2 Thessalonians 2:4 - Temple of God

[rhutchin]

Paul speaks of the temple of God in reference to believers here--


16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.


16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.”

Then we read the following in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians.


3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

If we follow Paul's use of the term, "temple of God," in Corinthians, and carry that meaning into Thessalonians then this verse would refer to a future apostasy in the church.

Is anyone aware of an argument from the Scriptures to explain that Paul had the temple in Jerusalem in mind in writing to the Thessalonians? I know that some people "assume" this to be Paul's intent but it seems to me that the assumption is that Paul would use the term in the same way as he did in his letter to the Corinthians. Is there a legitimate Scriptural argument that Paul's intent in Thessalonians is that the temple of God be the physical temple in Jerusalem?

[eschaton]

Most of the ECF say Paul was speaking of the church.

[eschaton]

The Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, believed this was talking about the papacy and the church. Here is what Calvin had to say about the temple.

In the temple of God. By this one term there is a sufficient refutation of the error, nay more, the stupidity of those who reckon the Pope to be Vicar of Christ, on the ground that he has his seat in the Church, in whatever manner he may conduct himself; for Paul places Antichrist nowhere else than in the very sanctuary of God. For this is not a foreign, but a domestic enemy, who opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. But it is asked, how the Church is represented as the den of so many superstitions, while it was destined to be the pillar of the truth? (1 Timothy 3:15.) I answer, that it is thus represented, not on the ground of its retaining all the qualities of the Church, but because it has something of it remaining. I accordingly acknowledge, that that is the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges.

[Lady Gooner]

Paul speaks of the temple of God in reference to believers here--


16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.


16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.”

Then we read the following in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians.


3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

If we follow Paul's use of the term, "temple of God," in Corinthians, and carry that meaning into Thessalonians then this verse would refer to a future apostasy in the church.

Is anyone aware of an argument from the Scriptures to explain that Paul had the temple in Jerusalem in mind in writing to the Thessalonians? I know that some people "assume" this to be Paul's intent but it seems to me that the assumption is that Paul would use the term in the same way as he did in his letter to the Corinthians. Is there a legitimate Scriptural argument that Paul's intent in Thessalonians is that the temple of God be the physical temple in Jerusalem?


That this is a literal temple is clear from the text, and has been understood as such by even the earliest Christians.

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” (Irenaeus, writing in the late second century)

“God’s temple”—the naoV" qeou'.
LXX Daniel 5:3;

The underlying Hebrew is typically myhla tyb.

The broader idiom of oiko" qeou' (or kurivou), occurs more frequently (e.g., 1 Chron 28:12,) either way each expression is used in the literal sense.

Matthew 26:21 the referent is still literal, and is undisputed as such

50 CE—literal notion is still in view (2 Thess 2:4)
mid-50s—metaphorical notion is developed, but the shift has to be made explicit
60s—metaphorical notion is clearly in place, requiring no explicit referential clue for this meaning.

You'll need a greek scholar to help you as you will also need to look at Paul’s use of kefalhv with reference to the church which is quite different between Ephesians and 1 Corinthians.

In 1 Corinthians 12:21 kefalhv is used metaphorically of a member of the church.

In Ephesians Paul uses kefalhv exclusively of Christ (cf. Eph 1:22; Col 1:18).

[rhutchin]

That this is a literal temple is clear from the text, and has been understood as such by even the earliest Christians.

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” (Irenaeus, writing in the late second century)

“God’s temple”—the naoV" qeou'.
LXX Daniel 5:3;

The underlying Hebrew is typically myhla tyb.

The broader idiom of oiko" qeou' (or kurivou), occurs more frequently (e.g., 1 Chron 28:12,) either way each expression is used in the literal sense.

Matthew 26:21 the referent is still literal, and is undisputed as such

50 CE—literal notion is still in view (2 Thess 2:4)
mid-50s—metaphorical notion is developed, but the shift has to be made explicit
60s—metaphorical notion is clearly in place, requiring no explicit referential clue for this meaning.

You'll need a greek scholar to help you as you will also need to look at Paul’s use of kefalhv with reference to the church which is quite different between Ephesians and 1 Corinthians.

In 1 Corinthians 12:21 kefalhv is used metaphorically of a member of the church.

In Ephesians Paul uses kefalhv exclusively of Christ (cf. Eph 1:22; Col 1:18).



Any idea why the temple in Jerusalem might be the "temple of God" after the cross which basically reduced it to a simple building that was now used by the Jews in the cultic practice of sacrificing animals to a god that was not Christ as they had rejected Christ as their God?

Since God no longer required animal sacrifices after the cross and no longer required the Jews to go to Jerusalem as the feasts were done away with at the cross, it would not seem possible to label that temple "the temple of God."

We do have the example set by Paul of calling the body of believers, the temple of God, in his letters. A literal reading of Paul would seem to favor his use of the term and not as a reference to a physical building.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

IIRC, Thessalonians was written well before Corinthians, and the meaning may have changed in Paul's theological thrust.

[rhutchin]

IIRC, Thessalonians was written well before Corinthians, and the meaning may have changed in Paul's theological thrust.

Except that we don't find anything in Paul's letters to indicate any importance for the temple in Jerusalem. To say that the meaning "might" have changed doesn't help.

In addition, there is still the issue that the temple in Jerusalem lost its significance and purpose after the cross so there is no reason for Paul or anyone to call it the temple of God. In what context could Paul or anyone continue to refer to it as the temple of God?

[eschaton]

That this is a literal temple is clear from the text, and has been understood as such by even the earliest Christians.

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” (Irenaeus, writing in the late second century)

“God’s temple”—the naoV" qeou'.
LXX Daniel 5:3;

The underlying Hebrew is typically myhla tyb.

The broader idiom of oiko" qeou' (or kurivou), occurs more frequently (e.g., 1 Chron 28:12,) either way each expression is used in the literal sense.

Matthew 26:21 the referent is still literal, and is undisputed as such

50 CE—literal notion is still in view (2 Thess 2:4)
mid-50s—metaphorical notion is developed, but the shift has to be made explicit
60s—metaphorical notion is clearly in place, requiring no explicit referential clue for this meaning.

You'll need a greek scholar to help you as you will also need to look at Paul’s use of kefalhv with reference to the church which is quite different between Ephesians and 1 Corinthians.

In 1 Corinthians 12:21 kefalhv is used metaphorically of a member of the church.

In Ephesians Paul uses kefalhv exclusively of Christ (cf. Eph 1:22; Col 1:18).




Lady Gooner,

You have given this reference.


Book V
chapter XXX
4. But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as "he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition," as one who has no existence; so neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed. But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

Irenaeus is referring to Revelation here due to mentioning the abyss and the time period of 3.5 years. Check these rferences. Rev 12:14, 11:2-3, ch 17:8


It is quite clear that Irenaeus identified the temple of God as the church.


Book III Chapter VI

5. And the Apostle Paul also, saying, “For though ye have served them which are no gods; ye now know God, or rather, are known of God,” (Gal. iv. 8, 9). has made a separation between those that were not [gods] and Him who is God. And again, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” (2 Thess. ii. 4). He points out here those who are called gods, by such as know not God, that is, idols. For the Father of all is called God, and is so; and Antichrist shall be lifted up, not above Him, but above those which are indeed called gods, but are not. And Paul himself says that this is true: “We know that an idol is nothing, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we through Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.” ( 1 Cor. viii. 4, etc.)



You see he alludes to 1 Cor, the book where it explains we are the temple of God.



Book V Chapter XXVIII.—
2. And for this reason the apostle says: “Because they received not the love of God, that they might be saved, therefore God shall also send them the operation of error, that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but consented to unrighteousness.” (2 Thess. ii. 10–12.) For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly “be cast into the lake of fire:”


It is the deception of Christians that is involved here, not unbelievers.



Chapter XXV.-The Fraud, Pride, and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist, as Described by Daniel and Paul.

1. And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: "Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped-that is, above every idol-for these are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God.

2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be."



Hippolytus, a student of Irenaeus, very clearly spelled out later that this was the church.

From Irenaeus:


Book V Chapter VI.

2. Whence also he says, that this handiwork is "the temple of God," thus declaring: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man, therefore, will defile the temple of God, him will God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are." Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. He spake this, however," it is said, "of the temple of His body." And not only does he (the apostle) acknowledge our bodies to be a temple, but even the temple of Christ, saying thus to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? " He speaks these things, not in reference to some other spiritual man; for a being of such a nature could have nothing to do with an harlot: but he declares "our body," that is, the flesh which continues in sanctity and purity, to be "the members of Christ; "but that when it becomes one with an harlot, it becomes the members of an harlot. And for this reason he said, "If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy." How then is it not the utmost blasphemy to allege, that the temple of God, in which the Spirit of the Father dwells, and the members of Christ, do not partake of salvation, but are reduced to perdition? Also, that our bodies are raised not from their own substance, but by the power of God, he says to the Corinthians, "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. But God hath both raised up the Lord, and shall raise us up by His own power."

To Irenaeus the church is the temple of God.

[eschaton]

I have this on Hippolytus:


(On this): The city is the Church ; and these months they are to persecute her and kill, when the false Christ [St. Matth. xxiv. 24] shall come, because she worships him not. Now of this said Daniel, He shall approve the covenant for many, one week; in the half of the week shall cease the sacrifice [Dan, ix. 27]. The half of the week: that is, three years and a-half; and these make the forty and two months which are mentioned. The sacrifice he speaks of is not that of sheep, but the prayers of the upright. And the holy city he speaks of is the righteous, i. e. [those] who are oppressed and trodden under foot by the horn that sprang up in the midst [Dan. vii. 8, 20, 21, 25], which is Antichrist, as Daniel said.

