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
