So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

[ViaCrucis]

If Matt 24:15, Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20 are speaking of the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, and that this is the fulfilment of Dan 9:27b “And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”, then what is 2 Thes 2:1-4 speaking of, in particular “So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”?

These may not be related passages of Scripture. It may be tempting to try and synthesize doctrinal positions by linking Scripture together--but it may be healthy to always take a step back and ask if this particular text actually is related to another particular text.

The man of sin the Apostle speaks of in 2 Thessalonians may be related to what the Lord said in the Olivet Discourse, but there is no reason to make that assumption right off the bat.

To that end, Paul's words here in 2 Thessalonians, like many other things in Scripture, are fraught with disagreement and speculation. Opinion about what the Apostle is talking about here has been quite diverse throughout history. Ancient commentators weren't even sure whether the Apostle meant "temple" here to refer to the Temple in Jerusalem, or rather a reference to the Church (which is the new Temple of God on account that we are the Body of Christ). The man of sin could be Nero, it could be someone else who was similar to Nero, it could be some kind of Antichrist. All are opinions that have existed throughout the centuries.

If one did want to connect this to the Olive Discourse, I would imagine one would then look more closely at the events surrounding the Jewish-Roman War that culminated in the capture and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Though none of the Zealots who occupied the Temple and slaughtered the priests prior to the Roman siege and capture of the city literally proclaimed himself divine.

I believe that the Lord's words in the Olivet Discourse refer to the events that happened in 70 AD. I'm not convinced though that that is what Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians.

I actually don't have any particularly strong opinions on the subject and consider this an area of biblical study that we have to let ourselves say we just don't know.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jgr]

These may not be related passages of Scripture. It may be tempting to try and synthesize doctrinal positions by linking Scripture together--but it may be healthy to always take a step back and ask if this particular text actually is related to another particular text.

The man of sin the Apostle speaks of in 2 Thessalonians may be related to what the Lord said in the Olivet Discourse, but there is no reason to make that assumption right off the bat.

To that end, Paul's words here in 2 Thessalonians, like many other things in Scripture, are fraught with disagreement and speculation. Opinion about what the Apostle is talking about here has been quite diverse throughout history. Ancient commentators weren't even sure whether the Apostle meant "temple" here to refer to the Temple in Jerusalem, or rather a reference to the Church (which is the new Temple of God on account that we are the Body of Christ). The man of sin could be Nero, it could be someone else who was similar to Nero, it could be some kind of Antichrist. All are opinions that have existed throughout the centuries.

If one did want to connect this to the Olive Discourse, I would imagine one would then look more closely at the events surrounding the Jewish-Roman War that culminated in the capture and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Though none of the Zealots who occupied the Temple and slaughtered the priests prior to the Roman siege and capture of the city literally proclaimed himself divine.

I believe that the Lord's words in the Olivet Discourse refer to the events that happened in 70 AD. I'm not convinced though that that is what Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians.

I actually don't have any particularly strong opinions on the subject and consider this an area of biblical study that we have to let ourselves say we just don't know.

-CryptoLutheran

The Apostle Paul was consistent in his identification of temples in his epistles. He used "naos" to refer to the temple of the believer in Christ, collectively, the Church.

He identified the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2 as a "naos" temple. Thus, the man of sin would take up residence in the Church, "shewing himself that he is God."

The claims, declarations, and arrogations of the Roman papacy which subsequently appeared on the scene of Christian history leave no doubt that it is what Paul was recognizing.


"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on Earth." Christopher Marcellus, Oration in the fifth Lateran Council, session IV. 1512 in J.D. Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum Conciliorum, Vol. 32, Col. 761.

“All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Apostle Paul was consistent in his identification of temples in his epistles. He used "naos" to refer to the temple of the believer in Christ, collectively, the Church.

He identified the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2 as a "naos" temple. Thus, the man of sin would take up residence in the Church, "shewing himself that he is God."

The claims, declarations, and arrogations of the Roman papacy which subsequently appeared on the scene of Christian history leave no doubt that it is what Paul was recognizing.


"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on Earth." Christopher Marcellus, Oration in the fifth Lateran Council, session IV. 1512 in J.D. Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum Conciliorum, Vol. 32, Col. 761.

