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

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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

Are you saying that there was no counter-reformation?

Are you saying that there was no Francisco Ribera?

Are you saying that he did not write In sacram beati Ioannis Apostoli and Evangelistae Apocalypsin Commentariip, positing a single futurized Antichrist, in an attempt to invalidate the Reformation declaration and proclamation of the apostasized papacy as antichrist?

Reformers did not consider it "a pretty silly and historically indefensible idea."

Brightman, Thomas. Revelation of the Revelation, that is The Revelation of St. John. Against Bellarmine, the confuting of that counterfaite ANTICHRIST, whom Bellarmine describeth, and laboureth is prouve by arguments with all his might Booke 3. touching the Pope of Rome [p. 622-770] (1615) : MVT : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Futurists don't consider it "a pretty silly and historically indefensible idea."

Dispensational futurist Clarence Larkin in Dispensational Truth:

"The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such and hold that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” . . . In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and among Protestants. . . ., The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

The Suffering and Persecution of the Thessalonians at the Hands of the Jews in the first century ENDED.

And Scripture is unambiguously clear about what event would be the event that ended it for THEM, THEN.

The Hope of Relief Paul is encouraging the Thessalonians to have is Key to understanding the timing...

Jesus came and cut off the Jewish persecution against the Thessalonian congregation. That's what they were expecting, and that is what they got -- scripture is very specific on it. It was a then-contemporary situation. Follow the scriptures on this...

The Thessalonicans were being persecuted by the Jews who were stirring up violence against them in their city (see Acts 17:1-14). Paul mentions this specifically at 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, saying that "God's wrath was to come upon them to the uttermost." Specifically, it was the coming of Jesus Christ to them that was to end that Jewish persecution against them. Paul writes:

"This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well WHEN the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire" (2 Thessalonians 1:5-7)

Q. When would God give affliction to those that were persecuting the Thessalonican congregation and grant relief to the Thessalonians?

A. When the Lord Jesus was revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire.

Ask yourself:
Are the 1st century Thessalonians STILL suffering persecution at the Hands of the 1st century Jews?

If not, then the only option is that Christ’s coming happened and ended their persecution. There is no other scriptural option.
 
Upvote 0

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,972
913
Africa
Visit site
✟182,548.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
Have you ever considered the fact that because

(a) Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ; and
(b) Ten of the twelve tribes listed in Revelation 7 are the house of Israel that were scattered; and
(c) Dan is omitted and though Manasseh is included in Dan's place, yet Ephraim, of whom Jacob said his seed would become "the fullness of the Gentiles" (in the Hebrew of Genesis 48:19) or "a multitude of nations" (in the English), is omitted, and yet the very next verse (Revelation 7:9) speaks about an innumerable number of all nations, tribes and tongues,

is suggesting to the reader that verse 9 is telling us that the 144,000 are symbolic of an innumerable number?

Revelation 7 is a passage which requires a great deal more insight, understanding and knowledge than I think anyone in the post-apostolic Age has been given (regardless of people's high opinions of themselves), and therefore neither you nor I can use Revelation 7 to either support or disqualify the f- a -c t I brought up regarding the word naos not being used in reference to Jerusalem's temple again following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil.
 
Upvote 0

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,972
913
Africa
Visit site
✟182,548.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Suffering and Persecution of the Thessalonians at the Hands of the Jews in the first century ENDED.

And Scripture is unambiguously clear about what event would be the event that ended it for THEM, THEN.
In whose wisdom, insight, understanding and knowledge? Christ's? Paul's?

Or yours?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Are you saying that there was no counter-reformation?

Are you saying that there was no Francisco Ribera?

Are you saying that he did not write In sacram beati Ioannis Apostoli and Evangelistae Apocalypsin Commentariip, positing a single futurized Antichrist, in an attempt to invalidate the Reformation declaration and proclamation of the apostasized papacy as antichrist?

Reformers did not consider it "a pretty silly and historically indefensible idea."

