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

grafted branch said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's a much better counter-argument than turning the naos (the sanctuary of God where the Holy Spirit dwells) into the hieron (the outer court of the Gentiles + the buildings and precincts of the physical temple in Jerusalem). But it still doesn't fit, because:

grafted branch said:

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.

Click to expand...

But Gentiles are also a word used for unbelievers, and unbelievers exist outside of the naos (the sanctuary of God where the Holy Spirit dwells). They are not inside the naos in the New Testament Tabernacle. They were not allowed into the the court of the Jews and certainly not in the sanctuary of the Old Testament Temple.

Revelation draws from the same understanding. It has nothing to do with Gentiles who are in Christ through faith in Christ because those inside the naos in the New Testament Tabernacle are not considered Gentiles or Jews in the eyes of God, since they are all one in Christ.

grafted branch said:

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.

Click to expand...

But ten of those tribes are the house of Israel that was exiled from the land in circa 725 B.C of whom God said, "You are not My people, and I will not be for you. Yet the number of the sons of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered. And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, You are not My people, there it shall be said to them, You are the sons of the living God." (Hosea 1:9b-10), and Paul includes Gentiles in that group in Romans 9:22-26.

grafted branch said:

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

Click to expand...

So John could not have been talking about the Old Testament Temple, but only about the New Testament Tabernacle.

Douggg said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm afraid this is quite impossible. The Man of Lawlessness would be destroyed by the very brightness of his own coming into power - not Christ's bodily coming. The Lord would use the corrupt spirit of this man's own mouth to be his undoing.

Finish the entire sentence of 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9. Paul liked to use run-on sentences, and this is another one of them. "...shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish..."

Does the Lord come similar to Satan with "lying wonders", and "deceivableness of unrighteousness"???

No, this "whose coming" must refer back to the Man of Lawlessness own coming - not Christ's coming.

3 Resurrections said:

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.



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).

Click to expand...

The argument you put forward falls flat when you realize that following the verses in the gospels talking about the tearing of the veil, which occurred in circa 30 A.D, the temple in Jerusalem is never again referred to using the word naos, and the time in history you are placing the temple of Revelation into, occurred between 36-40 years later.

The Greek New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the temple that was still standing in 70 A.D, was no longer considered the naos (the sanctuary of God where the Holy Spirit dwells) for even one minute following the death of Christ on the cross.

AdB said:

Might it be that "near" is used to stress the need for Christians to be ready at all times because no one knows the time of His return?
Just a thought

Click to expand...

What would that be useful for?
And why would Jesus stress that it is only to be understood as being “near” after certain signs were seen and not before, if “near” is truly the generic, meaningless term you assert it is?
Why would the Father, who does know the time, want generations of believers to hold a false expectation that it would happen in Their lifetimes?
What benefit can you articulate the Christian from, say, 1633 was to receive from holding such a (false) expectation?

Don’t you already know you’re not guaranteed your next breath?
Isn’t that motivation enough for you to live your life in a right relationship with Jesus?
It sure is for me.

AdB said:

No one, but then I'm not convinced that the coming of the Son of men happened in the 1st century...

But why is it that you that "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work" literally as a person being alive at that time, yet you insist "So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." can't be literal?

Click to expand...

I assert both are literal.
He was a living breathing man, as the scripture testifies, and he fulfilled Jesus words.

How about Mathew 21:40-45?
Which coming was that?
When did that coming take place?

3 Resurrections said:

I'm afraid this is quite impossible. The Man of Lawlessness would be destroyed by the very brightness of his own coming into power - not Christ's bodily coming. The Lord would use the corrupt spirit of this man's own mouth to be his undoing.

Finish the entire sentence of 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9. Paul liked to use run-on sentences, and this is another one of them. "...shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish..."

Does the Lord come similar to Satan with "lying wonders", and "deceivableness of unrighteousness"???

No, this "whose coming" must refer back to the Man of Lawlessness own coming - not Christ's coming.

Click to expand...

The Lord will consume the lawless one with the breath of His (the Lord's) mouth and the brightness of His (the Lord's) coming.

It is my honest belief that you are twisting the scripture by saying that it refers to the breath of the man of sin's own mouth and the brightness of the man of sin's own coming, and it is my honest opinion that what you claim when you twist the scripture thus, is blasphemous.

I won't debate any of these issues further with you here in this thread or anywhere else, because I realize that arguing with you about this will merely be encouraging this your blasphemy.

jgr said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is the conspiratorial stuff I said that I find wholly uninteresting. I'm not a Futurist, but Futuristic ideas, as well as Preteristic ideas, are present in the writings of the Fathers. The idea that Jesuits invented them to counter the Reformation is a pretty silly and historically indefensible idea.

-CryptoLutheran

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

The Lord will consume the lawless one with the breath of His (the Lord's) mouth and the brightness of His (the Lord's) coming.

Click to expand...

The OT records how Nations were Personally Judged by God time and again for many things. God would be seen coming down to them on the clouds with fiery vengeance, destroying the heavens and earth each time, killing with His Brightness, wielding His sword, shooting Arrows, cutting down His enemies with the breath of his nostrils, melting mountains like wax, with His angelic armies in tow...

This is the Language the Prophets used, time and again, to describe the fall of a nation.

I contend The onus is on you, and anyone who makes a similar claim, to demonstrate where scripture teaches we should take this same OT language and apply a polar opposite interpretation when we find it in the NT.

Can you?

Douggg said:

I know.

Click to expand...

You don't.

You have subjective opinions and interpretations.

-CryptoLutheran

AdB said:

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.
View attachment 310027

Click to expand...

You are not being honest at all.
[*StrongsGreek*]
02411
ἱερόν hierón, hee-er-on'
neuter of 2413;
a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts (whereas 3485 denotes the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple (at Jerusalem or elsewhere):--temple.

[*StrongsGreek*]
03485
NAO/S ναός naós nah-os' from a primary ναίω naíō, (to dwell);
a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple.
Compare 2411.

Not debating it with you anymore because the post I did make can be seen by all those who choose to be intellectually honest with the scriptures and do not attempt to abuse the scriptures in order to support a completely false theology.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

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).

Click to expand...

In Revelation 11:1, John is given a reed like a rod to measure the temple. So the temple he measured was a physical temple.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

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.

Click to expand...

Daniel 11:45 is not Antiochus. It is time of the end, Daniel 11:40.

And if the paragraph designation and verse numbers are removed.... between Daniel 11:11:45 and Daniel 12:1...

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.

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

... so it is not Antiochus. Neither is Antiochus the little horn in Daniel 8. Which that vision involving the little horn is also time of the end in the text, Daniel 8:17.

ViaCrucis said:

You don't.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. God has given me a level of understanding, that I know.

Douggg said:

Yes, I know. God has given me a level of understanding, that I know.

Click to expand...

And I'm confident that you believe that.

-CryptoLutheran

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

But Gentiles are also a word used for unbelievers, and unbelievers exist outside of the naos (the sanctuary of God where the Holy Spirit dwells). They are not inside the naos in the New Testament Tabernacle. They were not allowed into the the court of the Jews and certainly not in the sanctuary of the Old Testament Temple.

Revelation draws from the same understanding. It has nothing to do with Gentiles who are in Christ through faith in Christ because those inside the naos in the New Testament Tabernacle are not considered Gentiles or Jews in the eyes of God, since they are all one in Christ.

Click to expand...

I agree that unbelievers are outside and Gentile can refer to unbelievers in some cases and I think we both would agree that John measures or counts the people who are true believers in Revelation 11:1. I also agree that we are one in Christ. The actual number of people that was counted isn’t given in Revelation 11:1 but we know no man can number those in Revelation 7:9.

If the number is 1 (one in Christ) that John counts in Revelation 11:1 then he should be able to count those in Revelation 7:9 as 1. Why does it say no man can number them in Revelation 7:9? They are in His temple day and night in Revelation 7:15.

3 Resurrections said:

Finish the entire sentence of 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9. Paul liked to use run-on sentences, and this is another one of them. "...shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish..."

Does the Lord come similar to Satan with "lying wonders", and "deceivableness of unrighteousness"???

Click to expand...

"Even him" in verse 9 is the Wicked person whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The lie in verse 11 is the person claim of being God - which anyone believing that lie will be deluded.

ViaCrucis said:

And I'm confident that you believe that.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I know nothing apart from God.

parousia70 said:

The OT records how Nations were Personally Judged by God time and again for many things. God would be seen coming down to them on the clouds with fiery vengeance, destroying the heavens and earth each time, killing with His Brightness, wielding His sword, shooting Arrows, cutting down His enemies with the breath of his nostrils, melting mountains like wax, with His angelic armies in tow...

This is the Language the Prophets used, time and again, to describe the fall of a nation.

Click to expand...

Your red herring here is to pretend that my argument had nothing to do with 3 resurrections false and blasphemous claim that "the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming" in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 refers to the breath of the man of sin's mouth and the "brightness" of the man of sin's coming.

That's your red herring.

So to answer your question and first quote a scripture in support of what you said above, and then come back to talking about 2 Thessalonians 2:

Psalm 18
6 In my distress I called on the LORD, and I cried to my God; He heard my voice out of His temple, and my cry came before Him, into His ears.
7 Then the earth shook and trembled; and the foundations of the hills moved and were shaken, because He was angry.
8 A smoke went up out of His nostrils, and fire devoured out of His mouth; coals were kindled by it.
9 And He bowed the heavens and came down, and darkness was under His feet.
10 And He rode on a cherub, and flew; yea, He soared on the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness His secret place, His pavilion around Him, darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.
12 At the brightness before Him, His dark clouds passed through, hailstones and coals of fire passed.
13 The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave forth His voice; hailstones and coals of fire.
14 Yea, He sent out His arrows and scattered them; and He shot out lightnings and crushed them.
15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were uncovered, at Your rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of Your nostrils.
16 He sent from above, He took me, He drew me out of many waters.
17 He delivered me from my strong enemy, and from those who hated me; for they were too strong for me.

Ezekiel 32
2 Son of man, take up a lament for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him, You were like a young lion of the nations, but you were like a sea-monster. And you came out with your rivers, and troubled the waters with your feet, and fouled their rivers.

7 And when I put you out, I will cover the heaven and make its stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

Etc etc etc.

The above is the metaphor used repeatedly and consistently in the Bible, and in the Revelation.

It does not apply to the return of Christ mentioned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. To say that it does is to change the message of the apostles regarding the literal, bodily return of Christ which was their teaching from the beginning, and never changed. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul is referring to this same very literal and bodily return of Christ that is coming, and assuring the church at Thessaloniki that His (Christ's) return is not at hand, and has not passed, and will not come until the very real signs Paul mentions are seen, including the emergence of the second of the only two men the New Testament calls the son of perdition.

Unless Paul was talking about Judas Iscariot and an apostasy which had already occurred, this very real, literal and bodily return of Christ Jesus which was the promise of Christ Himself and has been the teaching of the apostles of Christ from the beginning, has not yet occurred.

You're right about the metaphor used repeatedly and consistently in apocalyptic/prophetic biblical literature. You are wrong when you misapply it to every single statement made by the apostles, and when you misapply it to the statements of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2.

AdB said:

Only accusing me, quoting the same strongs comments, and then not clarifying why you think I'm not being honest is.... a quite weak response

Click to expand...

You are quite clearly not being honest. It does not need a deeper explanation.