Hippolytus 12 otherwise interprets that which is said in the Gospel, When indeed ye shall see the pollution of desolation [St. Matth. |138 xxiv. 15] : for he says that it is not concerning the Jews, and the laying waste of Jerusalem, that these things are said, but concerning the end of Antichrist. The elect [ib. 22] he speaks of are the Christians who are in this conflict. And He says, Pray that ye fly not on the Sabbath or in winter [ib. 20] : i. e. He advises that we be not overtaken by those things that are coming on us, when we are unoccupied in righteousness, as the Jews [are unoccupied] on the Sabbath, or troubled with worldly cares and sins, as one that is in a winter storm. There shall be tribulation such as there was not like it since the beginning of the world, etc. [ib. 21 ; cp. Dan. xii. 1].

On this Hippolytus says, that in the siege of Vespasian this did not come to pass; for nothing new happened to the world in his days beyond the things that were before. If you speak of war, many times it has happened in former times : and if again of captives, there have not lacked massacres or blood-shedding that was more than that [of the siege]. And if of the eating of children and unclean beasts, lo also in the days of Ahab 13 these things were [2 Kings, vi. 28]. Accordingly it is not concerning Jerusalem that the Lord said this; for when He willed to speak concerning her, He said, When ye shall see the army compassing the city, know that the desolation thereof is nigh [St. Luke, xxi. 20]. Hence the pollution of devastations He speaks of is Antichrist. And Daniel said, [In] the half of the week standeth the abomination in the sanctuary [Dan. ix. 27 ; cp. xi. 31]. Now "Vespasian did not set up in the temple an idol, but that Legion 14 which Trajanus Quintus placed, a chief man of the Romans : he set up the idol there which is called Kôre. |139

Also the Apostle has written that these things are concerning Antichrist, Except if there come first a falling away, and the Man of iniquity be revealed, so that he as God shall sit in the temple, whom our Lord Jesus shall consume, etc. [2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 8]. From these [words] it is evident that Vespasian did not call himself God, nor did he sit in the temple, nor was he killed by the Spirit of the Lord. Accordingly it is manifest that in the end tribulation arises against the Church, such as was none like it.'

Here is what Augustine summarised later in the City of God about 2 Thess. ii. 1–11.


Book XX ch 19
No one can doubt that he wrote this of Antichrist and of the day of judgment, which he here calls the day of the Lord, nor that he declared that this day should not come unless he first came who is called the apostate —apostate, to wit, from the Lord God. And if this may justly be said of all the ungodly, how much more of him? But it is uncertain in what temple he shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church; for the apostle would not call the temple of any idol or demon the temple of God. And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not “in the temple of God,” but “for” or “as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church.


I can give more church father references about the temple being the church if you wish.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Except that we don't find anything in Paul's letters to indicate any importance for the temple in Jerusalem. To say that the meaning "might" have changed doesn't help.

In addition, there is still the issue that the temple in Jerusalem lost its significance and purpose after the cross so there is no reason for Paul or anyone to call it the temple of God. In what context could Paul or anyone continue to refer to it as the temple of God?

Paul still held the temple in high regard after his conversion


Acts 22:17-18
17 It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the Temple, that I fell into a trance, 18 and I saw him saying to me, "Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me."


Acts 21:26

Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the Temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each one of them.


As did the other Apostles, as evidenced by their constant visits to the temple.

[Lady Gooner]

I can give more church father references about the temple being the church if you wish.

Eschaton, thank you, that is sufficient for now,. :smile:


Rhutchin, it's not so much the meaning that changes it's the development of theological principles, : layer upon layer, that said, since Paul does not use naov" outside of 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and 1-2 Corinthians, it is difficult to assess whether there was any theological development in this area or not.

Sometimes we just have to be content with NOT knowing. :sigh:

[TyRockwell]

The temple of God has to mean the physical, desolate building in Jerusalem, simply because "the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God," by plain definition of what a Christian is, cannot sit in us, showing himself to be God. Our buildings are not the church, or temples, Jesus body is the church, and the man of sin, son of perdition cannot live in Jesus' temples, or Jesus' body.

God's desolate Temple in Jerusalem, desolate since the veil was torn at Jesus' death on the cross, was invaded by Caesar's representative, Titus and his army. Caesar was the entity calling himself god.
The "falling away" is the same thing as 'The Transgression,' the same kind of apostacy, only worse, in rejecting the Messiah, that precipitated the demolishing of Jerusalem and its temple by Nebuchadnezzar. The falling away was the ultimate idolatry of ongoing illegitimate sacrifice of animals, and the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, that reached its time of fullness, 66-70 AD.

[maudman]

The Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, believed this was talking about the papacy and the church. Here is what Calvin had to say about the temple.

In the temple of God. By this one term there is a sufficient refutation of the error, nay more, the stupidity of those who reckon the Pope to be Vicar of Christ, on the ground that he has his seat in the Church, in whatever manner he may conduct himself; for Paul places Antichrist nowhere else than in the very sanctuary of God. For this is not a foreign, but a domestic enemy, who opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. But it is asked, how the Church is represented as the den of so many superstitions, while it was destined to be the pillar of the truth? (1 Timothy 3:15.) I answer, that it is thus represented, not on the ground of its retaining all the qualities of the Church, but because it has something of it remaining. I accordingly acknowledge, that that is the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges.

We all know what they thought. But why are you posting these things?



None of this fits because the Pope didn't cause a falling away.

Luther and Calvin did though. Neither did the Pope or Papacy as history records exalt itself above all that is called God “”””Which were the traditions of the Church that existed”””, But were defending centuries of traditions that Luther and Calvin thought to undo. Popes defended both Orthodox and RC traditions and even some Protestant ones.

Popes were defenders of a Faith that existed before they even took office. They became Popes because of their service to what was known and had existed as what was called God by all who in the Church confessed God and Christ.

Popes didn’t cause fallings from traditions, But those who reject the leaders and authorities of Rome and the Church, The Popes sought to prevent them and that is the way it has been for centuries.


But even worse the prophecy says that he will reign for 3.5 years, Popes have been sitting in the Church for centuries and millinia.


The Lawless ones are those who through heresies against the Church cause a falling away """"First""" The falling away comes “First”” before the Son of Perdition can be revealed. Those with the Spirit of Rebellon. There has to be a falling away first in the temple of God "the Church". These who fall away are “””the ones being revealed””” not the Pope who was trying to Prevent such things in defense of centuries of traditions.

MDN

[eschaton]

The temple of God has to mean the physical, desolate building in Jerusalem, simply because "the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God," by plain definition of what a Christian is, cannot sit in us, showing himself to be God. Our buildings are not the church, or temples, Jesus body is the church, and the man of sin, son of perdition cannot live in Jesus' temples, or Jesus' body.

God's desolate Temple in Jerusalem, desolate since the veil was torn at Jesus' death on the cross, was invaded by Caesar's representative, Titus and his army. Caesar was the entity calling himself god.
The "falling away" is the same thing as 'The Transgression,' the same kind of apostacy, only worse, in rejecting the Messiah, that precipitated the demolishing of Jerusalem and its temple by Nebuchadnezzar. The falling away was the ultimate idolatry of ongoing illegitimate sacrifice of animals, and the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, that reached its time of fullness, 66-70 AD.

Ty,


I just want to point out that Paul only uses the term "temple of God" in three other verses in the NT besides 2 Th 2:4. 1 Cor 3:16, 1 Cor 3:17, and 2 Cor 6:16. Every time he is explaining that the temple of God is the church. When speaking of Paul Irenaeus says:


Book V, Chapter XXV
2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God.Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares:

Irenaeus refers to the third book were he alludes to the fact that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands (Acts 17:24).

Irenaeus has just explained that antichrist has entered the temple to show that he is Christ. He causes apostasy. He causes apostasy by deception.

Let me ask you a question Ty. Do you think the church is perfect, and is error free in doctrine? Then what are you here debating at TWEB for if you think all doctrine is perfect. Listen to what the apostle Peter says.


2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2Pe 2:3 Ga 2:4 Ga 5:20 Tit 3:10


Peter says false doctrines will enter the church. If you think the church is already without error you can stop arguing. The temple will be destroyed and one without error will take its place.

[maudman]

Ty,


I just want to point out that Paul only uses the term "temple of God" in three other verses in the NT besides 2 Th 2:4. 1 Cor 3:16, 1 Cor 3:17, and 2 Cor 6:16. Every time he is explaining that the temple of God is the church. When speaking of Paul Irenaeus says:


Book V, Chapter XXV
2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God.Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares:.



Irenaeus refers to the third book were he alludes to the fact that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands (Acts 17:24).

Irenaeus has just explained that antichrist has entered the temple to show that he is Christ. He causes apostasy. He causes apostasy by deception.

Let me ask you a question Ty. Do you think the church is perfect, and is error free in doctrine? Then what are you here debating at TWEB for if you think all doctrine is perfect. Listen to what the apostle Peter says.


2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2Pe 2:3 Ga 2:4 Ga 5:20 Tit 3:10


Peter says false doctrines will enter the church. If you think the church is already without error you can stop arguing. The temple will be destroyed and one without error will take its place.[/QUOTE]


And the climax is?

What Christ Spoke. Take heed that you be not decieved, When the Apostacy reaches its Hieghts and the perdition is """"revealed""", When that Eighth unseen beast that is of the seven that cause the beast to go into perdition sets up an Abomination.

Which is the temple in Jerusalem once again exalting itself with Israel as the covenant of God. Everything that was done was done by the son of perdition and was hidden in the Mystery Babylon the Great. Those who set up and allow the abomination are those who worship the beast. And when they build the temple and sacrifice that which makes it desolate will be complete.

When those Christians deceived by the Anti-Christ allow those who reject Christ to have Power over the (Beast of God the Civilized man), to work their perdition.

[rhutchin]

The temple of God has to mean the physical, desolate building in Jerusalem, simply because "the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God," by plain definition of what a Christian is, cannot sit in us, showing himself to be God. Our buildings are not the church, or temples, Jesus body is the church, and the man of sin, son of perdition cannot live in Jesus' temples, or Jesus' body.

Even though described as "sitting" in the temple of God, the action of "sitting" suggests acceptance by those who are the temple of God and even to rule within the body of Christ. It is because the church is imperfect and still prone to sin that this can happen (as eschaton points out). The man of sin exalts himself above God and has a great influence over the church.

God is said to sit on His throne in heaven and Christ is described as sitting on the right hand of God. However, God is spirit and omnipresent, so we known that God does not physically sit on a throne. The imagery conveys the idea that God rules over all. The psalm says, "Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,...Nor sits in the seat of the scornful," and the idea is that he does not accept the things of the scornful because there is not a physical "seat" called the "seat of the scornful."


God's desolate Temple in Jerusalem, desolate since the veil was torn at Jesus' death on the cross, was invaded by Caesar's representative, Titus and his army. Caesar was the entity calling himself god.

Certainly the temple lost its purpose after the cross. However, it was the religion of the Jews that became desolate because it became useless. This is what Christ meant when He said to the Jews, "Your house is left to you desolate." Christ's death did away with the sacrificial system as a means to provide atonement for sin. The religious system became desolate, unable to do anything about sin.


The "falling away" is the same thing as 'The Transgression,' the same kind of apostacy, only worse, in rejecting the Messiah, that precipitated the demolishing of Jerusalem and its temple by Nebuchadnezzar. The falling away was the ultimate idolatry of ongoing illegitimate sacrifice of animals, and the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, that reached its time of fullness, 66-70 AD.

Apostasy, or rejection of God, removes God's active participation, and protection, in a person's life. It can result in many things including destruction of one's life, of a country, or of a temple. The Jewish apostasy reached its fulfillment with their rejection of Christ and His crucifixion. Eventually, the temple was destroyed but temples to idols were destroyed all the time in other countries. The location of this temple in Jerusalem was not significant other than to illustrate that the Jews were idolators like all the rest whose temples were also destroyed.

[eschaton]

We all know what they thought. But why are you posting these things?



None of this fits because the Pope didn't cause a falling away.

Luther and Calvin did though. Neither did the Pope or Papacy as history records exalt itself above all that is called God “”””Which were the traditions of the Church that existed”””, But were defending centuries of traditions that Luther and Calvin thought to undo. Popes defended both Orthodox and RC traditions and even some Protestant ones.

Popes were defenders of a Faith that existed before they even took office. They became Popes because of their service to what was known and had existed as what was called God by all who in the Church confessed God and Christ.

Popes didn’t cause fallings from traditions, But those who reject the leaders and authorities of Rome and the Church, The Popes sought to prevent them and that is the way it has been for centuries.


But even worse the prophecy says that he will reign for 3.5 years, Popes have been sitting in the Church for centuries and millinia.


The Lawless ones are those who through heresies against the Church cause a falling away """"First""" The falling away comes “First”” before the Son of Perdition can be revealed. Those with the Spirit of Rebellon. There has to be a falling away first in the temple of God "the Church". These who fall away are “””the ones being revealed””” not the Pope who was trying to Prevent such things in defense of centuries of traditions.

MDN

If you'll read through the thread you'll see that Lady Gooner thought the interpretation of "the temple of God" as the church in 2nd Thessalonians was a bad idea. I was trying to show that it was actually a common understanding by the church until after the Reformation. I didn't say Calvin or Luther were right about the pope. I think they were probably wrong.

[maudman]

If you'll read through the thread you'll see that Lady Gooner thought the interpretation of "the temple of God" as the church in 2nd Thessalonians was a bad idea. I was trying to show that it was actually a common understanding by the church until after the Reformation. I didn't say Calvin or Luther were right about the pope. I think they were probably wrong.
Just trying to see where you stand on your interpitation of things written.

Yes I understood. But things can be scewed in these Doc's, and I think you know how?

Luther didn't actually think bad of the Pope, Actually he thought highly of him.

He actually didn't much care for those who were at times in his service.

That was Luthers earliest expressions. IN a sense Luthers excommunication tells a truth, that he believed and had to be forced out. He actually thought highly of Leo as expressed in many of his appeals. Even Catholic scholars Wonder about those times.

Calvin was a little different though.

Actually My opinion is that the son of Perdition took adavantage of the situation in the Church. He was and is always lerking in the Back ground giving things a nudge as it best served its purpose.

I think it can all be best explained in such that the turmiols of the Church gradually weaken its' hold on the Civilized world. That of which it was intrusted. This ever slow weakening which in a sense is all anti-Christ because it took away from us all.


Yes the tares have always risen and caused Problems. In the Church, in Christianity and the World. The Beasts of God Goes into perdition because the tares are all gathered into one Place and for a time have power.

MDN

[TyRockwell]

Hi, eschaton,

I just want to point out that Paul only uses the term "temple of God" in three other verses in the NT besides 2 Th 2:4. 1 Cor 3:16, 1Cor 3:17,and 2 Cor 6:16. Every time he is explaining that the temple of God is the church.

Paul uses the reference to Jerusalem's temple as the 'temple of God' only once because he knew that it was that in name only, respecting the fact that it once had been the place of God's presence.

Bear in mind also that the Holy Spirit was writing the epistles, through Paul. Paul was not perfect, as we are not, in and of ourselves, but the Holy Spirit is perfect. If we walk by the spirit, we do not act out the deeds of the flesh. The temple's sanctity, was always preserved, under the old covenant, and gentiles were forbidden entrance beyond the court of the gentiles. The abomination of a gentile entering the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies would require a cleansing process and a rededication; all troublesome. Such an abomination was a sign that God had departed the building, or that He was no longer protecting the people of the old covenant.

Christians still liked to use the physical temple as a meeting place, and a place to teach and reach out to other Jews to try to convert them. Not to mention the debate issue of keeping the law...., but then probably they had not all read Paul's writings, or perhaps they suspected him as a teacher of false doctrines.

You asked, Ty do you think that the church is perfect, and is free of error in doctrine?

There definitely IS error in doctrine in the church. One visit to Tweb makes that clear to even a novice.

This is where faith comes in. Christians are made the righteousness of God, by being in Christ. It takes faith to believe that we are who God says we are. If we confess our sins, the blood of Jesus continually cleanses us of all unrighteousness.
The writer of Hebrews said, "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." Hebrews 10:14

It's not anything that we can boast about. Its that our sins are not counted against us anymore. It's humbling, actually, and should give us second thoughts about a 'license to sin' mindset. Would one continually live to sin, if he truly obeys Jesus, as Lord?

Yes, there is much error in doctrine in the church. Not all who say they believe really do. Let God sort them out. We know the truth by the Holy Spirit, not by who can win the most points for style and analysis over substance in a debate.

[eschaton]

Just trying to see where you stand on your interpitation of things written.

Yes I understood. But things can be scewed in these Doc's, and I think you know how?

Luther didn't actually think bad of the Pope, Actually he thought highly of him.

He actually didn't much care for those who were at times in his service.

That was Luthers earliest expressions. IN a sense Luthers excommunication tells a truth, that he believed and had to be forced out. He actually thought highly of Leo as expressed in many of his appeals. Even Catholic scholars Wonder about those times.

Calvin was a little different though.

Actually My opinion is that the son of Perdition took adavantage of the situation in the Church. He was and is always lerking in the Back ground giving things a nudge as it best served its purpose.

I think it can all be best explained in such that the turmiols of the Church gradually weaken its' hold on the Civilized world. That of which it was intrusted. This ever slow weakening which in a sense is all anti-Christ because it took away from us all.


Yes the tares have always risen and caused Problems. In the Church, in Christianity and the World. The Beasts of God Goes into perdition because the tares are all gathered into one Place and for a time have power.

MDN

I found some interesting remarks by Luther on the subject.


19. But what is the Pope doing? He is sitting not in the natural temple or God's house, but in the spiritual, in the new and living temple of which Paul says: "If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are," I Cor. 3, 16-17. In all times many devils and heretics have tried to sit here, and all who are preaching against the true doctrine: If you want to be saved, then simply join this or that society and order, and do this or that work. They draw away the people from faith to works, although they are using the words, Christ is the Lord, but in truth deny him, for they do not say a single word that he forgives sins alone through grace, and redeems from death and hell, but they say: Through this order, through these works, we must do penance for sin, and atone for it in order to obtain grace, which is as much as to say: Christ did not accomplish it, he is not the Savior; his suffering and death cannot help, for if your works can accomplish it, then Christ cannot accomplish it only through his blood and death, or the other must be in vain. If you insist upon your works, then you drive out Christ; you deny and put to shame his precious blood and him with it; then he cannot reign in your heart through his Word, work and spirit, but my work is my idol whom I let sit in my heart and reign.

20. Thus you see whether the Pope is not the greatest arch-abomination of all abominations, to whom Christ and Daniel refer; and the true Antichrist, of whom it is written that he sitteth in the temple of God, among the people, where Christ is named and where his kingdom, spirit, baptism, Word and faith should be: because he interferes with the office and kingdom of Christ by his fanaticism of the spiritual rites of Christ, wants to rule over the consciences and govern with his propositions and works. And he can in truth be called an "abomination of desolation," who is only destroying and laying waste everything, for as has been said: Christ and my works cannot abide together; if the one stands, the other must go down and be destroyed; wherefore the Pope has made desolate the kingdom of Christ, as far as his diocese reaches, and all who join him have denied Christ.