“All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

That is generally the historic Lutheran opinion. Identify the institution of the Papacy (not necessarily the person occupying it) is the capital-'A' Antichrist. However, I am not particularly interested in later post-Reformation conspiracy theories and anti-Catholic sentiment. We do not deny the proper and rightful respect that ought to be afforded to St. Peter's See in Rome; but that is as the bishop of the diocese of Rome, even as the bishop of the diocese of Jerusalem sits in the Seat of St. James, and the bishop of the diocese of Antioch sits in the Seat of Sts. Peter and Paul. What is condemned as Antichrist is not the Bishop of Rome, but the Papacy. A late medieval innovation that is an abuse of ecclesiastical authority by presenting a single bishop as being over the entire Church Catholic. An abuse of power which had reached a crisis point by the 16th century; the scandals, abuses, and squabbling schisms of the 14th and 15th centuries had left the Western Church in the unique place it was in at that time in history.

What rendered the Papacy Antichrist in the eyes of Luther and the other Reformers was not merely the scandals and abuses surrounding the Papacy, but rather the Papacy's assertion of power over and against the Gospel. For Luther he began optimistically, hopeful and believing that if those higher up in the Church would just sit down and hear things out, see what's happening among the common Christians of places like Saxony, if they'd just become aware of how bad things were getting then the Church could fix the problems by a simple return to faithfully preaching the Gospel. Luther's "ambition" was to do nothing more than assert the centrality of Jesus, that it is Jesus that the Church gets her entire identity and purpose and significance from, and the Church's job is to be the people that believes, preaches, and confesses the Gospel.

Therefore, to use such power, abusing it against the Gospel (at least that was the conclusion the Reformers came to), the only rightful term they could come up with was Antichrist. That great power in the world which opposes Christ.

Five hundred years later, the Papacy isn't what it was in the 16th century. I think the great lesson to be taken here isn't that the Papacy and only the Papacy can be capital-'A' Antichrist. The Church needs to be vigilant, because human beings corrupted by sin and power and ambition will try to come up with systems and ideas to run counter to the Gospel. To find ways to pervert the Gospel by mixing it with Law. We see this same kind of Antichrist spirit in Sabbatarian and other Torah-based Christian sects; as they seek to obscure and pervert the Gospel far worse than could ever be charged against Rome. And that's just one example off the top of my head.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jgr]

That is generally the historic Lutheran opinion. Identify the institution of the Papacy (not necessarily the person occupying it) is the capital-'A' Antichrist. However, I am not particularly interested in later post-Reformation conspiracy theories and anti-Catholic sentiment. We do not deny the proper and rightful respect that ought to be afforded to St. Peter's See in Rome; but that is as the bishop of the diocese of Rome, even as the bishop of the diocese of Jerusalem sits in the Seat of St. James, and the bishop of the diocese of Antioch sits in the Seat of Sts. Peter and Paul. What is condemned as Antichrist is not the Bishop of Rome, but the Papacy. A late medieval innovation that is an abuse of ecclesiastical authority by presenting a single bishop as being over the entire Church Catholic. An abuse of power which had reached a crisis point by the 16th century; the scandals, abuses, and squabbling schisms of the 14th and 15th centuries had left the Western Church in the unique place it was in at that time in history.

What rendered the Papacy Antichrist in the eyes of Luther and the other Reformers was not merely the scandals and abuses surrounding the Papacy, but rather the Papacy's assertion of power over and against the Gospel. For Luther he began optimistically, hopeful and believing that if those higher up in the Church would just sit down and hear things out, see what's happening among the common Christians of places like Saxony, if they'd just become aware of how bad things were getting then the Church could fix the problems by a simple return to faithfully preaching the Gospel. Luther's "ambition" was to do nothing more than assert the centrality of Jesus, that it is Jesus that the Church gets her entire identity and purpose and significance from, and the Church's job is to be the people that believes, preaches, and confesses the Gospel.

Therefore, to use such power, abusing it against the Gospel (at least that was the conclusion the Reformers came to), the only rightful term they could come up with was Antichrist. That great power in the world which opposes Christ.

