were they asking about in Matthew 24:3? ("What will be the sign of your coming...?") Did they actually expect Jesus to depart and return visibly in the sky? Or, if they did not understood "coming" language in terms of judgment, what sense would question make? But if they DID understand His coming in the context of judgment, they could still ask it in the way they said it and be completely unaware of the Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection.

[grahamcracker]

Source: The Didache cf. 100 AD

16:3 For in the last days false prophets and corrupters will be plenty, and the sheep will be turned into wolves, and love will be turned into hate.

16:4 When lawlessness increases, they will hate and persecute and betray one another, and then the world-deceiver will appear claiming to be the Son of God, and he will do signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will do iniquitous things that have not been seen since the beginning of the world.

16:5 Then humankind will enter into the fire of trial, and many will be made to stumble and many will perish; but those who endure in their faith will be saved from under the curse itself.

16:6 And then the signs of the truth will appear: the first sign, an opening of the heavens; the second sign, the sounding of the trumpet; and the third sign, the resurrection of the dead—

16:7 not of every one, but as it is said: "Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him."

16:8 Finally, "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory."

© Copyright Original Source

The Early Church was expecting the "World-Deceiver" to come in the future. So, it couldn't have been Titus.

I don't care. The Didache wasn't inspired.

[grahamcracker]

I suggest that you do a search in the Pauline epistles (at, say, biblegateway.com) for the word "temple." The results may surprise you.

I'm not sure how persuasive that would be. People's interpretation implies a background of context. If I view all of the words through a Preterist mindset, how would that change my mind?