21. St. Paul prophesied all this, when in 2 Thess. 2, 3-4, he calls him: "The man of sin and the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God." But that the Papists want to turn this passage from themselves and say: Christ and Paul are speaking of the temple of Jerusalem, that Antichrist shall sit and rule there, amounts to nothing. For Christ says here, that Jerusalem together with the temple shall have an end, and after its destruction it shall never be rebuilt. Therefore since Paul is pointing to the time after the Jewish kingdom, and the destruction of the material temple, it cannot be understood otherwise than of the new spiritual temple, which as he says himself, we are. There, Paul says, the Pope shall sit and be honored, not above God, but above everything that is called God, for the name of God does indeed remain the highest honor, therefore he cannot exalt himself above the true God, but above that which is called God and is worshipped; that is, he is exalted against his preaching and honor, higher than the true God, as is apparent in that so many princes and the world are clinging to him and regard his command higher and greater than the command of God, If any man eats meat contrary to his command or goes out of the impure calling of the priest, monk, or nun, into married life, as God has commanded, or according to the institution of Christ takes the sacrament in both forms; that is the greatest sin. They regarded it much less than stealing, adultery and all open vice against the command of God, and no one is even allowed to punish them for it. Yea, that they themselves defame the Word of God, persecute and kill the Christians, they esteem as the highest service of God, as it is also the highest service they can do for their god, the Pope. Is not this exalting and honoring Anti- christ against God, so that if anyone speaks or does anything against this, if he gets into their hands, he must immediately die I I think now that enough has been pictured forth and explained concerning this abomination.

http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Matthew24_15_28.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinl

[TyRockwell]

There is a "time stamp" that identifies the time of 2 Thess. 2:3-4 that was not known before Daniel was unsealed, last decade. The messenger to Daniel was answering his prayers concerning his people, God's people who were known by God's Name, the city of Jerusalem, and the Temple.

Tracking through Daniel, you find this pattern repeated in chapters 2, 7, and 9. That pattern shows prophetic dealings with Israel through Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
Most people make the mistake of skipping from a mere mention of Rome to the future, not even taking into account the work of Christ in each instance of Rome in the relevant chapters.

The same thing happens in chapters 10-12, which deals with Persia, Greece and Rome, but Babylon is past tense, and Daniel is receiving the prophecy in the third year of Cyrus the Persian. The Messenger deals with the Prince of Persia in the first part of chapter 10, then says, 'after I leave here and fight again with the Prince of Persia, then the Prince of Greece will come.' (I'm paraphrasing for brevity) Greece is dealt with through Dan.11:35 verses 31-35 deal with the Greek's defilement of the temple by Antiochus IV and the rededication of the Temple.

From Dan, 11:36-45, the Messenger deals with Rome's kings and The Prince of Rome (not the Pope) the same kind of principality as those of Babylon, Persia and Greece. The king, Caesar, spiritually, but more importantly, Rome's Principality comes to his end "on the beautiful Holy Mountain," the Temple Mount. That was due to the work of Christ completed on the cross.

Then, in Daniel 12:1, "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise" meaning, he'll get up and leave Israel unprotected. Michael is the one who was holding back, restraining, "the man of lawlessness" who is "doomed to destruction." 2 Thess. 2:3-5, Michael being the restrainer who was 'taken out of the way' to reveal the man of lawlessness, Caesar, operating through his representative, Titus, abominating the Temple, carrying out the Mennorah. Thus the time stamp of Daniel 12:1-2 puts the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation into the first century, along with the man of sin, and the doomed son of perdition. The great tribulation and the son of perdition co-exist until, verse 8, "whom Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth, and destroy by the splendor of his coming."

[eschaton]

There is a "time stamp" that identifies the time of 2 Thess. 2:3-4 that was not known before Daniel was unsealed, last decade. The messenger to Daniel was answering his prayers concerning his people, God's people who were known by God's Name, the city of Jerusalem, and the Temple.

Tracking through Daniel, you find this pattern repeated in chapters 2, 7, and 9. That pattern shows prophetic dealings with Israel through Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
Most people make the mistake of skipping from a mere mention of Rome to the future, not even taking into account the work of Christ in each instance of Rome in the relevant chapters.

The same thing happens in chapters 10-12, which deals with Persia, Greece and Rome, but Babylon is past tense, and Daniel is receiving the prophecy in the third year of Cyrus the Persian. The Messenger deals with the Prince of Persia in the first part of chapter 10, then says, 'after I leave here and fight again with the Prince of Persia, then the Prince of Greece will come.' (I'm paraphrasing for brevity) Greece is dealt with through Dan.11:35 verses 31-35 deal with the Greek's defilement of the temple by Antiochus IV and the rededication of the Temple.

From Dan, 11:36-45, the Messenger deals with Rome's kings and The Prince of Rome (not the Pope) the same kind of principality as those of Babylon, Persia and Greece. The king, Caesar, spiritually, but more importantly, Rome's Principality comes to his end "on the beautiful Holy Mountain," the Temple Mount. That was due to the work of Christ completed on the cross.

Then, in Daniel 12:1, "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise" meaning, he'll get up and leave Israel unprotected. Michael is the one who was holding back, restraining, "the man of lawlessness" who is "doomed to destruction." 2 Thess. 2:3-5, Michael being the restrainer who was 'taken out of the way' to reveal the man of lawlessness, Caesar, operating through his representative, Titus, abominating the Temple, carrying out the Mennorah. Thus the time stamp of Daniel 12:1-2 puts the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation into the first century, along with the man of sin, and the doomed son of perdition. The great tribulation and the son of perdition co-exist until, verse 8, "whom Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth, and destroy by the splendor of his coming."


I disagree with the traditional, historical interpretation of Daniel for a couple of reasons. Paul said it was not about earthly rulers, but about the wisdom of God spoken in a mystery (1 Cor 2:6-7). It takes wisdom to identify the beasts, not a history book.

The second reason is that it contradicts history, despite the assertions of fundamentalists.

According to the Holman Bible dictionary:


NEBUCHADNEZZAR was King of Babylon 602-562 B.C.

The greatest Median king was Cyaxares (625-585 B.C.). He was the third ruler of the united Medes and was able to defeat the Scythians. Afterwards, Cyaxares turned his attention to the Assyrians, attacking Nineveh, the Assyrian capital. Before Nineveh fell in 612 B.C., Cyaxares conquered Asshur, the ancient center of the Assyrian Empire. Then, with the aid of the Scythians and Babylonians and others, Nineveh was taken. The end of the Assyrian Empire was near.
Babylon and Media divided the Assyrian Empire with Media taking the land east and north of the Tigris River. Nebuchadnezzar II and Cyaxares' grandaughter wed to seal the pact. The Medes turned their attention to the north and toward Asia Minor. After a five-year war with Lydia, Cyaxares concluded a peace in 584 B.C., again sealing it with a marriage. His son Astyages married the daughter of the Lydian king. Astyages became king of the Medes when Cyaxares died.
The end of the Median kingdom came with the rise of Cyrus II, founder of the Persian Empire. Cyrus was king of Anshan and a vassal to Astyages. Indeed, Cyrus' mother was Astyages' daughter. About 550 B.C., encouraged by Babylon, Cyrus rebelled against the Medes. His rebellion led to the defeat of Astyages. The kingdom of the Medes was replaced by the kingdom of the Persians.

Cyrus the Persian took Babylon in 539 B.C. and permanently ended her dominance in Near Eastern affairs, but later in the time of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.) some great structures of old Babylon were still wonders.

Cyrus died in 530 B.C.; however, the Persian Empire continued to grow. Cambyses II, Cyrus' son, conquered Egypt in 525 B.C. Cambyses' successor Darius I expanded the empire eastward to the Indus and attempted to conquer or control the Greeks. Darius lost to the Greeks at Marathon in 490 B.C. This was the greatest extension of the empire. Later emperors did little to expand the empire. They even had difficulty holding such a far-flung empire together.

Alexander was one of the most outstanding military and organizational geniuses of human history. By the time of his death in 323 B.C., he had conquered an empire that spanned the Middle East from Greece to the western reaches of India, as well as Syria-Palestine and Egypt. Wherever he went, he left colonies that became dispensers of Greek language and culture, known as Hellenism. When the Romans took over much of this territory two centuries later, they imposed their legal and military system.

1. Media reached prominence before Babylon.(625-585 B.C.)

2. Babylon encouraged Persia to overthrow the Medes about 550 B.C.

3. Cyrus the Persian took Babylon in 539 B.C.

4. Alexander didn't lead the Greeks and Macedonians to prominence until about 330 BC, over 150 years after the Persians lost at Marathon.

5. The Romans took over the Greek areas 200 years after Alexander, about 120 BC.

Josephus and first century Jews believed Greece was the fourth kingdom, not Rome, and they associated Antiochus Epiphanes with the abomination of desolation. This contradicts the teachings of Christ who said Daniel's abomination of desolation was still in the future.

So Titus was the son of perdition?

1.How was he like Judas (John 17:12)? Son of perdition is only used twice in the Bible.

2.How did Michael restrain Titus?

3.When did Titus claim he was God and everything that is called God?

4.When did the Lord consume Titus with the spirit of His mouth and brightness of His coming (2 Thes 2:8)? Did anybody see this?

5.When did Titus perform lying signs and wonders (2 Thes 2:9)?

6.Who did Titus deceive, and with what lies (2 Thes 2:10-11)? How did this cause apostasy?

7.What first and second century Christians can confirm what you're saying about Titus, or did this come off the top of your head?

[BoranJarami]

I thought I’d put in my two cents.

As I understand the scriptures, the son of perdition in II Thessalonians is not referring to an individual person but to those that deceive people in the church and cause the falling away. They sit in the temple of God in that they are a part of the church (physically, if not spiritually).