Five hundred years later, the Papacy isn't what it was in the 16th century. I think the great lesson to be taken here isn't that the Papacy and only the Papacy can be capital-'A' Antichrist. The Church needs to be vigilant, because human beings corrupted by sin and power and ambition will try to come up with systems and ideas to run counter to the Gospel. To find ways to pervert the Gospel by mixing it with Law. We see this same kind of Antichrist spirit in Sabbatarian and other Torah-based Christian sects; as they seek to obscure and pervert the Gospel far worse than could ever be charged against Rome. And that's just one example off the top of my head.

-CryptoLutheran

There are no references in my post to Antichrist, Luther, or the Reformers. The fulfillments of Paul's descriptions by the apostate papacy are self-evident alone.

I do concur, as would the Reformers, that the papacy was not The Antichrist, but rather the prevailing antichrist of the era against whom God called the Reformers into spiritual battle.

The Reformers were well familiar with John's descriptions of antichrists. The Reformers did not originate the term "antichrist".

It is noteworthy that the papacy has never formally and publicly renounced the claims which I posted, and of which there are numerous others.

 

[Douggg]

I actually don't have any particularly strong opinions on the subject and consider this an area of biblical study that we have to let ourselves say we just don't know.

I know.

The revealed man of sin will be destroyed by Jesus at His Coming, 2Thessalonians2:8.

Jesus has not returned yet - so the revealed man of sin cannot be some historical person. The person has not been revealed as the man of sin - yet.

He will be the beast of Revelation 13 and will be cast alive into the lake of fire at Jesus's return to stand on the Mount of Olives directly across from the temple mount - where that person will be.

 

[jgr]

That is generally the historic Lutheran opinion. Identify the institution of the Papacy (not necessarily the person occupying it) is the capital-'A' Antichrist. However, I am not particularly interested in later post-Reformation conspiracy theories and anti-Catholic sentiment. We do not deny the proper and rightful respect that ought to be afforded to St. Peter's See in Rome; but that is as the bishop of the diocese of Rome, even as the bishop of the diocese of Jerusalem sits in the Seat of St. James, and the bishop of the diocese of Antioch sits in the Seat of Sts. Peter and Paul. What is condemned as Antichrist is not the Bishop of Rome, but the Papacy. A late medieval innovation that is an abuse of ecclesiastical authority by presenting a single bishop as being over the entire Church Catholic. An abuse of power which had reached a crisis point by the 16th century; the scandals, abuses, and squabbling schisms of the 14th and 15th centuries had left the Western Church in the unique place it was in at that time in history.

What rendered the Papacy Antichrist in the eyes of Luther and the other Reformers was not merely the scandals and abuses surrounding the Papacy, but rather the Papacy's assertion of power over and against the Gospel. For Luther he began optimistically, hopeful and believing that if those higher up in the Church would just sit down and hear things out, see what's happening among the common Christians of places like Saxony, if they'd just become aware of how bad things were getting then the Church could fix the problems by a simple return to faithfully preaching the Gospel. Luther's "ambition" was to do nothing more than assert the centrality of Jesus, that it is Jesus that the Church gets her entire identity and purpose and significance from, and the Church's job is to be the people that believes, preaches, and confesses the Gospel.

Therefore, to use such power, abusing it against the Gospel (at least that was the conclusion the Reformers came to), the only rightful term they could come up with was Antichrist. That great power in the world which opposes Christ.

Five hundred years later, the Papacy isn't what it was in the 16th century. I think the great lesson to be taken here isn't that the Papacy and only the Papacy can be capital-'A' Antichrist. The Church needs to be vigilant, because human beings corrupted by sin and power and ambition will try to come up with systems and ideas to run counter to the Gospel. To find ways to pervert the Gospel by mixing it with Law. We see this same kind of Antichrist spirit in Sabbatarian and other Torah-based Christian sects; as they seek to obscure and pervert the Gospel far worse than could ever be charged against Rome. And that's just one example off the top of my head.

-CryptoLutheran

Futurism's Antichrist is the fabricated fallacy of the counter-reformation's Jesuit Francisco Ribera, who was commissioned by the apostasized papacy to contrive it in an attempt to derail the Reformation.

It failed.

Paul declared in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work...". It was already existing and beginning to subvert the Church when Paul wrote.

