Daniel 9:

[Spiritual Jew]

John was likening them to the coming singular antichrist, who will be anointed the King of Israel coming in his own name.

What coming singular antichrist? He did not mention anything about a coming singular antichrist. He said there were many. This shouldn't be so hard for you to understand, but I realize that you are desperately trying to keep your doctrine afloat, so it's not surprising that you would try to get around what John actually said.

 

[Douggg]

Do you believe this future sanctuary that you believe will be built would be a temple that God ordains?

What daily sacrifice would be performed there that the little horn would want to stop and why would he want to stop it?

It will be built by the Jews with the intent of worshiping and praising the One True God.

If you are asking if God has instructed them to build the temple to be desolated by the Antichrist, the answer is no.

The daily sacrifice is the two morning and evening lambs. It does not say "why" the little horn will want the daily sacrifice stopped.

 

[Douggg]

What coming singular antichrist? He did not mention anything about a coming singular antichrist. He said there were many. This shouldn't be so hard for you to understand, but I realize that you are desperately trying to keep your doctrine afloat, so it's not surprising that you would try to get around what John actually said.

The text says antichrist - singular. John was contrasting that singular future antichrist with persons in his day that were displaying the same trait in denying Jesus as the messiah, the son of God, by calling them antichrists.

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist [singular] shall come, [contrasting with] even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It will be built by the Jews with the intent of worshiping and praising the One True God.

Where is the building of this meaningless temple mentioned in scripture?

If you are asking if God has instructed them to build the temple to be desolated by the Antichrist, the answer is no.

Jesus said that the abomination of desolation would occur in "the holy place". There wouldn't be anything holy about a temple that God didn't even ordain. So, you are clearly mistaken in thinking that some future temple that God doesn't ordain would have anything to do with fulfilling the prophecy regarding the abomination of desolation.

The daily sacrifice is the two morning and evening lambs. It does not say "why" the little horn will want the daily sacrifice stopped.

What do you think the reason is then? You can't expect your belief about this to be convincing if you don't even have any explanation for why it would happen.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The text says antichrist - singular.

Yes, and the text says that antichrist is anyone who denies Christ. Not just one person.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

This clearly does not describe just one person, but describes anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist.

John was contrasting that singular future antichrist with persons in his day that were displaying the same trait in denying Jesus as the messiah, the son of God, by calling them antichrists.

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist [singular] shall come, [contrasting with] even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Nope. Nice try. You're trying to get around the fact that John defined antichrist as anyone who denied Christ and there were (and are) many. His focus was never on just one singular antichrist. You're talking him completely out of context.

 

[Douggg]

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

This clearly does not describe just one person, but describes anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist.

against Christ (Jesus), but not instead of Christ (Jesus).

The future singular antichrist will be both against Christ (Jesus) and instead of Christ (Jesus).

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

 

[Douggg]

Where is the building of this meaningless temple mentioned in scripture?

I would not say the building of it is, but I would say that the existence of it is.
And because no temple is standing, it necessitates it being built.


Which the Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, showing that he is God and above all that is called God.

2Thessalonians2:4 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.

and the holy place that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

______________________________________________________

I would not call the coming 70th week temple built by the Jews as meaningless because it will be a major focal point of events during the time of the end, in the fulfillment of bible prophecy.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

against Christ (Jesus), but not instead of Christ (Jesus).

The future singular antichrist will be both against Christ (Jesus) and instead of Christ (Jesus).

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And now you have misinterpreted yet another verse. This verse is not referring to a singular Antichrist. What Jesus is saying here is that the unbelieving Jews He was talking to rejected Him but they would be willing to accept someone else who doesn't come in the Father's name like He did. But that someone could be any of the many false Christs that Jesus said would come. Some of them could accept one false Christ, some could accept another and some could accept another and so on.

Did you somehow forget that Jesus taught that there would be multiple false Christs rather than a singular Antichrist?

Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

It is any of these many false Christs that Jesus was saying that these unbelieving Jews would accept instead of Him. John 5:43 has absolutely nothing to do with a singular Antichrist. You continue to take almost every verse you read out of context.

 

[Douggg]

Jesus said that the abomination of desolation would occur in "the holy place". There wouldn't be anything holy about a temple that God didn't even ordain. So, you are clearly mistaken in thinking that some future temple that God doesn't ordain would have anything to do with fulfilling the prophecy regarding the abomination of desolation.

holy means set apart for God. Which will be the intention of the Jews, regarding the temple they will build.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I would not say the building of it is, but I would say that the existence of it is.

Why would the building of it not be mentioned? The building of the other physical temples of God are mentioned in scripture. Why not that one? This is a major weakness in your belief.

Which the Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, showing that he is God and above all that is called God.

2Thessalonians2:4 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.

and the holy place that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

I knew you would reference these passages, but there is a huge problem with seeing these as speaking of some meaningless temple that unbelieving Jews would build. That problem is the fact that such a temple could not possibly be called "the temple of God" and there would be nothing holy about it since it would not be ordained by God Himself.

I would not call the coming 70th week temple built by the Jews as meaningless because it will be a major focal point of events during the time of the end, in the fulfillment of bible prophecy.

That's your opinion, but I'm not obligated to go by your opinion. In my opinion, such a temple would be meaningless because it would have nothing to do with fulfilling Bible prophecy.

holy means set apart for God. Which will be the intention of the Jew, regarding the temple they will build.

Nonsense. God determines what is holy, not man. Their meaningless temple built by people who don't believe in Jesus Christ is not something that Jesus Himself would call holy, so that can't be what He was referring to in Matthew 24:15.

 

[Douggg]

Did you somehow forget that Jesus taught that there would be multiple false Christs rather than a singular Antichrist?

Yes, and among them are persons like Vissarion in Russia, John Miller in Australia, Jose Miranda (deceased). And historically, Jewish figures like Simon bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi.

Not one of them was ever anointed the King of Israel though. The person to become the Antichrist has to be anointed the King of Israel, coming in his own name.

 

[Douggg]

Why would the building of it not be mentioned? The building of the other physical temples of God are mentioned in scripture. Why not that one?

I think it is inferred by many of the time of the end prophecies.

 

[Douggg]

That's your opinion, but I'm not obligated to go by your opinion. In my opinion, such a temple would be meaningless because it would have nothing to do with fulfilling Bible prophecy.

The good thing is that it should not be long before our differences to be settled, assuming 2026 is a critical year, which the 70th week begins.

 

[Douggg]

That problem is the fact that such a temple could not possibly be called "the temple of God" and there would be nothing holy about it since it would not be ordained by God Himself.

The Mormons call their building in Salt Lake City the temple. I am not sure if they call it the temple of God or not. It would be interesting to find out.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes, and among them are persons like Vissarion in Russia, John Miller in Australia, Jose Miranda (deceased). And historically, Jewish figures like Simon bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi.

Not one of them was ever anoint the King of Israel. The person to become the Antichrist has to be anointed the King of Israel, coming in his own name.

Where is that taught in scripture? Please do not ever give me your opinions without any supporting scripture. I will just automatically dismiss them because I know how much scripture you have already misinterpreted.

I think it is inferred by many of the time of the end prophecies.

You think. That's the problem. You don't have any clear support in scripture for your belief. Take away 2 Thess 2:4 and Matthew 24:15, which I have already done, and what do you have left to support this belief?

The good thing is that it should not be long before our differences to be settled, assuming 2026 is a critical year, which the 70th week begins.

In my mind our differences are already settled. It's quite clear to me that you are completely unable to come up with any convincing arguments to support your view. You twist every verse you can to make them fit your view.

Also, your ridiculous date setting is laughable, at best. I'll set a future reminder now to let you know you were wrong on January 1, 2027. I might say "I told you so", but I'll try to leave it at that and not rub it in.

The Mormons call their building in Salt Lake City the temple. I am not sure if they call it the temple of God or not. It would be interesting to find out.

I think they call it Salt Lake Temple, but what does this have to do with what we've been talking about?

When I said a temple built by unbelieving Jews couldn't be called "the temple of God" I meant that it's not something that Paul would have called "the temple of God". For something to be called "the temple of God" it has to be ordained by God Himself.

Also, we (the church) are the temple of God and that is what Paul is referring to in 2 Thess 2, but I know that your literal, carnal way of thinking won't allow you to see that.

 

[Douggg]

Where is that taught in scripture? Please do not ever give me your opinions without any supporting scripture. I will just automatically dismiss them because I know how much scripture you have already misinterpreted.

I have been giving you scriptures,

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John 12:12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,

13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

To become the Anti (instead of and against) Christ (Jesus), the person has to be anointed the King of Israel (v13) who comes in his own name (v43). Unlike Jesus who came in the name of the Lord (v13 and v43).

 

[Douggg]

Also, your ridiculous date setting is laughable, at best. I'll set a future reminder now to let you know you were wrong on January 1, 2027. I might say "I told you so", but I'll try to leave it at that and not rub it in.

We will see (if the Lord is willing that we are both still around at that time). I am not making a guarantee. Just that it is highly likely.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have been giving you scriptures,

You have been misinterpreting every scripture that you have given me and I've shown you the real meaning of those scriptures. I can't force you to understand the real meaning of these scriptures that you're misinterpreting.

We will see (if the Lord is willing that we are both still around at that time). I am not making a guarantee. Just that it is highly likely.

Based on your track record of misinterpreting almost every verse in scripture, I would say it's 100% unlikely that you'll be right about this.

 

[DavidPT]

Nonsense. God determines what is holy, not man. Their meaningless temple built by people who don't believe in Jesus Christ is not something that Jesus Himself would call holy, so that can't be what He was referring to in Matthew 24:15.

Do you then think it was meaning the 2nd temple, and that the 2nd temple was actually still holy after Christ died and resurrected? It seems silly to me, that if it can't be a 3rd rebuilt temple since that temple wouldn't be holy in God's eyes, it could still be meaning the 2nd temple though, because that temple would still be holy in God's eyes even after His Son died and resurrected but a 3rd rebuilt one wouldn't be. If you can't see a major problem here either way, I don't know what to tell you. It's clues like this that clearly tell us that Matthew 24:15 has zero to do with a temple in 70 AD. It also has zero to do with a rebuilt one in the future, yet, that verse involves the future still.

You would think if anyone should know what this adds up to then, you would think it should at least be Amils that would. It's not meaning nor involving a literal temple, period. The same way 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving a literal temple. To argue that a 3rd rebuilt temple can't be holy, but the 2nd one still can be, even after Christ's death and resurrection, is nonsensical. If the 2nd one can still be holy in 70 AD, then a 3rd rebuilt one can still be holy as well. Neither are meaning before Christ died and rose. Both are meaning after He died and rose. How can any literal temple post His death and resurrection still be holy, including the 2nd one?

If you or any Amils still want to insist the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD, then you all need to admit that a 3rd rebuilt one would still be holy as well, thus quit calling that idea nonsense when it would be equally nonsensical if the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD, meaning up until it was destroyed.

 

[TribulationSigns]

If you or any Amils still want to insist the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD, then you all need to admit that a 3rd rebuilt one would still be holy as well, thus quit calling that idea nonsense when it would be equally nonsensical if the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD, meaning up until it was destroyed.

I am an amillennialist who does not believe that the second temple was holy in 70AD. Not even the days after the veil was rent. And I also do not support the theory of the third temple in the future.