It is interesting to note that the term "son of perdition" is used in one other place in the New Testament:

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."
(John 17:11-12)

Jesus apparently describes Judas as the Son of Perdition. In any case this son of perdition was alive at the time of Jesus as here Jesus says that he was with them (those given to Jesus by God) on earth. So either the sitting in the temple of God was already past at the time that Paul wrote II Thessalonians or he is using the term son of perdition to typify people after the character of the son of perdition described in John.

Paul uses the reference to Jerusalem's temple as the 'temple of God' only once because he knew that it was that in name only, respecting the fact that it once had been the place of God's presence.

Of all the times that the temple in Jerusalem is mentioned in the New Testament, I can only find three cases in which the term 'temple of God' or any other qualifier is used (Matt 21:12, Matt 26:61, and Luke 1:9) and one of these is used misleadingly my an accuser of the Christ (Matt 26:61). In all other instances it is referred to simply as 'the temple'. Why, then, would Paul use this term (the temple of God) to describe the physical temple when it could cause confusion and it was far more common to call it ‘the temple’? If he was paying respect to the fact that God had dwelled there, why wouldn’t he say that instead of implying that it is still his temple?

Then, in Daniel 12:1,"At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise" meaning, he'll get up and leave Israel unprotected. Michael is the one who was holding back, restraining, "the man of lawlessness" who is "doomed to destruction." 2 Thess. 2:3-5,Michael being the restrainer who was 'taken out of the way' to reveal the man of lawlessness, Caesar, operating through his representative, Titus, abominating the Temple, carrying out the Menorah. Thus the time stamp of Daniel 12:1-2puts the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation into the first century, along with the man of sin, and the doomed son of perdition. The great tribulation and the son of perdition co-exist until, verse 8, "whom Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth, and destroy by the splendor of his coming."

I would almost agree with the basic point here (if I have it right). I think much of this did happen or at least start to happen in the first century, but I do not think it is limited to the first century. While I believe that the abomination which causes desolation was fulfilled at that time, I also believe that much of what is considered to be the tribulation is ongoing, including the son of perdition and the falling away.

Also, I don’t quite follow your logic with respect to Michael being the restrainer. Could you further explain your reasoning behind this?

[maudman]

I found some interesting remarks by Luther on the subject.


19. But what is the Pope doing? He is sitting not in the natural temple or God's house, but in the spiritual, in the new and living temple of which Paul says: "If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are," I Cor. 3, 16-17. In all times many devils and heretics have tried to sit here, and all who are preaching against the true doctrine: If you want to be saved, then simply join this or that society and order, and do this or that work. They draw away the people from faith to works, although they are using the words, Christ is the Lord, but in truth deny him, for they do not say a single word that he forgives sins alone through grace, and redeems from death and hell, but they say: Through this order, through these works, we must do penance for sin, and atone for it in order to obtain grace, which is as much as to say: Christ did not accomplish it, he is not the Savior; his suffering and death cannot help, for if your works can accomplish it, then Christ cannot accomplish it only through his blood and death, or the other must be in vain. If you insist upon your works, then you drive out Christ; you deny and put to shame his precious blood and him with it; then he cannot reign in your heart through his Word, work and spirit, but my work is my idol whom I let sit in my heart and reign.

20. Thus you see whether the Pope is not the greatest arch-abomination of all abominations, to whom Christ and Daniel refer; and the true Antichrist, of whom it is written that he sitteth in the temple of God, among the people, where Christ is named and where his kingdom, spirit, baptism, Word and faith should be: because he interferes with the office and kingdom of Christ by his fanaticism of the spiritual rites of Christ, wants to rule over the consciences and govern with his propositions and works. And he can in truth be called an "abomination of desolation," who is only destroying and laying waste everything, for as has been said: Christ and my works cannot abide together; if the one stands, the other must go down and be destroyed; wherefore the Pope has made desolate the kingdom of Christ, as far as his diocese reaches, and all who join him have denied Christ.

21. St. Paul prophesied all this, when in 2 Thess. 2, 3-4, he calls him: "The man of sin and the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God." But that the Papists want to turn this passage from themselves and say: Christ and Paul are speaking of the temple of Jerusalem, that Antichrist shall sit and rule there, amounts to nothing. For Christ says here, that Jerusalem together with the temple shall have an end, and after its destruction it shall never be rebuilt. Therefore since Paul is pointing to the time after the Jewish kingdom, and the destruction of the material temple, it cannot be understood otherwise than of the new spiritual temple, which as he says himself, we are. There, Paul says, the Pope shall sit and be honored, not above God, but above everything that is called God, for the name of God does indeed remain the highest honor, therefore he cannot exalt himself above the true God, but above that which is called God and is worshipped; that is, he is exalted against his preaching and honor, higher than the true God, as is apparent in that so many princes and the world are clinging to him and regard his command higher and greater than the command of God, If any man eats meat contrary to his command or goes out of the impure calling of the priest, monk, or nun, into married life, as God has commanded, or according to the institution of Christ takes the sacrament in both forms; that is the greatest sin. They regarded it much less than stealing, adultery and all open vice against the command of God, and no one is even allowed to punish them for it. Yea, that they themselves defame the Word of God, persecute and kill the Christians, they esteem as the highest service of God, as it is also the highest service they can do for their god, the Pope. Is not this exalting and honoring Anti- christ against God, so that if anyone speaks or does anything against this, if he gets into their hands, he must immediately die I I think now that enough has been pictured forth and explained concerning this abomination.

http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Matthew24_15_28.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinl




Yes, in Luther's earliest expression and appeals he didn't think so badly of the Pope. Luther later after many attempts to Gain personal audience with Pope, but only meeting with those in his service, "of which he felt contempt toward", later began after the rejection of his plea's had more negative doctrine. I believe he later became somewhat convinced of something sinister about the papacy as later writings reflect. His statement I done’t know whether the Pope be Christ or Anti-Christ.

But folks might research a little on the 2nd Thessalonians Argument between ECF's and their previous uses of the contexts.

What Paul is dealing with and writing about in 2nd Thess is there are those in the Church at the time of the Apostles who were leaving the Church. Now to some in the Church this was sign of the return of Our Lord. It may have been taught at one time or in an epistle. But in any case there are rumors and maybe even false letters or Epistles that are or could have been warning of such a thing to happen or could happen. I think he's covering Grounds of possibilities for false or deceptive actions that would cause many to walk away. Confusion of Doctrine is the only reason to Cry hold to the traditions as taught by us by word spoken by us or written.

Now repeatedly the Apostles are critical of those walking away from the Church. And they are for the most part the same reasons people walk out the Door today. Heresy, Doctrinal disputes ect, ect..... Now later in the Church after things between Luther and Gang boils and simmers Accusation backed with of Prophetic interpretations start Flying and both sides especially after the revolution(Of which Luther Hated and was Against) began to dig for Prophetic justification.

Some Early Church fathers writings do reflect a struggle to define the temple of God, Whether Jerusalem or the Church as the temple Spoken. It Looks that it is not out of the realm of “””Both”””” are being referred to by two different Parties in all the text. Hence the two disputes of Preterist and Dispy’s

The apostles are being taught by Christ and warnings are sounded about the temple in Jerusalem, Christ makes a real “”””strange”””” statement and tells the Jews of his day and it is translated as "One will come in his own name and him you will receive".

This is after the rejection of Christ. Christ was saying basically that you have rejected Me, I came not in my name but of My Fathers, but there will be a time when One will come in his “”OWN”” name and “him” you will receive.

This never happened, and the Jews would never accept any thing other than a Jew as their messiah, especially those of these particular Jews, because it was how they interpreted their scripture. There has never been anybody anywhere who sat in the temple in Jerusalem as their messiah or who they have received as such.

Now later Christ is giving a warning and the signs and says to the Apostles “take heed you be not deceived” For many will come in my name saying I (Jesus) am Christ and deceive the many. Prior to this statement the Christ tells the Jew the day will come when you “The Jew” will say “”blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD”””.

So we have Jews being duped by a false Messiah or something and Christians deceiving in the name of Christ.

What we have here in all of this is that before all this happens there has to be a Great falling Away from the Church (the Temple Of God) 2nd Thess and out of this falling away and at some point reveal the Son of Perdition which is as much a characterization of a type. Not an individual but and individual in a type of, or Both. And could it be Both? It could be Both an individual and a following.

And the oddity that a Jew would say that anybody other than a Jew is blessed coming in the name of the Lord. My first Thought how could it be a Christian. It would have to be someone they will consent to what represents THEIR LORD.

Why? Because they are Jews, because they don’t believe in Jesus Christ so it’s not Jesus or any other Christian. But in the name they recognize as LORD. At Some Point One will come in his Own Name and they will receive or welcome him as something not sure what.

All we know is that Christ is saying that to the Jew…… and he warns the two perpetual generations, Those of Jews that reject Christ and those that are the True Believers or elect. And it looks that the only Christians that could even be seen by the Jew in any favor are those who are Zionist Christians. Those Christians who think Israel are still Gods Chosen People. And Luther or Calvin either one would agree to any form of Christian Zionism that I know of.

Now these who come as Blessed to the Jew and being blessed meant being Wealthy for the most part.

The Jew Plays a role in the end and this just get weirder and weirder. All these things have to be considered in any final analysis.

[TyRockwell]

Stop quoting long dead, no more knowledgeable that you or me, long-winded so-called experts, including the ECF, unless they describe proofs they actually saw, in person. Older is not better in just as many cases as it is better.

[eschaton]

Stop quoting long dead, no more knowledgeable that you or me, long-winded so-called experts, including the ECF, unless they describe proofs they actually saw, in person. Older is not better in just as many cases as it is better.

If I stop quoting long dead experts then I'll stop quoting the Bible. The church spread by teaching and preaching before the NT was written. Real authority comes from the apostles and ultimately Jesus. It doesn't come from our own imaginations. Some of the ECF knew the apostles personally. They taught what they had learned from the apostles and passed it on. Many were martyred for their faith. They may not have been perfect, but I would trust their writings more than anybody I met on the internet. They were much closer to the time of the NT than we are, and I'm sure they knew a lot more about these things than people today, so I will continure to quote the martyrs and saints who benefitted from the apostolic oral tradition.

[eschaton]

I think the Similtude Ninth from the Book Third of the Pastor of Hermas is very pertinent to this discussion.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.ii.iv.ix.html

It was believed to have been written by Hermas of Rom 16:14. In it he describes the church as a tower made of stones. The stones are men that must be brought through a great rock with a gate, which is the Son of God. That is consistent with NT teaching and gives a good look at the type of symbolism that was used in the early church. (Rev 2:17, Rev 21:11, 1 Pet 2:4-8, Heb 3:6, Eph 2:20-22)

[TyRockwell]

You totally dissect the Book of Daniel away from history. Do you think that a book of prophecy would deal with the Medes, before Daniel's captivity, and prior to the book? You don't see Rome in Daniel, just as everyone else who doesn't understand the book, because Scofield, or Darby, or all the way back to some other Early Church commentator didn't understand it either. You see no role of Jesus during Rome's empire in Daniel, either.

As to the rest of your "blind man describing an elephant" questions:

Josephus and first century Jews believed Greece was the fourth kingdom, not Rome, and they associated Antiochus Epiphanes with the abomination of desolation. This contradicts the teachings of Christ who said Daniel's abomination of desolation was still in the future.

Daniel was sealed to Josephus. It doesn't matter what he thought, Daniel matters.The abomination of desolation happened three times, (read slowly, so as to not be confused) {1} When Babylon destroyed the temple in 586 BC, {2} When Antiochus offered a pig on the altar in 167 BC, and {3} when Caesar ordered the temple's invasion and destruction in 70 AD. Nothing here contradicts Jesus. The abomination Jesus referenced in Daniel was the one during the time of Rome, in Daniel 9:26-27. The abomination in Daniel 11:31-35 was the Antiochan/Greek desolation.

So Titus was the son of perdition?

The son of perdition Jesus referenced, Judas, was past tense to Paul. The son of perdition Paul taught was had the same satan, who had entered Judas, but in Paul's future would enter Caesar, who claimed to be God. His representative, entering the temple, gave Caesar a bragging right to have exalted himself above everything that is called God, by entering a temple he supposed to be God's.

1.How was he like Judas (John 17:12)? Son of perdition is only used twice in the Bible.

See above. Caesar was the son of perdition, entered by satan as satan had entered Judas.

2.How did Michael restrain Titus?

Michael restrained any spirit (prince) that would attempt to destroy Israel, beyond the punishment God intended, before the cross. He was "the great prince who protects your people," in Dan. 12:1 But at the time of Titus, or more relevantly, Caesar, Michael had arisen and was no longer protecting "your people" Daniel's people, Israel, after the cross. The absence of Michael's protection is the absence of his restraining.

3.When did Titus claim he was God and everything that is called God?

He didn't, Caesar did. Titus' actions, ordered by Caesar, were Caesar's actions, because it was Caesar exalting himself. That is why the temple was called the "temple of God," because that is what Caesar perceived it to be.

4.When did the Lord consume Titus with the spirit of His mouth and brightness of His coming (2 Thes 2:8)? Did anybody see this?

It should be obvious to anyone not succumbed to preterist thought that the Lord's coming in the brightness of His coming, has not happened yet. When He comes, the spirit of his mouth will destroy whatever person(s) are filled with satan and controlled by that worm. Nobody saw it because Jesus has not come, but when he comes, it will be as obvious as lightening in the east is seen in the west. Nobody will have to tell you that He has come. Matthew 24:27-30

5.When did Titus perform lying signs and wonders (2 Thes 2:9)?

You are not still fixated on Titus, are you? By now you should have satan's lying signs and wonders, through whomever lets him enter in mind.

6.Who did Titus deceive, and with what lies (2 Thes 2:10-11)? How did this cause apostasy?

The religious leaders of Judaism were deceived in their self-willed attempts to appease Caesar and thought they could avoid the desolations Jesus had decreed. This was open rebellion against God, and the rejection of Jesus as the Christ. In case you don't know, rebellion and the great falling away are synonymous with apostacy.

7.What first and second century Christians can confirm what you're saying about Titus, or did this come off the top of your head?

First century guessers are not authoritative in their attempts to explain what not even Daniel, or Jesus, or Paul, or John wrote by the Holy Spirit. Not even Daniel, Jesus, Paul or John understood all that they were writing or speaking, because the Holy Spirit was keeping "the mystery" of the church until, Daniel 12:4 the time of the end, when "the mystery of God" will be completed. Rev.10:7

[Mickey]

Since the subject of a Temple as well as the subject of Daniel's seventy weeks have come up on this thread please consider what will happen at the end of the 70th week:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" (Dan. 9: 24).

In regard to the words "most holy" Leon Woods says:

"The phrase "holy of holies" (qodesh qadash"m) occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple or to the holy articles used in them. When referring to the most holy place, where the Ark was kept, the article is regularly used (e.g., Ex. 26: 33), but it is not when referring to the holy articles (e.g., Ex. 29: 37) or to the whole Temple complex (e.g., Ezek. 43: 12). In view of these matters, it is highly likely that the phrase refers to the Temple also here, which, in view of the context, must be a future Temple; and, since the phrase is used without the article, reference must be to a complex of that Temple, rather than its most holy place" [emphasis mine] (Wood, "A Commentary on Daniel" [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973], p. 250).

The "most Holy" was not annointed at any time after the Lord Jesus was crucified. And since the temple standing when the Lord Jesus was crucified was later destroyed in A.D.70 the reference to "annoint the most Holy" must remain in the future. In order for this verse to be fulfilled a new temple must be rebuilt.

[TyRockwell]

"and to anoint the most Holy" (Dan. 9: 24).

The phrase you quote cannot be divorced from its context, which is time of the Messiah's 70th week. Jesus fulfilled the 70th week, i.e., "He will confirm The covenant for one week." Daniel 9:27 contains the end of the temple in 70AD

Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, both terms meaning Anointed One. The members of Christ, his body, partake in his anointing. The temples of our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, the anointing himself. Jesus and his body are anointed. "In Christ," a phrase used throughout the New Testament, of the believer's position, mean's "In the Anointed One."

"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth." 1st John 2:20

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him (in Christ, in the anointed one)." 1st John 2:27

Believe God's word. Let the Holy Spirit teach you. Jesus and his body are the anointed most holy place.

"As he is, so are we, in this world." 1st John 4:17

The idea of a yet to be fulfilled 70th week is outlandish dispensationalist rubbish. It is without Biblical support.

The idea of a physical building's Holy of Holies containing the anointing ended with Jesus' death on the cross, when the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. Matthew 27:51

The age of the Holy Spirit's coming upon believers, the anointing, came on the Day of Pentecost and continues today.

Believe the Bible. Let the Holy Spirit be your teacher, otherwise you are left with the futility of your carnal mind. Use it to disprove from scripture anything in the foregoing paragraphs.

[Mickey]

Believe the Bible. Let the Holy Spirit be your teacher, otherwise you are left with the futility of your carnal mind. Use it to disprove from scripture anything in the foregoing paragraphs.
Let's let the Scriptures be our teacher in the dollowing:
Jesus fulfilled the 70th week, i.e., "He will confirm The covenant for one week."
It is evident from the "context" that the pronoun "he" refers to the "prince who is to come":

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Dan.9:26-27).

The pronoun "he" refers back to the "prince who shall come", and by the context we can know that that prince is from the same people who destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Roman army. Besides, you said that the covenant which was confirmed was the Mosaic Covenant, but there is no evidence that that same covenant was confirmed for seven years.
Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, both terms meaning Anointed One. The members of Christ, his body, partake in his anointing. The temples of our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, the anointing himself. Jesus and his body are anointed. "In Christ," a phrase used throughout the New Testament, of the believer's position, mean's "In the Anointed One."
The "context" of Daniel 9:27 is in regard to what will happen in regard to the "city" of Jerusalem and to the "children of Israel" as the end of the 70th week.. According to your interpretation this annointing is in regard to people who are not the "children of Israel" and have no connection at all to a Temple in Jerusalem.
The idea of a yet to be fulfilled 70th week is outlandish dispensationalist rubbish. It is without Biblical support.
Then why do we see support from the earliest Christian commentary on Daniel which demand a "gap of time" between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week.

Even the presterits have to admit that their timeline also includes a "gap of time."

That is because it is impossible to devise a timeline starting at "unto the Messiah" (the beginning of the 69th week; Dan.9:25) and ending at "annoint the most Holy" (the end of the 70th week; Dan.9:24) that can possibly include the year 70 AD.

[eschaton]

Ty,

All I see here is your assertions and skewed interpretation of scriptures. You haven't offered any evidence. It's as if you think you are the only one who understands the scriptures and it doesn't matter what those Christians that lived at the same time of Jesus and the apostles, and those who lived immediatly after said. was the teaching of the apostles of no effect? How is it you declare what the scriptures mean and nobody else understands?

[eschaton]

Here is what the Epistle of Barnabas (Acts 4:36, 1 Cor 9:6, Gal 2:1, etc.) says about the temple, and in reference to Dan 9:24-27.


Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, when abolishing it: “Who hath meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I?” (Isa. 40:12) “Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me, or what is the place of My rest?” (Isa. 66:1) Ye perceive that their hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, “Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again.” (Comp. Isa. 49:17) It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture saith, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction.”(Comp. Isa 5, Jer 25)


And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” (Dan. 9:24–Dan 9:27, Hag. 2:10) I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man, but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.

[rhutchin]

Since the subject of a Temple as well as the subject of Daniel's seventy weeks have come up on this thread please consider what will happen at the end of the 70th week:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" (Dan. 9: 24).

In regard to the words "most holy" Leon Woods says:

"The phrase "holy of holies" (qodesh qadash"m) occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple or to the holy articles used in them. When referring to the most holy place, where the Ark was kept, the article is regularly used (e.g., Ex. 26: 33), but it is not when referring to the holy articles (e.g., Ex. 29: 37) or to the whole Temple complex (e.g., Ezek. 43: 12). In view of these matters, it is highly likely that the phrase refers to the Temple also here, which, in view of the context, must be a future Temple; and, since the phrase is used without the article, reference must be to a complex of that Temple, rather than its most holy place" [emphasis mine] (Wood, "A Commentary on Daniel" [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973], p. 250).

The "most Holy" was not annointed at any time after the Lord Jesus was crucified. And since the temple standing when the Lord Jesus was crucified was later destroyed in A.D.70 the reference to "annoint the most Holy" must remain in the future. In order for this verse to be fulfilled a new temple must be rebuilt.

We have a list of things that are to be accomplished. They are to:
- finish the transgression,
- make an end of sins,
- make reconciliation for iniquity,
- bring in everlasting righteousness,
- seal up the vision and prophecy,
- and to anoint the most Holy

Most of this list seem to apply to the cross and that which Christ brought about by His death on the cross.

Hebrews 9, tells us--

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

This speaks of a "more perfect tabernacle not made with hands" and Christ entered "the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

This would support the argument for this part of the Daniel 9 citation already having been accomplished and being not any different than the other things accomplished on the list. All the items on the list seem to apply to the salvation Jesus brought about by His death the cross.

Given that believers comprise the new temple, I think you need to find support for some physical temple being built in the future. What, in the Scriptures, lead to the conclusion that a physical temple will be built and what would its purpose be?

[TyRockwell]

Of Dan. 9:27 you repeat the same mistake, as usual, as Scofieldites and Darbyites have been doing, since long before Daniel was unsealed. Since Daniel was sealed, there was NO WAY, if you believe God, that they, 'got it right.'

Besides that, mere grammar and history refute your "He " ideology.
"He", of Dan. 9:27 absolutely, without question, DOES NOT refer to the "prince who is to come."

The whole paragraph, for the thousandth time, starting in verse 24, is a string of phrases listing things that Messiah, Christ would do. The subject of the sentence in which the prepositional phrase "of the prince," is used, is "the people." The people are NOT a 'he.'

Furthermore, Jesus, that is, Messiah, is the last person before the "He" because it was Jesus by whom, "desolations are decreed." Messiah was "cut off" in the middle of the 70th week of verse 27. The end of the week is the end of the temple. Clearly. Be willing to see it, or close your Bible and study commentators who pontificated before Daniel could be understood.

[TyRockwell]

There you go again!

What Christ Spoke. Take heed that you be not decieved, When the Apostacy reaches its Hieghts and the perdition is """"revealed""", When that Eighth unseen beast that is of the seven that cause the beast to go into perdition sets up an Abomination.

First you reference Iraneas, not the word of God, then in the blue text above you mix and scramble together verses to arive at your tradition, but alas, that is so wrong to do so. You misrepresent Christ, Who did not speak what you mixed and paraphrased. You took a 70 AD apostacy and abomination, and mixed it with the eightth beast of Rev. 17:11, nearly 2000 years later. Allow a new thought to enter your brain, and consider it from the scriptures alone, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and do not dismiss the thought just because the so-called ECF don't proclaim it.

[TyRockwell]

Eschaton,
You didn't say, but I hope you see, that Barnabas was seeing the end of the corrupt temple in 70 AD, "when the week is completed." Which had already been replaced by the spiritual temple.

Barnabas:
And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.”

That temple is the spiritual temple of God in the hearts of believers, not a physical building in the future.

[eschaton]

Eschaton,
You didn't say, but I hope you see, that Barnabas was seeing the end of the corrupt temple in 70 AD, "when the week is completed." Which had already been replaced by the spiritual temple.

Barnabas:
And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.”

That temple is the spiritual temple of God in the hearts of believers, not a physical building in the future.


I agree that the the true temple is spiritual, but it isn't complete yet (2 Pet 3:9).

[Mickey]

Of Dan. 9:27 you repeat the same mistake, as usual, as Scofieldites and Darbyites have been doing, since long before Daniel was unsealed. Since Daniel was sealed, there was NO WAY, if you believe God, that they, 'got it right.'

Besides that, mere grammar and history refute your "He " ideology.
"He", of Dan. 9:27 absolutely, without question, DOES NOT refer to the "prince who is to come."

The whole paragraph, for the thousandth time, starting in verse 24, is a string of phrases listing things that Messiah, Christ would do. The subject of the sentence in which the prepositional phrase "of the prince," is used, is "the people." The people are NOT a 'he.'
Robert Culver explains the identity of the "he" at Daniel 9:27:

"The ordinary rules of grammar establish that the leading actor of this verse is the Antichrist, the great evil man of the end time. . . . If the pronoun "he" were present in the Hebrew, a case might possibly be made for the introduction of an entirely new personality into the story at this point. However, there is no pronoun; only the third masculine singular form of the verb indicates that an antecedent is to be sought, and that of necessity in the preceding context. Usually, the last preceding noun that agrees in gender and number and agrees with the sense is the antecedent. This is unquestionably . . . "the coming prince" of verse 26. He is a "coming" prince, that is, one whom the reader would already know as a prince to come, because he is the same as the "little horn" on the fourth beast of chapter 7."
Furthermore, Jesus, that is, Messiah, is the last person before the "He" because it was Jesus by whom, "desolations are decreed." Messiah was "cut off" in the middle of the 70th week of verse 27. The end of the week is the end of the temple. Clearly. Be willing to see it, or close your Bible and study commentators who pontificated before Daniel could be understood.
Again, the word "he" refers to the Lord Jesus then we must believe that He made a covenant with many at the begginning of the 70th week. You say that this Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant. In what way did He confirm that covenant with many at the beginning of the 70th week?

And if the causing of "the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" is in regard to the Cross then why did the sacrifices continue for almost forty years after the Cross?

[Mickey]

Given that believers comprise the new temple, I think you need to find support for some physical temple being built in the future. What, in the Scriptures, lead to the conclusion that a physical temple will be built and what would its purpose be?
The "most Holy" is in regard to what will come upon "Jerusalem" and the "children of Israel" at the end of the 70 weeks. So the reference to the "most Holy" is not in regard to Christians.
We have a list of things that are to be accomplished. They are to:
- finish the transgression,
- make an end of sins,
- make reconciliation for iniquity,
- bring in everlasting righteousness,
- seal up the vision and prophecy,
- and to anoint the most Holy

Most of this list seem to apply to the cross and that which Christ brought about by His death on the cross.
The fulfillment of the things listed at Daniel 9:24 are made possible by the Cross, but these things are said to happen at the end of the 70th week, and the Lord Jesus was not crucified

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" (Dan. 9: 24).

1.) "to finish the transgression…" Let us consider the following translation:
"A period of seventy sets of seven has been decreed for your people and your holy city to put down rebellion…" (Dan. 9: 24;NLT).

That will begin during the "great tribulation" when the "rebels" and them who "transgress against" the Lord will be purged:

"And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD" (Ez. 20: 37,38).

This is also called the "time of Jacob's trouble" : "Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it. For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more enslave them" (Jer. 30: 7,8).

"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God" (Zech. 13: 8, 9).

2.) "and to make an end of sins…" The word "sin" basically means "lawlessness":
"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (1Jn. 3: 4;NASB).

The "end of sins" in regard to Israel will happen when the nation receives the "spirit of grace":
"In that day…I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications" (Zech. 12: 9, 10).

"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land… And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my ordinances, and do them" (Ez. 36: 24, 27).

3.) "To make reconciliation for iniquity…" The Hebrew word translated "reconciliation" is "kaphar", and in other places in the OT it is translated "atonement":

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev. 16: 30).

We can see this will happen "in that day", the time when the Lord Jesus will return to save Israel from her enemies:

"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness" (Zech. 13: 1).

4.) "and to bring in everlasting righteousness…." This is in regard to the fact that the Lord Jesus will be in the midst of Israel "for evermore":

"And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt…and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore" (Ez. 37: 25, 26).

Only in this way will the nation of Israel enjoy "everlasting righteousness": "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth" (Ps. 119: 142).

5.) "to seal up the vision and prophecy…" The word translated "seal up" carries the idea of "completion". Harry Bultema writes: "A scroll was not complete until it was completely filled. Thus this sealing of a scroll became a symbol of fulfillment (Isa. 8: 16)" (Bultema,"Commentary on Daniel" [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1988], p. 283).

At the end of the 70th week the vision and prophecy of Daniel concerning the Seventy weeks will be complete.

6.) "and to anoint the most Holy." Earlier I quoted Leon Wood saying that "The phrase 'holy of holies' (qodesh qadash"m) occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple or to the holy articles used in them." and that "since the phrase is used without the article, reference must be to a complex of that Temple, rather than its most holy place" (Wood, "A Commentary on Daniel" [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973], p. 250).

The Temple complex that will be annointed at the end of the 70 weeks must refer to the "Temple of God" which will be defiled in the middle of the 70th week:

"…and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2Thess. 2: 3, 4).

[TyRockwell]

agree that the the true temple is spiritual, but it isn't complete yet (2 Pet 3:9).

The spiritual temple is not referred to. The end of the 70th week which happened in 70 AD was referrenced. The end of the temple, and the end of the 70th week happened in 70 AD. That is what Messiah prophesied, and decreed in Daniel 9:26, and the end of the temple in 70 AD was prophesied in Daniel 9:27. Jesus decreed it in Matthew 23:36, upon "this generation."

[TyRockwell]

1.) "to finish the transgression…" Let us consider the following translation:
"A period of seventy sets of seven has been decreed for your people and your holy city to put down rebellion…" (Dan. 9: 24;NLT)

1.)The word 'rebellion' also means 'apostacy, and 'the transgression.' It was the same kind of transgression, only worse, the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, and the trampling underfoot of(Hebrews 10:29) the blood of Jesus, counting it as a common thing, that was meant to sanctify them, and insulting the Spirit of grace, that brought about so much a worse punishment upon the nation of Israel in 70 AD, than they had experienced in the Babylonian day of the Lord, which resulted in the same destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, decreed by Jesus, and their banishment from the land by God's servant Nebuchadnezzar and his army had been. These events constitute the end of the breaking the old covenant, which was the transgression, i.e. rebellion, in the same era that the new covenant, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-33 was instituted.

The passage you quoted in Jeremiah referred to the time of the new covenant, as I cited in Jeremiah 31:31-33, above. The passage you quoted from Zechariah 13:8 was fulfilled in the return of Israel and their establishment in their land after the Babylonian destructions and captivity.

2.) "and to make an end of sins…" The word "sin" basically means "lawlessness":
"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (1Jn. 3: 4;NASB).

The 1st John "sin is lawlessness" verse distinguishes true Christians as those who do not practice sin. For those who do not practice sin, whether of gentile or Jewish heritage, who are in Christ, sin is brought to an end.

The "end of sins" in regard to Israel will happen when the nation receives the "spirit of grace":
"In that day…I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications" (Zech. 12: 9, 10).

The Spirit of grace was poured out on all through the shed blood of Jesus, who, Hebrews 10:29, trampled it underfoot, counted it a common, unholy thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace, in these last days, which began with "God Who, ..."in these last days {has} spoken to us by his Son," Hebrews 1:1-2

3.)"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land… And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my ordinances, and do them" (Ez. 36: 24, 27).

The Ezekiel 36:24, 27 reference is to the return of Israel from Babylonian captivity, and from all the other nations to which they had fled.

"To make reconciliation for iniquity…" The Hebrew word translated "reconciliation" is "kaphar", and in other places in the OT it is translated "atonement":

Jesus was crucified on the day of atonement, fulfilling and ending the "law for righteousness," as Paul said. Sacrifice was ended forever, and the Levitical passage no longer applies.

You jump all around in the old covenant and do not know the difference between things that apply to pre or post Babylonian exile, between the old covenant and the new covenant foretold in the old testament, nor between things under law and things under new covenant grace.

4.) "and to bring in everlasting righteousness…." This is in regard to the fact that the Lord Jesus will be in the midst of Israel "for evermore":

Jesus brought in everlasting righteousness in the fact that the new covenant is the everlasting covenant. For Christians, Jesus lives inside us, and whenever two or more come together in his name, "There I am in the midst." Matthew 18:20 Christians are Israel according to the Spirit.

5.) "to seal up the vision and prophecy…" The word translated "seal up" carries the idea of "completion". Harry Bultema writes: "A scroll was not complete until it was completely filled. Thus this sealing of a scroll became a symbol of fulfillment (Isa. 8: 16)" (Bultema,"Commentary on Daniel" [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1988], p. 283).

Jesus himself completed the delivery of vision and prophecy, in his dictation of the Book of Revelation and the visions given John in doing so. Revelation was not sealed, but the keys to its understanding were hidden in the sealed book of Daniel, so that it could be understood only with Daniel's unsealing "at the time of the end." Daniel 12:4 and Matthew 24:14

At the end of the 70th week the vision and prophecy of Daniel concerning the Seventy weeks will be complete.

No! Daniel himself was told: "But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end; (now) many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." Daniel was sealed in the days of Cyrus the Persian, long before the end of the 70th week, in 70 AD.

People who are not so dogmatic about their inculcation into their pre-unsealing doctrine about Daniel can see its meaning now, if they are willing to.

6.) "and to anoint the most Holy." Earlier I quoted Leon Wood saying that "The phrase 'holy of holies' (qodesh qadash"m) occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple

The Dan.9:24 anointing is by the Messiah, Christ, the Anointed One, Jesus, who was "anointed without measure," John 3:34 'Christian' means 'anointed like Christ,' and 'anointed by Christ.' "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things." 1st John 1:20 Then, "But the anointing you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." 1st John 2:27

Jesus the Anointed One is the Head, we are the body, and we are "in Christ." He is the Most Holy, and has anointed us, his body. Therefore He has anointed the Most Holy, all done before the end of the 70 weeks which ended in 70 AD.

"…and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2Thess. 2: 3, 4).[/color]

Jesus referred to "the son of perdition," in John 17, who was revealed to be Judas, when "satan entered into Judas," and he betrayed the Son of Man. That was past tense to Paul, whose reference to the "son of perdition" was prior to it happening. Anyone whom satan enters is a "son of perdition."

Michael, "the great prince who protects your people, will arise." Daniel 12:1 He arose after the cross, he got up and left, no longer to protect Daniel's people. He was the restrainer, who was taken out of they way, so the "son of perdition" could be free to attack unprotected Israel, in the Roman attempt to wipe out the Jews.

Caesar was the man whom satan entered, to attack the Jews and Christians. The Caesars were called, 'god,' and gladly accepted the title. The first Caesar was Augustus, which means, "exalted." Caesar wanted to enter the temple in Jerusalem, as it had been known historically as 'the temple of God." He did so, through his representative, Titus. A representative acts on the orders of the one he represents, so, his actions are the actions of the one in authority over him. In this way, Caesar entered the temple, in the person of Titus his representative, because he wanted to be 'exalted above all that is called God,' and he believed the temple to be "the temple of God."

"And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt…and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore" (Ez. 37: 25, 26).

Only in this way will the nation of Israel enjoy "everlasting righteousness": "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth" (Ps. 119: 142).

Christians are the temple of God, where God lives by His spirit, in the midst of us. Everlasting righteousness is imputed to Christians in the new covenant, "the everlasting covenant."
"He who knew no sin was made to be sin, so that, we are made the righteousness of God, in Him," in Christ. Christians are spiritual Israel, in everlasting righteousness.

[eschaton]

agree that the the true temple is spiritual, but it isn't complete yet (2 Pet 3:9).

The spiritual temple is not referred to. The end of the 70th week which happened in 70 AD was referrenced. The end of the temple, and the end of the 70th week happened in 70 AD. That is what Messiah prophesied, and decreed in Daniel 9:26, and the end of the temple in 70 AD was prophesied in Daniel 9:27. Jesus decreed it in Matthew 23:36, upon "this generation."

The temple in 70 AD is nothing. That's what Barnabas was saying. The real temple is the spiritual temple. God doesn't dwell in a temple made with human hands. Acts 7:48 1 Kings 8:27 2 Chron 2:6 2 Chron 6:18 Isa 66:1 John 4:22-23

[TyRockwell]

The temple in 70 AD is nothing. That's what Barnabas was saying. The real temple is the spiritual temple. God doesn't dwell in a temple made with human hands. Acts 7:48 1 Kings 8:27 2 Chron 2:6 2 Chron 6:18 Isa 66:1 John 4:22-23

The purpose of the thread was the meanings of 2nd Thess. 2:4, the temple Paul wrote about not, not Barnabas.

[eschaton]

The purpose of the thread was the meanings of 2nd Thess. 2:4, the temple Paul wrote about not, not Barnabas.

The NT speaks of Barnabas 29 times, usually mentioned by Paul. How could they disagree about the true temple? The fact is they don't. Every time when Paul speaks of the temple of God he means the church. That's what this thread is about. Compare the other instances where Paul speaks. (1 Cor 3:16-17, 2 Cor 6:16) The son of perdition is like Judas, a traitor. He causes apostasy by deception, just like Judas caused the disciples to fall away with a lying kiss (Luke 8:13, Luke 22:47-48). You don't cause earthly stones to fall away by deceiving them. It is believers that Jesus warns against deception, not unbelievers (Mat 24:4).

Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” (Dan. 9:24–27) I find, therefore, that a temple does exist.

Barnabas says the temple does exist, and is being built. If the temple weren't being built then then all who are to be saved would already be saved (2 Pet 3:9). He refers to Dan 9 in regards to the temple's existance and construction during troubolus times. He mentions an abomination, but doesn't mention a temple being leveled as in 70 AD.

[TyRockwell]

Michael, "the great prince who protects your people, will arise." Daniel 12:1He arose after the cross, he got up and left, no longer to protect Daniel's people. He was the restrainer, who was taken out of they way, so the "son of perdition" could be free to attack unprotected Israel, in the Roman attempt to wipe out the Jews.

Caesar was the man whom satan entered, to attack the Jews and Christians. The Caesars were called, 'god,' and gladly accepted the title. The first Caesar was Augustus, which means, "exalted." Caesar wanted to enter the temple in Jerusalem, as it had been known historically as 'the temple of God." He did so, through his representative, Titus. A representative acts on the orders of the one he represents, so, his actions are the actions of the one in authority over him. In this way, Caesar entered the temple, in the person of Titus his representative, because he wanted to be 'exalted above all that is called God,' and he believed the temple to be "the temple of God."

[eschaton]

I think you should offer more than assertions.