Brightman, Thomas. Revelation of the Revelation, that is The Revelation of St. John. Against Bellarmine, the confuting of that counterfaite ANTICHRIST, whom Bellarmine describeth, and laboureth is prouve by arguments with all his might Booke 3. touching the Pope of Rome [p. 622-770] (1615) : MVT : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Futurists don't consider it "a pretty silly and historically indefensible idea."

Dispensational futurist Clarence Larkin in Dispensational Truth:

"The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such and hold that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” . . . In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and among Protestants. . . ., The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

Oh, there was definitely a Counter-Reformation, and I am not challenging the existence of Ribera nor Ribera's Futurism.

What I am countering is the notion that that Ribera is the "inventor" of Futurism.

Again, I need to point out, I'm not a Futurist. But I am acquainted with the ancient Fathers of the Church well enough to know that that Futuristic ideas are present in a number of the writings of the fathers. The most obvious off the top of my head would be St. Irenaeus, in his five volume polemic against Gnosticism he presents a Futurist-Chiliast position. Even arguing in favor of the idea that the Jewish temple will be rebuilt at some point. While I am neither a Futurist nor a Chiliast, it would be entirely disingenuous to deny that these ideas are present among the Fathers of the ancient Church.

What is conspiratorial is the various anti-Catholic polemics and treatises that came well after the Reformation. For example the claim that the Pope's Latin title is Vicarius Filii De, and then some attempt to link that back to the number of the Beast. Or claims that the bishop's mitre is secretly a "Dagon hat". Or that the Cross of St. Peter that adorns the papal metre is actually some kind of satanic symbol.

It's the bunk that eventually found its way into the asinine ideas of Alexander Hislop in his painfully nonsense work "The Two Babylons".

That's what I have no interest in.

I'm not interested in anti-Catholic polemical literature. I have the Lutheran Confessions; it is about what I am to confess as a faithful member of Christ's Holy Catholic Church--in the Lutheran Confessions--not about going out of my way to attack my fellow brothers and sisters who are still in communion with Rome.

Rome may be in error, but she is still part of Christ's Church (as long as the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered, there Christ's Church is). The aim of the Reformation was--and ever should be--the reunion and restoration of the Western Church under the banner of the Holy Gospel. Schism is always tragedy. But the remedy to schism cannot be compromise over the Gospel, and so the Lutheran Churches are nothing more than the Catholic Church in Statu Confessionis, in a State of Confession. That Confession is boldly found in the Augusburg Confession and also its Apology. We are not in a state of confession in opposition to the Catholic Church (Which is, indeed, the true and holy Church of Jesus Christ), but rather in opposition to the Church of Rome which is presently in a state of schism and error.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

3 Resurrections

That's 666 YEARS, folks
Aug 21, 2021
1,838
294
Taylors
✟84,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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.

If you need to look up the word "anachronism", that is the writing technique at work here in Revelation 11:1-2 when the corrupt, abandoned temple was still referred to by the title "holy temple". I gave you a couple scripture examples of an anachronism, but can give more if needed.

I'm not arguing against the fact that the believers became the true temple made of "living stones" in which the Holy Spirit would dwell. This was Christ's promise to the disciples that the time would come when the Holy Spirit who had been "with you" would change over to "shall be IN you" (John 14:17). This time came about when Christ breathed the Holy Spirit into them on the evening after His resurrection in John 20:22.

But Satan also had a spirit come out of his mouth, too - an unclean spirit, like a frog - which came out of his mouth, and that of the Beast and the false prophet (Revelation 16:13). This is the reason why I don't see Paul stating that the Man of Lawlessness was destroyed by the breath of the Lord at Christ's coming. The way Paul has written this, "...the brightness of his coming, whose coming is after the working of Satan..." describes the very brightness of the Man of Lawlessness coming on the scene of power being destroyed by the [unclean] spirit of his own mouth. I'm just reading the plain sense of the complete sentence, since I don't want to attribute lying and unrighteousness similar to Satan to describe the manner of Christ's coming. This would be blasphemous.
 