History and Scripture describe its continued emergence and domination through the centuries, and the fulfillments of the associated prophecies.

 

[keras]

It failed.

It is the insistence of you and other believers in preterism, that fails.

How can you say the Anti-Christ as prophesied in Revelation is past, when this age is not over yet?
We haven't had even half of the Prophesies yet and the past Anti-Christs, such as the Popes, are just as we are told would happen.

 

[Zao is life]

I disagree. Absolutely possible that the temple in revelation 11:1 could be symbolic, however, the earthly city of Jerusalem is what was literally trampled by the nations in 66-70ad. Notice, Luke 21:24 helps us interpret revelation 11:2:

Revelation 11:2 2But exclude the courtyard outside the temple. Do not measure it, because it has been given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for 42 months.

Luke 21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled down by the nations , until the times of the nations are fulfilled.

That's fine you may remain in your choice to ignore the fact that the Greek word naos enables us to interpret the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 correctly. I don't want to repeat post #119 in this thread again, but the fact remains that in the New Testament the Greek word naos indicates the verse is talking about God's sanctuary where the Spirit of God dwells (always), and the word is not used again in reference to the temple in Jerusalem after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil circa 30 A.D.

if the physical temple in Jerusalem was meant in Revelation 11:1-2, then Greek word hieron would have been used (but it is not used - the word naos is used).

Following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, the New Testament only uses the Greek word hieron in reference to the physical temple in Jerusalem; and following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, naos is only used in reference to:

i. Your body as the temple of God (if Christ is in you through your faith in Him); and
ii. The bodies of the saints collectively, i.e the church as the temple; and
iii. In every one of the multiple references to the sanctuary of God which is found in the Revelation.

The Revelation also refers to NEW Jerusalem as the holy city three times, but to Jerusalem on earth as "Sodom and Egypt". To continue to say that the holy city is referring to Jerusalem on earth in Revelation 11:2, is willfully remaining in ignorance.

So whoever becomes aware of the above F-A-C-T-S and yet chooses to continue to believe that the temple and city being spoken of in Revelation 11:1-2 is a physical temple in Jerusalem on earth, has willingly chosen to believe what isn't true, in favor of what they want to believe (which is a Christian problem that is always prevalent among those who hang onto false theological concepts rather than let the Bible speak for itself).

 

[Zao is life]

I know.

The revealed man of sin will be destroyed by Jesus at His Coming, 2Thessalonians2:8.

Jesus has not returned yet - so the revealed man of sin cannot be some historical person. The person has not been revealed as the man of sin - yet.

Makes sense

He will be the beast of Revelation 13 and will be cast alive into the lake of fire at Jesus's return

Probably correct. Pretty much in line with my understanding, except that I don't decide x or y is definitely = 7 if I know we mustn't assume we know the value of x and y.

to stand on the Mount of Olives directly across from the temple mount - where that person will be.

Adding to the scriptures makes people come up with incorrect values for x and y.

The Bible does not tell us or imply that the man of sin will be at the Mount of Olives. Zechariah says Jesus will set His feet on the Mount of Olives, but the rest you've added to the scriptures.

This is why your timelines in your graphs are always completely wrong - you add a little here to the scriptures and take away a little there, and then you think you have it all worked out. But a little leaven of false eschatological understanding brought about by adding a little to the scriptures here and taking away a little there, leavens the whole lump, and you end up with the confused graphs you paste up.

Leave the Bible to speak for itself. We are not told that the man of sin will be at the Mount of Olives when Jesus returns.

Then once you've cut out everything you've added to the scriptures, and put back all the little things you've taken away from the scriptures over time, your graphs might start looking more accurate. But do you even know anymore how much you've added to the scriptures and how much you've subtracted from the scriptures over time? I don't think so.

 

[Douggg]

The Bible does not tell us or imply that the man of sin will be at the Mount of Olives. Zechariah says Jesus will set His feet on the Mount of Olives, but the rest you've added to the scriptures.

You mis-read my post.

I did not say that the person will be on the mount of Olives, but the temple mount. "the temple mount - where that person will be"


The person will commit the transgression of desolate by going into temple sitting claiming to have achieved God-hood.

When Jesus returns the temple will be cleansed of those things that made it desolate... One of those things will be the beast person.

Daniel 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Also the person will be in Jerusalem, the temple mount, the glorious holy mountain in verse 45 below when he meets his end...

Daniel 11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

 

[claninja]

That's fine you may remain in your choice to ignore the fact that the Greek word naos enables us to interpret the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 correctly. I don't want to repeat post #119 in this thread again, but the fact remains that in the New Testament the Greek word naos indicates the verse is talking about God's sanctuary where the Spirit of God dwells (always), and the word is not used again in reference to the temple in Jerusalem after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil circa 30 A.D.

if the physical temple in Jerusalem was meant in Revelation 11:1-2, then Greek word hieron would have been used (but it is not used - the word naos is used).

Following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, the New Testament only uses the Greek word hieron in reference to the physical temple in Jerusalem; and following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, naos is only used in reference to:

i. Your body as the temple of God (if Christ is in you through your faith in Him); and
ii. The bodies of the saints collectively, i.e the church as the temple; and
iii. In every one of the multiple references to the sanctuary of God which is found in the Revelation.

The Revelation also refers to NEW Jerusalem as the holy city three times, but to Jerusalem on earth as "Sodom and Egypt". To continue to say that the holy city is referring to Jerusalem on earth in Revelation 11:2, is willfully remaining in ignorance.

So whoever becomes aware of the above F-A-C-T-S and yet chooses to continue to believe that the temple and city being spoken of in Revelation 11:1-2 is a physical temple in Jerusalem on earth, has willingly chosen to believe what isn't true, in favor of what they want to believe (which is a Christian problem that is always prevalent among those who hang onto false theological concepts rather than let the Bible speak for itself).

I didn’t say the temple in revelation 11:1-2 couldn’t be symbolic for the church. That’s absolutely a possibility. I have no disagreement with that.

I stated the Jerusalem that is trampled down by the nations, in revelation 11:2, is more likely to be the earthly Jerusalem, as Jesus declared the earthly Jerusalem would be trampled down by the nations in Luke 21:24.

 

[Zao is life]

I didn’t say the temple in revelation 11:1-2 couldn’t be symbolic for the church. That’s absolutely a possibility. I have no disagreement with that.

I stated the Jerusalem that is trampled down by the nations, in revelation 11:2, is more likely to be the earthly Jerusalem, as Jesus declared the earthly Jerusalem would be trampled down by the nations in Luke 21:24.

OK but you didn't mention the fact that what you say cannot be true because

i. Luke 21:24 has already occurred in 70 A.D; and

ii. The holy city mentioned in Revelation 11:2 is talking about NEW Jerusalem, because the Revelation is always consistent and it only calls NEW Jerusalem the holy city (in three other verses in the Revelation), but it calls Jerusalem on earth "Sodom and Egypt".

 

[Zao is life]

You mis-read my post.

I did not say that the person will be on the mount of Olives, but the temple mount. "the temple mount - where that person will be"


The person will commit the transgression of desolate by going into temple sitting claiming to have achieved God-hood.

When Jesus returns the temple will be cleansed of those things that made it desolate... One of those things will be the beast person.

Daniel 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Also the person will be in Jerusalem, the temple mount, the glorious holy mountain in verse 45 below when he meets his end...

Daniel 11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Wrong again. You won't allow 2 Thessalonians 2:4 or Revelation 11;1-2 speak for themselves in their use of the Greek word naos (which refers to the sanctuary of God where His Spirit dwells and is never again used in reference to the temple mount or a temple in Jerusalem following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil).

You also won't allow the prophecies about Antiochus to remain in the historical context and epoch where they belong. You will not allow the Bible to tell us all what it's talking about. You have to tell the Bible what it's talking about, and use your mouse to drag biblical prophecies by the dozens out of their proper places in history and drop them into folders where you want them to be.

I give up.

 

[claninja]

i. Luke 21:24 has already occurred in 70 A.D; and

correct. Earthly Jerusalem was trampled by the nations in 70ad.

ii. The holy city mentioned in Revelation 11:2 is talking about NEW Jerusalem, because the Revelation is always consistent and it only calls NEW Jerusalem the holy city (in three other verses in the Revelation), but it calls Jerusalem on earth "Sodom and Egypt".

Just to clarify, you believe the new Jerusalem will be given over to and trampled by the nations?

 

[Zao is life]

correct. Earthly Jerusalem was trampled by the nations in 70ad.



Just to clarify, you believe the new Jerusalem will be given over to and trampled by the nations?

Yes. The part that exists on earth. Because we are part of that Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22-24; Galatians 4:26). Revelation 13:6-7 says so. So does Revelation 13:15; Revelation 2:21-23; and Revelation 17:16.

@claninja The Revelation makes a thesis-antithesis comparison between New Jerusalem (the faithful church) and the harlot (the unfaithful part of the church).

Or do you believe we are part of Sodom and Egypt though Paul and Hebrews tell us otherwise (Hebrews 9:12, 24; Hebrews 12:22-24; Galatians 4:26)?

There are a number of places in scripture where we are told that we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies. We are told Christ entered into the heavenly temple (Hebrews 8:1-2; and we are told He IS the temple, and we are told Christ is in us and we are in Him.

 

[grafted branch]

That's fine you may remain in your choice to ignore the fact that the Greek word naos enables us to interpret the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 correctly. I don't want to repeat post #119 in this thread again, but the fact remains that in the New Testament the Greek word naos indicates the verse is talking about God's sanctuary where the Spirit of God dwells (always), and the word is not used again in reference to the temple in Jerusalem after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil circa 30 A.D.

if the physical temple in Jerusalem was meant in Revelation 11:1-2, then Greek word hieron would have been used (but it is not used - the word naos is used).

Following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, the New Testament only uses the Greek word hieron in reference to the physical temple in Jerusalem; and following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, naos is only used in reference to:

i. Your body as the temple of God (if Christ is in you through your faith in Him); and
ii. The bodies of the saints collectively, i.e the church as the temple; and
iii. In every one of the multiple references to the sanctuary of God which is found in the Revelation.

The Revelation also refers to NEW Jerusalem as the holy city three times, but to Jerusalem on earth as "Sodom and Egypt". To continue to say that the holy city is referring to Jerusalem on earth in Revelation 11:2, is willfully remaining in ignorance.

So whoever becomes aware of the above F-A-C-T-S and yet chooses to continue to believe that the temple and city being spoken of in Revelation 11:1-2 is a physical temple in Jerusalem on earth, has willingly chosen to believe what isn't true, in favor of what they want to believe (which is a Christian problem that is always prevalent among those who hang onto false theological concepts rather than let the Bible speak for itself).

The counter argument is that the temple in Revelation 11:1-2 can only be referring to the Holy of Holies prior to the veil being torn.

In Revelation 11:1 John not only measures the temple but he measures or counts the people who worship therein and the Gentiles are not counted in Revelation 11:2. This is also seen in Revelation 7 where the 144,000 are counted but the Gentiles are not, in fact we are told in Revelation 7:9 no man can number them and clearly these gentiles are part of the true church of God.

So John could not have been measuring or counting the New Testament church in Revelation 11:1-2.

 

[jgr]

It is the insistence of you and other believers in preterism, that fails.

How can you say the Anti-Christ as prophesied in Revelation is past, when this age is not over yet?
We haven't had even half of the Prophesies yet and the past Anti-Christs, such as the Popes, are just as we are told would happen.

First change your spectacles.

Then provide my verbatim quote which contains the word "Revelation".

And then provide my verbatim quote which claims antichrist is past.

 

[AdB]

1. The problem with assuming that "the holy city" in Revelation 11:1-2 is referring to Jerusalem on earth is that NEW Jerusalem is called the holy city in Revelation 21:2 & 10, and 22:19 (three times), and it's not very likely that the same passage in the Revelation would call Jerusalem on earth both "the holy city" AND "Sodom and Egypt" (Revelation 11).

2. The BIG problem with assuming that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1-2 refers to a temple in Jerusalem, is that all three verses use the Greek word naos for "temple", and in the New Testament the word naos stops being used in reference to the temple in Jerusalem after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies.

After the verses taking about the tearing of the veil, in the New Testament the word naos is ONLY used in reference to:-

i. The bodies of believers as a temple; and
ii. The church as the temple; and
iii. the temple in heaven
(1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 6:19; 2 Corinthains 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; Revelation 3:12, 7:15, 11:19, 14:15 & 17, 15:5-6 & 8, 16:1 & 17, 21:22).

The two Greek words used in reference to the Temple of God in the gospels:
1. naos
2. hieron

Thayer's definition of the Greek word naos:

1. Used of the temple at Jerusalem, but only of the sacred edifice (or sanctuary) itself, consisting of the Holy place and the Holy of Holies (in classical Greek it is used of the sanctuary or cell of the temple, where the image of gold was placed which is distinguished from the whole enclosure)

2. Any heathen temple or shrine

3. Metaph. the spiritual temple consisting of the saints of all ages joined together by and in Christ.

The word naos does appear three times in Acts, but not in reference to the temple in Jerusalem:-

Acts 7
48 But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (naos) made with hands, as the prophet says

Acts 17
24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (naos) made with hands.

Acts 19
24 For a certain silversmith named Demetrius was making silver temples (naos) of Artemis, providing not a little trade for the craftsmen.

The following page makes all the above abundantly clear:

Strong's #3485 - ναός - Old & New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org

Assuming therefore that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1-2 are talking about Jerusalem on earth and a physical temple in Jerusalem is therefore an assumption which is not biblical: All the other verses in the New Testament following the verses in the gospels talking about the tearing of the veil that use the Greek word naos for "temple" are talking about the temple in heaven or the church as the temple.

Therefore the word naos used for "temple" in Revelation 11:1-2 implies that it's symbolic language being used, and it's a repeat of the information given in Revelation 13:7, where the temple being 'measured' is the same as telling us that John is being told to count the sheep. The same goes for the naos (temple) that the man of sin will seat himself up in: The word naos used for "temple" tells us that it's the church being spoken of. If it was speaking of a temple in Jerusalem, the Greek word hieron would have been used, since the word hieron continues to be used beyond the gospels in all references to the physical temple in Jerusalem.

This is an interesting remark, but I checked on the definitions of of "naos" and "hieron" and there is a specific distinction as given by the Strong's Concordance...
It seems that "hieron" is specifically referring to the temple court, there where the common people were when they were "at the temple", while "naos" is used when specifically talking about the actual sanctuary (the temple building itself, the holy and holy of holiest, or the room where the statue of a pagan deity was placed), the place where God actually dwells (the temple building itself or the church as the body of Christ).

So I think the distinction is not made based on the state of the temple, but rather on what part of the temple is being talked about.
So from this point of view 2 Thess 2:4 would be talking about the Man of Sin seating himself in the actual temple building. Such event has never happened before, so that would mean that this is talking about the 3rd, yet to be build, temple in Jerusalem.

I do have one doubt about the 3rd temple, which is, would God be considering this building (which is ready to be actually build at this time) to be "His" temple, granting His Name to be proclaimed over it and thereby allowing the word "naos" to be used for it in Biblical texts...

--------------------------------
From Strong's Concordance:

3485. naos
Definition: a temple
Usage: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides.

2411. hieron
Definition: temple
Usage: a temple, either the whole building, or specifically the outer courts, open to worshippers.

--------------------------------
From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
2411 hieron:
Neuter of hieros; a sacred place, i.e. The entire precincts (whereas naos denotes the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple (at Jerusalem or elsewhere) -- temple.

--------------------------------
From Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
Naos: ναός, ναοῦ, ὁ (ναίω to dwell), used of the temple at Jerusalem, but only of the sacred edifice (or sanctuary) itself, consisting of the Holy place and the Holy of holies (in classical Greek used of the sanctuary or cell of a temple, where the image of the god was placed, called also δόμος, σηκός, which is to be distinguished from τό ἱερόν, the whole temple, the entire consecrated enclosure; this distinction is observed also in the Bible

--------------------------------
Here the full list of my review of all 71 occurrences of "hieron", I might do a lidst of "naos" later.

 

[3 Resurrections]

if the physical temple in Jerusalem was meant in Revelation 11:1-2, then Greek word hieron would have been used (but it is not used - the word naos is used).

Granted that the "naos" term is used in Revelation 11:1-2. But that need not eliminate that the physical temple in AD 70 was intended by this term. That "naos" term would refer specifically to the inner Holy places of the standing physical Temple as opposed to the outer court, wouldn't it? Isn't this set of verses putting a dividing line between the outer court, which is not measured, in contrast to the measured inner section where the altar is, and those that worship there?

In the year AD 66, the Zealot leader Menahem actually did travel to Jerusalem "in the state of a king" after raiding Masada. Menahem got into the Temple dressed in royal garments (stolen from King Herod's collection at Masada), accompanied by his armored followers. He went into the Temple to "worship in a pompous manner", Josephus tells us. That was entering the inner part of the Temple - the "naos" that Revelation 11:1-2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both specify for the Man of Lawlessness's actions. And the "Lawless" label was definitely given to the Zealots in scripture.

Here was a leader of one of the Zealot factions "exalting himself" by falsely claiming to the King of Israel, without being anointed to that position. Only Christ Jesus was entitled to have that title, so anyone else claiming that role was self-identifying as God Himself. Plus, Menahem was doing this in the sacred places of the Temple itself. By his actions, Menahem was "opposing" every other leader of a competing Zealot faction who was also trying to "be called God" by exalting themselves as Daniel's "Messiah the Prince" over their people.

The Revelation also refers to NEW Jerusalem as the holy city three times, but to Jerusalem on earth as "Sodom and Egypt". To continue to say that the holy city is referring to Jerusalem on earth in Revelation 11:2, is willfully remaining in ignorance.

It is not a contradiction for the physical city of Jerusalem to be called by the pejorative title of "Sodom and Egypt" in Revelation 11:8, and also to be called the "holy city" in Revelation 11:2. This use of the term "holy city" is merely an anachronism, referring to Jerusalem by its old, designated title, so that John's audience would know which actual city location was under discussion.

This is no more a contradiction than for Malachi 3:1-3 to prophesy saying that "the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to HIS Temple..." The context of the Lord's temple on this occasion was going to be when He brought His judgment of consuming fire to that temple. It would be a question if anybody could endure that coming of the Lord; Malachi asked if anybody could "abide" or "stand" when the Lord appeared on that occasion. Yet even under severe judgment of consuming fire, the corrupted Temple in this context is still called "HIS Temple". Just as Jesus overturning the moneychanger's tables was still calling the Temple in His days "My Father's house", even though they had turned it into a "house of merchandise" (John 2:16).

 

[parousia70]

But why can't Luke 21:20 be about some future siege of Jerusalem or a siege-like assault of some kind, perhaps a cyber attack on Israel?

Because it already took place once.
And the followers of Jesus who saw it, fled just as their master instructed them to do.
It was FULL-filled.

Are you waiting for another Virgin Birth? Why Not?
How about another Crucifixion?
Was Calvary a mere type of some future, greater, more fulfilling sacrifice for Sin?
Why Not?
Why are you waiting for another distruction of Jerusalem, but not another virgin birth?

What scriptural teaching prevents one from affixing this "dual fulfillment" idea upon EVERY passage? And again, what teaching prevents us from anticipating multiple fulfillments beyond merely 2?

Where does the Bible teach us to determine which prophecies have this "Dual Fulfillment' and which do not? and who does the Bible say is qualified to proclaim when one particular prophecy has this dual fulfillment while another does not?

I think you have invented a doctrine here out of thin air because I cannot find even one single scriptural passage that even remotely teaches it.

Let's look closely at the passage you are referring to:
Luke 21:6
“As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

Jesus own words Fully refute you here.

His phrase "As for what you see here" completely rule our some other building thousands of years removed from the one he was showing His disciples that very moment as being included in any sort of prophetic utterance.
Your claim is EXACTLY akin to claiming Jesus was telling His disciples in Luke 21:6 that the White House or Great Pyramid would be destroyed stone by stone some day... which is utter nonsense.

Matthew 24:2 Luke 21:6 and Mark 13:2 are all exactly parallel and were solely and completely FULL-FILLED in AD70. Period, Full Stop. Over, ended. FULL-Filled. Just like the word actually means.

Make no mistake about this, Just Like Jesus does not need to be crucified again, there is no need for another temple to be destroyed again to satisfy Jesus' proclamation.