New Jerusalem vs Babylon the Great

[Douggg]

I would say when the son of perdition sits in the temple and shows himself as God this would be for more than just a single moment in time.

The transgression of desolation is the initial act, not just for a single moment of time that he will be in the Holy of Holies. He will go in and out of that space until Jesus returns.

 

[grafted branch]

The act by the son of perdition makes the temple desolate.

I don’t agree with some of your theology but I think we agree on this. The word naos can be referring to a place that was previously holy but no longer is.

 

[DavidPT]

The word naos can be referring to a place that was previously holy but no longer is.

While that is basically the case here, that doesn't mean a literal brick and mortar temple has to be involved, though.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 has to be interpreted in a sense other than a literal sense. The literal sense makes nonsense of the text since it would require a literal brick and mortal temple for the man of sin to sit in. Why would he need to sit in a literal temple in order to make Himself out to be God? Jesus is God. Did He ever have to sit in a literal temple in order to make Himself God?

 

[claninja]

What then were the abominations?

According to Luke, The armies that surrounded Jerusalem.

Look at the translation you are using. Are you using a translation you disagree with? Look what that translation says in verse 27---and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

What do you take the end of time to mean? I take it to mean the end of this present age. Verse 27, all of it it pertains to the end of this age, or if not all of it, the latter half of that verse does. Even the translation you provided says so. There is not going to be a literal temple in the end of this age in order to literally fulfill these things. Therefore, some of this needs to be understood in another sense altogether. Can the temple be understood in another sense besides the literal sense? Of course it can. The NT reveals that it can. In the OT things like this would not have been clear at the time, thus one taking some of these texts in the literal sense that might not even be meaning in the literal sense.

I believe it refers to the end of the age.

1.) The destruction of the temple building (Hieron) was to occur at the end of the age
matthew 24:3 While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

2.) Jesus’ was crucified at the end of the age:
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice

3.) Paul said he was living at the end of the ages:
1 corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

 

[grafted branch]

While that is basically the case here, that doesn't mean a literal brick and mortar temple has to be involved, though.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 has to be interpreted in a sense other than a literal sense. The literal sense makes nonsense of the text since it would require a literal brick and mortal temple for the man of sin to sit in. Why would he need to sit in a literal temple in order to make Himself out to be God? Jesus is God. Did He ever have to sit in a literal temple in order to make Himself God?

I agree, to a certain extent.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 has the phrases “whose coming is after the working of Satan” and “in them that perish”. So the coming or Parousia happens inside of those that perish.

I don’t want to debate Soteriology but if a person thinks salvation can be lost then 2 Thessalonians can be referring to people who once had the naos but end up losing it. For those who hold to OSAS I would say the Parousia happens to those that were predestined to perish.

The location of those that perish could be in the physical place where the naos once was (preterits view).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I believe it refers to the end of the age.

1.) The destruction of the temple building (Hieron) was to occur at the end of the age
matthew 24:3 While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

2.) Jesus’ was crucified at the end of the age:
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice

3.) Paul said he was living at the end of the ages:
1 corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

So, you have the end of the age extending all the way from Christ's crucifixion to 70 AD? That's not the impression that Christ gave in passages like this:

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus described the end of the age as being a point in time when the age ended and not as a period of time such as the time from His crucifixion until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. When that point in time comes that will bring about the end of the age at which time "The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace".

How do you interpret Matthew 13:47-50? Does it give you the impression that "the end of the age" involves a period of time beginning with Christ's crucifixion? It sure doesn't to me. And it talks about a time of judgment where the angels separate the wicked from the righteous and then throwing the wicked "into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". When has that ever happened?

Also, you're not understanding that when it talks about the end of the age, it's talking about the end of the temporal age during which people get married and they die. We're still in that age now. He contrasted that with the eternal age to come after the resurrection of the dead occurs and people no longer get married and no longer will die.

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

 

[claninja]

So, you have the end of the age extending all the way from Christ's crucifixion to 70 AD? That's not the impression that Christ gave in passages like this:

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus described the end of the age as being a point in time when the age ended and not as a period of time such as the time from His crucifixion until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. When that point in time comes that will bring about the end of the age at which time "The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace".

How do you interpret Matthew 13:47-50? Does it give you the impression that "the end of the age" involves a period of time beginning with Christ's crucifixion? It sure doesn't to me. And it talks about a time of judgment where the angels separate the wicked from the righteous and then throwing the wicked "into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". When has that ever happened?

Also, you're not understanding that when it talks about the end of the age, it's talking about the end of the temporal age during which people get married and they die. We're still in that age now. He contrasted that with the eternal age to come after the resurrection of the dead occurs and people no longer get married and no longer will die.

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

beginning: the author of Hebrews stated Christ came at the end of the ages to put away sin (Hebrews 9:26)

Middle: Paul stated the ends of the ages had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11).

End: The disciples associated the destruction of the temple with the end of the age (matthew 24:3).

 

[Zao is life]

Am I missing something here? Do you see any examples that would prefigure both God and evil in the naos at the same time?

The idol that Antiochis Epiphanes set up in the temple.

2 Thessalonians 2:4, according to the text of 2 Thessalonians 2 occurs before the return of Christ who destroys the man of sin/lawless one/son of perdition. It's referring to a son of perdition who through faith in Christ, and before he exalts himself, was already in the naos (the body of Christ on earth), just like the first of the only two men called son of perdition was one of the twelve.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 is an idol that will be set up in the only holy sanctuary of God that has been considered the holy sanctuary/temple of God since the death of Christ. It's not made with human hands. Instead of worshiping Christ, the church will be worshiping him as Christ, or as God. OR they will collectively claim to be Christ (as in "the manifested sons of God" claim).

@grafted branch We are not given the exact details of what the doctrine is going to be, but whatever the details will be, it's referring to the church. An idol placed in the church. If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him.

 

[grafted branch]

The idol that Antiochis Epiphanes set up in the temple.

2 Thessalonians 2:4, according to the text of 2 Thessalonians 2 occurs before the return of Christ who destroys the man of sin/lawless one/son of perdition. It's referring to a son of perdition who through faith in Christ, and before he exalts himself, was already in the naos (the body of Christ on earth), just like the first of the only two men called son of perdition was one of the twelve.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 is an idol that will be set up in the only holy sanctuary of God that has been considered the holy sanctuary/temple of God since the death of Christ. It's not made with human hands. Instead of worshiping Christ, the church will be worshiping him as Christ, or as God. OR they will collectively claim to be Christ (as in "the manifested sons of God" claim).

@grafted branch We are not given the exact details of what the doctrine is going to be, but whatever the details will be, it's referring to the church. An idol placed in the church. If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him.

That’s a good point; I have no doubt that what Antiochus Epiphanes did was an abomination. However, I’m not so sure God was in the naos when this occurred. I would say it’s highly unlikely that the Ark of the Covenant was present and it seems to me that it would have been impossible to defile the Ark of the Covenant, so maybe some of the examples of naos prior to the exile to Babylon would not be a fair comparison.

If God was present in the naos when Antiochus committed his act then something changed, was God himself defiled? I don’t think so; what Antiochus did caused the worshipers to be physically separated from the naos while he defiled it. I think if we use this as an example then we would come to the conclusion that believers will be separated from the naos while it’s defiled.

 

[Zao is life]

That’s a good point; I have no doubt that what Antiochus Epiphanes did was an abomination. However, I’m not so sure God was in the naos when this occurred. I would say it’s highly unlikely that the Ark of the Covenant was present and it seems to me that it would have been impossible to defile the Ark of the Covenant, so maybe some of the examples of naos prior to the exile to Babylon would not be a fair comparison.

If God was present in the naos when Antiochus committed his act then something changed, was God himself defiled? I don’t think so; what Antiochus did caused the worshipers to be physically separated from the naos while he defiled it. I think if we use this as an example then we would come to the conclusion that believers will be separated from the naos while it’s defiled.

We are not given the details in 2 Corinthians 2 of exactly how it's going to play itself out, how it's going to unfold, and I don't like speculating too much, because speculation is always the product of human imagination adding to the scriptures what the scriptures do not say, and human imagination adding to the scriptures what the scriptures do not say is the greatest catalyst for false doctrines in the church, the second being the twisting of scripture to suit false doctrine, and too many follow the teaching produced in the human imaginations of others,

but it is nevertheless 100% clear in 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24:12 that false doctrines and lawlessness will abound, bringing those who do not love the truth under strong delusion, that they may be condemned.

So, without allowing me or yourself to cause you to believe that this is the detail of how it will unfold,

------------------------------------------------------------------​

imagine a Christian who becomes famous because he is given a great measure of the gifts of the Spirit. He goes about healing the sick in Jesus name, raising the dead in Jesus name, prophesying in Jesus name, etc. But then he also introduces false doctrines into the church born in his own puffed-up human imagine caused by pride welling up in him because he has been so gifted by the Spirit of God, calling it "manifestations of the Spirit" or something else, and all the while, he is exalting himself more and more in his mind because of the power God has given him, until eventually, after starting a whole new movement and gaining the consensus of most of the church as to the validity of his false doctrines and twisting of scripture, he turns around and claims to be God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! Matthew 7:22-23

The man of sin is the man of lawlessness. The temple he will seat himself in is the naos, which has only referred to the church since Jesus died on the cross.

Now I'm going to present you with a very, very tough question:

John 2
19 Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple (naos) and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then the Jews said, This temple was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up in three days?
21 But He spoke of the temple of His body.
22 Therefore when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

1 Corinthians 5
21 For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree:

1 Peter 2
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes all of you were healed.

Our sin, and all the sin of the entire human race since Adam to that time and beyond that time were laid on Jesus. Not only did He bare our sin in His own body, but He became our sin. The knowledge of it caused Him such dread that He sweat blood praying and asking God if at all possible to let that cup pass from Him (Luke 22:44; Matthew 26:39).

Was our sin and the sin of the whole world, which Jesus became when He hung on that cross an abomination to God?

Of course it was:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Matthew 27:46

Habakkuk 1
13 You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and can not look on iniquity: wherefore look you upon them that deal treacherously, and hold your tongue when the wicked devours the man that is more righteous than he?

Yet "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" 2 Corinthians 5:19.

Jesus is the naos, the temple of God. The body of Christ is the naos, the temple of God. HE was not lawless, but he took our sin upon Himself and became our sin.

Now, do you think it's impossible for a lawless man, the son of perdition, the man of sin, to defile the naos of God?

 

[Douggg]

2 Thessalonians 2:4, according to the text of 2 Thessalonians 2 occurs before the return of Christ who destroys the man of sin/lawless one/son of perdition. It's referring to a son of perdition who through faith in Christ, and before he exalts himself, was already in the naos (the body of Christ on earth), just like the first of the only two men called son of perdition was one of the twelve.

Judas was called the son of perdition because he betrayed Jesus, and was an opposer to Jesus when Jesus chose the 12.

John 6:
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

When Judas betrayed Jesus, Satan entered Judas to carry out the act of betrayal.

Luke 22:
2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

__________________________________________________________

In 2Thessalonians2:4, the Antichrist in similitude will betray Israel, the Jews, by transgressing the Mt. Sinai covenant that he earlier will have confirmed to start the 7 years.

The Antichrist will be entered into by Satan to carry out the act, the transgression (of the covenant) of desolation of Daniel 8:12-13. Of sitting in the temple, claiming to have achieved God-hood.

Revealing himself to be the man of sin, and not the messiah after all.

This is better understood when a person understands the functional role of the Antichrist is to be the phony King of Israel messiah, who the Jews will unwittingly accept, who comes in his own name.

The naos in 2Thessalonians2:4 will be a physical two roomed sanctuary building.

The complex that John was told to measure, the naos + the holy court (where the burnt offering altar and Jewish priests conduct the animal sacrifices) will replicate the tent tabernacle complex in the Exodus.

_____________________________________________________

It was good that the issue of naos was brought up - but you have drawn some wrong conclusions.

 

[Zao is life]

We are not given the details anywhere in scripture of exactly how the events described in 2 Corinthians 2 are going to unfold, but speculation is:

i. always the product of human imagination adding to the scriptures what the scriptures do not say; and

ii. human imagination adding to the scriptures what the scriptures do not say is the greatest catalyst for false doctrines in the church,

the second being the twisting of scripture to suit false doctrine; and

iii. too many follow the teaching produced in the human imaginations of others.

It's nevertheless 100% clear in 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24:12 that false doctrines and lawlessness will abound, bringing those who do not love the truth under strong delusion, that they may be condemned.

"Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!" (Matthew 7:22-23).

In 2Thessalonians2:4, the Antichrist in similitude will betray Israel, the Jews, by transgressing the Mt. Sinai covenant that he earlier will have confirmed to start the 7 years.

The naos in 2Thessalonians2:4 will be a physical two roomed sanctuary building.

The complex that John was told to measure, the naos + the holy court (where the burnt offering altar and Jewish priests conduct the animal sacrifices) will replicate the tent tabernacle complex in the Exodus.

We are not given the details anywhere in scripture of exactly how the events described in 2 Corinthians 2 are going to unfold, but speculation is:

i. always the product of human imagination adding to the scriptures what the scriptures do not say; and

ii. human imagination adding to the scriptures what the scriptures do not say is the greatest catalyst for false doctrines in the church,

the second being the twisting of scripture to suit false doctrine; and

iii. too many follow the teaching produced in the human imaginations of others.

It's nevertheless 100% clear in 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24:12 that false doctrines and lawlessness will abound, bringing those who do not love the truth under strong delusion, that they may be condemned.

"Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!" (Matthew 7:22-23).

 

[Zao is life]

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I never said “Hieron” and “naos” can be used interchangeably. I simply stated “Hieron” can include the central sanctuary when context permits. It would be incorrect to assert otherwise.

I'm not misunderstanding you. The context in every single one of the New Testament's verses mentioning the temple, and using the word hieron before the time of the tearing of the veil never (never) refers to the entire structure or includes the inner (holy) court & holy of holies.

hieron and naos are the two Greek words which, in every verse where they are used prior to the tearing of the veil, are letting the reader know immediately (by the word used) which section of the temple was being spoken about: Was it the outer court of the Gentiles and the precincts outside of the actual sanctuary (the profane), or was it the actual sanctuary (the naos)?

* If it was the actual sanctuary, naos (denoting the holy) is used every time up until the verses talking about the tearing of the veil.
* If is was outside the actual sanctuary, hieron (denoting the profane) is used every time.

Once the veil was torn God no longer considered the actual sanctuary to be His holy sanctuary. Naos stopped being used, and the distinction between the holy (the actual sanctuary) and the profane (the hieron outside the actual sanctuary) fell away. Completely fell away.

From then on (multiple verses in Acts) The New Testament uses only the word hieron in reference to the entire temple complex because what was previously considered God's sanctuary was now part of the profane - there was no difference any longer.

THEREFORE

From after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, the word hieron is referencing the entire temple complex, but in God's eyes the temple complex no longer included a sanctuary, even though the physical structure of what was the sanctuary, of what had previously been considered the sanctuary, had not shifted or moved out of the temple complex.

Hieron being used for the entire temple complex after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil shows that no part of it was considered holy by God anymore, it was now ALL part of the profane.

THEREFORE, in view of the above FACTS, stating that the word hieron "can include a reference to holy courts" is like telling God that He may have viewed the entire complex as profane after the death of Christ, but we will take the word hieron, which never referred to the holy place before the death of Christ, and claim that it now suddenly includes the profane with something that was (according to you) "still holy" even after the death of Christ (so God may not tell us what He considers holy and what He considers profane, we will tell Him).

That is what your statement regarding "hieron can include the holy court, depending on the context" amounts to.

This is why though you and many will hold onto this false notion that just because subsequent to the death of Christ, hieron was referencing the entire temple complex (thus viewing the entire thing as profane), yet because the word hieron now included what was formerly holy with the profane (with the hieron), this means (according to your argument) that the holy place was still holy and was still considered God's sanctuary by God.

The word hieron never included what was holy. hieron denotes what is profane. Just a building. Naos denotes what is holy, naos in reference to God's temple = God's holy sanctuary.

@claninja In our modern day the church building = hieron (just a building) but the saints who together make up the actual church (the actual sanctuary) = naos.

Take the saints who congregated in the building and let them congregate somewhere else (maybe they got a new church building somewhere) and the church building that is still standing is still the hieron. But the naos has left the premises.

@claninja The man of sin will seat himself up in the naos. God will never again dwell in any hieron, any building. He dwells in the body of Christ, the church, only, in the believers.

 

[Zao is life]

Hope people still see this:

The equivalent in our modern day the church building = hieron (just a building) but the saints who together make up the actual church (the actual sanctuary) = naos.

Take the saints who congregated in the building (the hieron) and let them congregate somewhere else (maybe they got a new church building somewhere) and the church building (hieron) that is still standing is still the hieron. But the naos has left the premises.

The man of sin will seat himself up in the naos. God will never again dwell in any hieron, any building, He dwells only in the body of Christ, the church, in the believers.

@grafted branch @Douggg @claninja

 

[grafted branch]

I don't like speculating too much, because speculation is always the product of human imagination adding to the scriptures what the scriptures do not say, and human imagination adding to the scriptures what the scriptures do not say is the greatest catalyst for false doctrines in the church, the second being the twisting of scripture to suit false doctrine, and too many follow the teaching produced in the human imaginations of others,

I don’t like speculating either but unless we just quote the Bible verbatim we start to engage in speculation. I personally accept some speculation but I try to value it in terms of its probability of being correct.

it is nevertheless 100% clear in 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24:12 that false doctrines and lawlessness will abound, bringing those who do not love the truth under strong delusion, that they may be condemned.

I agree, where the disagreement happens is when in time does it take place or if it happens multiple times.

imagine a Christian who becomes famous because he is given a great measure of the gifts of the Spirit. He goes about healing the sick in Jesus name, raising the dead in Jesus name, prophesying in Jesus name, etc. But then he also introduces false doctrines into the church born in his own puffed-up human imagine caused by pride welling up in him because he has been so gifted by the Spirit of God, calling it "manifestations of the Spirit" or something else, and all the while, he is exalting himself more and more in his mind because of the power God has given him, until eventually, after starting a whole new movement and gaining the consensus of most of the church as to the validity of his false doctrines and twisting of scripture, he turns around and claims to be God.

I believe in the cessation of certain gifts of the Spirit such as healing and speaking in tongues. So according to my personal faith if I saw someone healing the sick and putting the hospitals out of business I would think it was a form of deception even if it was done in the name of Christ.

I do however think the scenario you’ve laid out could’ve taken place in the first century.

Now I'm going to present you with a very, very tough question:

John 2
19 Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple (naos) and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then the Jews said, This temple was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up in three days?
21 But He spoke of the temple of His body.
22 Therefore when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

1 Corinthians 5
21 For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree:

1 Peter 2
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes all of you were healed.

Our sin, and all the sin of the entire human race since Adam to that time and beyond that time were laid on Jesus. Not only did He bare our sin in His own body, but He became our sin. The knowledge of it caused Him such dread that He sweat blood praying and asking God if at all possible to let that cup pass from Him (Luke 22:44; Matthew 26:39).

Was our sin and the sin of the whole world, which Jesus became when He hung on that cross an abomination to God?

Of course it was:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Matthew 27:46

Habakkuk 1
13 You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and can not look on iniquity: wherefore look you upon them that deal treacherously, and hold your tongue when the wicked devours the man that is more righteous than he?

Yet "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" 2 Corinthians 5:19.

Jesus is the naos, the temple of God. The body of Christ is the naos, the temple of God. HE was not lawless, but he took our sin upon Himself and became our sin.

Now, do you think it's impossible for a lawless man, the son of perdition, the man of sin, to defile the naos of God?

I followed a thread some time ago about whether or not Christ was removed from the trinity or not when he cried out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me”. As the debate went on the question arose about whether or not Jesus actually became sin or if he just paid the price of the sin (sin = death).

I came away with the understanding that Christ was always and forever part of the trinity. I think everyone agrees with the penalty of sin being paid for. While there are compelling arguments on both sides, I personally don’t think Jesus was the actual sin. I think he paid the price which included some kind of separation from the God Head while remaining in the trinity.

Perhaps a new thread in this area of the forum about this topic would be beneficial as it can have an impact on a person’s eschatology.

 

[Douggg]

I'm not misunderstanding you. The context in every single one of the New Testament's verses mentioning the temple, and using the word hieron before the time of the tearing of the veil never (never) refers to the entire structure or includes the inner (holy) court & holy of holies.

hieron and naos are the two Greek words which, in every verse where they are used prior to the tearing of the veil, are letting the reader know immediately (by the word used) which section of the temple was being spoken about: Was it the outer court of the Gentiles and the precincts outside of the actual sanctuary (the profane), or was it the actual sanctuary (the naos)?

* If it was the actual sanctuary, naos (denoting the holy) is used every time up until the verses talking about the tearing of the veil.
* If is was outside the actual sanctuary, hieron (denoting the profane) is used every time.

Once the veil was torn God no longer considered the actual sanctuary to be His holy sanctuary. Naos stopped being used, and the distinction between the holy (the actual sanctuary) and the profane (the hieron outside the actual sanctuary) fell away. Completely fell away.

From then on (multiple verses in Acts) The New Testament uses only the word hieron in reference to the entire temple complex because what was previously considered God's sanctuary was now part of the profane - there was no difference any longer.

THEREFORE

From after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, the word hieron is referencing the entire temple complex, but in God's eyes the temple complex no longer included a sanctuary, even though the physical structure of what was the sanctuary, of what had previously been considered the sanctuary, had not shifted or moved out of the temple complex.

Hieron being used for the entire temple complex after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil shows that no part of it was considered holy by God anymore, it was now ALL part of the profane.

THEREFORE, in view of the above FACTS, stating that the word hieron "can include a reference to holy courts" is like telling God that He may have viewed the entire complex as profane after the death of Christ, but we will take the word hieron, which never referred to the holy place before the death of Christ, and claim that it now suddenly includes the profane with something that was (according to you) "still holy" even after the death of Christ (so God may not tell us what He considers holy and what He considers profane, we will tell Him).

That is what your statement regarding "hieron can include the holy court, depending on the context" amounts to.

This is why though you and many will hold onto this false notion that just because subsequent to the death of Christ, hieron was referencing the entire temple complex (thus viewing the entire thing as profane), yet because the word hieron now included what was formerly holy with the profane (with the hieron), this means (according to your argument) that the holy place was still holy and was still considered God's sanctuary by God.

The word hieron never included what was holy. hieron denotes what is profane. Just a building. Naos denotes what is holy, naos in reference to God's temple = God's holy sanctuary.

@claninja In our modern day the church building = hieron (just a building) but the saints who together make up the actual church (the actual sanctuary) = naos.

Take the saints who congregated in the building and let them congregate somewhere else (maybe they got a new church building somewhere) and the church building that is still standing is still the hieron. But the naos has left the premises.

@claninja The man of sin will seat himself up in the naos. God will never again dwell in any hieron, any building. He dwells in the body of Christ, the church, only, in the believers.

Well you put forth your explanation of what 2Thessalonians2:4 means (in quotes), speculating that the person is a Christian....

"imagine a Christian who becomes famous because he is given a great measure of the gifts of the Spirit. He goes about healing the sick in Jesus name, raising the dead in Jesus name, prophesying in Jesus name, etc. But then he also introduces false doctrines into the church born in his own puffed-up human imagine caused by pride welling up in him because he has been so gifted by the Spirit of God, calling it "manifestations of the Spirit" or something else, and all the while, he is exalting himself more and more in his mind because of the power God has given him, until eventually, after starting a whole new movement and gaining the consensus of most of the church as to the validity of his false doctrines and twisting of scripture, he turns around and claims to be God."

... with no reference to Judas being called the son of perdition and why...


vs my explanation of what 2Thessaloniasn2:4 means. In which, I refer to Judas, called the son of perdition as well, in John and Luke... and why. And the act itself, the transgression of desolation to the temple, in Daniel 8:12-13, and stopping the daily animal sacrifices (which requires a burnt offering altar, as in Revelation 11:1).....a time of the end prophecy in the text of Daniel 8.

The person will be no Christian. It is because of him that there will be a great falling away in Christianity, from believing in Jesus, in 2Thessalonians2:3, first.

 

[Timtofly]

I don’t like speculating either but unless we just quote the Bible verbatim we start to engage in speculation. I personally accept some speculation but I try to value it in terms of its probability of being correct.

I agree, where the disagreement happens is when in time does it take place or if it happens multiple times.

I believe in the cessation of certain gifts of the Spirit such as healing and speaking in tongues. So according to my personal faith if I saw someone healing the sick and putting the hospitals out of business I would think it was a form of deception even if it was done in the name of Christ.

I do however think the scenario you’ve laid out could’ve taken place in the first century.

I followed a thread some time ago about whether or not Christ was removed from the trinity or not when he cried out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me”. As the debate went on the question arose about whether or not Jesus actually became sin or if he just paid the price of the sin (sin = death).

I came away with the understanding that Christ was always and forever part of the trinity. I think everyone agrees with the penalty of sin being paid for. While there are compelling arguments on both sides, I personally don’t think Jesus was the actual sin. I think he paid the price which included some kind of separation from the God Head while remaining in the trinity.

Perhaps a new thread in this area of the forum about this topic would be beneficial as it can have an impact on a person’s eschatology.

Have you ever read the poem, Footprints In The Sand?

I don't think the Trinity was divided on the Cross. I think the whole Godhead was one at that point. God was the only Sacrifice demanded by and for God. The Atonement had already happened before creation. From a physical standpoint it only happened once in 30AD.

 

[claninja]

I'm not misunderstanding you. The context in every single one of the New Testament's verses mentioning the temple, and using the word hieron before the time of the tearing of the veil never (never) refers to the entire structure or includes the inner (holy) court & holy of holies.

This is Incorrect. Strongs, helps word-studies, and thayers Greek lexicon disagree with you on the definition of Hieron. Each definition below states that “Hieron” can refer to the entire complex, including the central sanctuary, when context permits:

“a temple, either the whole building, or specifically the outer courts, open to worshippers”- strongs
(Strong's Greek: 2411. ἱερόν (hieron) -- temple.)

“hierón (from 2413 /hierós, "sacred") – the entire Temple complex, i.e. all its enclosures (precincts, courtyards) and the central sanctuary.” - helps word studies
(Strong's Greek: 2411. ἱερόν (hieron) -- temple.)

“ἱερόν is employed in the N. T. either explicitly of the whole temple, Matthew 12:6; Matthew 24:1; Mark 13:3; Luke 21:5; Luke 22:52; Acts 4:1; Acts 24:6; Acts 25:8; 1 Corinthians 9:13, etc”
(Strong's Greek: 2411. ἱερόν (hieron) -- temple.)

 

[Zao is life]

This incorrect

You will suit yourself (so suit yourself). I'm going to answer your post with regard to the scriptures references you quote, in my next reply to your post, because of my accidental repeat.

 

[Douggg]

The word hieron never included what was holy. hieron denotes what is profane. Just a building. Naos denotes what is holy, naos in reference to God's temple = God's holy sanctuary.

You are wrong.


The naos was within the hieron.

The naos was the two roomed temple sanctuary building.