Upvote 0

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 21, 2019
1,526
246
46
Washington
✟238,025.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Have you ever considered the fact that because

(a) Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ; and
(b) Ten of the twelve tribes listed in Revelation 7 are the house of Israel that were scattered; and
(c) Dan is omitted and though Manasseh is included in Dan's place, yet Ephraim, of whom Jacob said his seed would become "the fullness of the Gentiles" (in the Hebrew of Genesis 48:19) or "a multitude of nations" (in the English), is omitted, and yet the very next verse (Revelation 7:9) speaks about an innumerable number of all nations, tribes and tongues,

is suggesting to the reader that verse 9 is telling us that the 144,000 are symbolic of an innumerable number?

Revelation 7 is a passage which requires a great deal more insight, understanding and knowledge than I think anyone in the post-apostolic Age has been given (regardless of people's high opinions of themselves), and therefore neither you nor I can use Revelation 7 to either support or disqualify the f- a -c t I brought up regarding the word naos not being used in reference to Jerusalem's temple again following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil.
I don’t have an issue with associating Ephraim with the fullness of the Gentiles and I know there are several ideas concerning why the 144,000 consist of the specific tribes mentioned in Revelation 7.

When I look at Revelation 7:1-4, it indicates to me that the 144,000 were sealed prior to the cross/tearing of the veil.

Revelation 7:1 has the 4 angels holding the 4 winds of the earth that they shouldn’t blow on the earth, sea, or trees.

Revelation 7:2-3 another angel with the seal of God commands the 4 angels not to hurt the earth, sea, trees till we have sealed the servants of our God. The wind not blowing on the earth is what was hurting it. When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost it was like a mighty rushing wind, this is the Gospel being allowed to be preached in all the world.

Revelation 7:4 John hears the number that were sealed, which is 144,000. The 144,000 are sealed prior to the event of Pentecost because they “were”, as in past tense, sealed.

Revelation 7:9 John now sees a great multitude that no man could number, of all nations, kindred, and tongues, standing before the Lamb. This is the result of the gospel being preached throughout the world.​
 
Upvote 0

3 Resurrections

That's 666 YEARS, folks
Aug 21, 2021
1,838
294
Taylors
✟84,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Q. When would God give affliction to those that were persecuting the Thessalonican congregation and grant relief to the Thessalonians?

A. When the Lord Jesus was revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire.

Ask yourself:
Are the 1st century Thessalonians STILL suffering persecution at the Hands of the 1st century Jews?

If not, then the only option is that Christ’s coming happened and ended their persecution. There is no other scriptural option.

This is a sound argument for a first-century fulfillment. No argument with this at all. I notice that you also believe that Menahem was the Man of Lawlessness. Great! Glad to find another that has found this Zealot leader to be a solid connection with the 2 Thessalonians 2 individual that Paul said was currently living at the time. (And was also currently being restrained at the time by Ananias the high priest and the high priesthood institution in general - both the "he" and the "what" restraining the Man of Lawlessness).

There is one point where you and I are apparently divided. I believe you are proposing it would take the LORD's coming to get rid of Menahem, the Man of Lawlessness. Both you and I know that Menahem's meteoric rise to power in AD 66 was followed within the month by Eleazar murdering him in retribution for murdering his father Ananias the high priest. This AD 66 year is not the year of the Lord's return, unless you are of the opinion that Christ's coming in vengeance spanned the entire AD 66-70 period? If you consider this to be off-topic, then PM me an answer instead if you have time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Oh, there was definitely a Counter-Reformation, and I am not challenging the existence of Ribera nor Ribera's Futurism.

What I am countering is the notion that that Ribera is the "inventor" of Futurism.

Again, I need to point out, I'm not a Futurist. But I am acquainted with the ancient Fathers of the Church well enough to know that that Futuristic ideas are present in a number of the writings of the fathers. The most obvious off the top of my head would be St. Irenaeus, in his five volume polemic against Gnosticism he presents a Futurist-Chiliast position. Even arguing in favor of the idea that the Jewish temple will be rebuilt at some point. While I am neither a Futurist nor a Chiliast, it would be entirely disingenuous to deny that these ideas are present among the Fathers of the ancient Church.

What is conspiratorial is the various anti-Catholic polemics and treatises that came well after the Reformation. For example the claim that the Pope's Latin title is Vicarius Filii De, and then some attempt to link that back to the number of the Beast. Or claims that the bishop's mitre is secretly a "Dagon hat". Or that the Cross of St. Peter that adorns the papal metre is actually some kind of satanic symbol.

It's the bunk that eventually found its way into the asinine ideas of Alexander Hislop in his painfully nonsense work "The Two Babylons".

That's what I have no interest in.

I'm not interested in anti-Catholic polemical literature. I have the Lutheran Confessions; it is about what I am to confess as a faithful member of Christ's Holy Catholic Church--in the Lutheran Confessions--not about going out of my way to attack my fellow brothers and sisters who are still in communion with Rome.

Rome may be in error, but she is still part of Christ's Church (as long as the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered, there Christ's Church is). The aim of the Reformation was--and ever should be--the reunion and restoration of the Western Church under the banner of the Holy Gospel. Schism is always tragedy. But the remedy to schism cannot be compromise over the Gospel, and so the Lutheran Churches are nothing more than the Catholic Church in Statu Confessionis, in a State of Confession. That Confession is boldly found in the Augusburg Confession and also its Apology. We are not in a state of confession in opposition to the Catholic Church (Which is, indeed, the true and holy Church of Jesus Christ), but rather in opposition to the Church of Rome which is presently in a state of schism and error.

-CryptoLutheran

As Bro. Larkin et al acknowledge, Ribera was the originator of modern dispensational futurism.
"Originator" is a synonym for "inventor."

The Early Church Fathers were futurists who expected a future antichrist under which the Christian Church would suffer. The Reformers recognized the apostasized papacy of their era as being one of the fulfillments of that expectation. Had the ECFs survived the centuries to the time of the Reformation, I am confident that every one of them, to a man, would have been the most ardent of Reformers.

"Vicarivs Filii Dei", Vicar of the Son of God, was an historical papal title which confirmed the papacy to be an antichrist, as the Reformers declared. Both "vicar" and "anti" incorporate "substitute" as a definition. Thus "Vicar of the Son of God", i.e. "Vicar of Christ"; and "antichrist"; incorporate "substitute Christ" as a definition. This is further confirmed in the claims, declarations, and arrogations which I cited in post 122. They have never yet been formally publicly renounced by the papacy.

The true and holy Church of Jesus Christ is not the Catholic Church. Rather, it is the catholic (i.e. universal) Christian Church encompassing, by definition, true believers wherever they are found. There is a profound and enormous difference between declaring the true and holy Church of Jesus Christ to be the Catholic Church; and properly recognizing it as the catholic (i.e. universal) Christian Church.

Furthermore, until the overwhelming counterfeit influence of the historical apostasized papacy is recognized in, and purged from, the prophetic paradigm of modern dispensationalism and its apologists, the witness and testimony of the Christian Church to the world will continue to be weak in strength, merit, and effect.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes. The part that exists on earth. Because we are part of that Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22-24; Galatians 4:26).

But Luke 21:24 also literally states the earthly Jerusalem is trampled by the nations. So why wouldn’t we use that to interpret revelation 11:2, since no other passage in scripture specifically states the new Jerusalem is trampled by the nations?

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

i agree, revelation makes a thesis-antithesis comparison. But I would argue it’s between the earthly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem.

the earthly Jerusalem being the harlot/great city.



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.

Hieron is the full temple complex, while naos, is the sanctuary or dwelling place of God within the temple complex (figurative or literal).

In revelation 11:1-2, even if The temple is symbolic, it wouldn’t make sense to use hieron, as the sanctuary is being contrasted with the outer courts. In other words, it wouldn’t make sense to say measure the temple complex (Hieron: sanctuary and outer court buildings) but don’t measure the outer court. Instead, It would make sense to say measure the sanctuary (naos) but don’t measure the outer courts.

so simply saying it must be a symbolic temple because “naos”, instead “hieron”, is used isn’t a strong enough argument.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 21, 2019
1,526
246
46
Washington
✟238,025.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In revelation 11:1-2, even if The temple is symbolic, it wouldn’t make sense to use hieron, as the sanctuary is being contrasted with the outer courts. In other words, it wouldn’t make sense to say measure the temple complex (Hieron: sanctuary and outer court buildings) but don’t measure the outer court. Instead, It would make sense to say measure the sanctuary (naos) but don’t measure the outer courts.

so simply saying it must be a symbolic temple because “naos”, instead “hieron”, is used isn’t a strong enough argument.
I don’t know why I haven’t seen this before but it’s a really good point, thanks for posting this.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: claninja
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In whose wisdom, insight, understanding and knowledge? Christ's? Paul's?

Or yours?

My insight comes from scripture, and I feel I spelled out how/why.

If you disagree, you are weclome to demonstrate how the scriptures I cited do not mean what I contend they do.

It's quite plain they do mean what I contend, But I'll happily entertain your alternate interpretation of them if you care to share it.

Here it is again:
For it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well WHEN the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire"

Are the Thessalonians STILL being afflicted? If not, if their affliction has indeed ended, then the ONLY option is the ONLY event Paul promised would end their affliction, has already happened.

There is no other scriptural end to the suffering and affliction of the 1st century Thessalonian congregation than the one Paul testifies to above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AdB

Heb 11:1
Jul 28, 2021
598
82
55
Leusden
✟71,650.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don’t know why I haven’t seen this before but it’s a really good point, thanks for posting this.
Indeed, and claninja also phrased the point I was trying to put in words mich better...
Hieron is the full temple complex, while naos, is the sanctuary or dwelling place of God within the temple complex (figurative or literal).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But Luke 21:24 also literally states the earthly Jerusalem is trampled by the nations. So why wouldn’t we use that to interpret revelation 11:2, since no other passage in scripture specifically states the new Jerusalem is trampled by the nations?



i agree, revelation makes a thesis-antithesis comparison. But I would argue it’s between the earthly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem.

the earthly Jerusalem being the harlot/great city.





Hieron is the full temple complex, while naos, is the sanctuary or dwelling place of God within the temple complex (figurative or literal).

In revelation 11:1-2, even if The temple is symbolic, it wouldn’t make sense to use hieron, as the sanctuary is being contrasted with the outer courts. In other words, it wouldn’t make sense to say measure the temple complex (Hieron: sanctuary and outer court buildings) but don’t measure the outer court. Instead, It would make sense to say measure the sanctuary (naos) but don’t measure the outer courts.

so simply saying it must be a symbolic temple because “naos”, instead “hieron”, is used isn’t a strong enough argument.


In the OT it seems to me measuring can involve protection. Assuming that, the temple is being measured, the court isn't. That would seem to indicate protection involving those worshiping within the temple, and would indicate judgment for those outside of the temple. This scenario doesn't match 70 AD and the 2nd temple since those still doing sacrifices in the temple were judged, not being protected instead.

Zechariah 2:1 I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.
2 Then said I, Whither goest thou? And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.
3 And, behold, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him,
4 And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein:
5 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.

I propose interpreting Revelation 11:1 in light of a passage like this, that the sense involves protection.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zao is life
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,559
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,690.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
For it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well WHEN the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire"

Are the Thessalonians STILL being afflicted? If not, if their affliction has indeed ended, then the ONLY option is the ONLY event Paul promised would end their affliction, has already happened.

There is no other scriptural end to the suffering and affliction of the 1st century Thessalonian congregation than the one Paul testifies to above.
ONLY option? Preterist nonsense.
Paul wrote his letters to ALL Christians, then and now.
He is the Teacher par excellence of our Christian faith and he clarifies many Bible prophesies.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 is a clear prophecy of the forthcoming Lord's Day of fiery wrath. The world Changer which will commence all the end time events, leading up to the Glorious Return of Jesus to rule the world for the next thousand years.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
ONLY option? Preterist nonsense.
Rather, Biblical Truth.

Paul wrote his letters to ALL Christians, then and now.

Futurist Nonsense, easily refuted with one verse.

Philippians 2:19
19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, that I also may be encouraged when I know your state.

Are you waiting for Timothy's soon arrival to you Keras? Shold ALL Christians be waiting for His Soon arrival? Should ALL Christians uniformly be shouting: "Come! Timothy, Come!"?
You and I both know such is preposterous. Paul wrote Php 2:19 to the 1st century Philippians ONLY. This passage is not written TO anyone else.

Again,
The Thessalonicans were being persecuted by the Jews who were stirring up violence against them in their city (see Acts 17:1-14). This is SPECIFIC to them, the Same way Php 2:19 is SPECIFIC to the Philippians.

Paul mentions this specifically at 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, saying that "God's wrath was to come upon them to the uttermost." Specifically, it was the coming of Jesus Christ to them that was to end that Jewish persecution against them. Paul writes:

"This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well WHEN the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire" (2 Thessalonians 1:5-7)

Q. When would God give affliction to those that were persecuting the Thessalonican congregation and grant relief to the Thessalonians?

A. When the Lord Jesus was revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire.

Ask yourself:
Are the 1st century Thessalonians STILL suffering persecution at the Hands of the 1st century Jews?

If not, then the only option is that Christ’s coming happened and ended their persecution. There is no other scriptural option.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AdB

Heb 11:1
Jul 28, 2021
598
82
55
Leusden
✟71,650.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Assuming that, the temple is being measured, the court isn't. That would seem to indicate protection involving those worshiping within the temple, and would indicate judgment for those outside of the temple.
Your assumption is not quite correct. So for Salomon's Temple "naos" would specifically be the temple building where only the Hight priest and the priests attending to the incense altar, the menorah and the shew breads were allowed to enter. There were several courts, although there is some controversy about which there were. Definitely there was the inner court where only priests and other Levites were allowed and who attended to the burnt altar and the bronze lever. Then there were probably at least to other courts where only Jews were allowed, one for males, the other for females. Then there was probably also one additional court for the gentiles, so all non-Jews.

Now one can argue that the inner court was part of the "naos", but the courts for the male and female Jews were definitely the part that was indicated with "hieron" to distinct it from where God resided.
 
Upvote 0

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 21, 2019
1,526
246
46
Washington
✟238,025.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I thought about this last night and have another point concerning the measuring of the temple.

John measures the temple in Revelation 11:1 and one of the angels that had the seven vials measured New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:16.

If the temple in Revelation 11:1 is New Jerusalem then it gets measured twice. This cast’s a shadow of doubt on them being the same temple.

Since no man can number those in Revelation 7:9, it would be reasonable to think that the angel could measure New Jerusalem while John could not.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In the OT it seems to me measuring can involve protection. Assuming that, the temple is being measured, the court isn't. That would seem to indicate protection involving those worshiping within the temple, and would indicate judgment for those outside of the temple. This scenario doesn't match 70 AD and the 2nd temple since those still doing sacrifices in the temple were judged, not being protected instead.

Zechariah 2:1 I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.
2 Then said I, Whither goest thou? And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.
3 And, behold, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him,
4 And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein:
5 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.

I propose interpreting Revelation 11:1 in light of a passage like this, that the sense involves protection.

Absolutely a possible interpretation.

The temple in verse 1 is measured, while the outer courts of the temple and the city are not to be measured according to vs 2.

As a result of not being measured, the outer courts are given over to the nations who also trample the city of Jerusalem for 42 months. this links up with the words of Christ that the earthly Jerusalem would be trampled by the nations. Thus I believe revelation 11:2 and Luke 21:24 are about the same thing: 66-70ad.

However, since the temple, in vs 1, was measured, it is not mentioned as being trampled or as being given over to the nations. Therefore, I agree, it’s possible that this does not refer to the literal temple in 70ad, but could refer to the spiritual temple of Christ.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums