4 Reasons John was writing a gospel sermon about suffering under Rome

Timtofly · Aug 5, 2020

eclipsenow said:
Oh - I thought it would be terribly obvious, like when the seasons change and bare branches start spouting?

Matthew 24:32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

View attachment 282213

So which is it?
Obvious like a whole season clocking around - predictably - with signs of the times - or not obvious, like when a thief might unexpectedly, suddenly strike?

It is both. An unexpected moment in the middle of a known season. Except, most will be sitting watching for the Antichrist to come down the parade route. They will be taken up to heaven and miss the whole parade.

JulieB67 · Aug 5, 2020

eclipsenow said:
I'm just saying that Revelation is a sermon to John's generation not a timetable to ours,

Revelation isn't a sermon so to speak in the way we think. It's the testimony of Jesus Christ, given to John so he could write it down. The very word itself means to reveal, to uncover. It's not a sermon in the way you seem to be describing.

And since he was taken in the spirit on the Lord's Day (future) and told to write about the past, present and future events that he saw, I think it greatly pertains to those in the latter generations. And why shouldn't it? Just because it didn't pertain to past Christians doesn't mean one should not be prepared in their lifetime regardless. Every Christian should be on watch as Christ has urged us to do many times.

In the OT, it was always said the day of the Lord was nigh, etc. Time means something completely different where our Heavenly Father is concerned.

timothyu · Aug 5, 2020

In keeping with the current trends will the AC be a black gay female not on any police force?

eclipsenow · Aug 5, 2020

Davy said:
Well it's obvious you're more interested in following men's seminary traditions instead of keeping to God's Word as written. The "temple of God" Apostle Paul was referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that the "man of sin" is to come and sit in is NOT about our Lord Jesus' body, nor His Church.

Which could be the Roman soldiers sacrificing in the temple as it was destroyed in AD70.
Which could be apocalyptic symbolism describing how sin will be exposed on the last day as Jesus judges all hypocrites.

But whatever it is, it does NOT undo what Jesus claimed about his own body being the temple that would be destroyed and raised again in 3 days in the gospels - no matter how many times you retype 2 Thessalonians 2 or repeat your personal attacks on me. I mean, if you just cut your personal attacks and oh-so-high-horse attitude, and stopped referring back to the one verse to ignore the verses I've put to you, wouldn't your posts be that much shorter? And wouldn't that be more pleasant for everybody? :oldthumbsup:

jgr · Aug 5, 2020

Davy said:
Well it's obvious you're more interested in following men's seminary traditions instead of keeping to God's Word as written. The "temple of God" Apostle Paul was referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that the "man of sin" is to come and sit in is NOT about our Lord Jesus' body, nor His Church.

The reason why is simple, which those like yourself ought to feel ashamed once you understand. It is this: IF Paul meant the idea of a 'spiritual temple' in 2 Thess.2:4, then that would mean the devil and his could corrupt... that true spiritual temple, which of course is made up of the Apostles, the prophets, and Jesus Christ as its Cornerstone!

Thus, that idea of yours suggesting the "temple of God" in 2 Thess.2 is about Paul's spiritual temple idea of Ephesians 2, or Lord Jesus' body as a metaphorical temple, reveals how you simply allow yourself to be duped by the traditions of men away from the simplicity that is God's Word.

If Paul had intended a physical temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, he would have used eidóleion or hieros/hieron as he did in the associated Scriptures below.

But he didn't. He used naos, consistent with his intended spiritual meaning as in those associated Scriptures below. The man of sin, accurately diagnosed by the Reformers as the apostate papacy of that era, arrogated and usurped spiritual authority within the Church.

Paul wasn't afflicted with the futurized fallacies of dispensational dupism.

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ephesians 2:21
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Thessalonians 2:4
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.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

eclipsenow · Aug 5, 2020

jgr said:
If Paul had intended a physical temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, he would have used eidóleion or hieros/hieron as he did in the associated Scriptures below.

But he didn't. He used naos, consistent with his intended spiritual meaning as in those associated Scriptures below. The man of sin, accurately diagnosed by the Reformers as the apostate papacy of that era, arrogated and usurped spiritual authority within the Church.

Paul wasn't afflicted with the futurized fallacies of dispensational dupism.

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ephesians 2:21
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Thessalonians 2:4
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.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Another interesting point!

Timtofly · Aug 5, 2020

When Satan takes over any temple, it stops being a temple to God. I do not see the point on which temple being that important. One should clearly see where Satan is seated, by what comes out of any "temple".

jgr · Aug 5, 2020

Timtofly said:
When Satan takes over any temple, it stops being a temple to God. I do not see the point on which temple being that important. One should clearly see where Satan is seated, by what comes out of any "temple".

Where is Satan's influence most significant?

1. Within the global spiritual edifice of the Church?
2. Within a localized single physical edifice?

The answer is self-evident.

The answer also further confirms what type of temple Paul was referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Timtofly · Aug 5, 2020

jgr said:
Where is Satan's influence most significant?

1. Within the global spiritual edifice of the Church?
2. Within a localized single physical edifice?

The answer is self-evident.

The answer also further confirms what type of temple Paul was referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Satan does not have to worry about false religions. But it is not just a single place. Many false teachers listen to Satan. It is the same spirit that corrupts from one place as all the places which teach false doctrine and theology.

eclipsenow · Aug 5, 2020

Timtofly said:
Satan does not have to worry about false religions. But it is not just a single place. Many false teachers listen to Satan. It is the same spirit that corrupts from one place as all the places which teach false doctrine and theology.

You're missing the point - there are many ways to read the 2 Thess 2:4 and so grabbing it as one tiny proof-text against the overwhelming shape of Amil Covenant Theology is misguided.

Davy · Aug 6, 2020

eclipsenow said:
Which could be the Roman soldiers sacrificing in the temple as it was destroyed in AD70.
Which could be apocalyptic symbolism describing how sin will be exposed on the last day as Jesus judges all hypocrites.

But whatever it is, it does NOT undo what Jesus claimed about his own body being the temple that would be destroyed and raised again in 3 days in the gospels - no matter how many times you retype 2 Thessalonians 2 or repeat your personal attacks on me. I mean, if you just cut your personal attacks and oh-so-high-horse attitude, and stopped referring back to the one verse to ignore the verses I've put to you, wouldn't your posts be that much shorter? And wouldn't that be more pleasant for everybody?

No, it's not the Roman soldiers having dinner in the rubble of what was the 2nd temple.

The "abomination of desolation" event in Daniel 8 and 11 is specific to the placing of an idol in false worship inside a 'standing' stone temple in Jerusalem, and it has to be one that represents the orthdox Jew's old covenant worship.

The Temple Vessels Are Ready for the Rebuilding of Jerusalem's Third Temple | Messianic Bible

Davy · Aug 6, 2020

jgr said:
If Paul had intended a physical temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, he would have used eidóleion or hieros/hieron as he did in the associated Scriptures below.

That argument won't hold water. Reason is, Greek naos is used in MANY New Testament Scriptures to point to the literal stone temple in Jerusalem, not just Paul's idea of the spiritual temple.

eclipsenow · Aug 6, 2020

Davy said:
No, it's not the Roman soldiers having dinner in the rubble of what was the 2nd temple.

The "abomination of desolation" event in Daniel 8 and 11 is specific to the placing of an idol in false worship inside a 'standing' stone temple in Jerusalem, and it has to be one that represents the orthdox Jew's old covenant worship.

The Temple Vessels Are Ready for the Rebuilding of Jerusalem's Third Temple | Messianic Bible

First of all, I'm not sure I equate 2 Thess 2:4 to the abomination. I'll speak more about the abomination below ,but the abomination language is quite different and I think 2 Thess could be referencing the abomination that causes desolation in a unique way more spiritual in focus than physical. That is - the spiritual nature of the 'temple' has me thinking of what my friend wrote about 2 Thess.

Man of lawlessness

John writes that “many antichrists have come”, reminding us that there has been great opposition to Christ ever since he was born (remember how Herod killed all the babies in Bethlehem trying to get to Jesus?). Throughout the whole Bible, we find characters who are ‘anti’ God’s plans—wicked men, foreign kings, false prophets and ‘the beast’ who features in Revelation 13. Even in Deuteronomy, there are warnings about the rise of prophets who lie and preach rebellion against the true God.

But is there going to be one mega-evil ruler who will deceive the world and lead millions astray and do things like brand ‘666’ on their foreheads?

Probably not. There are passages in the Bible which talk about a particular being who is Christ’s foe (e.g., “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the dragon of Revelation 12-13 who is identified as the Devil). But this kind of symbolic language is used to describe an attitude or spirit of evil rather than a single evil person. The fact that some parts of Scripture bring ultimate evil to a head by using an individual character to identify it probably says more about how dramatic literature operates than it does about predicting history.

The worst thing about antichrists is that they have come from within the church! The apostle John wrote that they “went out from us, but they did not really belong to us”. This is what antichrists do. They get among believers and try to deceive them, persuading them to believe lies and getting people to follow them and their deceptions rather than Jesus and his truth. They teach that Christ did not come in the flesh (1 Jn 4:1-3); they say it doesn’t matter whether you sin or not (1 Jn 1:5-10); and they neglect their Christian brothers and sisters (1 Jn 4:19-21).

According to God’s word, the antichrist might have sat next to you in the church pew. This isn’t a scene from a horror movie; quite the opposite-it is an everyday event. In this final age before Jesus returns, plenty of opponents of Jesus will arise. And they may even be in church, trying to deceive us and lead us into error. But Christians can be confident and at peace, because there will be a day when all ‘antichristness’ will be done away with.

It’s a bit of a waste of time trying to work out whether the antichrist is Boris Yeltsin, the Dalai Lama, Bill Gates or the Pope. It’s just as likely to be your granny or your next door neighbour, if they are promoting lies about our Lord.

Just make sure it isn’t you …

See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life. (1 John 2:24-25)
The devil you know

ABOMINATION of DESOLATION mentioned in the gospels probably occurred in AD70.

Josephus Book 6 Chapter 6 certainly sounds like they sacrificed to their ensigns (eagles) in the temple when it was standing and then burned the temple down on the next day.

1. AND now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy. And now all the soldiers had such vast quantities of the spoils which they had gotten by plunder, that in Syria a pound weight of gold was sold for half its former value.
Chapter 6 - The Works of Flavius Josephus

jgr · Aug 6, 2020

Davy said:
That argument won't hold water. Reason is, Greek naos is used in MANY New Testament Scriptures to point to the literal stone temple in Jerusalem, not just Paul's idea of the spiritual temple.

Paul, in his epistles, is consistent and unambiguous in his use of the terms to distinguish between the two types of temples.

eclipsenow · Aug 6, 2020

jgr said:
Paul, in his epistles, is consistent and unambiguous in his use of the terms to distinguish between the two types of temples.

It certainly seemed that way from your word search.
It also feeds into the argument from my friend Dr Greg Clarke (see my post above).

jgr · Aug 6, 2020

Timtofly said:
Satan does not have to worry about false religions. But it is not just a single place. Many false teachers listen to Satan. It is the same spirit that corrupts from one place as all the places which teach false doctrine and theology.

Dispensationalism claims that it is a single place.

A single physical temple.

Davy · Aug 6, 2020

eclipsenow said:
First of all, I'm not sure I equate 2 Thess 2:4 to the abomination....

What Antiochus IV did in 170-165 B.C. would have fulfilled the abomination of desolation event in Daniel 11:31 if it weren't for Lord Jesus quoting the "abomination of desolation" from the Book of Daniel about 200 years after... Antiochus had been dead. Some brethren still cannot seem to grasp that simple point because they have been heeding men's doctrines for so long. Since Jesus foretold of the "abomination of desolation" about 200 years after Antiochus had been dead, it means... what? It means look for another sometime in the future. We know the Romans did not fulfill it because the temple was destroyed before the Romans could possess it. They did not setup any abomination of desolation in a standing stone temple in Jerusalem, no matter how much Preterists and Historicists want to create one out of the rubble resulting from its destruction in 70 A.D.

Antiochus took Jerusalem with an army (the "vile person" is to come to power peacefully, not by war). Antiochus then ended the daily sacrifices in Jerusalem, and went inside the 2nd temple and sacrificed swine upon the altar, and spread its broth around inside the temple, spiritually desolating it. He then further spiritually desolated it by placing an idol to Zeus upon the altar, and demanded that all bow to it.

The difference with the coming pseudo-Messiah is that he will demand worship of himself as God (Rev.13:11 forward & 2 Thess.2:3-4). The "image of the beast" will most likely be an image of him, like what Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon did with making a golden image of himself for all to bow in worship, or be killed.

Davy · Aug 6, 2020

jgr said:
Paul, in his epistles, is consistent and unambiguous in his use of the terms to distinguish between the two types of temples.

Word fallacy is the trying to establish a doctrine via a play on words. Greek naos is used for both the idea of a stone temple, and the idea of the spiritual temple. That is fact in the Scriptures. Anything else is fiction.

jgr · Aug 6, 2020

eclipsenow said:
It certainly seemed that way from your word search.
It also feeds into the argument from my friend Dr Greg Clarke (see my post above).

Dr. Clarke is completely correct in his understanding of antichrist(s). There have been, and will continue to be, many, as John declared.

At various times throughout Church history, some have been predominant.

The Reformers recognized the apostate papacy as the predominant antichrist of their time. Their fearless proclamation of that truth was instrumental and indispensable in the success of the Reformation.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 has nothing to do with the abomination of desolation. That is purely a dispensational delusion.

jgr · Aug 6, 2020

Davy said:
Word fallacy is the trying to establish a doctrine via a play on words. Greek naos is used for both the idea of a stone temple, and the idea of the spiritual temple. That is fact in the Scriptures. Anything else is fiction.

Paul didn't play on or with words. He chose his words carefully to accurately reflect the specific truths that he was conveying. That is fact in the Scriptures. Anything else is dispensational delusion.

4 Reasons John was writing a gospel sermon about suffering under Rome

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads