PDA

View Full Version : The Views of the Third Hero, End Times Style!



third hero
Dec 7th 2007, 07:22 PM
Okay, the inspiration came from my last thread, and I hope that for thosee who do not understand where I come from on half of these post, I want to clear things up.

My view hinges on a few things.

1. The Believers being prepared to face the enemy face to face
2. The belief that the entire bible, when it comes to the end times, has things orchestrated into a certain, visible sequence that is easier to follow that what many pundits have perpetuated in the last 2000 years.
3. That God will fulfill every last promise that He has made.

That is the nutshell of what I believe. Now for the nutcracker... Sorry St Nick, but I felt this pun was appropriate.

Let's start with the sequence of events leading up to the return of the Lord.

It is my belief that all of the events that lead up to the Lord's return hinge on Matthew 24:3-31, 25:31-46. This, I believe, is the whole story of the return of the Lord. Everything else that I say is due to this overriding belief that I have.

Now, in Matthew 24, we have the birth pangs and the persecutions of the believers, which no one in here questions. What get's interesting is what happens starting at verse 15.

The Abomination that causes desolation.

I wanted to understand where this comes from and why it is significant to the end times signs that Jesus taught the disciples. And so I looked at Daniel 9:27, and found that the Abomination that causes desolation, in so many words, (Daniel needed to learn to say things without using so many words.. jeez my head hurts just thinking about all of the words he used), is there. And so, because that verse was tied to the whole Seventy Weeks thing, I decided to investigate that as well.

And so, after reading Daniel 9:24-27, I came to this conclusion.

1. the Seventy weeks are directly tied to the Return of the Lord
2. In order to proclaim the seventy weeks complete, all of the things listed in verse 24 must be fulfilled.

I know this will be lengthy, but I have a point to make, and thus it will take a little while. Sorry.

This leads me to this point, Jerusalem. One of the requirements of the seventy weeks was that everlasting righteousnessis to be brought into Jerusalem. This caused me to ask this one question:

Is there any other verse that says that righteousness is to be brought into Jerusalem? The answer surprised me. I found a few. One of those passages was psalm 2. This gives us a picture of the one called the Son of God ruling the entire world from God's holy Mountain, mount Zion. We all know that Zion is fond in Jerusalem. Then Zechariah 14, which was actually the first verse that I had found on this subject, which stated that the King of Kings will be ruling the world from Jerusalem, and the remnant of the nations will have to go up to Jerusalem year by yeay to worship Him at the feast of tabernacles. And thus, I found more verses saying roughly the same thing concerning Jerusalem and righteousness being brought into it.

And so, because I did not factor Revelation into the equation as of yet, I figured that if all of these prophets are saying that the Lord, who is of the seed of David, who is called by God the FAther, His Son, who was named after Joshua, (Yeshua) was to rule over all of the world through Jerusalem.

In truth, this is the basis for which I accept the label, Premil, Because although they get a lot of the details wrong, like Christ only ruling for 1000 years, (BTW, for those who did not know already, I believe that Christ's reign is infinite, and it will not stop just because Satan is released. Not even heaven and earth will outlast the reign of Christ), they incorporate the idea of Christ ruling the world from Jerusalem.

Now, what do I believe when it comes to the period of time in which Christ rules all of mankind....(man that sounds suspicious, becasue He is already ruling Tenchi from the right hand of His Father right now. BTW I will be using that word, tenchi, quite a bit, because it is the Japanese word for "heaven and earth"), that is to say, when Christ returns and takes over the earth, tyrannical style, I believe that these things will happen.

1. The armies of the world, and the kings of the world, will be destroyed. Period. No survivors
2. Those with the Mark of the beast who did not participate in the battle at armageddon will recieve a plague that will kill them all.
3. Jesus will then rule the entire world, from the place where David once called his kingdom, Jerusalem.
4. Satan will be imprisoned (which is so premillish, I know)
5. The beast and the false prophet are destroyed in the lake of fire
6. earth willl experience a peace that it has never experienced since the fall of Adam
7. And let's not forget, that the Tribulation saints who died at the hands of the beast will be resurrected, and will rule with Christ until the destruction of tenchi.

I think I am running out of space, and so, another post is required.

third hero
Dec 7th 2007, 07:52 PM
I'm sorry about this, but for all of the amils and premils that I have ticked off during my stay here, this is your chance to know what I know, and thus use it either to benefit yourself, or against me.

Now, by now I believe that I have covered the whole reason why I side with the premils concerning the time of Christ's reing on earth, although I still stress that it is a lot longer than 1000 years. Now, I am going to show you why I believe as I do.

IN Matthew 25:31-46, we find the nations being judged, mainly because He says it in verse 31. He separates the "righteous" nations from the "wicked" ones. NOw, notice the wording in the subsequent verses. Their judgment is based on their treatment of his brethern, the saints. Notice verse 40.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

And so, as Matthew 25:31 states, when the Lord returns with power and gret Glory, he establishes his seat,and judges the nations, based solely on their treatment of the believers.

But, I skippped a few steps. Let's go back to the moment that the Lord returns. This one is really interesting.

Here is what I see, moment by moment, the events that happen during the return of the Lord.

1. The sun, moon and stars go black. (we agree on this one David)
2. Jesus shines from the gate of Heaven.
3. He picks up the remaining faithful and resurrects the tribulation saints (I know you will ahve something to say on the tribulation saints part)
4. The kings of the world, at the prompting of Satan, the Beast and the false prophet will be awaiting their doom at the valley of Megiddo.
5. Jesus issues the command, while in the air, for the angels and saints to destroy the kings of the world... (I am a little unsure on whether the saints participate in that slaughter or not), giving the definition of the sword in his mouth, literally, the command to destroy them.
6. The birds will gorge themselves with the flesh of all of the slain in the valley.

At the same time, these things are happening.
1. The mountains are being shaken to extiction by means of the Great earthquake of the seventh vial.
2. Along with the mountains disappearing, so are the islands of the sea,
3. The survivors of these catastrophies are pelted with 100lb hailstones.

Needless to say, there is a great amount of death that accompanies the return of the Lord. From there we have the setting up of Christ's Kingdom on earth, with whole nations.... well, whoever's left from those nations, being judged, based on their treatment of the saints while they were on earth.

Now I know that you are going to ask this question, or at least a variation of it. "Are you implying that there willl be survivors, or otherwise people still standing after the Lord returns?" No, I am not implying it. I am outright stating that to be the case. Here is why.

I read Daniel 7, and some very interesting similarities to the return of the Lord jumped off of the pages, and I certainly could not ignore them. One of the similarities is the fact that Daniel uses the same term that Jesus used when talking about himself, the Son of Man. In fact, Jesus called Himself the Son of man more than any other title. I would even go so far as to say that that was the only title He gave Himself, the Son of man.

In Daniel 7, we have the exact same scenario of the Great Tribulation, with the little horn making proclamations and for his effort, being sent to the "consumming flame". But before he gets what's coming to him, he wages a war against the believers, and defeats them. But afterwards, the "Son of Man" comes in clouds of heaven, as the Ancient of Dys came down and judged the nations. But that's not all. There are people who are being judged, and they bring the Son of Man to stand before the Ancient of days, as though He will vouch for them. (Sorry, I know that was my interpretation just then, but it seemed that way). As a result, judgment is given to the saints, and the Son of Man is given "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed." (verse 14)

But that's not all. In this chapter,we have the judgment of the wicked here as well. Take a look at verses 11-12. We find that the beast from the abyss is thrown into the all-consumming fire, but the rest of the beast has it's authority stripped from him, but was allowed to live for a season. what is the rest of the beast? Well, I figure that the rest of the beast is nothing short of the inhabitants of the kingdom of the beast.

But if this was the only place where there is mentioned to possibly be survivors of the return, then I wouldn't have much of a case. But there is more, and thus I am again, running out of space. And so another post is required.

David Taylor
Dec 7th 2007, 07:59 PM
Okay, the inspiration came from my last thread, and I hope that for thosee who do not understand where I come from on half of these post, I want to clear things up.

It is my belief that all of the events that lead up to the Lord's return hinge on Matthew 24:3-31, 25:31-46.


I almost agree with you.
or
I agree with the parts that we agree with 100%.
or
I agree with you on the parts that are intended to describe the Lord's return.
or
....let me say it another way.

Back in my Dispensational Premill days, I took all of Matthew 24:3-25:46 as one great big endtime picture.

When I found myself leaving Premill, and venturing into what became the Amill view, I found that entire block of passages were viewed differently.

Similarly, when I looked at anything written prior to the 19th century, I found this block of passages completely viewed differently than I had known them as a Dispensational Premill guy.

I also met folks along the way who took this block, and put all of it in the 1st century. (Yes, you Rommie....among others).

When I began to spend more time with this block of passages, I found something quite interesting.

1) You have go back and start with the end of Chapter 23 to get the context.
2) When you look at the end of Chapter 23's context, and the end of Chapter 25's context....they are adressing two different things, and two different events.
3) How is this reconciled?

Jesus was asked two questions in Matthew 24:3....and
all of Matthew 23 answers the 1st question;
parts of Matthew 24 gives details about the answer to both questions, and
all of Matthew 25 gives details about the 2nd question.What were the two questions?

Q1: When will these things be (the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem mentioned in Chapter 23)?
Q2: When will be your second Coming return in power and glory (which Chapter 25 solely describes)?

Chapter 24, is a blending passage that answers parts of both questions.

I'll start a thread explaining my thoughts on this.







And so, after reading Daniel 9:24-27, I came to this conclusion.

1. the Seventy weeks are directly tied to the Return of the Lord
2. In order to proclaim the seventy weeks complete, all of the things listed in verse 24 must be fulfilled.


So when Jesus splits the Eastern Sky Wide-Open, in power and resplendent glory, riding on the clouds, accompanied by myriads of angels and an entire herd of white horses and riders.....

At that point, do you believe the 70 weeks are completed and fulfilled?

If not, when?




Now, what do I believe when it comes to the period of time in which Christ rules all of mankind....(man that sounds suspicious, becasue He is already ruling Tenchi from the right hand of His Father right now. BTW I will be using that word, tenchi, quite a bit, because it is the Japanese word for "heaven and earth"), that is to say, when Christ returns and takes over the earth, tyrannical style, I believe that these things will happen.

1. The armies of the world, and the kings of the world, will be destroyed. Period. No survivors


So just before the 2nd Coming, don't join and army, and if you are wicked, don't be a King.....be a wicked prince, or a wicked queen, or a wicked commoner and you won't be destroyed....just don't be a King or a member of an army if you are wicked?

Wicked Commoners are exempt from being destroyed.....

Right?




2. Those with the Mark of the beast who did not participate in the battle at armageddon will recieve a plague that will kill them all.


So then, those who did not take the mark...they are survive....(if they aren't in an army and aren't a king)....Right?

Why don't they get Raptured and Changed from mortal to immortal then?

Or is there a special class of wicked mortals who aren't followers of Christ who merit special exemption from destruction at His return?

How do they merit this special exemption? (Simply by not being a King, not being an army member, and not taking the Mark of the Beast)?




3. Jesus will then rule the entire world, from the place where David once called his kingdom, Jerusalem.
4. Satan will be imprisoned (which is so premillish, I know)
5. The beast and the false prophet are destroyed in the lake of fire




6. earth willl experience a peace that it has never experienced since the fall of Adam

Does this peace include sinners still remaining and rebelling and disbelieving upon the Earth?
There weren't rebels as the sands of the sea within the Garden of Eden....but there will be those found within this Earthen period right?






7. And let's not forget, that the Tribulation saints who died at the hands of the beast will be resurrected, and will rule with Christ until the destruction of tenchi.

I think I am running out of space, and so, another post is required.
What is the difference between:
1) A Tribulation Saint
2) A Pre-Flood Saint
3) A Pre-Law Saint
4) A Regular O.T. Saint
5) A Pre-Calvary N.T. Saint
6) A Post-Calvary, Pre-Pentecost Saint
7) A Post-Pentecost, Pre-Tribulation Saint
8) A Millennium Saint

(Be careful here Doug...I am trying to trick you within a Dispensational Trap here....but we know you aren't Dispensational, so don't let it get you!)

David Taylor
Dec 7th 2007, 08:12 PM
I'm sorry about this, but for all of the amils and premils that I have ticked off during my stay here, this is your chance to know what I know, and thus use it either to benefit yourself, or against me.


ASA....grab your Q38 space modulators quickly....Zan turn into an ice-bucket; Jana turn into a giant eagle....gleep, jump in the bucket.....and Marvin the Wonderdog? Oh, we sent him over to be a strategic member of the PSA.




Now, by now I believe that I have covered the whole reason why I side with the premils concerning the time of Christ's reing on earth, although I still stress that it is a lot longer than 1000 years. Now, I am going to show you why I believe as I do.

IN Matthew 25:31-46, we find the nations being judged, mainly because He says it in verse 31. He separates the "righteous" nations from the "wicked" ones. NOw, notice the wording in the subsequent verses. Their judgment is based on their treatment of his brethern, the saints. Notice verse 40.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

And so, as Matthew 25:31 states, when the Lord returns with power and gret Glory, he establishes his seat,and judges the nations, based solely on their treatment of the believers.


Would the mistreatment of Abel, Noah, Lot, Gideon, John the Baptist, and Stephen...as well as Christians who died last year in Sudan be included in the believers who were mistreated?




But, I skippped a few steps. Let's go back to the moment that the Lord returns. This one is really interesting.

Here is what I see, moment by moment, the events that happen during the return of the Lord.

1. The sun, moon and stars go black. (we agree on this one David)
2. Jesus shines from the gate of Heaven.
3. He picks up the remaining faithful and resurrects the tribulation saints (I know you will ahve something to say on the tribulation saints part)


But what about all of the other saints wanting to be resurrected? Job wrote of it, Isaiah, Daniel, Paul....do they miss the resurrection here?





4. The kings of the world, at the prompting of Satan, the Beast and the false prophet will be awaiting their doom at the valley of Megiddo.

If there are some armies garrisoned in Libya, Sweden, Norway, Bolivia....will they too suffer doom because they are armies; or are only the armies in Megiddo doomed?






5. Jesus issues the command, while in the air, for the angels and saints to destroy the kings of the world... (I am a little unsure on whether the saints participate in that slaughter or not), giving the definition of the sword in his mouth, literally, the command to destroy them.
6. The birds will gorge themselves with the flesh of all of the slain in the valley.

At the same time, these things are happening.
1. The mountains are being shaken to extiction by means of the Great earthquake of the seventh vial.
2. Along with the mountains disappearing, so are the islands of the sea,
3. The survivors of these catastrophies are pelted with 100lb hailstones.

Needless to say, there is a great amount of death that accompanies the return of the Lord. From there we have the setting up of Christ's Kingdom on earth, with whole nations.... well, whoever's left from those nations, being judged, based on their treatment of the saints while they were on earth.

Now I know that you are going to ask this question, or at least a variation of it. "Are you implying that there willl be survivors, or otherwise people still standing after the Lord returns?" No, I am not implying it. I am outright stating that to be the case. Here is why.

I read Daniel 7, and some very interesting similarities to the return of the Lord jumped off of the pages, and I certainly could not ignore them. One of the similarities is the fact that Daniel uses the same term that Jesus used when talking about himself, the Son of Man. In fact, Jesus called Himself the Son of man more than any other title. I would even go so far as to say that that was the only title He gave Himself, the Son of man.

In Daniel 7, we have the exact same scenario of the Great Tribulation, with the little horn making proclamations and for his effort, being sent to the "consumming flame". But before he gets what's coming to him, he wages a war against the believers, and defeats them. But afterwards, the "Son of Man" comes in clouds of heaven, as the Ancient of Dys came down and judged the nations. But that's not all. There are people who are being judged, and they bring the Son of Man to stand before the Ancient of days, as though He will vouch for them. (Sorry, I know that was my interpretation just then, but it seemed that way). As a result, judgment is given to the saints, and the Son of Man is given "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed." (verse 14)


I thought the Son of Man went to the Ancient of Days, (not came down from), in that Daniel passage....showing a prophecy of Christ coming to bring the kingdom to all the world as He did 2000 years ago. Didn't Christ ascend to the Ancient of Days on the clouds then? Didn't Christ establish His eternal Kingdom then? Aren't people from all nations and tongues and tribes serving him now as that Kingdom continues to grow?





But that's not all. In this chapter,we have the judgment of the wicked here as well. Take a look at verses 11-12. We find that the beast from the abyss is thrown into the all-consumming fire, but the rest of the beast has it's authority stripped from him, but was allowed to live for a season. what is the rest of the beast? Well, I figure that the rest of the beast is nothing short of the inhabitants of the kingdom of the beast.

I thought the 4th beast in Daniel 7 was the Roman empire....which Christianity did triumph over, and now no longer exists.




But if this was the only place where there is mentioned to possibly be survivors of the return, then I wouldn't have much of a case. But there is more, and thus I am again, running out of space. And so another post is required.


I would really like to know what merits these survivors to get their "exemption from destruction cards"....
You know the guys who died in the flood are gonna be upset...that some of them didn't get to be exempt....but at the final and clymactic Glorious Appearing, evidently a bunch of wicked people get exemptions...(well...not really clymactic....just another blip on the timeline of historical events)....

third hero
Dec 7th 2007, 08:22 PM
I'm back, and I am going to be late for work.... I need to get up away from this computer......

Oh well, shall we continue?

I found in Zechariah 14 this scenario:

Starting at verse 5, The Lord returns... although the actual wording is that the Lord comes. Verses 6-8 deal with the lighting, which is exactly as proclaimed by Lord Jesus in Matthew 24. Verse 9 says this, and I could not ignore it.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

That jumped rioght off of the page and plastered itself onto the lenses of my eyes. This is saying that the Lord will rule the entire earth, and not just in the sense that He is today. oh no, another tangeant.

The lord says on many occasions that Tenchi is His and everything in it. This is true, and in fact, no one can debate that. However, God delegated the authority of the earth to Adam, who lost his authority when he gave it over to Satan at the fall. It is my belief that Satan uses this authority to make claims on the earth, as though it is his. The earth is the Lord's but Satan has control over the men of the nations, no thanks to ADAM, and thus God does not have complete and total "hands-on" control of the earth. (see Matthew 4 for clarification.)

Now, getting right back on board, we find in Zechariah the Lord coming, and taking over the stewardship of the earth. In this passage, we have the nations in a state of confusion, and a plague hits them. This plague causes the flesh to rot while they are yet living. All of the while, Zechariah states that Jerusalem will no longer be destroyed, but safely inhabited, with the Lord ruling from there forever. In that same passage, we find that the nations, the remnants of those nations, are to send representatives to Jerusalem, to worship the King of Kings at the feast of tabernacles. (I know you noticed that I have stated this verse a lot, David). The same passage gives a direct reference to Egypt, and telling us that this is how Egypt will become desolate. Egypt is not in heaven, the last time I checked, and this confirmed to me that not only are there survivors of the nations that attacked Jerusalem, but that Egypt is one of the surviving nations that will bite the dust later on during the reign of the King of Kings.

so, up to now, we see the Lord ruling over the nations from Jerusalem. Another question that i would like to answer is this:

Why would Jesus come to earth and spare some people and rule them from the earth?

I believe that this is directly tied to the promise that God gave David. I believe that the whole reason why Christ has to return to the earth, instead of blowing it all up, is because His Father made a promise to David, that one of his seed will sit in His seat, and rule the entire world forever. If Jesus comes and destroys the entire world, then He will never have sat in David's throne, and thus the promise is broken. Therefore, I believe that the reason for the Lord returning to earth, and not merely destroying it, is so that He can rule the entire earth from Jerusalem, and fulfill the promise that God gave to David.

Now, what do I believe will be going on during this time? Well, David, I think you already know wht I believe. And coincidently enough, it is exactly why you do not follow the premil POV. I believe that sin will still be present in the world, although not very tolerated. I believe that death will still be present, although the Lord will be working towards destroying him. I believe that the Tribulation Saints will be ruling the world with Christ, and frankly will not have the same pleasure as the rest of the believers, who can rest and sit there awaiting their gift of Eternal life and New Jerusalem. I believe that mankind will be ruled harshly by Jesus Christ, and those who anger him, like it is stated in Psalm 2, will perish quickly. I believe that the life of a man will be extended, mainly because of Isaiah 65:20, and I believe that Christ will work towards destroying all that is not of God.

Afterwards, I believe that after 1000 years, the great evil known as Satan will be released from His prison, and he will attempt to mess everything up. He will deceive the nations once again, but unlike the current era, he will not have much time, because the Lord's temper will be very short. They will assemble outside Jerusalem, and then the end will come. Satan will not be able to control the events of th earth, but rather he will try to secretly start an uprising, where the people will rebel against Lord Jesus, to their own doom, I might add.

Form here comes the Judgment seat, where tenchi is destroyed, and all of mankind must face Him. The righteous are given admission to New Jerusalem, and the wicked are exterminated.

I believe that from that point onward, we are in agreement, right David?

Well, everyone, this is what I believe will happen during the reign of Lord Jesus on earth. For the record, these things will not happen.

1. sacrificing, which did no good before Christ died, and especially does no good afterward.
2. any saint that missed the "rapture"
3. No infant deaths. The earliest that a person will die during this period will be 100 years, as Isaiah 65 mandates.

What does this mean? Well, it means that there may end up being a period in time before the destruction of tenchi whn mankind will not be thinking about having kids, since their lifespans will be so much longer. It also means that Christ will have some plan for those who live during this time to gain eternal life, which will probably be the same as it is for us with one big exception. With us, it requires faith. With them, it'll just require obedience, since God will be visible on earth, for all to see.

third hero
Dec 7th 2007, 08:27 PM
I will answer all of those questions, when I get back from work tonight... or when I wake up tomorrow! I can't wait, I'm bouncing off of the walls here!:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

David Taylor
Dec 7th 2007, 09:02 PM
I'm back, and I am going to be late for work.... I need to get up away from this computer......

Oh well, shall we continue?

I found in Zechariah 14 this scenario:

Starting at verse 5, The Lord returns... although the actual wording is that the Lord comes.

He sure did come....and walked on the Mount of Olives, according to John 8:1.




Verses 6-8 deal with the lighting, which is exactly as proclaimed by Lord Jesus in Matthew 24. Verse 9 says this, and I could not ignore it.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Sounds like the Great Commission and the gospel message going out into all nations of the world, and being received and believed by billions for the first time since the Earth was created.

The same one Lord I believe in as my King here in the USA, is the same one Lord that people in Greenland, Belgium, Latvia, Uganda, Japan, Argentina, and Pango Pango all claim as their King!!!

What a great fulfillment to Zechariah's hope!




That jumped rioght off of the page and plastered itself onto the lenses of my eyes. This is saying that the Lord will rule the entire earth, and not just in the sense that He is today. oh no, another tangeant.


Where did it equivocate on how the Lord would not rule as King??? I missed that tangent.





Now, getting right back on board, we find in Zechariah the Lord coming, and taking over the stewardship of the earth.


Kinda like He did here?

Matthew 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father"

Or like He did here?

Ephesians 1:20 "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church"

Or like He did here?

Hebrews 2:7 "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him"




In this passage, we have the nations in a state of confusion, and a plague hits them. This plague causes the flesh to rot while they are yet living.


Kinda like these people?

Hebrews 6:8 "But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. "

or these?
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments...have mercy on me; for I am tormented in this flame. "




All of the while, Zechariah states that Jerusalem will no longer be destroyed, but safely inhabited, with the Lord ruling from there forever.


Kinda like this safely inhabited Jerusalem where the Lord rules forever?

Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. "

Or this safely inhabited Jerusalem where the Lord rules forever?

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect




In that same passage, we find that the nations, the remnants of those nations, are to send representatives to Jerusalem, to worship the King of Kings


Kinda like the inhabitants from these nations?

Rev 7:9 "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen."

or the inhabitants from these nations?

Rev 21:23 "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. "




(I know you noticed that I have stated this verse a lot, David). The same passage gives a direct reference to Egypt, and telling us that this is how Egypt will become desolate. Egypt is not in heaven, the last time I checked, and this confirmed to me that not only are there survivors of the nations that attacked Jerusalem, but that Egypt is one of the surviving nations that will bite the dust later on during the reign of the King of Kings.


Even though this passage says Egypt bites the dust at the 2nd Coming?

Joel 3:13 Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth out of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of ****tim. Egypt shall be a desolation"





so, up to now, we see the Lord ruling over the nations from Jerusalem.

Yes, Heavenly Jerusalem...the only one that is or ever will be holy...until it descends to the New Earth.





Another question that i would like to answer is this:

Why would Jesus come to earth and spare some people and rule them from the earth?

I believe that this is directly tied to the promise that God gave David. I believe that the whole reason why Christ has to return to the earth, instead of blowing it all up, is because His Father made a promise to David, that one of his seed will sit in His seat, and rule the entire world forever. If Jesus comes and destroys the entire world,

What if he doesn't destroy it (like a big bomb), but rather, cleanses it in holy divine fire, removing the chaff, the tares, the sin, the death, the curse, and remakes it perfect, and sinless and knew....like the Garden of Eden days...but even better?

Couldn't He fulfill his promise in that venue, as opposed to an Earth that is still plagued by sin and death and decay and rebellion?





then He will never have sat in David's throne, and thus the promise is broken. Therefore, I believe that the reason for the Lord returning to earth, and not merely destroying it, is so that He can rule the entire earth from Jerusalem, and fulfill the promise that God gave to David.

What is the throne of David?

Is it a chair, or a position of Authority over God's people?





Now, what do I believe will be going on during this time? Well, David, I think you already know wht I believe. And coincidently enough, it is exactly why you do not follow the premil POV. I believe that sin will still be present in the world, although not very tolerated.


So sin will go into hiding then in this peaceful, perfect kingdom?
Is that what you are saying? Underground sin?...as opposed to just ending it all together when Christ returns.





I believe that death will still be present, although the Lord will be working towards destroying him.

So the Lord has to work to destroy death over a lengthy period, and cannot just speak and death is defeated?

Reminds me of when Jesus told Lazarus to come forth.

The Resurrection of all humanity almost occurred then...did you know that?

Because had Jesus just said, 'Come Forth', instead of 'Lazarus Come Forth', all of the graves would have heeded his command and came out.

No, I can't believe that Jesus has to work at destroying death in the future...if he did any work to accomplish this; it was completed on the Cross....and death will be swallowed up in victory at the 2nd Coming, just as He said it would be.


Isaiah 24:23 "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously. O Lord, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth. For thou hast made of a city an heap; of a defenced city a ruin: a palace of strangers to be no city; it shall never be built. Therefore shall the strong people glorify thee, the city of the terrible nations shall fear thee. For thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall. Thou shalt bring down the noise of strangers, as the heat in a dry place; even the heat with the shadow of a cloud: the branch of the terrible ones shall be brought low. And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off ALL the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it. And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation. "






I believe that the Tribulation Saints will be ruling the world with Christ, and frankly will not have the same pleasure as the rest of the believers, who can rest and sit there awaiting their gift of Eternal life and New Jerusalem.

When you say, 'Tribulation Saints' it sure reminds me of my old Dispensational days....can't help it.



I believe that mankind will be ruled harshly by Jesus Christ, and those who anger him, like it is stated in Psalm 2, will perish quickly.

But the ones who rejected Him prior to the 2nd Coming who get a 'do not perish' exemption card...right? They won't perish quickly....but get to continue sinning as long as they keep it private, underground, and not out in the open. Right?





I believe that the life of a man will be extended, mainly because of Isaiah 65:20, and I believe that Christ will work towards destroying all that is not of God.
So even though most of Revelation 21 is quoted in Isaiah 17-20, you still won't apply Isaiah 65:20 as being a metaphor of death being defeated...instead of extended???? When John quoted Isaiah 65:17-20, he quoted it almost verbatim and applied it to the New Earth and the New Jerusalem; except John replaced the difficult-to-grasp verse 20 death analogy with this easier phrase...."and there shall be no more death"

I guess when God told Abraham that the age of man would not extend beyond 120, there will be more folks, in the future sin-suppressed kingdom, who will be exempt in a different way?

Kahtar
Dec 7th 2007, 11:57 PM
TH, you may find this interesting:

2 Chronicles 22:11-12,23:1-21
But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash (name means 'Fire of God') the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king's sons that were slain, and put him and his nurse in a bedchamber. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest, (for she was the sister of Ahaziah,) hid him from Athaliah, so that she slew him not. And he was with them hid in the house of God six years: and Athaliah reigned over the land.
And in the seventh year Jehoiada strengthened himself, and took the captains of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, and Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, and Azariah the son of Obed, and Maaseiah the son of Adaiah, and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him. And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem.
And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And he said unto them, Behold, the king's son shall reign, as the LORD hath said of the sons of David. This the thing that ye shall do;
A third part of you entering on the sabbath, of the priests and of the Levites, [shall be] porters of the doors; And a third part [shall be] at the king's house; and a third part at the gate of the foundation: and all the people [shall be] in the courts of the house of the LORD.
But let none come into the house of the LORD, save the priests, and they that minister of the Levites; they shall go in, for they [I][are] holy: but all the people shall keep the watch of the LORD.
And the Levites shall compass the king round about, every man with his weapons in his hand; and whosoever [else] cometh into the house, he shall be put to death: but be ye with the king when he cometh in, and when he goeth out.
So the Levites and all Judah did according to all things that Jehoiada the priest had commanded, and took every man his men that were to come in on the sabbath, with them that were to go [out] on the sabbath: for Jehoiada the priest dismissed not the courses.
Moreover Jehoiada the priest delivered to the captains of hundreds spears, and bucklers, and shields, that [had been] king David's, which [were] in the house of God. And he set all the people, every man having his weapon in his hand, from the right side of the temple to the left side of the temple, along by the altar and the temple, by the king round about.
Then they brought out the king's son, and put upon him the crown, and [gave him] the testimony, and made him king.
And Jehoiada and his sons anointed him, and said, God save the king.
Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people into the house of the LORD:
And she looked, and, behold, the king stood at his pillar at the entering in, and the princes and the trumpets by the king:
and all the people of the land rejoiced, and sounded with trumpets, also the singers with instruments of musick, and such as taught to sing praise.
Then Athaliah rent her clothes, and said, Treason, Treason.
Then Jehoiada the priest brought out the captains of hundreds that were set over the host, and said unto them, Have her forth of the ranges: and whoso followeth her, let him be slain with the sword. For the priest said, Slay her not in the house of the LORD. So they laid hands on her; and when she was come to the entering of the horse gate by the king's house, they slew her there.
And Jehoiada made a covenant between him, and between all the people, and between the king, that they should be the LORD'S people.
Then all the people went to the house of Baal, and brake it down, and brake his altars and his images in pieces, and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars.
Also Jehoiada appointed the offices of the house of the LORD by the hand of the priests the Levites, whom David had distributed in the house of the LORD, to offer the burnt offerings of the LORD, as [it is] written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, [as it was ordained] by David.
And he set the porters at the gates of the house of the LORD, that none [which was] unclean in any thing should enter in. And he took the captains of hundreds, and the nobles, and the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and brought down the king from the house of the LORD: and they came through the high gate into the king's house, and set the king upon the throne of the kingdom.
And all the people of the land rejoiced: and the city was quiet, after that they had slain Athaliah with the sword.

So the Restrained One tried to kill the King's Son, but He was hidden away for SIX years.
In the SEVENTH year, the Priests and Levites are GATHERED from all quarters, and are TAKEN UP to the Holy City, and brought before the King, and they all get to see Him. Then they are stationed around Him.
The rest of the people, who were not holy, remained, waiting for the appearing of His Coming.
At the right time, the King's Son is Anointed, given the Testimony, and Crowned King.
Then the people see the Sign of His Coming, and begin rejoicing, dancing, playing music, etc. and the Restrained One sees Him Coming, even standing by the piller.
Then she, and all who followed her, and rounded up and destroyed.
Then the Newly Anointed King enters in through the Gate, and takes His seat upon the Throne.
And there is peace and quiet in the Kingdom.

I already understand that amils will not agree with this assessment. That's okay. They are free to do that.:)

David Taylor
Dec 8th 2007, 01:46 PM
TH, you may find this interesting:

2 Chronicles 22:11-12,23:1-21
But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash (name means 'Fire of God') the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king's sons that were slain, and put him and his nurse in a bedchamber. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest, (for she was the sister of Ahaziah,) hid him from Athaliah, so that she slew him not. And he was with them hid in the house of God six years: and Athaliah reigned over the land....<snip>

I already understand that amils will not agree with this assessment. That's okay. They are free to do that.:)


Why would amils not agree with this assessment?

It is a clear biblical record, and external historical fact that King Jehoram of Judah was married to Athaliah (daugther of King Ahab of Israel), during the time of the split Northern and Southern Kingdoms circa 840 B.C.

I've never heard of any amills not agreeing with their existence and the events of their reign, as described above in the history of the Chronicles of the Old Testament Kings of Israel and Judah found you listed above.


But the story doesn't end in verse 23:21 with the kingdom living peacefully in quiet happily ever after....continuing the story we see what else happened when Joash later after he was crowned king and began to make repairs to Solomon's Temple, but who eventually near his death, he turned to idolatry and worshipping other gods...even to the point of having Zechariah the prophet killed.

II Chronicles 24:1-7, 21-22 Joash was seven years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Zibiah of Beersheba.
24:2 And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest.
24:3 And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.
24:4 And it came to pass after this, that Joash was minded to repair the house of the LORD.
24:5 And he gathered together the priests and the Levites, and said to them, Go out unto the cities of Judah, and gather of all Israel money to repair the house of your God from year to year, and see that ye hasten the matter. Howbeit the Levites hastened it not.
24:6 And the king called for Jehoiada the chief, and said unto him, Why hast thou not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the collection, according to the commandment of Moses the servant of the LORD, and of the congregation of Israel, for the tabernacle of witness?
24:7 For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God; and also all the dedicated things of the house of the LORD did they bestow upon Baalim.
24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.
24:21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.

No, Amills really don't have any problems with this assessment from the Scriptures as they tell what happened to Jehoram, Athalia, Joash, and Zechariah in the mid 800s B.C.

David Taylor
Dec 8th 2007, 02:12 PM
TH, you may find this interesting:

2 Chronicles 22:11-12,23:1-21

[[Kahtar's Summary]]
So the Restrained One tried to kill the King's Son, but He was hidden away for SIX years.
In the SEVENTH year, the Priests and Levites are GATHERED from all quarters, and are TAKEN UP to the Holy City, and brought before the King, and they all get to see Him. Then they are stationed around Him.
The rest of the people, who were not holy, remained, waiting for the appearing of His Coming.
At the right time, the King's Son is Anointed, given the Testimony, and Crowned King.
Then the people see the Sign of His Coming, and begin rejoicing, dancing, playing music, etc. and the Restrained One sees Him Coming, even standing by the piller.
Then she, and all who followed her, and rounded up and destroyed.
Then the Newly Anointed King enters in through the Gate, and takes His seat upon the Throne.
And there is peace and quiet in the Kingdom.



THe summary was great, but by leaving out all of the names, and only inserting pronouns in the summary, it makes it a little difficult to follow the text as it was given in 2 Chronicles.

Here is the Summary again, with the names added back in for clarity.


So the Restrained One(Queen Athaliah) tried to kill the King(Ahaziah)'s Son(Joash), but He(Joash) was hidden away (with his nurse) for SIX years.
In the SEVENTH year, the Priests and Levites are GATHERED from all quarters, and (5 people, Azariah, Ishmael, Azariah, and Maaseiah, and Elishaphat) are TAKEN UP to the Holy City, and brought before the King(Ahaziah), and they all get to see Him(Ahaziah). Then they are stationed around Him(Ahaziah) The rest of the people, who were not holy, remained, waiting for the appearing of His Coming.
(Chapter Change to 23 after King Ahaziah does)
At the right time, the King(Ahaziah)'s Son(Joash) is Anointed, given the Testimony, and Crowned King (Joash of the Southern Kingdom of Judah).
Then the people see the Sign of His (Joash) Coming, and begin rejoicing, dancing, playing music, etc. and the Restrained One(moether Queen Athaliah) sees Him (Joash) Coming, even standing by the piller.Then she(Queen Athaliah), and all who followed her, and rounded up and destroyed.Then the Newly Anointed King(Joash) enters in through the Gate, and takes His(Joash) seat upon the Throne (of the Southern Kingdom of Judah)..And there is peace and quiet in the Kingdom(the Southern Kingdom of Judah).

losthorizon
Dec 8th 2007, 04:03 PM
...when Christ returns and takes over the earth, tyrannical style, I believe that these things will happen… Jesus will then rule the entire world, from the place where David once called his kingdom, Jerusalem.

How does your premillennial viewpoint square with the fact that Jesus told us that true worshippers of God will never again need a temple in Jerusalem to worship God in "spirit and truth"? If Jesus reigns over the kingdoms of the world on His throne today at “God’s right hand” (and He does), then why do materialists insist that He must come back to a temple “made with hands” in earthy Jerusalem? Does Rev 20 teach that Jesus will reign for a literal 1000 year period from earthly Jerusalem? I think not.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4: 21-24)

Kahtar
Dec 8th 2007, 04:10 PM
:lol: Thank you Dave for your lengthy, rather melodramatic way of saying 'I disagree with your assessment, I see no prophetic significance in this text'. You fulfilled my expections....;)

David Taylor
Dec 8th 2007, 04:31 PM
:lol: Thank you Dave for your lengthy, rather melodramatic way of saying 'I disagree with your assessment, I see no prophetic significance in this text'. You fulfilled my expections....;)

No melodrama, no disagreeing, and no mention of prophetic significance (by me:o or you :rofl:either)


Sorry if including the names from the people discussed in 2 Chronicles took away from any of the significance of the passages...:confused Gotta hate it when context gets in the way of great implications and hypothesi, Kahtar.



Perhaps we can get Doug's analysis of what the context of 2 Chronicles 22-24 is. Yeilding back to his thread.....

Kahtar
Dec 8th 2007, 04:42 PM
Probably the same thing told to Matthew when he tried to use the story of Rachel crying for her children to portray Christ, I imagine. Context just gets in the way.
But you're correct, this is detracting from the OP, so, back on topic.

Mograce2U
Dec 8th 2007, 05:27 PM
:lol: Thank you Dave for your lengthy, rather melodramatic way of saying 'I disagree with your assessment, I see no prophetic significance in this text'. You fulfilled my expections....;)It does fit with the Pharisaical view of the Messianic kingdom though since they see that Messiah and a succession of his sons will rule. Joash after ruling peaceably for 40 yrs, was then slain by his servants. I wonder what prophetic significance that might have...

David Taylor
Dec 8th 2007, 09:27 PM
Probably the same thing told to Matthew when he tried to use the story of Rachel crying for her children to portray Christ, I imagine. Context just gets in the way.

Since Doug hasn't posted back yet today, I suppose this rabbit can hop another bounce or two on de-rail, before getting back on-track.....



Well, since Matthew's application of an O.T. passage seems to have been accepted by the Holy Spirit for inspirational inclusion in the N.T., and subsequently been accepted throughout the ages since as the contextual application of that passage....we can be safe and confident Matthew got it right.

Now about the proper contextual application of 2 Chronicles 22....where did Matthew, or any other N.T. writer for that matter, tell us to change its venue or context to be something other than what it plainly gives us???

I can't seen to find any N.T. reference quoting 2 Chronicles 22, and giving it a new, or fuller meaning in the same manner as Matthew did with the Rachel/Christ passage.


Doug...where are you? :bounce:

Kahtar
Dec 8th 2007, 10:03 PM
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)

I seriously doubt that all those things He showed them were written down for us. But you and I both know there are many things in the OT that point to Christ, that are not spoken of in the NT.
Paul tells us that the scriptures are good for doctrine, instruction in righteousness, etc., which tells me that there is Divine Purpose behind everything that is written. There are no 'quaint little stories' that have no purpose other than to fill pages with ink. Every word written is there for a reason, for us to understand and learn from, so it should not come as any surprise to anyone to discover something in the Word that the Apostles didn't happen to expound upon.
But seriously, I don't expect you to accept what I wrote. I knew you wouldn't when I wrote it. And it's certainly okay with me if you don't. Our salvation is not hinged upon this passage, and I feel no need to defend what I think is in the Word, only to share it with those who are interested in learning something, or seeing something they hadn't seen before. If others can't, or won't, see it, that's fine.;)

third hero
Dec 9th 2007, 08:21 AM
I have been itching to get to this thread, and now, I can..... Here we go!


I almost agree with you.
....let me say it another way.

Back in my Dispensational Premill days, I took all of Matthew 24:3-25:46 as one great big endtime picture.

When I found myself leaving Premill, and venturing into what became the Amill view, I found that entire block of passages were viewed differently.

When I began to spend more time with this block of passages, I found something quite interesting.

1) You have go back and start with the end of Chapter 23 to get the context.
2) When you look at the end of Chapter 23's context, and the end of Chapter 25's context....they are adressing two different things, and two different events.
3) How is this reconciled?

Jesus was asked two questions in Matthew 24:3....and
all of Matthew 23 answers the 1st question;
parts of Matthew 24 gives details about the answer to both questions, and
all of Matthew 25 gives details about the 2nd question.What were the two questions?

Q1: When will these things be (the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem mentioned in Chapter 23)?
Q2: When will be your second Coming return in power and glory (which Chapter 25 solely describes)?

Chapter 24, is a blending passage that answers parts of both questions.

I partially agree with this asessment. It is true that in Matthew 23, Jesus is letting thge house of Judah know that their house is going to be left desolate, which is one of the things which incorporated the destruction of the Temple. However, that is where the agreement ends. I find no evidence in Matthew 24 whre Matthew has Jesus answering the first question, which was when will the temple be dismantled. The only way I could see this being answered is by referring back to Matthew 23, where Jesus told the Pharisees that their generation will experience the desolation of Jerusalem, which we found out later to include the destruction of the Temple.

Besdies, if Matthew was going to write down Jesus's response to the first question, then it would, IMHO, sound like the union between Mark 13:9-13 ans Lukw 21:12-24. Like I have written, I studied the timeframes of each of these testaments writing, and found that Matthew's version is wrwitten either close to, or after the date of Luke's record. That said, it seemed to me that Matthew was not satisfied with the account of the Olivet discourse, and thus wrote according to His recollection, highlighting the end times signs, and not the pre-emptive signs that he and the rest of the 1st century disciples would face.

To put this in a simpler way, I read all three versions of the Olivet Discourse and realized that there are some stark differences in the telling of each version. I read Mark 13 and it deals with both the Disciple's coming tribulation and the end times signs, which mirrors both Luke and matthew's versions when they are combined. Luke focuses on the signs that actually happened during the diaspora, while Matthew deals with the end of the age with the events that lead up to the resurrection of the Lord. Certain words clued me in to where they were going. For instance, Mark has both all of the end times signs that are present in MAtthew 24:3-31, but adds some things that are not found anywhere in Matthew's accouont. Luke, on the other hand, has the same wording of Mark's words in Mark 13:9-13. Moreover, Luke seems to expound on those things, leaving the entire signs of the end, including the Abomination that causes Desolation, left out altogether. After doing the comparisons, I have no other recourse but to acknowledge the differneces in each account, and sandwich them togethyer to see the complete Olivet Discourse, as Jesus probably originally taught.





At that point, do you believe the 70 weeks are completed and fulfilled?

If not, when?

Yes, I believe that the return of the Lord is the completion of the Seventiethy week, and I use the wording of Daniel 9:27 as evvidence. The consummation, IMHO, is the return of the Lord, where all of the things listed in verse 24 are fulfilled.


So just before the 2nd Coming, don't join and army, and if you are wicked, don't be a King.....be a wicked prince, or a wicked queen, or a wicked commoner and you won't be destroyed....just don't be a King or a member of an army if you are wicked?

All earthly authority will be destroyed and transferred to the Lord Jesus Christ. Whether the wicked are destroyed at Armageddon, buried or drowned due to the earthquake, or killed by means of the plague afterwards, it is never wise to be wicked. It is my opinion that all of the wicked will be destroyed, (with the term wicked meaning all those who take the Mark of the Beast), I just do not believe that all of them are destroyed in ojne shot. I believe, as it is written in Daniel 7:12, that some will live for only a season. Now this also brings in another belief of mine, which has no collaboration whatsoever, with that one being that children will not be given the Mark of the Beast, and the wicked parents will live long enough fopr their children to become mature, and then the plagues will overtake them... but again, this portion is my opinion only.


Wicked Commoners are exempt from being destroyed.....

Right?

Not so. All of the wicked will be destroyed. I believe that not all of them will die at the moment the Lord returns. I believe that the vast majority of them will die at that point, with many dying by means of either the Massacre at Megiddo, during the earth-altering earthquake which happens along side the return, or the plague that the Lord infects the remnant that survives all of these things, all of the wicked shall be destroyed. I believe that their children will be ruled harshly by Lord Jesus, mainly because of the scriptures that I have already highlighted.



So then, those who did not take the mark...they are survive....(if they aren't in an army and aren't a king)....Right?[
Why don't they get Raptured and Changed from mortal to immortal then?

In order to be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, right? This takes a certain kind of maturity to:

1. recognize that they are sinners
2. recognize the need to repent of sin

A child (0-12year olds) do not have the capacity to understand those very mature subjects, and as such, are not capable of being judged. They are not raptured because they are not believers. Now, according to Revelation 13, the people choose to take the Mark. A child is incapable of making such a decision to rebel against God. Therefore, it is my belief that they will not be punished for the sins of their fathers. And so, they are not destroyed, because they, IMHO, will not receive the MOTB. So, what are they? Are they doomed to the Lake for being alive and unable to make decisions for themselves? Are they going to miss the rapture because, once again, they are incapable of discerning right from wrong?


How do they merit this special exemption? (Simply by not being a King, not being an army member, and not taking the Mark of the Beast)?

God is just, and He will not judge those based on their inability to discern right from wrong. Adam was not judged until He committed the act of rebellion, which he did, knowing that it was wrong. The children of the heathen, they are guilty of living during the time of the Return, is God going to just kill them and punish them for being a living being?


Does this peace include sinners still remaining and rebelling and disbelieving upon the Earth?
There weren't rebels as the sands of the sea within the Garden of Eden....but there will be those found within this Earthen period right?

According to Psalm 2 and Revelation 19:15, the Lordship of the Lord during His reign on earth willl be harsh, with the destructiuon of the wicked when they are exposed as such, and the praising and ruling over those who do as He says. Unlike today, where the Lord is in heaven, the Lord will be visible, able to use His abilities to rule honestly, and harshly at the same time. So, in a sense, the peace will be remeniscent of the Garden, with the Lord walking the earth, exulting the righteous and destroying the wicked.


What is the difference between:
1) A Tribulation Saint
2) A Pre-Flood Saint
3) A Pre-Law Saint
4) A Regular O.T. Saint
5) A Pre-Calvary N.T. Saint
6) A Post-Calvary, Pre-Pentecost Saint
7) A Post-Pentecost, Pre-Tribulation Saint
8) A Millennium Saint

(Be careful here Doug...I am trying to trick you within a Dispensational Trap here....but we know you aren't Dispensational, so don't let it get you!)

Honestly, I only see one difference. That difference is when they are rewarded for their work. The Tribulation saints are rewarded first, according to the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 20, and the rest are rewarded at the end of the earth, with New Jerusalem. All get the same reward, which is eternal life and eternally living with God in New Jerusalem. the only difference is that only one group, the 11th hour workers, are rewarded first, and the rest later. (rev 20:4-6) As far as the "Millennium saint" is concerned, you got me there....I have no answer.

I will be giving more comments, but I got to get some sleep, because I have a long day tomorrow. Looking forward to your response thre David.

third hero
Dec 9th 2007, 08:31 AM
How does your premillennial viewpoint square with the fact that Jesus told us that true worshippers of God will never again need a temple in Jerusalem to worship God in "spirit and truth"? If Jesus reigns over the kingdoms of the world on His throne today at “God’s right hand” (and He does), then why do materialists insist that He must come back to a temple “made with hands” in earthy Jerusalem? Does Rev 20 teach that Jesus will reign for a literal 1000 year period from earthly Jerusalem? I think not.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4: 21-24)

Didn't I answer this one in another post? Oh well, here it is.. again.

You are correct in saying that God will never need a temple to have people worship Him again, What you miss is what I had said was the purpose of the last temple. Look at Revelation 11. You will find only two verses dealing with a temple, and that temple has to share land space with te Gentiles, mainly the outer court. Unlike any of the other accounts of the "Temple of God", the measurements were never disclosed, and the story of the temple ends there. There is not one other mentioning of a temple in all of Revelation, except to mention that there is NO temple at New Jerusalem.

As I had said in a previous post, the temple that is mentioned almost non-chalantly in Revelation 11 is there for the sole purpose of the Beast fulfilling the prophecy found in 2 Thes 2:3-4. That temple has no significance to God other than that. IN Zechariah 14, the prophet gives a reference to those who sacrifice seeing that everything in Jerusalem will have written on them, Holiness unto the Lord. This does not mean that a temple will be present, or that they will be sacrificing. It merely states that those who sacrifice, the Israelites, who sacrificed back then, and who are sacrificing now, will recognize what the Lord has done. This is another way, to me anyway, to say that Israel will be part of the Kingdom of Heaven, right along with the church. IMHO, they will be part of the church, and they will recognize the King of Kings, and what He has done in Jerusalem. No temple is necessary for any of those things to happen.

The purpose of the last temple, the third temple, is for the revealing of the Beast, and nothing more. Sacrificing is currently of no effect to God, other than an abomination, because those who do so believe that animals can take the place of Lord Jesus's sacrifice, which we all know is a farce.

I hope this helps you a little.

BTW, only the city Jerusalem is necessary for the Lord to rule from. No temple is necessary, and I believe that if a temple is made, it will be built as a castle of the Lord, where the Lord will sit and rule the world from. (For the record, I do not believe that the same temple that is used to reveal the beast will be used by Lord Jesus.) NOwhere in scripture shows that the Lord will need a temple, and if you believe that I believe that the temple in Ezekiel 40-43 is the temple in which the Lord will use, then read my explanation found here:
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1430159&postcount=1. Read it and see where I am coming from.

losthorizon
Dec 9th 2007, 06:22 PM
...You are correct in saying that God will never need a temple to have people worship Him again, What you miss is what I had said was the purpose of the last temple. Look at Revelation 11. You will find only two verses dealing with a temple, and that temple has to share land space with te Gentiles, mainly the outer court.

Once again you are forcing a materialistic meaning for the intended spiritual interpretation. The “Temple of God” that John refers to in Rev 11 is no less than the “Christian Church”, the people of God – this is what the angel is measuring – not a “temple made with hands” in physical Jerusalem. Jesus himself had already condemned the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem for what is was - “a den of thieves and robbers."
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are…Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.” (1Corinthians) Again, there is no function-no possible need in God’s economy after the Cross for a literal temple in Jerusalem made with hands. This is an example of the premillennial error – confusing the natural for the spiritual and your, “Views of the Third Hero, End Times Style” follows this same path.

IMO - you need to re-group and re-evaluate. You have a very good working knowledge of God's word and you bring out many good points. Your weakness is confusing the spiritual for the material. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)
"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body...." Philippians 3:20

"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:4-7

David Taylor
Dec 9th 2007, 07:01 PM
Quote:

At that point, do you believe the 70 weeks are completed and fulfilled?

If not, when?
Yes, I believe that the return of the Lord is the completion of the Seventiethy week, and I use the wording of Daniel 9:27 as evvidence. The consummation, IMHO, is the return of the Lord, where all of the things listed in verse 24 are fulfilled.

But if the return of the Lord, completes the 70 weeks, how can your mill kingdom that follows it have sinners and rebels within it?

Remember Daniel 9:24....
9:24 Seventy weeks are determined:

to finish the transgression, and
to make an end of sins, and
to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
to bring in everlasting righteousness,All four of those things continue to be problematic to the wicked people within your Mill period.

See my point?

If either of us (you or I and either of our views) take the completion of the 70 weeks to be either (circa 33 AD per me, or circa 2007+ish per you).....then neither view can embrace a true literal fulfillment of those 4 points; for both in your Millennial period (2007+) and my Millennial period (33 AD-2007+) wicked sinners still plague the earth.

So either we are both wrong in taking a strictly literal application; or some other way exists for fulfilling those 4 points in a different, non-l wooden literal way.

That's why I changed my view on it, from being an endtime fulfillment, to being a Calvary fulfillment, symbolizing what Christ did through His death for those who call upon Him.

third hero
Dec 10th 2007, 03:37 AM
But if the return of the Lord, completes the 70 weeks, how can your mill kingdom that follows it have sinners and rebels within it?

Remember Daniel 9:24....
9:24 Seventy weeks are determined:

to finish the transgression, and
to make an end of sins, and
to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
to bring in everlasting righteousness,All four of those things continue to be problematic to the wicked people within your Mill period.

See my point?

If either of us (you or I and either of our views) take the completion of the 70 weeks to be either (circa 33 AD per me, or circa 2007+ish per you).....then neither view can embrace a true literal fulfillment of those 4 points; for both in your Millennial period (2007+) and my Millennial period (33 AD-2007+) wicked sinners still plague the earth.

So either we are both wrong in taking a strictly literal application; or some other way exists for fulfilling those 4 points in a different, non-l wooden literal way.

That's why I changed my view on it, from being an endtime fulfillment, to being a Calvary fulfillment, symbolizing what Christ did through His death for those who call upon Him.

I see your point, and I can agree with your assertions here.

I only have one point of contention on this point before we move to the next one.

Daniel 9:24 tells us that all of the things that are listed in that verse is to happen to Daniel's people and his holy city Jerusalem. One of those things is to bring in everlasting righteousness. I believe that this is to happen to Jerusalem.

In other words, I believe that everlasting righteousness is to be brought into Jerusalem. IN order for that to happen, jerusalem must finish her transgressions and a desolation must take place before everlasting righteousness is brought into that city, hence making a need for the city to be around after the completion of the seventy week, to be maintained as a city of everlastying righteousness... well as long as the earth exist anyway.

But like I have stated earlier, I can concede to your point that maybe both of us are taking that scripture too literally, and that we are both missing something.

Hence, the reason why we are having this conversation. Maybe we can see where both of our doctrines are in error, and a more accurate doctrine may come about. Who knows David, this could be the start of something great!

third hero
Dec 10th 2007, 04:09 AM
ASA....grab your Q38 space modulators quickly....Zan turn into an ice-bucket; Jana turn into a giant eagle....gleep, jump in the bucket.....and Marvin the Wonderdog? Oh, we sent him over to be a strategic member of the PSA.
I KNEW IT! I KNEW YOU SENT A SPY! but that's okay, I did the same thing. Metallo, don't get caught! We NEED YOU!

Would the mistreatment of Abel, Noah, Lot, Gideon, John the Baptist, and Stephen...as well as Christians who died last year in Sudan be included in the believers who were mistreated?

Yes, I believe that they will be included in that judgment. I never said that there will be many nations that are spared from certain destruction. There may not be many surviving of the nations, but a few nations may in fact be spared from destruction. That means that if jesus came now and judged the nations, China, Russia, Italy, France, England, and many of the other nations that killed, abused, or otherwise mistreated Jesus's brethern during thier existence on earth will be doomed. As of right now, the US has not killed believers for the sake of throwing God out of that country, and so, I believe that America could be spared, what's left of it anyway. (In case you did not notice, much of the USA is saturated in mountains and valleys, including the areas that most of us live at right now). No pressure, really!


But what about all of the other saints wanting to be resurrected? Job wrote of it, Isaiah, Daniel, Paul....do they miss the resurrection here?

No. They do not "miss" this resurrection. They are still with god in heaven, having the time of their lives, awaiting New Jerusalem and life without sin and death. They are not "dead", but they are not resurrected as the tribulation saints would be at the point of Christ's return.



If there are some armies garrisoned in Libya, Sweden, Norway, Bolivia....will they too suffer doom because they are armies; or are only the armies in Megiddo doomed?

Actually, all of the armies of the earth, even the ones garrisoned in other pplaces, will be sent to Israel. Imagine, God has come with the promise to destroy all of them. Why wouldn't the nations of the world think that this fight would be the most important one of their lives. Why would they leave anyone garrisoned anywhere else. They, at the point of the Return of the Lord, are about to face off against God Himself. In their minds, they will still be outnumbered by the sheer forces that are displayed when the Lord gathers His people in midair. Remember, according to Matthew 24, all of the tribes of the earth will witness the gathering, which you and I both agree on. Not to jump off of the subject, but it really is my desire to force out the use of the word, rapture. Mainly because the application and definition of that event is so contrary to what the Bible actually says that it needs to be abolished... are you with me on this one David?





I thought the Son of Man went to the Ancient of Days, (not came down from), in that Daniel passage....showing a prophecy of Christ coming to bring the kingdom to all the world as He did 2000 years ago. Didn't Christ ascend to the Ancient of Days on the clouds then? Didn't Christ establish His eternal Kingdom then? Aren't people from all nations and tongues and tribes serving him now as that Kingdom continues to grow?

It is truethat the Son of man goes to the Ancient of days, but where is the Anceint of Days when this happens? In heaven? Let's find out.

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. Daniel 7:9-10.

We know that the thrones were cast down, and gthe Ancient One sits on His throne of Judgment. Is He in heaven, or is He on earth? If we are to take these verses literally, one can say that He is in heaven. But that would not completely make sense, because of this verse here:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. Verse 13.

It has the Lord coming in clouds of heaven, and He comes to the Ancient one. Why would he have clouds of heaven if He is already there? Is heaven heaven? Or is there more to the story?

I believe that the place where the Ancient One sat is the very same place where the Great White Throne is located, in the Kingdom of heaven, which is separate from the ouer space "heaven". I believe that the SOn of Man goes to that place, where judgment is given to Him, and He and His saints go from there to the earth, to take posession of what the Ancient One gave to them. Remember, according to Revelation 20, the Tribulation saints are resurrected, and do not have to worry about the second death. According to my view, in order for them to not have to worry about Judgment Day is that they already had been judged. Daniel 7:13-14 confirms that theory, and thus I believe what is written in Revelation 20:4-6 should be taken literal. I know you disagree, but that's why we are having this conversation, so that you can completely understand where I am coming from, and vice versa.


I thought the 4th beast in Daniel 7 was the Roman empire....which Christianity did triumph over, and now no longer exists.

I originally believed that too, but I have since changed my POV concerning that view. I am seriously leaning on the idea that the first three beasts are the evolutions of the fourth one. The idea is that the first three beasts are three nations that are given authority before the fourth one rises to power and swallow all three of them. The fourth beast encompasses all three of the other beasts. And so, I believe that the beasts are nations that have authority, like that of the USA, who have authority throughout the world, but does not take over the world. But that is a different point for another time... unless you open that can of worms...


I would really like to know what merits these survivors to get their "exemption from destruction cards"....
You know the guys who died in the flood are gonna be upset...that some of them didn't get to be exempt....but at the final and clymactic Glorious Appearing, evidently a bunch of wicked people get exemptions...(well...not really clymactic....just another blip on the timeline of historical events)....

I think I have covered that in my previous posts..... if you want to respond to that, feel free to. But you got to admit, even if you don't believe it, it does make sense.

third hero
Dec 10th 2007, 08:55 PM
UNfortunately, I have to go to work. But I want all of you to know that this post here:
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1464593&postcount=7
is what I will coment on next.

However, this thread is not just for DAvid and myself, it is for everyone. If you have questions concering what I believe, whether you are in the PSA or ASA camp, please feel free to post it. It may take a little while, unless I find it rather urgent that I answer it, but I will answer every question the best way I can, and if I do not know, I will tell you that.

So please, step up and swinf for the rafters!:hmm:

John146
Dec 12th 2007, 05:40 AM
I'm sorry about this, but for all of the amils and premils that I have ticked off during my stay here, this is your chance to know what I know, and thus use it either to benefit yourself, or against me.

Now, by now I believe that I have covered the whole reason why I side with the premils concerning the time of Christ's reing on earth, although I still stress that it is a lot longer than 1000 years. Now, I am going to show you why I believe as I do.

IN Matthew 25:31-46, we find the nations being judged, mainly because He says it in verse 31. He separates the "righteous" nations from the "wicked" ones. NOw, notice the wording in the subsequent verses. Their judgment is based on their treatment of his brethern, the saints. Notice verse 40.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

And so, as Matthew 25:31 states, when the Lord returns with power and gret Glory, he establishes his seat,and judges the nations, based solely on their treatment of the believers.

Okay, let's really take a close look at Matthew 25:31-46 because I think your view is completely off base. This is important, so bare with me. I really don't believe you've looked at this passage closely enough. So, here we go.

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Okay, let's stop there. Now, where in Scripture are sheep ever used figuratively in terms of nations? Nowhere that I know of. Yet sheep are often used to refer to individuals. Jesus' sheep are those who follow Him, for example. Has nothing to do with entire nations. You're not seeing that the passage is saying that all the nations are gathered before Him and then individuals are taken from all the nations and separated into sheep and goats. Think about it. Look at verse 35. What nation do you know of has every person in it that gives people something to eat or drink when they need it? None. That can't possibly be referring to entire nations. It has to be referring to individuals.

Okay, let's read some more:

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

How can entire nations be cast into everlasting fire? Will there be nations that have no believers in them at all? Of course not. Again, this is clearly speaking of individuals. Judgment is reserved for individuals, not entire nations. If entire nations were judged with eternal fire or eternal life (verse 46) then you would have to just hope you happened to be part of one of the sheep nations when Christ returned. But that doesn't make sense and that's not how it works. Matthew 25:31-46 is clearly a depiction of the day of judgment. All people will be gathered before the throne and then they will be separated. Believers are the sheep and unbelievers are the goats. There are believers within every nation and unbelievers within every nation. So, it can't possibly be speaking of sheep nations and goat nations. The Bible does not teach that entire nations will one day be sentenced to either evelasting fire (Matt 25:41) and everlasting punishment or eternal life (Matt 25:46). The Bible repeatedly speaks of one singular day of judgment where each individual will have to stand before the throne and give account of themselves and that is what Matthew 25:31-46 is depicting. It depicts people being cast into everlasting fire in Matthew 25:41. Just like it depicts those whose names are not in the book of life being cast into the lake of fire in Revelation 20:15. Those verses are speaking of the same event. Revelation 20:11-15 is the same day of judgment as Matthew 25:31-46. It's just two different perspectives on the same day of judgment.

third hero
Dec 12th 2007, 10:42 AM
Welcome Eric, I have been awaiting for your response.

So, the topic is Matthew 25:31-46. Let's see.

First, I would like to agree with you that a Judgment is being portrayed in these verses. The Lord is separating the sheep from the goats, and the goats are hurled into everlasting punishment. If that was all to the story, then I would accept all of what you have portrayed here, with the idea of these scriptures being yet another perspective of THE Judgment Day.

However, I have looked closely at these scriptures and there are things that have caused me to see things in the light that I have.

1. This happens after the Lord establishes His throne, which is after His return.

side note-This I have to say, there is no mentioning of where He is when He is judging the nations, except that He is on His Throne. So, by merit, you could be right on this issue, in that this could just be another portrayal of Judgment Day.

2. The believers are the source of judgment.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

3. All nations are gathered to him.

To your credit, I concur that Jesus does not judge nations, but the people of those nations. However, these people represent their perspective nation, and person by person, the Lord judges the nations, and the means by which He judges is based on the treatment of His brethern, us. If it were not so, then why is it written there?

Also, this judgment is different from the judgment of the Final Day, in which all flesh are judged on their actions as a whole, and whether their names are found inthe Lamb's book of Life. This difference is one of the reason why I have decided to believe as I have.

In Matthew 25, there are two judgments. The first, which is the parable of the talents, is the judgment of the righteous, in which those who do well are rewarded, and the ones that do not produce what was expected of them are tossed out. This judgment deals with the righteous, right? The second one, which we are keying in on, deals with the rest of the nations, hence the reason why the term nations is used and not peoples.

Also, if I were to just explain Matthew 25 by itself with no collaboration, then I would not have much to stand on. That is why I constantly refer back to the OT scriptures about the Conquering King and the judgment that happens at that point. Primarily, I use Daniel 7, and Zechariah 14 to clarify Matthew 25.

Unfortunately, as of right now, I am too tired to explain it all, but I guarantee that I will when I return either later on today, or tomorrow.

DeafPosttrib
Dec 12th 2007, 01:38 PM
third hero,

Can you find 'a thousand years' mentioned in context of Matthew 25:31-46?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

David Taylor
Dec 12th 2007, 03:32 PM
In Matthew 25, there are two judgments. The first, which is the parable of the talents, is the judgment of the righteous, in which those who do well are rewarded, and the ones that do not produce what was expected of them are tossed out. This judgment deals with the righteous, right? The second one, which we are keying in on, deals with the rest of the nations, hence the reason why the term nations is used and not peoples.


Doug,
I think you've missed this analysis. Let me show you why.

Matthew 24-25 gives a reoccuring list, or several parallel passages redescribing 'the judgment' that will befall humanity (both good and bad), at Christ's return. (Not 2 different judgments)

I'll avoid personal commentary below, so you can see it for yourself.

I will highlight:

the judgement of the righteous in blue, and
the judgment of the unrighteous in red.Otherwise, I'll let the Matthew 24-25 text speak for itself.
Example #1
24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.






Example #2
24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah
entered the ark 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.




Example #3
24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.




Example #4
24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.





Example #5
24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
24:46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
24:47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
24:49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.





Example #6
25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
25:3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
25:4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
25:6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
25:7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
25:8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
25:9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
25:11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
25:12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.





Example #7
25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
25:17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
25:20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.





Example #8
25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.






Doug,
Can you now see how each of the 8 passages, shows a different parallel between how both the righteous and the unrighteous will be dealt with at the Lord's Return?

DeafPosttrib
Dec 12th 2007, 04:36 PM
David,

Amen! Well saying. You show these from Christ's words are so simple and plain.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

third hero
Dec 12th 2007, 06:35 PM
Well deafposttrib and David,
if Matthew 24-25 were the only verses that describe the events of the end, then I would have to agree with you. According to Matthew 25, Jesus sits on His throne of Glory, which suggest the same throne that is written about in Judgment Day. The nations are being judged, and the "righteous" are given admission to the Father's Kingdom while the wicked are exiled to bitter darkness. I would have to agree with you.

HOwever, I have these things to say against your asertions:

1. Revelation 20:1-7 ca not be ignored, even if one can not see collaboration.
2. According to what I have read, Zechariah 14, Daniel 7, and Matthew 19:25-20:16 is collaboratiing evidence.

Here me out a second.

IN Zechariah 14, starting with verse 5, we have the Coming of the Lord, with the collaborating sign, which is the sun and the moon failing to shi8ne, and the stars being turned off, with the only light being present is that of the Lord. There, we have the Lord reigning over the earth, and also survivors of the nations that attacked Jerusalem being ruled by Him. The only thing in that passage that talks abouththe time period of His reign is that He will reign forever, and not just for a mere 1000 years.

IN Daniel 7, we have the exact same circumstances that are laid out before the Lord's return, starting at verse 17. This mirrors to the letter the events written in Revelation 13 with the only exception is that the MOTB is not mentioned. However, the same fate of the little horn is also mentioned in Revelation 19. What is striking about Daniel 7 is the fact that part of the judgment that the Ancient One passes down is that the Saints are given the earth as a posession, and the Son of Man is given all of the authorities of the nations, nad a kingdom of his own. This, to me, is concrete evidence that the Lord is given the earth, and not as He has it today, but as Satan has it. The Lord is given the authority that Adam gave over to Satan, and thus He, along with the saints, take posession of the earth, which is illustrated in Revelation 20:1-7.

Also, Daniel 7 suggests that when the Lord returns, He will also be given great glory, and with that glory, He will establish His kingdom on earth with the saints.

Also, as you are aware, we have that same picture found in Psalm 2 as well.

Now, we come to Matthewe 19:25:20:16. Jesus is saying to the disciples that all who forsake everything and follow Him will receive eternal life, but he says this alongside that statement.

But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last [shall be] first. verse 30

but He does not stop there. He goes on to give a parable to explain exactly what he means by that last statement.

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

He goes on to say that the householder hires workers early in the morning to work the vineyard, and does so again and again, clear up to the 11th hour. Upon the completion of the work, the Lord of the House calls together all of the workers, and thus pays them all the same wage, starting with the ones that worked on the 11th hour first.

So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them [their] hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that [were hired] about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received [it], they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Matthew 20:8-13

IF the Kingdom of heaven is likened unto the house and the houseowner is the master of that Kingdom, then the workers are those who participate in the sowing and reaping of the Kingdom of Heaven. Everyone who was there, when the work was finished, was rewarded. The last was rewarded first, and the first was rewarded last, the very same concept that is put into practice in Revelation 20:4-6, where the last of the saints are rewarded first with the first resurrection. The rest are not resurrected until the last Day, when all of the earth is judged.

Jesus bolsters the point in the next few verses:

Take [that] thine [is], and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

He goes on to challenge those who were dissenting over he fact that He rewarded the last workers first, by saying:

[B]Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

This, to me, is the clearest evidence that Revelation 20:1-7 was not put there by accident, and also t he evidence that I stand on, because these verses collaborate with Revelation 20, and also gives cause to the possibility that Matthew 25:31-46 is not the last Day judgment, but the continuation of the judgment that is pronounced in Daniel 7, where the beast is thrown into the Lake, the rest of the kingdom of the beast was given mercy for but a little while, where they are allowed to live, and the saints are given the earth, along with their Savior.

third hero
Dec 13th 2007, 06:05 PM
third hero,

Can you find 'a thousand years' mentioned in context of Matthew 25:31-46?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

And in case I did not answer this question directly, deafposttrib, no. There is no reference to a millennium in Matthew 25:31-46.

John146
Dec 13th 2007, 06:26 PM
Once again you are forcing a materialistic meaning for the intended spiritual interpretation. The “Temple of God” that John refers to in Rev 11 is no less than the “Christian Church”, the people of God – this is what the angel is measuring – not a “temple made with hands” in physical Jerusalem. Jesus himself had already condemned the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem for what is was - “a den of thieves and robbers."
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are…Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.” (1Corinthians) Again, there is no function-no possible need in God’s economy after the Cross for a literal temple in Jerusalem made with hands. This is an example of the premillennial error – confusing the natural for the spiritual and your, “Views of the Third Hero, End Times Style” follows this same path.

IMO - you need to re-group and re-evaluate. You have a very good working knowledge of God's word and you bring out many good points. Your weakness is confusing the spiritual for the material. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)
"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body...." Philippians 3:20

"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:4-7

Well said. I don't believe Revelation 11:1-2 is speaking of a literal, physical temple, either. I agree that it's speaking of the church. You see all this debate between preterists and futurists about when Revelation was written and much of that has to do with determining whether it's speaking of the second temple in Revelation 11 or a future third temple. In my opinion, it's neither.

third hero
Dec 13th 2007, 06:37 PM
Well said. I don't believe Revelation 11:1-2 is speaking of a literal, physical temple, either. I agree that it's speaking of the church. You see all this debate between preterists and futurists about when Revelation was written and much of that has to do with determining whether it's speaking of the second temple in Revelation 11 or a future third temple. In my opinion, it's neither.

Honestly, I believe that the significance of the temple discussion has been perverted overthe years. The idea of the third temple was not so that there would be a place where God would call a home, and as you have read, I have stressed this aspect. The temple itself, as all of you suggest, is of no significance TO GOD! the temple debate should be about what it was framed to be..

whether 2 Thes 2:3-4 has happened yet.

This is why so many believe that a third temple must be built, including myself. It is not so that God can have a place to call home. No, you have stated that, and every premil that you have talked to about this has agreed. The temple's only significance to the premil is what is mentioned in 2 Thes 2:3-4 and Matthew 24:15.

That is the point. Now, let's focus on this aspect for a second.

Eric, if you, and David has said this too, believe that the temple is not necessary for the event mentioned in MAtthew 24:14 and 2 Thes 2:3-4, then please, explain to me how you see these events unfold. I wish this was on the other thread, becasue I am treating this question the same exact way that i am treating that entire thread. Because it is on this thread, I am sure some will attempt to rebuff your response. If you feel uncomfortable responding to this question in this thread, then use the other one. It doesn't matter to me which one you use, I just need an answer.

John146
Dec 13th 2007, 07:21 PM
Honestly, I believe that the significance of the temple discussion has been perverted overthe years. The idea of the third temple was not so that there would be a place where God would call a home, and as you have read, I have stressed this aspect. The temple itself, as all of you suggest, is of no significance TO GOD! the temple debate should be about what it was framed to be..

whether 2 Thes 2:3-4 has happened yet.

This is why so many believe that a third temple must be built, including myself. It is not so that God can have a place to call home. No, you have stated that, and every premil that you have talked to about this has agreed. The temple's only significance to the premil is what is mentioned in 2 Thes 2:3-4 and Matthew 24:15.

That is the point. Now, let's focus on this aspect for a second.

Eric, if you, and David has said this too, believe that the temple is not necessary for the event mentioned in MAtthew 24:14 and 2 Thes 2:3-4, then please, explain to me how you see these events unfold. I wish this was on the other thread, becasue I am treating this question the same exact way that i am treating that entire thread. Because it is on this thread, I am sure some will attempt to rebuff your response. If you feel uncomfortable responding to this question in this thread, then use the other one. It doesn't matter to me which one you use, I just need an answer.

Doug, I've gone over Matthew 24 with you before. I assume you mean Matt 24:15 instead of Matt 24:14. I believe Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21. Therefore, I believe Matthew 24:15-21 is fulfilled and the abomination of desolation is related to the time when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies in 70 AD and then destroyed.

Regarding 2 Thess 2:3-4, I believe the temple of God is the same temple of God that Paul mentions elsewhere in passages like 1 Cor 3:16-17, 2 Cor 6:16 and Eph 2:19-22 : the church. I don't believe any future physical building could possibly be something Paul would have called the temple of God.

third hero
Dec 13th 2007, 07:36 PM
Doug, I've gone over Matthew 24 with you before. I assume you mean Matt 24:15 instead of Matt 24:14. I believe Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21. Therefore, I believe Matthew 24:15-21 is fulfilled and the abomination of desolation is related to the time when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies in 70 AD and then destroyed.

Regarding 2 Thess 2:3-4, I believe the temple of God is the same temple of God that Paul mentions elsewhere in passages like 1 Cor 3:16-17, 2 Cor 6:16 and Eph 2:19-22 : the church. I don't believe any future physical building could possibly be something Paul would have called the temple of God.

You know Eric, we'll never agree on that one....
But I guess thast's something both of us are going to have to live with. :hug: Don't tell anyone I hugged you though.... I have a reputation to maintain!:hmm::rofl:

David Taylor
Dec 13th 2007, 09:22 PM
Eric, if you, and David has said this too, believe that the temple is not necessary for the event mentioned in MAtthew 24:14 and 2 Thes 2:3-4, then please, explain to me how you see these events unfold.

I think I promised to do this last week, and never got around to it.

I am going to do it right now.

Look for a new thread, about 'the two questions of Jesus discussed in the Olivet Discourse'.

Just for your viewing pleasure Doug.

And no persuasive commentary either, (like I could persuade you anyhow):hmm:

(here's the link (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1470681#post1470681))

John146
Dec 14th 2007, 06:30 PM
You know Eric, we'll never agree on that one....
But I guess thast's something both of us are going to have to live with. :hug: Don't tell anyone I hugged you though.... I have a reputation to maintain!:hmm::rofl:

Never say never, Doug. Are your views exactly the same as they were before you came to this forum? I don't think so. And neither are mine. We should be open to correction and learning new things all the time.

And, don't worry, I won't tell anyone about the hugging thing. :D

Allegra
Dec 14th 2007, 07:29 PM
Well said. I don't believe Revelation 11:1-2 is speaking of a literal, physical temple, either. I agree that it's speaking of the church. You see all this debate between preterists and futurists about when Revelation was written and much of that has to do with determining whether it's speaking of the second temple in Revelation 11 or a future third temple. In my opinion, it's neither.
You rang? lol.
Ok, I disagree with you both.
1And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Ok. First of all, we know why God doesn't need the outer court to be measured, (because it was already desecrated-cast out- rejected- no longer a holy place- profane & unclean)so I will address the first part.
That the measuring-rod or line is employed in Scripture as an emblem of destruction, more frequently indeed than of construction. A few instances must suffice. In Lamentations 2:7-8, there is a passage which might well be the interpretation of this apocalyptic vision: 'The Lord hath cast off his altar; he hath abhorred his sanctuary; he hath given up into the hands of the enemy the walls of her palaces. The Lord hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: he hath stretched out a line; he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying.'
Again in Isaiah concerning the destruction of Babylon(Isa.34:11)
"The cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.'
The prophet Amos also uses the same emblem(Amos 7:6-9) Thus he shewed to me: and, behold, the Lord stood by a wall made by a plumbline, with the plumbline in his hand. And the Lord said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more: and the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste,' etc.
I could go on, but bills have to be paid!
I'll have to add to this further later.
The violent & sacriligious invasion of the temple by the Zealots & Idumeans,etc. will all come into play when we begin to talk about the murders of the high priests, etc..( all time-consuming)


But the temple in Rev.11 is referring to Herod's temple-
To the Jewish people & the Jewish people only!

John146
Dec 14th 2007, 08:39 PM
You rang? lol.
Ok, I disagree with you both.

1And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Ok. First of all, we know why God doesn't need the outer court to be measured, (because it was already desecrated-cast out- rejected- no longer a holy place- profane & unclean)so I will address the first part.
That the measuring-rod or line is employed in Scripture as an emblem of destruction, more frequently indeed than of construction. A few instances must suffice. In Lamentations 2:7-8, there is a passage which might well be the interpretation of this apocalyptic vision: 'The Lord hath cast off his altar; he hath abhorred his sanctuary; he hath given up into the hands of the enemy the walls of her palaces. The Lord hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: he hath stretched out a line; he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying.'
Again in Isaiah concerning the destruction of Babylon(Isa.34:11)
"The cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.'
The prophet Amos also uses the same emblem(Amos 7:6-9) Thus he shewed to me: and, behold, the Lord stood by a wall made by a plumbline, with the plumbline in his hand. And the Lord said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more: and the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste,' etc.
I could go on, but bills have to be paid!
I'll have to add to this further later.
The violent & sacriligious invasion of the temple by the Zealots & Idumeans,etc. will all come into play when we begin to talk about the murders of the high priests, etc..( all time-consuming) I think you are making this much more complicated than it should be. None of what you posted there gives any evidence at all that Revelation 11 is speaking of Herod's temple.



But the temple in Rev.11 is referring to Herod's temple-
To the Jewish people & the Jewish people only!Why would Herod's temple need to be measured if it was going to be destroyed soon (that is, if Revelation was written before 70 AD)? And how could Herod's temple be called the temple of God when it was no longer qualified to be called the temple of God once the veil was torn in two? And how can it be an earthly temple when all we have to do is continue reading in Revelation 11 to find out the location of the temple?

19And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Mograce2U
Dec 14th 2007, 08:49 PM
Allegra, #38 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1471492&postcount=38)

Ok, I disagree with you both.
Me too!

If the temple in Rev 11 is supposed to be the Church, and the believers are worshipping at the altar of the heavenly temple then the holy city is New Jerusalem - all so we can see that who is being judged by this trampling in the outer courts is the whole world of unbelievers. I don't buy it because you can't find a fit for it in any prophecy already given. If the holy city is New Jerusalem then that is the city that is getting trampled! Not to mention that how is John going to measure this spiritual body-temple of believers?

However, v8 and v13 show that it is not the heavenly city that is to be trampled but the earthly one. This one John will measure by the prophecies of judgment that he is to pronounce against it. Later in Rev 21 we see that an angel measures the New Jerusalem and it is a far different city than this one.

The one John is measuring is that great city where our Lord was crucified - the one called Sodom and Egypt (v8). The same city in which 7000 die when a 1/10th of the city falls by an earthquake (v13). The evil city is not mentioned as "Jerusalem" one time in Revelation. But by its euphemisms we can recognize her. She was once known as the holy city but now is likened to Sodom, to Egypt, Babylon and Gog/Magog. All of which were enemies she faced in the past when she was the people of God, but now is describing HER by those terms because SHE is turned into the enemy of the people of God!

AND

John's 2 witnesses that he is given by which he is to prophesy once again, are the prophecies of Moses and Elijah - by these he will testify against the apostates. The similarity of the plagues upon Egypt should not be missed here, because Moses told them those plagues would be turned upon them if they forsook the Lord. And Elijah's ability to call down rain was at a time when he saw that Israel was ripe for judgment.

Jesus also had 2 witnesses by which He testified to Israel that He was Messiah - John 5:31 - the words and works of the Father. Now John would testify to the judgment due them because their sins had reached their fullness, because they rejected His testimony - the Spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10).

John146
Dec 14th 2007, 09:05 PM
Allegra,

Me too!

If the temple in Rev 11 is supposed to be the Church, and the believers are worshipping at the altar of the heavenly temple then the holy city is New Jerusalem - all so we can see that who is being judged by this trampling in the outer courts is the whole world of unbelievers. I don't buy it because you can't find a fit for it in any prophecy already given. If the holy city is New Jerusalem then that is the city that is getting trampled!

The New Jerusalem is a reference to the bride of Christ(Rev 21:2,9), which is the church. The saints, if you will.

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. - Rev 13:7

There's the trampling of the New Jerusalem. We dwell in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6). We haven't come to the mountain that can be touched, but we have come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:18,22).



Not to mention that how is John going to measure this spiritual body-temple of believers?

How would he measure a gathering of believers in a physical temple? Was he expected to count hundreds of thousands or millions of people one by one?



However, v8 and v13 show that it is not the heavenly city that is to be trampled but the earthly one. This one John will measure by the prophecies of judgment that he is to pronounce against it. Later in Rev 21 we see that an angel measures the New Jerusalem and it is a far different city than this one.

The one John is measuring is that great city where our Lord was crucified - the one called Sodom and Egypt (v8). The same city in which 7000 die when a 1/10th of the city falls by an earthquake (v13). The evil city is not mentioned as "Jerusalem" one time in Revelation. But by its euphemisms we can recognize her. She is likened to Sodom, to Egypt, Babylon and Gog/Magog. All of which were enemies she faced in the past when she was the people of God, but now is describing HER by those terms because SHE is turned into the enemy of the people of God!

How can you think that a city that is called holy would be the same city that is compared to Sodom and Egypt? Revelation itself says the holy city is New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2). The holy city (New Jerusalem) and the great city (Babylon) are opposites of one another.

Mograce2U
Dec 14th 2007, 09:16 PM
Hi Eric,

How can you think that a city that is called holy would be the same city that is compared to Sodom and Egypt? Revelation itself says the holy city is New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2). The holy city (New Jerusalem) and the great city (Babylon) are opposites of one another.Now that is ironic isn't it? How did this once holy city become the harlot? Rev 21 is showing us who and where the truly holy city resides. You cannot disount that the earthly city at one time bore this distinction and now no longer does. The context of the 2nd woe/ 6th trumpet encompasses 9:13 - 11:13.

John146
Dec 14th 2007, 09:40 PM
Hi Eric,
Now that is ironic isn't it? How did this once holy city become the harlot? Rev 21 is showing us who and where the truly holy city resides. You cannot disount that the earthly city at one time bore this distinction and now no longer does. The context of the 2nd woe/ 6th trumpet encompasses 9:13 - 11:13.

Robin,

I don't believe John (or the Holy Spirit who inspired John) would have called the earthly city of Jerusalem the holy city as of the time John wrote the book of Revelation.

Eric

losthorizon
Dec 15th 2007, 01:07 AM
Well said. I don't believe Revelation 11:1-2 is speaking of a literal, physical temple, either. I agree that it's speaking of the church. You see all this debate between preterists and futurists about when Revelation was written and much of that has to do with determining whether it's speaking of the second temple in Revelation 11 or a future third temple. In my opinion, it's neither.
Amen, brother – after the cross God has no use for any “temple make with hands” - our High Priest today serves in the Heavenly Temple made without hands… Jesus Christ fulfilled the law, including both the priesthood and temple in Jerusalem. At the very moment of His death on Calvary, the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51). This once for all time act of atonement forever allows the children of God to approach the throne of grace through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Allegra
Dec 15th 2007, 01:15 AM
I don't believe John (or the Holy Spirit who inspired John) would have called the earthly city of Jerusalem the holy city as of the time John wrote the book of Revelation.

Eric
John146,
With all due respect, I think you didn't actually read my post. If you did, you would understand.
Because God is actually going to destroy this city & this literal temple in Revelation. And history is proof of that. This is the Old Jerusalem.
Now, here the "holy city".- To the Jewish readers of the Apocalypse, the term "the holy city" would undoubtedly refer to Jerusalem. The designation of Jerusalem (physical, literal) as the holy city is common in Jewish writing (Neh11:1;Isaiah 48:2;Matthew 4:5)
Correlating with this, is the fact that the holy city would be given "to the Gentiles"
Let me ask you John146. If this is to be future (which is absurd) How is the Church to be given to the Gentiles?
That makes no sense at all. It doesn't agree with the rest of the Scriptures, nor with the Revelation apocalypse.
And to boot, if you have a problem with that temple NOT being Herod's temple- your going to have an even bigger problem when we get to the 7th Trumpet, which is coming right up after the 2 Witnesses!

Mograce2U
Dec 15th 2007, 03:32 AM
Robin,

I don't believe John (or the Holy Spirit who inspired John) would have called the earthly city of Jerusalem the holy city as of the time John wrote the book of Revelation.

EricWell I don't find any other passage where He promised the saints that this new city He had prepared for them was going to be trampled - the place where no Canaanite would ever enter in. What I do find however is that He promised the earthly city that it would be trampled - and that according to prophecy.

The New Jerusalem is a city of safe inhabitants. It is kept safely above in the heavenlies. The saints who Satan makes war with, while they are set forth as the Bride - are not wedded yet. At that point the marriage is still future. Thus the need to hold fast to the end for yet a little while.

John146
Dec 16th 2007, 08:21 PM
John146,
With all due respect, I think you didn't actually read my post. If you did, you would understand.

I did read your post and I understand that I disagree with your full preterist beliefs.




Because God is actually going to destroy this city & this literal temple in Revelation. And history is proof of that. This is the Old Jerusalem.
Now, here the "holy city".- To the Jewish readers of the Apocalypse, the term "the holy city" would undoubtedly refer to Jerusalem. The designation of Jerusalem (physical, literal) as the holy city is common in Jewish writing (Neh11:1;Isaiah 48:2;Matthew 4:5)

What is common to the book of Revelation is that the holy city is referred to as new Jerusalem (see Rev 21:2).



Correlating with this, is the fact that the holy city would be given "to the Gentiles"
Let me ask you John146. If this is to be future (which is absurd) How is the Church to be given to the Gentiles?

Where does it say the holy city is given to the Gentiles? The court which is without (apart from) the temple is given to the Gentiles. I believe that is saying the world outside the church is given over to the heathen.



That makes no sense at all. It doesn't agree with the rest of the Scriptures, nor with the Revelation apocalypse.
And to boot, if you have a problem with that temple NOT being Herod's temple- your going to have an even bigger problem when we get to the 7th Trumpet, which is coming right up after the 2 Witnesses!

I wish I knew what you were talking about here, but I have no idea. I believe that Jesus Christ will return at the 7th and last trumpet. That is the time when we will be changed and have incorruptible, immortal bodies and it is "the time of the dead, that they should be judged" as well as the time for reward for believers.

John146
Dec 16th 2007, 08:38 PM
Well I don't find any other passage where He promised the saints that this new city He had prepared for them was going to be trampled - the place where no Canaanite would ever enter in. What I do find however is that He promised the earthly city that it would be trampled - and that according to prophecy.

The New Jerusalem is a city of safe inhabitants. It is kept safely above in the heavenlies. The saints who Satan makes war with, while they are set forth as the Bride - are not wedded yet. At that point the marriage is still future. Thus the need to hold fast to the end for yet a little while.

I believe we are already part of that city spiritually. We have come not to the mountain that can be touched, but rather to Mount Zion, the city of the living God which is the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:18,22). We dwell in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Yet, despite this, many Christians are still persecuted. The beast makes war with the saints and overcomes them. I believe the phrase "tread under foot", as used in Revelation 11:2 in reference to the holy city, is used to symbolically represent the persecution of the church, which even today spiritually resides in the new or heavenly Jerusalem. I don't believe it is meant to be taken literally as if they are literally treading upon the soil of earthly Jerusalem.

There is a precedent in Scripture of the phrase "tread under foot" being used symbolically, such as in Isaiah 14:25.

24The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
25That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. - Isaiah 14:24-25

Eric

Allegra
Dec 16th 2007, 11:08 PM
[quote]I did read your post and I understand that I disagree with your full preterist beliefs.I refer that to Hebrews all of Hebrews 9. But especially 9:28.
28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
So what you're really saying is that YOU don't really have salvation now, but only on His return.:thumbsdn:

What is common to the book of Revelation is that the holy city is referred to as new Jerusalem (see Rev 21:2). No. The New Jerusalem is the Jerusalem from above.
The "holy city" in Rev. 11 is the one figuratively called Sodom & Egypt, where the Lord was crucified.
Refer to my post again. God destoyed that city.



Where does it say the holy city is given to the Gentiles? The court which is without (apart from) the temple is given to the Gentiles. I believe that is saying the world outside the church is given over to the heathen.I refer you to the Olivet discourse.
And the extensive posts in ETC proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jerusalem is/was the Harlot (mystery Babylon in Rev.)

John146
Dec 17th 2007, 08:28 PM
I refer that to Hebrews all of Hebrews 9. But especially 9:28.
28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
So what you're really saying is that YOU don't really have salvation now, but only on His return.:thumbsdn:

No, I'm not saying that. I don't know what made you think such a thing.



No. The New Jerusalem is the Jerusalem from above.
The "holy city" in Rev. 11 is the one figuratively called Sodom & Egypt, where the Lord was crucified.
Refer to my post again. God destoyed that city.In Revelation 21:2 we can see that the holy city is New Jerusalem. The great city that is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt is mystery Babylon.



I refer you to the Olivet discourse.
And the extensive posts in ETC proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jerusalem is/was the Harlot (mystery Babylon in Rev.)I don't agree that is has been proven. Jerusalem was a harlot, but I don't see that it fits the description of the harlot that we find in Revelation 17.

third hero
Dec 17th 2007, 08:42 PM
WOW! This is great! We have disagrements even among the thought of what John and the writer of Hebrews was talking about when they bo9th mention and refer to Jerusalem. It is my opinion that the only one who had knowledge of New Jerusalem was John, and that was not until he had that vision.

I agree with Eric that the city itself, the modern and ancient city of Jerusalem, can not be discounted, and the temple reference could mark the city in which the Beast will start his war against th Believers will begin there. I totally agree with this setiment.

However, I disagreee with the entire crowd concerning the temple itself, mainly because if a temple is built, and the beast desecrates it, then both saints and religious Israelites will be affected. The temple itself, IMHO, is a sacrilege to God, because like all of us keep on saying, God needs not any building in order to be worshipped. So, if the religious among Israel manage to build a temple, the temple itself would be an abomination, but the one who would sit in that temple and declare himself to be God would become that final straw that causes Jerusalem's final desolation.

But, as far as this conversation is concerned, if I were to pick a side, I would have to side with Eric's POV this time... did I just write that? The simple fact is that in Mograces and Allegra's rebuttle, it would seem as though they are completely eliminating the prospect of heavenly Jerusalem referring to the one that was for about 1200 years considered the City of God, with the monicker of "City of the Great King".

Merton
Dec 17th 2007, 10:57 PM
Doug,

The great city of Rev 11 is not Jerusalem alone, neither is the temple measured, a temple made of stone, nor are the two witnesses only two people.

This mindset that everything that happens in the world which has its OT types from the middle east , keeps men satisfied that it does not effect them elsewhere.

Merton.

Allegra
Dec 18th 2007, 01:16 AM
WOW! This is great! We have disagrements even among the thought of what John and the writer of Hebrews was talking about when they bo9th mention and refer to Jerusalem. It is my opinion that the only one who had knowledge of New Jerusalem was John, and that was not until he had that vision.Don't get too excited bc I disagree with you.
Gal.4:23-26
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%204:23-26;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-29150a)] two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Footnotes:
Galatians 4:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%204:23-26;&version=50;#en-NKJV-29150) NU-Text and M-Text omit the.Rev 21:1
All Things Made New

1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
The New Heavens & the New Earth is the promise made to Israel.
(From the Book by Don K. Preston-The Elements Shall Melt with Fervent Heat)
"It is admitted by virtually all commentators that Revelation 21 is at least in some ways drawing from Isaiah 65-66.
This admission means that John was focused on the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. Third, as we will see. according to Isaiah, the new creation would come only when Old Covenant Israel was destroyed."

I agree with Eric that the city itself, the modern and ancient city of Jerusalem, can not be discounted, and the temple reference could mark the city in which the Beast will start his war against th Believers will begin there. I totally agree with this setiment.
However, I disagreee with the entire crowd concerning the temple itself, mainly because if a temple is built, and the beast desecrates it, then both saints and religious Israelites will be affected. The temple itself, IMHO, is a sacrilege to God, because like all of us keep on saying, God needs not any building in order to be worshipped. So, if the religious among Israel manage to build a temple, the temple itself would be an abomination, but the one who would sit in that temple and declare himself to be God would become that final straw that causes Jerusalem's final desolation. More incoherent fiction.:rofl:

But, as far as this conversation is concerned, if I were to pick a side, I would have to side with Eric's POV this time... did I just write that? The simple fact is that in Mograces and Allegra's rebuttle, it would seem as though they are completely eliminating the prospect of heavenly Jerusalem referring to the one that was for about 1200 years considered the City of God, with the monicker of "City of the Great King". I love me too.lol.:cool:
There are 2 cities in the Apocalyse. Each is the antithesis of the other. To know either is to know the other. These 2 contrasted cities are the New Jerusalem & Babylon the great.. There can be no room for doubt as to what is signified by the new Jerusalem:it is the city of God, the heavenly habitation, the inheritance of the saints in light. The antithesis is the old Jerusalem. St. Paul draws out the distinction for us in Galatians. The apostle contrasts the Jerusalem which is now in bondage with the Jerusalem above, which is free.
The contrasts speak for themselves.
The New Jerusalem- The Old Jerusalem
The heavenly Jerusalem -The earthly Jerusalem
The city whose builder is God -The city whose builder is man
The Jerusalem which is to come -The Jerusalem which now is
" " " " from above - " " " is beneath
" " " " free -" " " is in bondage
The holy city -The wicked city
The bride -The harlot

third hero
Dec 18th 2007, 09:18 PM
With all due respect, allegra,

I find full preterism to be a complete waste of time. Therefore, if you want to talk to me about the return of the Lord being a past event, I would have to ask you to do so else where. Besides, I wouldn't give full preterism the time of day, even if Romulus makes it sound good. Besides, I do not totally believ that Romulus is truly a ful preterist....

So, I am just going to discount your entire post, because to try to tel me that your reasons for falling into the full preterism camp do not intriege me in the slightest. Sorry, but that's the truth.

third hero
Dec 18th 2007, 09:22 PM
Doug,

The great city of Rev 11 is not Jerusalem alone, neither is the temple measured, a temple made of stone, nor are the two witnesses only two people.

This mindset that everything that happens in the world which has its OT types from the middle east , keeps men satisfied that it does not effect them elsewhere.

Merton.
The Temple in Rev 11 is not mentioned as being either a temple made with the hands of men or not. It is only said to measure the temple and everything within it, but to not measure the outer court. THis tells me that this is a physical temple, one measurable.

In New Jerusalem, there is no temple there. Read up on that and realize that after the end of all things, the Lord wil live with all mankind, because the wicked will be totally destroyed in the Lake. They will never return. Therefore, God will live with men, and there is no temple there, only a huge throne.

I am not limiting the things found in Revelation to the Middle East. I don't know where you are getting that from. All I am saying that one of the major signs of the Great Tribulation, the last event before the return of the Lord, starts in the Middle East, and spreads throughout the world, affecting all mankind.

Merton
Dec 18th 2007, 10:23 PM
The Temple in Rev 11 is not mentioned as being either a temple made with the hands of men or not. It is only said to measure the temple and everything within it, but to not measure the outer court. THis tells me that this is a physical temple, one measurable.


Then you believe all measurings are of physical things.

I really love it when someone is adamant that they are right about something when they are so so very wrong.

Consider these scriptures --

Rev 21:15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
Rev 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits, accordingto the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.



You must therefore, to be consistent, consider the new Jerusalem from above to made of stone from a quarry on earth.

1Sa 2:2Thereis none holy as the LORD: for thereis none beside thee: neither isthere any rock like our God.

Do you suppose that God is only a rock better than other rocks laying about of the earth kind.

Which quarry did you come from?

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.


Tell me, does the finished work of God in Christ result in a building of stone measurable by a physical measuring rod?--

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

Continued next post--

Merton
Dec 18th 2007, 11:05 PM
Continued ---

By Third Hero--

In New Jerusalem, there is no temple there. Read up on that and realize that after the end of all things, the Lord wil live with all mankind, because the wicked will be totally destroyed in the Lake. They will never return. Therefore, God will live with men, and there is no temple there, only a huge throne.

No Doug.

The whole purpose of Christ having a New Jerusalem is that the Glory of God, Jesus, the Holy Angels, and the resurrected saints the Bride , will live among mortal mankind, without mixing altogether with them, by denoting certain separations from them for a time until the end of the present geo (world).

Just place verse 1 of Rev.21 in its rightful place as the last verse of ch 20.

It is not necessary to have any defining city into eternity after all things of this geo are burnt up, for a city in the bible is a place of safety with walls separated the inhabitants from outside of it. Yes the new Jerusalem has no physical walls for they measure 144 cubits, a spiritual measurement of the living stones of it, being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets with Christ being the chief cornher stone of it, yet filling the whole house with the presence of Him with His Father.




I am not limiting the things found in Revelation to the Middle East. I don't know where you are getting that from. All I am saying that one of the major signs of the Great Tribulation, the last event before the return of the Lord, starts in the Middle East, and spreads throughout the world, affecting all mankind.

No Doug.

The abomination of the endtimes is the abominating of the churches, spread throughout the nations, in particular among the Christian based nations, which is Babylon, which God had raised up in the world for the preserving of Gods people (any believer) with His Word, which Babylon in the endtime will fall as also the churches do.

This is the great falling away, and requires no rebuilt temple of stone, for the Jews already demonstrated it that way in the past, and Jesus had spoken of what was really the abominating of it then by His speaking of how they had made God's house into a den of robbers, and many other things. It is noteworthy that even in His time He never mentioned such a desolating of Gods house as being something of some man physically standing in it, but as I said, by the Jews themselves desolating the temple worship through their sinful actions, not only there but in many other ways throughout the life of the nation as well.

The happenings in the end of the age of the Jews, are repeated in the end of the age of the churches which the elect have established in the world( much to do with their mixing with so called churches who were never established by the elect except by fallen ones. (Moabites))

This requires us to discern just what the abomination of desolation really is because believers in Judea are warned to get out of there when they see the abomination and in order to see that in time to get out they need to pray, and in in order to see, they need to be born again or they shall not see the things concerning the Kingdom of God (John ch 3)

The "therefore" in Mat. 24:15 indicates that the verses preceeding it, occur during it, and results in the need for the believers to flee Judea after it has begun. This makes the abomination of desolation to occur elsewhere to Judea and ends up at Judea.

Fleeing Judea is also a way of telling the disciples of Jesus to flee the churches of the apostacy throughout the world to save them from the happenings of the three woes of Trumpets 5-6-7.

Merton.

losthorizon
Dec 18th 2007, 11:05 PM
The Temple in Rev 11 is not mentioned as being either a temple made with the hands of men or not. It is only said to measure the temple and everything within it, but to not measure the outer court. THis tells me that this is a physical temple, one measurable.

Once again you are forcing a hyper-literal, materialistic meaning for the intended spiritual interpretation. The “Temple of God” that the Revelator refers to in Rev 11 is no less than the “Christian Church”, the people of God – this is what the angel is measuring – not a “temple made with hands” in physical Jerusalem. Jesus himself had already condemned the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem for what is was - “a den of thieves and robbers."
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are…Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.” (1Corinthians) Again, there is no function and no possible need in God’s economy after the Cross for a literal temple in Jerusalem made with hands.

quiet dove
Dec 19th 2007, 12:16 AM
The “Temple of God” that the Revelator refers to in Rev 11 is no less than the “Christian Church”, the people of God

Since I would be a hyper-literal also, I am curious, how does this measuring which you understand to be symbolic, what is the meaning of this measuring of the church, and why has a portion of the church been handed over to the Gentiles? What does all that mean?

A part of the Church is not a part of the church. It is to be tread under foot by the Gentiles? What does all the symbolism of all that mean?



Again, there is no function and no possible need in God’s economy after the Cross for a literal temple in Jerusalem made with hands.I think I can speak for the majority of the hyper literal folks here who believe there will be yet another temple built in saying that none of us think the temple will be built because it is needed for "God's economy". We are only saying that there will be another temple built.

losthorizon
Dec 19th 2007, 12:43 AM
Since I would be a hyper-literal also, I am curious, how does this measuring which you understand to be symbolic, what is the meaning of this measuring of the church, and why has a portion of the church been handed over to the Gentiles? What does all that mean?

A part of the Church is no a part of the church. It is to be tread under foot by the Gentiles? What does all the symbolism of all that mean?

I think I can speak for the majority of the hyper literal folks here who believe there will be yet another temple built in saying that none of us think the temple will be built because it is needed for "God's economy". We are only saying that there will be another temple built.
"Since I would be a hyper-literal also…"

Do you agree or disagree that the Book of Revelation uses highly symbolic imagery and was originally written to give hope to a first century church under extreme persecution?
Rise, and measure the temple of God - That is, ascertain its true dimensions with the reed in your hand. Of course, this could not be understood of the literal temple - whether standing or not - for the exact measure of that was sufficiently well known. The word, then, must be used of something which the temple would denote or represent, and this would properly be the church, considered as the abode of God on the earth. Under the old dispensation, the temple at Jerusalem was that abode; under the new, that special residence was transferred to the church, and God is represented as dwelling in it. Thus, the word is undoubtedly used here, and the simple meaning is, that he who is thus addressed is directed to take an accurate estimate of the true church of God; as accurate as if he were to apply a measuring-reed to ascertain the dimensions of the temple at Jerusalem. In doing that, if the direction had been literally to measure the temple at Jerusalem, he would ascertain its length, and breadth, and height; he would measure its rooms, its doorways, its porticoes; he would take such a measurement of it that, in a description or drawing, it could be distinguished from other edifices, or that one could be constructed like it, or that a just idea could be obtained of it if it should be destroyed.

If the direction be understood figuratively, as applicable to the Christian church, the work to be done would be to obtain an exact estimate or measurement of what the true church was - as distinguished from all other bodies of people, and as constituted and appointed by the direction of God; such a measurement that its characteristics could be made known; that a church could be organized according to this, and that the accurate description could be transmitted to future times. John has not, indeed, preserved the measurement; for the main idea here is not that he was to preserve such a model, but that, in the circumstances, and at the time referred to, the proper business would be to engage in such a measurement of the church that its true dimensions or character might be known. There would be, therefore, a fulfillment of this, if at the time here referred to there should be occasions, from any cause, to inquire what constituted the true church; if it was necessary to separate and distinguish it from all other bodies; and if there should be any such prevailing uncertainty as to make an accurate investigation necessary. ~ Albert Barnes, comments on Revelation 11 (Barnes Notes)

quiet dove
Dec 19th 2007, 01:27 AM
"Since I would be a hyper-literal also…"

Do you agree or disagree that the Book of Revelation uses highly symbolic imagery and was originally written to give hope to a first century church under extreme persecution?


I disagree that it was written strickly for the first century church and believe everything in it will literally happen, whether we are told about those events in literal or symbolic language.

Sorry, but I find Barne’s explanation lacking. How can the body of Christ be measured in such a way and this give us true dimensions or character of the church. How could this possibly tell us what the true church is?

Seems to me that distinguishing the true members of the Church from all other bodies should be in there living in obedience to Christ and walking in the Spirit and there is no indication or “symbolism” here that says anything about that.

And if as he says, the temple dimensions were well known, all the more reason to believe that John is measuring another temple. And the measurements not given would mean that the measurements were secondary to the fact that there was a temple and that a portion of it was being tread underfoot by the Gentiles.

third hero
Dec 19th 2007, 04:50 AM
Merton,
it is a matter of perspective. I take most of the Bible at face value. You, Merton, do not. I guess you have not been reading the posts that hae been exchanged when I offered up the question, why do some peopole reject premillennialism. If you did, you would "get it".

It is not about you being wrong and I being right. It is about being convinced in your beliefs and allowing room for others to believe as they do, all within the perameters of scripture.

For instance, I believe that a temple will be rebuilt. I believe that the temple written in Revelation 11 is that temple. That is not out of bounds as far as believing things based on scripture. If I were to say, "I believe that God will reside in another temple, one that the religious among Israel will build," then I am completely out of bounds, and my thought would fall under the "you are so wrong" category.

That said, you say that the Abomination that causes desolation is Satan infiltrating the church, and the temple in Revelation 11 is nothing more than the spiritual body of Christ, the church. NOw, I could hyper-literalize by saying that you are saying that the Beast will enter into the body of a churchgoer and proclaim hiss Godhood there, but that will accomplish nothing. What I will say is that I disagree, simply because there is nothing within those scriptures to cause anyone to think that the temple that John is told to measure is anything other than a building. One would have to take this verse, juxtapose it to other verses that deal with completely different subjects, and synthesize it to this verse, rendering the temple to be something other than a temple.

Are you wrong? Maybe. Am I right? Maybe. Truth is that neither you or I can definitively say that I am right and you are wrong, and vice versa. This is why I say that this is all about perspective. You have yours. I have mine. To tell me that my perspective is wrong is to say that you are right, opening the door for me to show evidence in contrary to your perspective.

It would be wise of or you, Merton, to understand this concept that I am bringing to you. I am not trying to make you believe what I do. All I am doing is giving you an understanding of what I believe. What you do with it is on you. As a matter of respect, I would appreciate you not referring to my beliefs as wrong simply because they do not match up to yours. If what I am saying is blasphemy, then you MUST show scripture that states it. For instance, ordaining a gay bishop is an abomination, and the OT and NT proves it beyond a shadow of doubt. I have not made any such statements, and therefore, I am not wrong. And maybe you are right, but again, that is according to one's perspective. You and I may not see eye to eye, but we can agree to disagree based on our ways of interpretating scripture.

third hero
Dec 19th 2007, 04:54 AM
Then you believe all measurings are of physical things.

I really love it when someone is adamant that they are right about something when they are so so very wrong.

Consider these scriptures --

Rev 21:15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
Rev 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits, accordingto the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.



You must therefore, to be consistent, consider the new Jerusalem from above to made of stone from a quarry on earth.

1Sa 2:2Thereis none holy as the LORD: for thereis none beside thee: neither isthere any rock like our God.

Do you suppose that God is only a rock better than other rocks laying about of the earth kind.

Which quarry did you come from?

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.


Tell me, does the finished work of God in Christ result in a building of stone measurable by a physical measuring rod?--

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

Continued next post--
What does this have to do with what I was saying?

I believe that I was saying that the temple that is mentioned in Revelation 11 is a temple which the Beast will inhabit but a little while. What is this marmolade that you are espounding consistent with the topic? It isn't.

How about this, instead of trying to tell me how much I am wrong, how about reading both the words on the page, and the context of those words on that page. This post, I am going to completely disregard, becasue it is off topic, and a useless contribution to the derailing of this topic.

third hero
Dec 19th 2007, 05:07 AM
Once again you are forcing a hyper-literal, materialistic meaning for the intended spiritual interpretation. The “Temple of God” that the Revelator refers to in Rev 11 is no less than the “Christian Church”, the people of God – this is what the angel is measuring – not a “temple made with hands” in physical Jerusalem. Jesus himself had already condemned the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem for what is was - “a den of thieves and robbers."
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are…Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.” (1Corinthians) Again, there is no function and no possible need in God’s economy after the Cross for a literal temple in Jerusalem made with hands.


What is so difficult about responding to the actual content of my post? All I read here is that you read the part that I written saying that I believe that a temple will be built, and basing it on Revelation 11. What you completely disregard is the FACT that I called this temple AN ABOMINAATION! You want ot focus on a temple, with the though being that you think that I think that the temple that is going to be built is the Temple of God. read my post again, and understand that I am not.

Also, I went to the extreme to tell you that every premil, even the pre-tribbers, believe as I do, that Israel, while in blindness, will built a temple and dedicate it to God, thinking that they are doing God a favor. Why else would I give the "Saul and the road to Damascus" reference? Saul, like all of the other blind Israelites at that time, was thinking that they were doing God's work, only to be corrected by Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus. This is the same principle in action.

Now, to say it again, The religious among Israel will built a temple, and that temple would be an abomination, mainly because God has moved His Temple from the one built with hands of men, to the hearts and souls of those who believe in His Son, the church.

Look at Daniel 9:27 again.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

It states that there will be an overspreading of abominations. The Dome of the Rock is an abomination. If a Temple dedicated to God is built by hands of men, it too is an abomination. I have said this in my last post, and you failed once again to read that part. This is another fallacy of interpreting things figuratively. You miss the most basic of points. Instead of reading into my post, thinking you know what I am thinking, try reading what I am actually writing, and see clearly what I am thinking, because I am articulating it perfectly. Now, according to this verse, the desolation caused by the overspreading of abominations will cause a desolation that will last until the consummation.

Now, accoridng to scripture, the people of the city will mourn when their city is attacked, and the Lord goes forth to destroy those nations. They will mourn over their sins, and their forefathers sins as well, since they will have shared in their rebellion against God. This can only happen, IMHO, when their Temple, which they will build, will house the beast.

Is it was good enough for Paul, who witnessed the death of the Lord and did not repent of sin until he had seen Jesus face to face, why wouldn't it be good enough for all of the others in this era who are exactly like Paul was before his conversion?

Merton
Dec 19th 2007, 06:15 AM
Since I would be a hyper-literal also, I am curious, how does this measuring which you understand to be symbolic, what is the meaning of this measuring of the church, and why has a portion of the church been handed over to the Gentiles? What does all that mean?

A part of the Church is not a part of the church. It is to be tread under foot by the Gentiles? What does all the symbolism of all that mean?

I think I can speak for the majority of the hyper literal folks here who believe there will be yet another temple built in saying that none of us think the temple will be built because it is needed for "God's economy". We are only saying that there will be another temple built.


Quite Dove,

It means that unless the believers life measures up to the life of Christ expected of it by the Lord as required of its position in the Holy Place of their being baptised in the Holy Spirit then they are not sealed (or cast out) so as to be protected from the trampling by the endtime beast worshippers of all worshippers who worship at the door of the Temple but never enter therein and are thus described as being, which they are at the time of measuring and beyond--

Rev 21:8 But for the cowardly and unbelieving, and those having become foul, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the lying ones,

1Ti 4:1 But the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, cleaving to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 in lying speakers in hypocrisy, being seared in their own conscience,
1Ti 4:3 forbidding to marry, saying to abstain from foods, which God created for partaking with thanksgiving by the believers and those knowing the truth.

2Ti 3:1 But know this, that in the last days grievous times will be upon us.
2Ti 3:2 For men will be lovers of themselves, money-lovers, braggarts, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 without natural feeling, unyielding, slanderers, without self-control, savage, haters of good,
2Ti 3:4 betrayers, reckless, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
2Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it; even turn away from these.
2Ti 3:6 For of these are those creeping into houses and leading silly women captive, the ones having been heaped with sins, being led away by various lusts,
2Ti 3:7 always learning, but never being able to come to a full knowledge of the truth.

Mat 5:13 You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt becomes tasteless, with what shall it be salted? For it has strength for nothing any more but to be thrown out and to be trampled under by men.


Rev 9:3 And out of the smoke locusts came forth to the earth. And authority was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have authority.
Rev 9:4 And it was said to them that they should not harm the grass of the earth, nor every green thing, nor every tree, except only the men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
Rev 9:5 And it was given to them that they should not kill them, but that they be tormented five months. And their torment is as the torment of a scorpion when it stings a man.
Rev 9:6 And in those days men will seek death, and they will not find it. And they will long to die, yet death will flee from them.

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, and will make her desolated and naked. And they will eat her flesh, and will burn her down with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God gave into their hearts to do His mind, and to act in one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the Words of God shall be fulfilled.

But do not fret--

Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothing, only let your name be called on us; collect our shame.
Isa 4:2 In that day the Branch of Jehovah will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth for pride and for glory for the survivors of Israel.
Isa 4:3 And it shall be, he remaining in Zion, and he who is left in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, every one who is written among the living in Jerusalem;
Isa 4:4 when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and the blood of Jerusalem shall have been rinsed away from its midst by a spirit of judgment, and by a spirit of burning.
Isa 4:5 Then Jehovah will create a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night, over all the site of Mount Zion, and over her assemblies; for on all the glory will be a canopy.
Isa 4:6 And there shall be a booth for a shade from the heat, and for a refuge, and for a hiding place from storm and rain.

Merton.

Merton
Dec 19th 2007, 06:38 AM
By third hero--


What is so difficult about responding to the actual content of my post? All I read here is that you read the part that I written saying that I believe that a temple will be built, and basing it on Revelation 11. What you completely disregard is the FACT that I called this temple AN ABOMINAATION! You want ot focus on a temple, with the though being that you think that I think that the temple that is going to be built is the Temple of God. read my post again, and understand that I am not.

Why are the true worshippers found to be worshipping in it, and why is this temple in Rev.11 called the temple of God, if it was as you supppose an abomination made of stone?

If as you say that this temple in Rev.11 is not a temple of God then you disagree with the word of God describing it.




Rev 11:1 And a reed like a staff was given to me, and the angel stood, saying, Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those worshiping in it.
Rev 11:2 And cast aside the outside court of the temple, and do not measure it. For it was given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city forty two months.
The book of Rev is given using symbols from the OT and of creation itself, so that it does not describe the things as being as the symbols were, and the prophecies in the OT speaking of things future to the OT were also given in many OT symbols of the true.

The entire account of the journey of Israel of the OT refers to the spiritual journey of the saints today since Pentecost and all of their Holy things of the past refer to the Holy things of the saints under the New covenant.

Why do you not recognise that? We can not teach anything of the New if they can only see the old, when reading scripture.

1Co 2:13 Which things we also speak, not in words taught in human wisdom, but in Words taught of the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But the spiritual one discerns all things, but he is discerned by no one.
Merton.

Merton
Dec 19th 2007, 06:48 AM
By third hero--


Are you wrong? Maybe. Am I right? Maybe. Truth is that neither you or I can definitively say that I am right and you are wrong, and vice versa. This is why I say that this is all about perspective. You have yours. I have mine. To tell me that my perspective is wrong is to say that you are right, opening the door for me to show evidence in contrary to your perspective.

It would be wise of or you, Merton, to understand this concept that I am bringing to you. I am not trying to make you believe what I do. All I am doing is giving you an understanding of what I believe. What you do with it is on you. As a matter of respect, I would appreciate you not referring to my beliefs as wrong simply because they do not match up to yours.

Yes thanks.

You just told me that truth is only a matter of opinion.

and that no one can have the seal of God on what they believe.

Tell me by what means do you know that Jesus is the Christ??

Merton.

quiet dove
Dec 19th 2007, 04:54 PM
Quite Dove,

It means that unless the believers life measures up to the life of Christ expected of it by the Lord as required of its position in the Holy Place of their being baptised in the Holy Spirit then they are not sealed (or cast out) so as to be protected from the trampling by the endtime beast worshippers of all worshippers who worship at the door of the Temple but never enter therein and are thus described as being, which they are at the time of measuring and beyond--

I am still going to have to disagree, though I appreciate your taking the time to explain to me what Barnes meant because it honestly made no sense to me.
But this is why I disagree.

We are sealed when we believe, a person either accepts or rejects Christ
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

I dont know where the Bible says if we don't measure up we are cast out, it says if we do not love the truth, if we reject Christ. Rev 21 describes the character of unbelievers. A person either believes or they don't. If they say they do and then walk away, same thing rejecting the Truth. But even the sincere, believing, honest seeker, will never measure up. It seems there is a difference and even if the believer's work doesn't measure up the believer will still be saved.
1Co 3:14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

I also disagree with the last point, those who do not measure up will be trampled by the end time beast worshipers. Any one not sealed by the Holy Spirit will be a beast worshiper. That is not determined by measuring up as a believer but being a believer to start with.
2Th 2:10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Through out history it has not been those who did not measure up that were persecuted, just the opposite, it was those who did measure up who were persecuted, willing to die for their faith. I believe Revelation makes it clear, it will be those who believe, those who are sealed,(thus measuring up) the saints, who are persecuted.

Rev 13:7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. 8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Even if the temple verses in Rev 11 are to be taken as a spiritual message symbolically given, I disagree with Barnes' explanation, it does not hold up against other scripture IMHO.

third hero
Dec 19th 2007, 05:59 PM
By third hero--



Why are the true worshippers found to be worshipping in it, and why is this temple in Rev.11 called the temple of God, if it was as you supppose an abomination made of stone?

If as you say that this temple in Rev.11 is not a temple of God then you disagree with the word of God describing it.



What do you call a temple that the Israelites build that is dedicated to the God of Israel? Is it not the "Temple of God?" Does the Israelites worship a different god than us? No. The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, the Son of GOD. Therefore, they are not worshipping a different god. No, they are thinking that they are doing God's work, and all the while they are not, because God has moved on to the souls of men, while they are left behind wanting, mainly because they have not accepted Lord Jesus yet.

There are not true worshippers found in that temple. Nothing of that sort is even mentioned in Revelation 11 or anywhere else int he NT, with the opnly exception was when the disciples and Paul tried to show the people that Christ was indeed the Son of God. It only says that the temple is measured, and the measurements are not even mentioned with the only exception being that John was not to measure the Outer Court. The outer court reference was the reason why the temple was even mentioned at all, because it is meant to show that the Temple is going to share space with another thing, something that will be located, or is presently located, where the Outer court either was or would be. Remember, Paul called that building that was standing during his lifetime "The Temple of God", even though God was no longer in that place. Was he wrong?

third hero
Dec 19th 2007, 06:07 PM
By third hero--



Yes thanks.

You just told me that truth is only a matter of opinion.

and that no one can have the seal of God on what they believe.

Tell me by what means do you know that Jesus is the Christ??

Merton.



I say that the Bible does not have many hidden meanings that have to be gleemed by finding hints throughout scripture. In other words, what the Bible says is exactly what it means, unless it says that what it says holds a differring meaning, like the two lampstands.

My truth is this. God is going to bring Israel back to Him, and not just the elect , but the entire nation. God is going to allow the people to continue on in their sins until the beast arrives. When the Beast comes and his master puts it in his heart to wipe out Israel, God will save Israel, and the entire nation will mourn over their sins, and finally accept Lord Jesus as t he Lord and Savior that He has always been.

Mograce2U
Dec 19th 2007, 06:08 PM
The OT must be where we find some light on this passage because there aren't any clues in the NT. So far I have found that the land, the city and the temple were measured when the people were to be returned from the Babylon Captivity. This was because God was going to return to dwell amongst them and the measuring marked off the holy places before rebuilding began. This was after He had defiled all these places by bringing Gentiles to destroy them.

In the OT the pattern seems to be that when the people sinned, God judged them thru war with their enemies, then judged their enemies and restored the people to faith and obedience in the land and rebuilt the temple and the city.

In the NT we see John the baptist bring the people to repentance and Christ seeking the lost, dying for the sins of the people, and sealing them with the Holy Spirit - thus bringing them to faith and obedience first, before He judges His enemies.

In Zec 4:9, 6:13 we see that the Branch who is to come to this 2nd temple Zerubbabel is building, will be the one who builds it up in the power of the Holy Spirit. In the NT we see that this is a spiritual temple of those who believe in Jesus.

That John is told to measure the holy of holies [H3485 naos], the altar which stands before it and the worshippers that are there at the altar - is clearly drawing on an OT type. It would seem he is measuring the most holy place first, before judgment is sent. We are in the 6th trumpet and the 2nd woe when these things are to happen - which is just before the 7th trumpet/ 3rd woe (7 vials) are poured out.

The temple that was still standing in that generation before 70 AD was still being used by the remnant of Israel. In Acts we see that the apostles still went there to pray. The synagogues were also still being used for the Gentile believers to hear the words of Moses. So while the new temple of His body was being built, we see that there was a 40 yr transition period as Israel's remnant was still being gathered to the gospel. These would have been the ones who John is "measuring" for the Lord who is about to come to this temple in judgment.

The first century is the only time period that fits when there was still an elect remnant in Israel who was faithfully looking forward to Messiah but did not yet believe that Jesus was the Christ because they had not heard the gospel. They were probably disciples of John the baptist.

third hero
Dec 19th 2007, 06:20 PM
The OT must be where we find some light on this passage because there aren't any clues in the NT. So far I have found that the land, the city and the temple were measured when the people were to be returned from the Babylon Captivity. This was because God was going to return to dwell amongst them and the measuring marked off the holy places before rebuilding began. This was after He had defiled all these places by bringing Gentiles to destroy them.

In the OT the pattern seems to be that when the people sinned, God judged them thru war with their enemies, then judged their enemies and restored the people to faith and obedience in the land and rebuilt the temple and the city.

In the NT we see John the baptist bring the people to repentance and Christ seeking the lost, dying for the sins of the people, and sealing them with the Holy Spirit - thus bringing them to faith and obedience first, before He judges His enemies.

In Zec 4:9, 6:13 we see that the Branch who is to come to this 2nd temple Zerubbabel is building, will be the one who builds it up. In the NT we see that this is a spiritual temple of those who believe in Jesus.

That John is told to measure the holy of holies [H3485 naos], the altar which stands before it and the worshippers that are there at the altar - is clearly drawing on an OT type. It would seem he is measuring the most holy place first, before judgment is sent. We are in the 6th trumpet and the 2nd woe when these things are to happen - which is just before the 7th trumpet/ 3rd woe (7 vials) are poured out.

The temple that was still standing in that generation before 70 AD was still being used by the remnant of Israel. In Acts we see that the apostles still went there to pray. The synagogues were also still being used for the Gentile believers to hear the words of Moses. So while the new temple of His body was being built, we see that there was a 40 yr transition period as Israel's remnant was still being gathered to the gospel. These would have been the ones who John is "measuring" for the Lord who is about to come to this temple in judgment.

The first century is the only time period that fits when there was still an elect remnant in Israel who was faithfully looking forward to Messiah but did not yet believe that Jesus was the Christ because they had not heard the gospel. They were probably disciples of John the baptist.
I understand where you are coming from, and I also understand how you are coming to your conclusion, and I can respect that. I want you to understand whaere I am coming from, because we are not far apart on this issue Mograce, even though our conclusions are vastly diffferent.

When I looked in the OT, I had found that during the Babylonian captivity, God used Ezekiel and Daniel to show the people that He will have them rebuild a Temple. Moreover, this is part and parcel to their return from exile, or dispersion. IN other words, when they return, they build a temple. The Temple measurements were exact, especially in Ezekiel's model. And so the significance was drastic during and after the Babylonian captivity.

In this current era, the Israelites are back in their homeland, and like the last time, they have the desire to build the temple. Unlike the last time, they do not have a leader with the guts to give permission to have the temple built, especially since the Dome of the Rock is where the temple was at "originally". But now that an archeologist have placed the original temple to the southwest of the present-day Dome, the Israelites have an opportunity to have the temple rebuilt, and all the while, making peace with their neighbors, the Muslim Arabs.

What does this have to do with Revelation 11? Simple. The temple is mentioned in the same vein as Ezekiel, implying that the temple that was suppose to be measured is not in existence, like it was not in existence in Ezekiel. And so it was told to John to measure the temple, but not to measure the outer court. Why? Because the outer court will be given over to the Gentiles. IF the temple is built in the next 50 years, because there are so many muslims that hold a significant view of their holy Dome, then the Israelites are going to have to give concessions. In this case, the outer court would have to be scrapped, because the Dome would be standing where the outer court used to be.

I see Revelation 11 as a prophecy, mainly because Ezekiel, the only other prophet that had to measure a temple, measured one that was not in existence. I see the Revelation 11 verses here in that exact same vein, whereas John was told to measure something that wasn't there.

This is another reason why I say that Revelation was written after the Diaspora of 70AD. This is also the reason why I have stated, and will continue to believe, that a temple will be erected, and that Revelation 11:1-2 is a prophecy all by itself.

Mograce2U
Dec 19th 2007, 06:52 PM
TH,
I understand you too and how you got there ;) What seems to be different is the path we each are taking to arrive where we are at!

If scripture is to interpret scripture then context must be considered. Ezekiel's temple which was the 2nd temple shows the same spiritual destiny that Zecariah shows us Zerubbabel built. And that destiny was the first coming, which Daniel also agrees with. The Hope of Israel which she was waiting for was the arrival of Messiah. You have to mess with the context quite a bit to get the prophets to speak of a 2nd coming when they were sent to prepare the people for His first!

John146
Dec 19th 2007, 07:46 PM
What do you call a temple that the Israelites build that is dedicated to the God of Israel? Is it not the "Temple of God?"

No, it is not. It would not have been ordained by God. They would have built it on their own accord. The God of Israel is Jesus Christ and they do not even recognize Him as the Messiah. There is no way that a building made by unbelieving Israelites for the purpose of practicing a false religion called Judaism could be considered the temple of God.



Does the Israelites worship a different god than us? No. The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, the Son of GOD. Therefore, they are not worshipping a different god. No, they are thinking that they are doing God's work, and all the while they are not, because God has moved on to the souls of men, while they are left behind wanting, mainly because they have not accepted Lord Jesus yet.Jesus had a much different view than you do of unbelieving Israelites. By unbelieving, I mean not believing in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. This is what Jesus had to say to the kind of people that you say are worshiping the God of Israel today:

37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. - John 8:37-44

The Pharisees thought they were worshiping the God of Israel and thought He was their Father. But Jesus said their father was the devil. The modern day Pharisees of modern day Israel are no different.



There are not true worshippers found in that temple. Nothing of that sort is even mentioned in Revelation 11 or anywhere else int he NT, with the opnly exception was when the disciples and Paul tried to show the people that Christ was indeed the Son of God.Doug, the clear implication is that John is "measuring" true worshipers in Revelation 11. You don't have much of a case to suggest otherwise.



It only says that the temple is measured, and the measurements are not even mentioned with the only exception being that John was not to measure the Outer Court. The outer court reference was the reason why the temple was even mentioned at all, because it is meant to show that the Temple is going to share space with another thing, something that will be located, or is presently located, where the Outer court either was or would be. Remember, Paul called that building that was standing during his lifetime "The Temple of God", even though God was no longer in that place. Was he wrong?Actually, Paul never called the physical temple that was standing at that time the temple of God. Instead, he referred to individual believers or the church as the temple of God (read 1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 3:16-17, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:19-22).

Mograce2U
Dec 19th 2007, 08:18 PM
Hi Eric,

Actually, Paul never called the physical temple that was standing at that time the temple of God. Instead, he referred to individual believers or the church as the temple of God (read 1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 3:16-17, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:19-22).That may be true, but in Acts 3 we see Peter & John going there to pray, so we see that it was still an acceptable place to offer worship.

losthorizon
Dec 20th 2007, 12:57 AM
What is so difficult about responding to the actual content of my post? All I read here is that you read the part that I written saying that I believe that a temple will be built, and basing it on Revelation 11. What you completely disregard is the FACT that I called this temple AN ABOMINAATION! You want ot focus on a temple, with the though being that you think that I think that the temple that is going to be built is the Temple of God. read my post again, and understand that I am not.

Sure TH – let’s address your posting “content”. The “temple” described in Rev 11 is not described as “AN ABOMINATION” before God, but Jesus described the physical temple of His day - the one destroyed in AD 70 - as a “den of thieves”. The question that goes begging – is the temple in Rev 11 a literal temple “built with hands” as others on this thread insist or is the temple being measured by the angel in reality “the church of God” - His temple on earth as I have presented?

Will Jesus rule this earth from a literal temple in Jerusalem during your premillennial “1000 year reign of Christ on earth”? If yes – will that temple also be an abomination before God? Is "Ezekiel’s Temple" (as described in Ezekiel 40-47) a yet-future physical temple to be built in Jerusalem sometime before or during the “millennium”?

quiet dove
Dec 20th 2007, 01:57 AM
QD – I haven’t read where anyone on this thread is stating that the Book of Revelation “was written strictly for the first century church” and of course the truth is it was written for the edification of the body of Christ for all ages. My point was simply that the book was written using highly symbolic imagery and was written originally to those Christians of the first century to give hope to those facing extreme persecution and death for the cause of Christ. And herein lies the problem - the problem of premillennial-dispensational doctrine that result from erroneously literalizing symbolic verses that were never meant to be taken literally.

You asked me a question, I answered it. I don't remember saying that anyone on this thread stated the Book of Revelation "was written strickly for the first century church" I simply answered your question. As far as it being a problem, it isn't a problem for me. I am not having a problem with what you consider "erroneously literalizing". I have no problem with whether a prophecy was given in symbolic language or literal languge in that it will come to pass accurately to the most minute detail given.




your question (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1475602&postcount=60) to me was
Do you agree or disagree that the Book of Revelation uses highly symbolic imagery and was originally written to give hope to a first century church under extreme persecution?
And I answered (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1475647&postcount=61) you
I disagree that it was written strickly for the first century church and believe everything in it will literally happen, whether we are told about those events in literal or symbolic language.

I too am sorry that you cannot see the simple truth contained in the comments of Albert Barnes. Don't be sorry. I'm not. Merton explained to me what Barnes meant and I still disagree with him. And like I told Merton, even if those verses in Rev 11 are symbolic, I disagree with what Barnes is saying it means.

losthorizon
Dec 20th 2007, 02:13 AM
...Don't be sorry. I'm not. Merton explained to me what Barnes meant and I still disagree with him. And like I told Merton, even if those verses in Rev 11 are symbolic, I disagree with what Barnes is saying it means.
Then you are open to the idea that the temple referred to in Rev 11 could be symbolic of something other than a temple made with hands in this highly symbolic book?

Mograce2U
Dec 20th 2007, 02:38 AM
Then you are open to the idea that the temple referred to in Rev 11 could be symbolic of something other than a temple made with hands in this highly symbolic book?If the temple is supposed to be "symbolic" of a temple made without hands, then it must be the same temple as we see it is used in the rest of the book - the temple in heaven. I find 16 occurrences of naos in Revelation. The 3 times it appears in ch 11, only one time is a specific mention made of the temple in heaven, which is pretty much how it is described in the other 13 citings. So we still have the same problem, if it is symbolic these 2 other times in ch 11 - where is the support for what the symbol is? Otherwise, it seems it ought to retain its common literal meaning. Without a directive to go outside the book, that is - like an OT quote or something. Yet we do have an OT example of measuring to go by. So why not start there?

quiet dove
Dec 20th 2007, 02:44 AM
Then you are open to the idea that the temple referred to in Rev 11 could be symbolic of something other than a temple made with hands in this highly symbolic book?


I am more inclined to take it that there will be a temple, there will be people who worship God, and that part of the temple will be trampled by the nations/Gentiles. My belief that there will be a temple built is not based soley on this verse. Nor is it based on me having any belief there is a need for this temple in order to worship or come to God, I certainly know that is not true. But that temple will be built, the plans are being made and advanced everyday. Google it. There is plenty of support that the prophecy is that there will be another temple and every day we get closer to seeing that happen.

As I said before, even if the language in Revelation is symbolic it still has a literal fulfillment. I don't expect to see four horses gallop across the earth, but I believe there will be a literal conquerer, literal war, literal famine and so on.

Merton
Dec 20th 2007, 03:14 AM
Q Dove,


Merton explained to me what Barnes meant and I still disagree with him. And like I told Merton, even if those verses in Rev 11 are symbolic, I disagree with what Barnes is saying it means.

I have never read Barnes on it.

I do know the difference between opinion and what Christ teaches.

I hate opinions, they mean nothing, even worse.

Religions which draw men into fruitless pursuits are all built on opinions.

There are dozens of references to the OT temple and manner of worship in the book of Rev. and throughout the NT where the writers have used the principles from there to teach the things of the New Covenant and the prophecies are given in those OT terms.

If you want to disregard that then it is up to you, but in time you will find that your methods of understanding will let you down when things get dark for it is Christs word taught by His inspiration which is the word which is a lamp unto your feet, and not your literal understandings of scripture whereby men who do not hear Gods voice are led to ruin.

The regarding of Israel of the flesh as being Gods people and the invasion of Iraq is a case in point. Men and women are dying by the thousands due to their carnal understandings of scripture and the literalists are behind it.




Merton.

Allegra
Dec 20th 2007, 03:29 AM
QD,
Well, there were literal horses "trampling across the earth" (which is the "land")
There was a literal conquer, literal wars & a literal mother war. There were literal earthquakes, literal famines & a literal mother famine.

What I don't understand is if it was written in Luke 21:22 "For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written"
Then the only thing I would be Googling is to find out info & books why Jesus said these words.

I'm not getting it. People believe a lot of things. Some are not healthy or even Christian (i.e. other religions)
Why are "you" looking for wars, etc. to happen? :giveup:

losthorizon
Dec 20th 2007, 04:35 AM
If the temple is supposed to be "symbolic" of a temple made without hands, then it must be the same temple as we see it is used in the rest of the book - the temple in heaven. I find 16 occurrences of naos in Revelation. The 3 times it appears in ch 11, only one time is a specific mention made of the temple in heaven, which is pretty much how it is described in the other 13 citings. So we still have the same problem, if it is symbolic these 2 other times in ch 11 - where is the support for what the symbol is? Otherwise, it seems it ought to retain its common literal meaning. Without a directive to go outside the book, that is - like an OT quote or something. Yet we do have an OT example of measuring to go by. So why not start there?
“Nous” simply means “holy house”, i.e., the place where God dwells. John the Revelator understood that after the Cross “the temple of God” (the Lord’s church) is where God dwells on Earth – not in the physical temple in Jerusalem. Shortly before His death, Jesus wept over Jerusalem, saying, "Your house is left unto you desolate” – this He said referring to the temple in Jerusalem (Mt.23:38). And when Jesus was shown this same temple, He told His disciples, "Not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Mt.24:1 2). The Hebrew nation rejected her Messiah and her house was left desolate – the temple was destroyed just as Christ foretold. I know of no rule of interpretation that would require the "Temple of God" in this passage (Rev 11) to be anything other than the Christian Church.
“Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”

losthorizon
Dec 20th 2007, 04:53 AM
I am more inclined to take it that there will be a temple, there will be people who worship God, and that part of the temple will be trampled by the nations/Gentiles. My belief that there will be a temple built is not based soley on this verse. Nor is it based on me having any belief there is a need for this temple in order to worship or come to God, I certainly know that is not true. But that temple will be built, the plans are being made and advanced everyday. Google it. There is plenty of support that the prophecy is that there will be another temple and every day we get closer to seeing that happen.

I won’t need to Google it as I have studied the different eschatological views including premillennialism and her sister, dispensationalism. I have also read the many speculations on the internet regarding another Jewish temple. You say you believe there will be no future need for a temple built with hands “in order to worship or come to God” and I agree with you. That said – do you think this future physical temple that you know will be built is part of God’s plan for His creation and why would He require another physical temple in Jerusalem?

quiet dove
Dec 20th 2007, 05:01 AM
I have never read Barnes on it.


Merton.

Well, I misunderstood this post (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1475871&postcount=65) by you when I understood you to be giving me your opinion of what Barnes said.



But as you said above

I do know the difference between opinion and what Christ teaches.

I hate opinions, they mean nothing, even worse.

Religions which draw men into fruitless pursuits are all built on opinions.And it is your opinions that I am disregarding, not the Word of God, and so far, in my darkest moments, Christ has not let me down, literally not let me down, thank you for your concern though.

quiet dove
Dec 20th 2007, 05:13 AM
I won’t need to Google it as I have studied the different eschatological views including premillennialism and her sister, dispensationalism. I have also read the many speculations on the internet regarding another Jewish temple. You say you believe there will be no future need for a temple built with hands “in order to worship or come to God” and I agree with you. That said – do you think this future physical temple that you know will be built is part of God’s plan for His creation and why would He require another physical temple in Jerusalem?

I didn't say google premillenialism, some Jews, with or without any Christians are trying to work toward rebuilding a temple, they believe it will bring their Messiah. It doesnt make any difference what I think or believe. Nor did I say anything about God requiring it or it being a part of His plan. I just said there are Jews out there who are working toward building it. And if there are Christians who think the temple is "required" for something you will have to ask them. Not me.

I am just saying I believe the Bible prophecies about yet another stone temple being built. Never said it was required by God for anything. God knows the future and He has told us about it.

losthorizon
Dec 20th 2007, 05:30 AM
I didn't say google premillenialism, some Jews, with or without any Christians are trying to work toward rebuilding a temple, they believe it will bring their Messiah. It doesnt make any difference what I think or believe. Nor did I say anything about God requiring it or it being a part of His plan. I just said there are Jews out there who are working toward building it. And if there are Christians who think the temple is "required" for something you will have to ask them. Not me.

I am just saying I believe the Bible prophecies about yet another stone temple being built. Never said it was required by God for anything. God knows the future and He has told us about it.

If you are in doubt about the active participation of Christians who have a burning desire to have a rebuild temple in Jerusalem then I would suggest you Google “Christian Zionism” a term that is synonymous with Dispensationalism, which is associated with Premillennialism; i.e., all Dispensationalists are Premillennialists but not all Premillennialists are Dispensationalists.

quiet dove
Dec 20th 2007, 05:36 AM
If you are in doubt about the active participation of Christians who have a burning desire to have a rebuild temple in Jerusalem then I would suggest you Google “Christian Zionism” a term that is synonymous with Dispensationalism, which is associated with Premillennialism; i.e., all Dispensationalists are Premillennialists but not all Premillennialists are Dispensationalists.



That still does not have anything to do with my understanding of what scripture says. So I don't care about Christian Zionism or what it teaches because my understanding of the Bible has nothing to do with whatever those people believe and/or teach. You are talking to me, I am not them, I dont intend on trying to debate what they teach. You will have to get one of them on this forum and debate them about their teachings and beliefs.

third hero
Dec 20th 2007, 05:48 AM
No, it is not. It would not have been ordained by God. They would have built it on their own accord. The God of Israel is Jesus Christ and they do not even recognize Him as the Messiah. There is no way that a building made by unbelieving Israelites for the purpose of practicing a false religion called Judaism could be considered the temple of God.

Do you honestly think that the Israelites following after Judaism care whether we think that the temple that they make is an abomination? Remember, they utterly reject the notion that Lord Jesus is the Messiah, and so they are still looking for their messiah, the conquering king. They will call it the Temple of God, whether God is there or not. This is what I am trying to cause you to understand. This is also the reason why the teple in Rev 11 is called the Temple of God, because the Judaizers will call it that. Paul called the second temple, which the Spirit of God removed Himself from the Temple of God, even though it was clearly devoid of the Spirit of God. WhAt we think is not up for debate here Eric, becasue I totally agree with you on the principle that Lord Jesus has become the true temple of God, and all true worshippers will worship God through Lord Jesus. That part is not the subject of this debate.

What is up for debate is the actions of the Israelites. A prophecy can tell both the good and the bad about what they are going to do, using terms that they understand. When one says, Temlpe of God, one automatically knows of the temple in Jerusalem, especially back then. Therefore, the temple of God, even though it is not the true temple, will be called the temple of God whether you disagree with them or not.


Jesus had a much different view than you do of unbelieving Israelites. By unbelieving, I mean not believing in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. This is what Jesus had to say to the kind of people that you say are worshiping the God of Israel today:

37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. - John 8:37-44

The Pharisees thought they were worshiping the God of Israel and thought He was their Father. But Jesus said their father was the devil. The modern day Pharisees of modern day Israel are no different.

My view of the Israelites is the exact same as Lord Jesus. I see that He will save a people who do not deserve it, just as we didn't deserve to hear the Gospel, let alone believe in i. God has made some promises that he can not just figurate Himself through, or else Jesus would have no reason to return to earth, but rather, He could just destroy the earth from Heaven. But He is not, because of the promises that He has made, including the ones that proclaim that He will be the God of the children of Israel forever.


Doug, the clear implication is that John is "measuring" true worshipers in Revelation 11. You don't have much of a case to suggest otherwise.

Actually, Paul never called the physical temple that was standing at that time the temple of God. Instead, he referred to individual believers or the church as the temple of God (read 1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 3:16-17, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:19-22).

2 Thes 2:3-4 clearly call the building that the man of sin will stand in to proclaim himself to be God as the Temple of God. It is clearly written there. He was not talking about standing in the hearts of men, but rather, a building.

As far as the measuring of the Temple, the Ezekiel example is evidence enough that John was not to measure people, but rather a building. Just like Ezekiel had to.

John146
Dec 20th 2007, 06:29 AM
Do you honestly think that the Israelites following after Judaism care whether we think that the temple that they make is an abomination? Remember, they utterly reject the notion that Lord Jesus is the Messiah, and so they are still looking for their messiah, the conquering king. They will call it the Temple of God, whether God is there or not. This is what I am trying to cause you to understand. This is also the reason why the teple in Rev 11 is called the Temple of God, because the Judaizers will call it that.

In Revelation 11 it is not unbelieving Israelites calling it the temple of God. It is the angel speaking to John who is calling it the temple of God and, of course, the book is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And I don't believe the angel speaking to John or the Holy Spirit would call a future physical temple the temple of God.



Paul called the second temple, which the Spirit of God removed Himself from the Temple of God, even though it was clearly devoid of the Spirit of God.

He did? Where? Give me the Scripture reference.



What is up for debate is the actions of the Israelites. A prophecy can tell both the good and the bad about what they are going to do, using terms that they understand. When one says, Temlpe of God, one automatically knows of the temple in Jerusalem, especially back then. Therefore, the temple of God, even though it is not the true temple, will be called the temple of God whether you disagree with them or not.

If they paid attention to Paul's writings then they would think of the temple of God as an individual or the church collectively because that's what he taught. I don't care what unbelieving Israelites call any temple that they might build. I care about what the authors of the Bible and the Holy Spirit would call such a temple.



2 Thes 2:3-4 clearly call the building that the man of sin will stand in to proclaim himself to be God as the Temple of God. It is clearly written there. He was not talking about standing in the hearts of men, but rather, a building.

Actually, it says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God. But that doesn't have to mean that the man of sin literally sits in a chair within a physical temple. Look at the following passage:

12And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
13I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. - Revelation 2:12-13

In this passage, it's not saying that Satan had a literal seat that he sat on in the church in Pergamos. It's figurative language. His seat referred to the place where he dwelled. In the same way, the man of sin dwells within the church body exalting himself above all that is called God. That is what false prophets and false teachers do. They go to churches or anywhere where believers can be found and try to seduce the immature people away before they can come to the knowledge of the truth. That's why the man of sin is described this way:

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. - 2 Thess 2:9-10

We have high profile "preachers" today within churches and on TV who are deceiving people into believing false doctrines and lies. People are worshiping these "preachers" rather than God. That is how the man of sin deceives people so that they receive "not the love of the truth, that they might be saved".



As far as the measuring of the Temple, the Ezekiel example is evidence enough that John was not to measure people, but rather a building. Just like Ezekiel had to.

Revelation 11:1 that John had to measure the worshipers within the temple of God. What do you think that means? Do you think he had to measure the height of all the people within a physical temple? Or did he have to count all the people one by one? If you're going to insist on a hyper-literal interpretation, it would have to be one or the other.

JesusisGod
Dec 20th 2007, 03:06 PM
Hi John 146.

We have high profile "preachers" today within churches and on TV who are deceiving people into believing false doctrines and lies. People are worshiping these "preachers" rather than God. That is how the man of sin deceives people so that they receive "not the love of the truth, that they might be saved".
I think Gods purpose for sending the man of sin is because people rejected the truth already. But what is the difference if the man of sin comes into the church where unbelievers are, or if he comes to a rebuilt stone temple in Jerusalem where unbelievers are?

quiet dove
Dec 20th 2007, 03:16 PM
Actually, it says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God. But that doesn't have to mean that the man of sin literally sits in a chair within a physical temple.

I would agree, it does say that, and I would agree you and I are the temple of God, and of course many others saved by Grace. Are you saying that Satan will sit in some of us (so to speak)?

We cant be the temple unless we are truly saved and believe only in Jesus, correct? Therefore, Satan cannot sit in the temple of God if believers are the only temple scripture is making reference to. If we believe, we are the temple, Satan cant get in. If we do not believe, or we walk away from the faith, Satan can get in, but we are no longer the temple.

Mograce2U
Dec 20th 2007, 07:15 PM
I'm going to go for a summary here on Rev 11.

First John is given a little book to eat - which he did. By these words he has eaten he will prophesy again before many people. This is probably the very words he has written for us in the book of Revelation (21:5).

Ezekiel (2:9+) also was given a book to eat by which he was to prophesy to Israel. His little book was a scroll written inside and out with words of lamentations, mournings and woe. It would seem we are to consider John's little book in this same light - as it describes the scroll the Lamb has opened. With words of prophecy which have been written before, is certainly how John presents his vision to us. And we know that Jesus fulfills all the prophecies that concern Him, so these are things that will occur prior to the time when "It is done" is proclaimed (Rev 16:17; 21:6) - when the 7th vial is poured out.

When John is then told to measure the temple, the altar and the worshippers found there, it is in preparation for the fulfillment of these prophecies - before the Gentiles come to trample the city. Which is similar to what we find in Jeremiah 11-12 when he is told to speak the words of the covenant of Moses to the people before the Babylon captivity comes upon them (stressing its judgments):

(Jer 12:1-3 KJV) Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously? {2} Thou hast planted them, yea, they have taken root: they grow, yea, they bring forth fruit: thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins. {3} But thou, O LORD, knowest me: thou hast seen me, and tried mine heart toward thee: pull them out like sheep for the slaughter, and prepare them for the day of slaughter.

Then a rather strange passage about the 2 witnesses dressed like OT prophets who are given power to testify during this 1260 day/ 42 month period - the same period that is set aside for the Gentiles to do their trampling. Prophets who are typified by Moses and Elijah in the judgments they spoke of. Apparently the Law and the Prophets are being fulfilled in this period and coming to their end. An end that Jer 12:17 says will come upon the people who do not hear the words of this covenant made thru Moses (Jer 11:1):

(Jer 12:15-17 KJV) And it shall come to pass, after that I have plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land. {16} And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The LORD liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people. {17} But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.

Notice that Jeremiah is speaking of a time AFTER they have been restored from the Babylon captivity - a prophecy that is about to come to pass as Moses had warned - that the plagues against Egypt and Sodom would come upon them as contained in the curse of the Law. Elijah was also the one who had the power to call down fire upon his enemies (2 King 1:10). (I believe this an allegory being given to us to show us how the word of God previously spoken is coming to pass.)

So during this generation which will see all these things come to pass - before the old covenant was completely passed away - the final 3 1/2 years which will see all these things fulfilled - a time during which the temple was still standing: the word of God is fulfilled. And right here at the end of the 6th trumpet/ 3rd woe, we find the resurrection of the OT saints - just before the 7th trumpet sounds and the vials are poured out.

Look at what the 24 elders proclaim as the 7th trumpet sounds which is after these 2 witnesses are called to come up hither:

(Rev 11:17-18 KJV) Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. {18} And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Which the 7 vials then accomplish when the wrath of God is poured out and the covenant of Moses is fulfilled and ended with the destruction of the city and the temple..

Merton
Dec 20th 2007, 10:23 PM
I would agree, it does say that, and I would agree you and I are the temple of God, and of course many others saved by Grace. Are you saying that Satan will sit in some of us (so to speak)?

We cant be the temple unless we are truly saved and believe only in Jesus, correct? Therefore, Satan cannot sit in the temple of God if believers are the only temple scripture is making reference to. If we believe, we are the temple, Satan cant get in. If we do not believe, or we walk away from the faith, Satan can get in, but we are no longer the temple.




The term Temple of God is not confined to the individual, neither is it confined to the elect persons of the body of Christ as a group.

It also refers to the church groups or churches as described clearly in the letters to the churches (assemblies) which are the sanctuaries established among the nations wherein Christ walks among men on earth by His Presence as also the angel of Gods presence dwelt in the tabernacle of David in the tent of meeting on Mt Zion.(described in Rev.ch 1)

If your church is not like the above Tabernacle of David, then it is not a church or was once, but now like the last letter to the churches, or as is for ourselves, scattered among the nations awaiting the regathering of a remnant.

Maybe you know nothing of the Tabernacle of David, for most do not, but it is the sanctuary promised by God by which He is among His people while they are scattered among the nations (producing and obtaining fruit) the first example of it being with the 120 at Pentecost, mostly now watered down into formalism under foremen under Pharoah in the King James model of religion.

However there are groups out there which are not for public viewing by the world.

Eze 11:16 Therefore, say, So says the Lord Jehovah: Though I have sent them far off among the nations, and though I scattered them among the lands, yet I was to them as a little sanctuary in the countries there where they had gone.

Act 15:14 Simon recounted how even as at first God oversaw to take a people out from among the nations for His name.
Act 15:15 And with this agree the Words of the prophets, as it has been written,
Act 15:16 After these things "I" will return and "will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen," "and I will build again the things which have been demolished," and I will set it up, Amos 9:11, 12


The return here is not the second coming but is the first coming as also described here--

Mal 3:1 Behold, I am sending My messenger, and He will clear the way before Me. (JOHN)And the Lord whom you are seeking shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Angel of the Covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, He comes, says Jehovah of Hosts.
Mal 3:2 But who can endure the day of His coming? And who will stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap.
Mal 3:3 And He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and He shall purify the sons of Levi and purge them like gold and like silver, that they may be presenters of a grain offering in righteousness to Jehovah.


and this is the ongoing work of Jesus among His people today.

This next verse is NOT a prophecy of the now future but of the past when the nation of Israel was judged, but does parrallel a future happening to the churches, not to Jews.--

Zec 13:7 O sword, awake against My Shepherd, and against the Man who is My Associate, says Jehovah of Hosts. Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered. And I will turn My hand on the little ones.
Zec 13:8 And it shall be in all the land, says Jehovah, two parts in it shall be cut off and perish, but the third shall be left in it.
Zec 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined. And I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on My name, and I will answer them. I will say, It is My people, and they shall say, Jehovah is my God.


For the events surrounding the future desolation of the churches we must look to the Trumpets of Rev.ch's 8 and 9 which begin the last feast month before the resurrection at the 7th trumpet. (not the great trumpet of Jubilee).

Some here will understand this post, others will refer eveything to the Jews.

Merton.

Mograce2U
Dec 20th 2007, 11:06 PM
Merton,

For the events surrounding the future desolation of the churches we must look to the Trumpets of Rev.ch's 8 and 9 which begin the last feast month before the resurrection at the 7th trumpet. (not the great trumpet of Jubilee).

Some here will understand this post, others will refer eveything to the Jews
Where in the NEW covenant do you find such things described for the churches/ believers in Christ? Moses' covenant however was filled with these things.

losthorizon
Dec 21st 2007, 12:24 AM
That still does not have anything to do with my understanding of what scripture says. So I don't care about Christian Zionism or what it teaches because my understanding of the Bible has nothing to do with whatever those people believe and/or teach. You are talking to me, I am not them, I dont intend on trying to debate what they teach. You will have to get one of them on this forum and debate them about their teachings and beliefs.

I think all premillennial end-time views (including yours) are dependent on the 19th century emergence of the dispensational-premillennial views of John Nelson Darby, et al with its literal Jewish thousand-year golden age out of Palestine and its unique distinction between the physical nation of Israel and the church of God. :)

vinsight4u8
Dec 21st 2007, 02:05 PM
The two witnesses are not called up in Rev. 11 - as in before the 7th trumpet sounds.
What happened then?
The part as to the two witnesses is just a story being told to him by an angel. John saw nothing happening at that point. John is being a listener to an angel's story about the two witnesses. When does the angel story of the two witnesses come to pass?
Answer!
the great earthquake - last woe hour
the 7th trumpet woe

Romulus
Dec 27th 2007, 04:13 PM
Besides, I wouldn't give full preterism the time of day, even if Romulus makes it sound good. Besides, I do not totally believ that Romulus is truly a ful preterist....

Believe it or not, I received the compliment! :kiss:

Actually I am truly the big no no! Haven't talked in a while, hope you had a great Christmas. We should start another fun thread like you did naming the PSA and ASA.....does your wife still like Preemies? :)

Have a happy New Year Third Hero.

John146
Dec 28th 2007, 08:56 PM
I would agree, it does say that, and I would agree you and I are the temple of God, and of course many others saved by Grace. Are you saying that Satan will sit in some of us (so to speak)?
No, that isn't possible. I'm not suggesting that Satan can indwell a believer. What I am saying is that Satan and his followers (false teachers, false prophets, etc.) will be among the temple of God, which is the church (Eph 2:19-22), working "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thess 2:10). These false prophets and false teachers, led by Satan, work their way in among the churches and any places where believers are found and spread their lies, leading some away from the faith as Paul talks about here:

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; - 1 Timothy 4:1-2

So, this passage illustrates the kind of thing that I think Paul is speaking about in 2 Thessalonians 2. The falling away is a departure from the faith. This falling away from the faith is caused by the man of sin/son of perdition/that wicked whose coming is after the working of Satan, who uses seducing spirits and doctrines of devils that are taught by false teachers and false prophets to seduce some away from "the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (2 Thess 2:10).

Merton
Dec 28th 2007, 09:36 PM
Merton,

Where in the NEW covenant do you find such things described for the churches/ believers in Christ? Moses' covenant however was filled with these things.


It is totally unreal to think that all communities of believers today, are not the same as believers in times past in containing a broad range of people who either do hear Gods call or think that they do, and who give varying responses to God which requires that God use all the measures He used in the past to get them all to straigten up and listen to His voice speaking to the churches whatever means that He speaks to them through or by, in order to secure their salvation.

Have a look at the letters to the 7 churches and see that the very same situations exist among churches today, and then read the book of Hebrews for its many warnings to believers that they should go on and not turn back no matter where they are on that salvation road or in their approaching it.

In reading the scriptures we can discern the great company and range of people that God addresses in His Word, so that we do not stumble over His Word ourselves nor stumble others by it to whom we may speak it, nor withhold any of it from them to whom it particularly applies.

Though it all applies to each one of us sometime in our lives.

To whom is Paul, speaking here? Answer is at the bottom of the post.

Heb 12:25 Watch that you do not refuse the One speaking; for if these did not escape, who refused Him who divinely warned them on earth, much rather we, those turning away from Heaven;
Heb 12:26 whose voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, "Yet once" "I will shake not only the earth, but also the heavens." Hag. 2:6Heb 12:27 Now the words "Yet once" make clear the removal of the things being shaken, as having been made, so that the things not being shaken may remain.
Heb 12:28 For this reason, receiving an unshakable kingdom, let us have grace, by which we may serve God pleasingly, with reverence and awe;
Heb 12:29 for also, "Our God is a consuming fire." Deut. 4:24

God is speaking in these words to whomsoever that it is applicable to, and the one who hears His voice in it will be guided by it and obey it , but if the one to whom it applies chooses to ignore it then he/she also will be ignored when the time comes.


Zec 7:11 But they refused to listen, and gave a stubborn shoulder, and they made their ears heavy from hearing.
Zec 7:12 And they made their heart adamant from hearing the Law and the Words which Jehovah of Hosts has sent by the former prophets through His Spirit. And great wrath was from Jehovah of Hosts.
Zec 7:13 And it will be, just as He called, and they did not listen; so they called, and I did not listen, says Jehovah of Hosts.


Rev 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold having been fired by fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, and your shame and nakedness may not be revealed. And anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.
Rev 3:19 I, as many "as I love, I rebuke and I chasten." Be zealous, then, and repent. Prov. 3:12Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will enter to him, and I will dine with him, and he with Me.
Rev 3:21 The one overcoming, I will give to him to sit with Me in My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father in His throne.
Rev 3:22 The one who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies.

Merton.

quiet dove
Dec 28th 2007, 09:42 PM
No, that isn't possible. I'm not suggesting that Satan can indwell a believer. What I am saying is that Satan and his followers (false teachers, false prophets, etc.) will be among the temple of God, which is the church (Eph 2:19-22), working "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thess 2:10). These false prophets and false teachers, led by Satan, work their way in among the churches and any places where believers are found and spread their lies, leading some away from the faith as Paul talks about here:

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; - 1 Timothy 4:1-2

So, this passage illustrates the kind of thing that I think Paul is speaking about in 2 Thessalonians 2. The falling away is a departure from the faith. This falling away from the faith is caused by the man of sin/son of perdition/that wicked whose coming is after the working of Satan, who uses seducing spirits and doctrines of devils that are taught by false teachers and false prophets to seduce some away from "the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (2 Thess 2:10).


I think we are talking about two different things, there is the departing of the faith and there is the man of sin sitting in the temple of God. And I would agree, the false teachers, those who teach another gospel, are and will lead many astray and they are within the walls of the church buildings.

However, scripture clearly says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God, which, as you said, it not possible of the living temple of the Church, the Bride, the believers.

2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
This one who will sit in the temple of God, claiming to be God, is doing more than preaching false doctrine, he is teaching false doctrine and claiming to be God. His disciples are surely among us as we speak preparing his way. This is more than a false teachers roaming among the churches. This is a flat out denial of Christ and choosing another and worshiping that other as God.

John146
Dec 28th 2007, 10:12 PM
I think we are talking about two different things, there is the departing of the faith and there is the man of sin sitting in the temple of God. And I would agree, the false teachers, those who teach another gospel, are and will lead many astray and they are within the walls of the church buildings.

However, scripture clearly says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God, which, as you said, it not possible of the living temple of the Church, the Bride, the believers.

2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
This one who will sit in the temple of God, claiming to be God, is doing more than preaching false doctrine, he is teaching false doctrine and claiming to be God. His disciples are surely among us as we speak preparing his way. This is more than a false teachers roaming among the churches. This is a flat out denial of Christ and choosing another and worshiping that other as God.



One thing that will not allow us to agree on that passage is the fact that you believe it is speaking of a physical temple and I don't. So, we'll have to just agree to disagree on that issue. Another issue you bring up is that the man of sin will proclaim to be God. So, let us reason together and figure out exactly what that means, if we can. :)

You're saying it means that a literal man (the Antichrist, right?) will one day sit in a physical temple, that is somehow considered the temple of God, claiming that he is God (and people will believe him?). I don't see it that way, obviously. What we know about the ones that the "man of sin" deceives is that "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"(2 Thess 2:11). This is only after "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."(2 Thess 2:10). This is not unlike what we see in Romans 1.

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

So, you have false teachers and prophets working themselves within the churches (temple of God) and other meeting places of believers and spreading their doctrines of devils. This leads many to depart or fall away from the faith. They become vain in their imaginations and profess themselves to be wise (wiser than God - above all that is called God). They worship and serve the creature more than the Creator. They have no need for God so therefore they act as if they are God. That is how they proclaim to be God. They profess to be wise and not have any need for the true God of the Bible. They change the truth of God into a lie. They don't have a love for the truth so that they might be saved. This kind of thing can be seen in the New Age movement of today. New Agers try to say that God is within all of us and we just have to tap into our...uh...Godness. Anyway, that's the kind of thing that I believe Paul is talking about and not a literal person sitting in a physical temple telling everyone who will listen that he is God.

Merton
Dec 28th 2007, 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John146 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1482437#post1482437)

No, that isn't possible. I'm not suggesting that Satan can indwell a believer. What I am saying is that Satan and his followers (false teachers, false prophets, etc.) will be among the temple of God, which is the church (Eph 2:19-22), working "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thess 2:10). These false prophets and false teachers, led by Satan, work their way in among the churches and any places where believers are found and spread their lies, leading some away from the faith as Paul talks about here:1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; - 1 Timothy 4:1-2

So, this passage illustrates the kind of thing that I think Paul is speaking about in 2 Thessalonians 2. The falling away is a departure from the faith. This falling away from the faith is caused by the man of sin/son of perdition/that wicked whose coming is after the working of Satan, who uses seducing spirits and doctrines of devils that are taught by false teachers and false prophets to seduce some away from "the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (2 Thess 2:10).




I think we are talking about two different things, there is the departing of the faith and there is the man of sin sitting in the temple of God. And I would agree, the false teachers, those who teach another gospel, are and will lead many astray and they are within the walls of the church buildings.

However, scripture clearly says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God, which, as you said, it not possible of the living temple of the Church, the Bride, the believers.

2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
This one who will sit in the temple of God, claiming to be God, is doing more than preaching false doctrine, he is teaching false doctrine and claiming to be God. His disciples are surely among us as we speak preparing his way. This is more than a false teachers roaming among the churches. This is a flat out denial of Christ and choosing another and worshiping that other as God.




I believe that John 146 spoke correctly.

It is all about the image of God. That is what person or persons or group of persons as an assembly show forth the true image of God is to the world.

The image which they hold so dear to themselves in their asemblies and in the hearts of their members, determines which God that they serve.2 Cor ch 11.

Now the Pope is a part of that in that he shows forth himself as a mediator between man and God and he shows himself in the form which his flock admires in their hearts which they consider to be the or an exact image of God on earth, thus usurping the role of the true image of God (which Jesus would not want the Popes position of anyway)

We know that the endtimes brings forth an image on a greater scale than the Pope is because he deludes the entire world except for the elect, to worship this coming man of sin as their God (supreme diety) and that he will destroy the harlories of the "christian" world as a service to the true God of Heaven according to Rev,ch 17v16 and the 5th and 6th trumpet pf Rev.9, the 2nd chapter of Joel., Isaiah ch 10.

The endtimes man of sin is the false King of Kings who rules with the 10 Kings over all nations as if God had given him the authority to do, but we know from Rev.13 and Dan11 that satan gives him his throne.

Many rulers of the past have sought that role and failed and even now one thinks to grasp it but even he will fail.

So the revealing of the wicked one of Isaiah ch 10 etc. is really one step up on the Pope or one having any desire for any religion in worshipping the God of Heaven, as Dan 11 states,

and this coming man of sin is born in the hearts and minds of the religions who pretend true worship of God but when revealed he hates and despises them as also the wicked of the world do.

Please forget about looking at what the Jews do. It is all a trap to take attention away from the real issues that God is concerned about.

You know that evangelical Christians are sending money to Russian Jews so that they can live in Israel. They would be safer in Russia if they are believers in Christ because Jesus warns believers to flee Judea when they see the abomination of desolation, which has no meaning in the word of God to any new stone temple. It is all about Gods Household and how it will be corrected, separarated, purified, and punished as necessary that it be what God wants it to be at Christs return.



The true Church, that is the elect of God of no specific race is the apple of Gods eye and is the woman of Rev.ch 12:1 of which the book of Ephesians and Esther is all about, as is Rev.7- 14 and 21.

Merton.

Mograce2U
Dec 29th 2007, 02:46 AM
Eric,

So, you have false teachers and prophets working themselves within the churches (temple of God) and other meeting places of believers and spreading their doctrines of devils. This leads many to depart or fall away from the faith. They become vain in their imaginations and profess themselves to be wise (wiser than God - above all that is called God). They worship and serve the creature more than the Creator. They have no need for God so therefore they act as if they are God. That is how they proclaim to be God. They profess to be wise and not have any need for the true God of the Bible. They change the truth of God into a lie. They don't have a love for the truth so that they might be saved. This kind of thing can be seen in the New Age movement of today. New Agers try to say that God is within all of us and we just have to tap into our...uh...Godness. Anyway, that's the kind of thing that I believe Paul is talking about and not a literal person sitting in a physical temple telling everyone who will listen that he is God.Forgive me if this observation seems a bit obtuse, but if the temple of God cannot be a building in Jerusalem, then how can it be church buildings elsewhere either? Since neither are the true temple of God anyway.

ShirleyFord
Dec 29th 2007, 03:59 AM
Eric,
Forgive me if this observation seems a bit obtuse, but if the temple of God cannot be a building in Jerusalem, then how can it be church buildings elsewhere either? Since neither are the true temple of God anyway.

Robin,

Paul writes this second letter to the local Church congregation at Thessalonica, not to a building. The local Church was the temple of God.

2 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:


Just as he writes to the local Church congregation of all the Churches he wrote to.


Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

quiet dove
Dec 29th 2007, 04:07 AM
One thing that will not allow us to agree on that passage is the fact that you believe it is speaking of a physical temple and I don't. So, we'll have to just agree to disagree on that issue. Another issue you bring up is that the man of sin will proclaim to be God. So, let us reason together and figure out exactly what that means, if we can. :)

You're saying it means that a literal man (the Antichrist, right?) will one day sit in a physical temple, that is somehow considered the temple of God, claiming that he is God (and people will believe him?). I don't see it that way, obviously. What we know about the ones that the "man of sin" deceives is that "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"(2 Thess 2:11). This is only after "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."(2 Thess 2:10). This is not unlike what we see in Romans 1.

What you said here means that it isn’t the true Church that the falseness sits in. And not trying to argue just understand so bear with me. If the true temple is the Church, and as we agree, Satan cannot sit “in” the true temple of Christ, the believers. What temple is it that he/it (false religion) sits in if not a stone one?



So, you have false teachers and prophets working themselves within the churches (temple of God) and other meeting places of believers and spreading their doctrines of devils. This leads many to depart or fall away from the faith. They become vain in their imaginations and profess themselves to be wise (wiser than God - above all that is called God). They worship and serve the creature more than the Creator. They have no need for God so therefore they act as if they are God. That is how they proclaim to be God. They profess to be wise and not have any need for the true God of the Bible. They change the truth of God into a lie. They don't have a love for the truth so that they might be saved. This kind of thing can be seen in the New Age movement of today. New Agers try to say that God is within all of us and we just have to tap into our...uh...Godness. Anyway, that's the kind of thing that I believe Paul is talking about and not a literal person sitting in a physical temple telling everyone who will listen that he is God.

We can agree to disagree, but I really am just trying to sort through the thought that the temple is not a stone one. Would not the meeting places of believers be a stone temple and if so, why couldn’t a Jewish temple then be it in the same sense. Both are buildings and both claim to be buildings of God even if neither are. Even a so called christian building is nothing without the Truth being taught in it. A building whos teachers teach a lie is just a stone building, right? I mean wouldn’t the false teachers in the buildings amongst the true believers still be the lie in the stone buildings or meeting places? And if the lie can be in those buildings calling themselves churches of God, why not a Jewish temple calling itself the/a temple of God?

And I actually agree with you on the second paragraph, that the religion of self diety, the god consciencness stuff, is the “vain imaginations” we can expect to see more of. It is already everywhere including professing christian churches, to varying degrees, but definitely there. I have heard stuff that boggled my mind being taught in so called christian churches.

As far as “a man of sin” I do believe there will be one but will leave that for now because my post was getting way long. I did once agree that a person won’t just show up claiming to be God but I have some second thoughts on that which is why it got to long. I think it depends on how world events, religion, politics and all of it together. I guess you could say I am on wait and see mode for the moment.

Mograce2U
Dec 29th 2007, 03:11 PM
Robin,

Paul writes this second letter to the local Church congregation at Thessalonica, not to a building. The local Church was the temple of God.

2 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

Just as he writes to the local Church congregation of all the Churches he wrote to.

Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Shirley,
So you see this verse referring to local assemblies?

(2 Th 2:4 KJV) 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, showing himself that he is God.

I thought your understanding was that the son of perdition spiritually sits in the human heart?

third hero
Dec 30th 2007, 10:28 PM
I think all premillennial end-time views (including yours) are dependent on the 19th century emergence of the dispensational-premillennial views of John Nelson Darby, et al with its literal Jewish thousand-year golden age out of Palestine and its unique distinction between the physical nation of Israel and the church of God. :)

Even when people use material that is completely unrelated to Darby train of thought. This is a problem that I find among many whom proclaim that their truth is amillennialism. They aautomatically look for code words in which they can then twist the conversation into a anti-Darby debate.

This further highlights the problem that many premils have with amils, because in their figurations, they figurate the opposing train of thought into a Darbyism, which is one would simply read the material that the person actually wrote, such comparisons would not be made, as evidenced by the earlier conversations in this thread.

When one puts down the "Amillennialism for Dummies" book and come and truly reason together, using nothing more than what a person has written, then some real educating can commence, as evidenced by the conversation I had with various members of the ASA.

But then again, I am only writing to the screen, because the educational value of this post will be ovberlooked yet again by the person that needs to understand this the most. Imagine that?

third hero
Dec 30th 2007, 11:02 PM
In Revelation 11 it is not unbelieving Israelites calling it the temple of God. It is the angel speaking to John who is calling it the temple of God and, of course, the book is inspired by the Holy Spirit. And I don't believe the angel speaking to John or the Holy Spirit would call a future physical temple the temple of God.

Like I said, it is not just the unbelieving Israelites who call that particular building the Temple of God. THe Disciples caled it that as well. Remember, all of the Gospels were written after the death of Christ, and after the Spirit of God left that building, and yet in all of their accounts, the temple which stood in Jerusalem was called the temple of God. Matthew wrote it that way, and so did Luke, John, and Mark. The only way one can refute this is by invoking one verse from Hebrews and causing that definition to stick with every other place in the Bible where the temple of God is written. This is inprecise, and I find that unreliable. I tend to treat each book as autonomous, with each author conveying their own terms and definitions.


He did? Where? Give me the Scripture reference.

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.

Just so that you do not miss it. 2Thes 2:4. There it is in the red. It is written that way in just about every translation that you can find. A clear reference to the "temple of God".


If they paid attention to Paul's writings then they would think of the temple of God as an individual or the church collectively because that's what he taught. I don't care what unbelieving Israelites call any temple that they might build. I care about what the authors of the Bible and the Holy Spirit would call such a temple.

That is according to speculation based solely on what you want to believe. I do not find any such allegories in his writings. The only place where we find anything allegorical is in the book of Romans, when Paul is trying to show the Gentiles in Rome what they have become through the blood of CHrist, and what the Israelite unbelievers became due to their unbelief. Even then, some things which was taken out of context by many was upheld by him, including the notion that the "law" is what we establish by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.


Actually, it says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God. But that doesn't have to mean that the man of sin literally sits in a chair within a physical temple.

Yes, it does say that the man of sin will sit "IN" the temple. That means exactly as it says, that the man of sin will sit somewhere. Now, I see that you attempt to figurate this statement, but I have to continue to disagree with you based on what I have read. If I need someone to interpret what a passage says, then there is something wrong with the passage. Interpretations, IMHO, is found when a verse says something that the person doing the interpreting does not like, and thus wishes to change.



Look at the following passage:

12And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
13I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. - Revelation 2:12-13

In this passage, it's not saying that Satan had a literal seat that he sat on in the church in Pergamos. It's figurative language. His seat referred to the place where he dwelled. In the same way, the man of sin dwells within the church body exalting himself above all that is called God. That is what false prophets and false teachers do. They go to churches or anywhere where believers can be found and try to seduce the immature people away before they can come to the knowledge of the truth. That's why the man of sin is described this way:

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. - 2 Thess 2:9-10

We have high profile "preachers" today within churches and on TV who are deceiving people into believing false doctrines and lies. People are worshiping these "preachers" rather than God. That is how the man of sin deceives people so that they receive "not the love of the truth, that they might be saved".

Case in point.

HOw is this example suppose to cause me to conclude that another verse written by another person in possibly another time period suppose to prove to me that the author of 2 Thessalonians isn't saying exactly what he wanted to say, which makes the temple of God reference a reference to a building that was standing when he wrote it? Again, this is the "flaw" that I see time and time again. Now, I can see how it would make sense to you, Eric, but to me, that doesn't. It does not mean that I am right and you are wrong, but it does mean that we will have to agree to disagree on this subject, because our perspectives can not come to an agreement. Are you wrong? According to my perspective you are, but I am not God. Am I wrong? According to your perspective, I am, but again, who's God here?

Therefore, we will just have to go back to the same oild "agree to disagree", because there is no common ground that we can stand on here. Although both you and I agree that the temple that is going to be erected will not be the true Temple of God, that does not, at least according to my perspective, preclude the unbelieving Israelites from rebuilding a symbol of their "affection" to God, and then calling it the "temple of God".


Revelation 11:1 that John had to measure the worshipers within the temple of God. What do you think that means? Do you think he had to measure the height of all the people within a physical temple? Or did he have to count all the people one by one? If you're going to insist on a hyper-literal interpretation, it would have to be one or the other.

When did a believer have an "Outer Court"? This does not make any sort of sense at all. One must make a leap that simply is not there to come to such a conclusion. The only thing that had something in the entire Bible that was called an "outer Court" would be the "temple of God", and both versions of the temple had outer courts.

You seem to forget, the worshippers were not the only ones there that John had to measure. Does the human heart have an altar? Does the human heart have mini-worshippers in it that worship God and sacrifice things on it? No. Simply put, the worshippers, the temple, and all that was "therein" had to be measured. The point was this, that the outer court of the building that was mentioned to be measured in the previous verse was not to be measured, because it would be given away to the Gentiles. That is the point, and there is no hyper-lliteralizatrion required. However, there has to be some figuration to make a sentence that clearly designated the things which was to be measured, and turn all of them into one thing. That is creating what I believe is not there.

Mograce2U
Dec 31st 2007, 01:03 AM
Even when people use material that is completely unrelated to Darby train of thought. This is a problem that I find among many whom proclaim that their truth is amillennialism. They aautomatically look for code words in which they can then twist the conversation into a anti-Darby debate.

This further highlights the problem that many premils have with amils, because in their figurations, they figurate the opposing train of thought into a Darbyism, which is one would simply read the material that the person actually wrote, such comparisons would not be made, as evidenced by the earlier conversations in this thread.

When one puts down the "Amillennialism for Dummies" book and come and truly reason together, using nothing more than what a person has written, then some real educating can commence, as evidenced by the conversation I had with various members of the ASA.

But then again, I am only writing to the screen, because the educational value of this post will be ovberlooked yet again by the person that needs to understand this the most. Imagine that?Well given that Darbyism has influenced just about every seminary in the past 100+ years, I guess you could expect traces of it to appear just about everywhere. As soon as you encounter the nation of Israel as a separate chosen people of God, you have come across this doctrine - whatever name you want to give it!

Its a bit like denying you are a Calvinist when you say you are of the Reformed faith. Some things just go hand in hand.

Mograce2U
Dec 31st 2007, 01:18 AM
TH, #109 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1484545&postcount=109)
I tend to agree with you on this issue of the temple. Measuring in the OT was to mark off an holy area for a visitation by the Lord. No one despised the temple while it was still standing because it was a building ordained by God for Christ to come to. There was definitely a transition period which we can see in Acts as the apostles still went there to pray and perform vows. I think as long there were still some who were part of the remnant that had not yet come to faith, that the temple served its ordained purpose. Sacrifices were not needed for those in Christ, but for those who were still under the old covenant. And I think God honored their obedience to Moses.

(1 Cor 9:13 KJV) Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

(1 Cor 10:18 KJV) Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

(Heb 13:10 KJV) We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

During this period, both covenants were still in force, but it is clear which is for whom.

John146
Jan 3rd 2008, 09:46 PM
Eric,
Forgive me if this observation seems a bit obtuse, but if the temple of God cannot be a building in Jerusalem, then how can it be church buildings elsewhere either? Since neither are the true temple of God anyway.

I was speaking about anywhere you find believers gathered together (church buildings, believer's homes, wherever). I was not speaking of the buildings themselves. The temple of God is the church and is not confined to a building.

John146
Jan 3rd 2008, 10:23 PM
Like I said, it is not just the unbelieving Israelites who call that particular building the Temple of God. THe Disciples caled it that as well.

Not after Christ's death and the veil was torn in two.



Remember, all of the Gospels were written after the death of Christ, and after the Spirit of God left that building, and yet in all of their accounts, the temple which stood in Jerusalem was called the temple of God. Matthew wrote it that way, and so did Luke, John, and Mark.

Not after Christ's death and the veil was torn in two.



The only way one can refute this is by invoking one verse from Hebrews and causing that definition to stick with every other place in the Bible where the temple of God is written. This is inprecise, and I find that unreliable. I tend to treat each book as autonomous, with each author conveying their own terms and definitions.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Paul spoke of the temple of God as being our bodies as well as the corporate body of Christ (the church) in 1 Cor 3:16-17, 1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 6:16 and Eph 2:19-22.



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.

Just so that you do not miss it. 2Thes 2:4. There it is in the red. It is written that way in just about every translation that you can find. A clear reference to the "temple of God".

This is in response to me asking where Paul called the temple that was standing at that time the temple of God. Where is your evidence that he was calling Herod's temple the temple of God? That verse does not say that. You are assuming that. I'm not sure why, though, because don't you believe he's referring to a future physical temple?



Yes, it does say that the man of sin will sit "IN" the temple. That means exactly as it says, that the man of sin will sit somewhere. Now, I see that you attempt to figurate this statement, but I have to continue to disagree with you based on what I have read. If I need someone to interpret what a passage says, then there is something wrong with the passage. Interpretations, IMHO, is found when a verse says something that the person doing the interpreting does not like, and thus wishes to change.

Are you speaking of how premills change the meaning of John 5:28-29, which clearly teaches that all people, believers and unbelievers will be resurrected at the same time? ;)



HOw is this example suppose to cause me to conclude that another verse written by another person in possibly another time period suppose to prove to me that the author of 2 Thessalonians isn't saying exactly what he wanted to say, which makes the temple of God reference a reference to a building that was standing when he wrote it? Again, this is the "flaw" that I see time and time again. Now, I can see how it would make sense to you, Eric, but to me, that doesn't. It does not mean that I am right and you are wrong, but it does mean that we will have to agree to disagree on this subject, because our perspectives can not come to an agreement. Are you wrong? According to my perspective you are, but I am not God. Am I wrong? According to your perspective, I am, but again, who's God here?

I thought we agreed to disagree long ago, so at this point we're just discussing things with the understanding that we're probably not going to agree on some things, but maybe we'll still learn something. :)



Therefore, we will just have to go back to the same oild "agree to disagree", because there is no common ground that we can stand on here. Although both you and I agree that the temple that is going to be erected will not be the true Temple of God, that does not, at least according to my perspective, preclude the unbelieving Israelites from rebuilding a symbol of their "affection" to God, and then calling it the "temple of God".

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Regarding what you're saying here, the Scripture doesn't say anything about what unbelieving Israelites would call such a building. Whatever it is, it's something Paul himself would feel comfortable calling the temple of God. And he called the church the temple of God on more than one occasion and not once did he call Herod's temple the temple of God in his writings.



When did a believer have an "Outer Court"? This does not make any sort of sense at all. One must make a leap that simply is not there to come to such a conclusion. The only thing that had something in the entire Bible that was called an "outer Court" would be the "temple of God", and both versions of the temple had outer courts.

If the passage is to be taken figuratively, as I believe it should, then it's not a problem at all.



You seem to forget, the worshippers were not the only ones there that John had to measure. Does the human heart have an altar? Does the human heart have mini-worshippers in it that worship God and sacrifice things on it? No. Simply put, the worshippers, the temple, and all that was "therein" had to be measured. The point was this, that the outer court of the building that was mentioned to be measured in the previous verse was not to be measured, because it would be given away to the Gentiles. That is the point, and there is no hyper-lliteralizatrion required. However, there has to be some figuration to make a sentence that clearly designated the things which was to be measured, and turn all of them into one thing. That is creating what I believe is not there.

So, you're saying that John measured the height of all the believers in the temple or counted them all one by one, depending on what you think the measuring meant?

third hero
Jan 9th 2008, 03:59 PM
Eric,
Thids is not semantics. You are aware that most of the Gospels were written AFTER the veil was rented? You are aware that every word of the NT was written AFTER the veil was torn? The temple of God was referenced that way in several portions of the New Testament. THis is evidence enough that even the believers called the temple where the Spirit of God once dwelled the Temple of God. If memory serves me right, the place where God visited Jacob and injured his hip was another place that the samarians called God's mountain, a thought that Jesus dealt with in John 4. Was that place not a place wher people worshipped God?

Whether God was actually there or not is just as irrelevant then as it is now. The Israelites today still believe that they serve the same God that we do. We know that they are deceiving theirselves, but what we know is still not the issue at hand.

The NT disciples called the temple the Temple of God. Paul called it the same thing. Remember, John lived during that time period as well, and so it's only natural for them to call the temple, the Temple of God. They did not have to play with words as we do today. They knew what it was, and it's insignificance to the true worship of God both back then and today.

Mograce2U
Jan 9th 2008, 05:08 PM
Eric, #113 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1489121&postcount=113)
(2 Th 2:4 KJV) 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, showing himself that he is God.

This can only happen in a temple in which God was no longer dwelling in. If the Holy Spirit is dwelling in the hearts of NT saints, then an unholy spirit cannot be there too. Greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. An unholy spirit could however enter the temple of God upon the earth once God's presence was no longer there. And that John is told to measure the temple the altar and the worshippers who are still there, makes more sense that he is referring to the temple building which was about to be destroyed. Such measuring in the past was to mark off the holy area for the Lord's return.

The picture of Jesus standing on mount Zion is similar to the picture Ezekiel sees when the presence of the Lord left the temple before its destruction. When He returned to it after that it was to then bring judgment.

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 07:27 PM
Eric, #113 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1489121&postcount=113)
(2 Th 2:4 KJV) 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, showing himself that he is God.

This can only happen in a temple in which God was no longer dwelling in.

How can a temple that God is no longer dwelling in be called the temple of God? That makes absolutely no sense.



If the Holy Spirit is dwelling in the hearts of NT saints, then an unholy spirit cannot be there too.

I didn't say it could. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not saying the temple of God that Paul referred to in 2 Thess 2:4 is the hearts of NT saints. I'm saying it's referring to the church as a whole.

The following passages illustrate the kind of thing that I believe Paul is referring to in 2 Thess 2.

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. - Acts 20:28-31

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 07:41 PM
Eric,
Thids is not semantics. You are aware that most of the Gospels were written AFTER the veil was rented? You are aware that every word of the NT was written AFTER the veil was torn? The temple of God was referenced that way in several portions of the New Testament. THis is evidence enough that even the believers called the temple where the Spirit of God once dwelled the Temple of God. If memory serves me right, the place where God visited Jacob and injured his hip was another place that the samarians called God's mountain, a thought that Jesus dealt with in John 4. Was that place not a place wher people worshipped God?

Whether God was actually there or not is just as irrelevant then as it is now. The Israelites today still believe that they serve the same God that we do. We know that they are deceiving theirselves, but what we know is still not the issue at hand.

The NT disciples called the temple the Temple of God. Paul called it the same thing. Remember, John lived during that time period as well, and so it's only natural for them to call the temple, the Temple of God. They did not have to play with words as we do today. They knew what it was, and it's insignificance to the true worship of God both back then and today.

You won't find a case of the disciples calling that temple the temple of God after Jesus declared it to be desolate in Matthew 23:38. Meanwhile, you can see Jesus refer to Himself as the temple of God and Paul referring to the temple of God as referring to our bodies and also to the church (1 Cor 3:16-17, 1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:19-22) and never applying that term to Herod's temple. In the book of Acts alone, I see the physical temple building referred to as "the temple" about 25 times, but not once is it called the temple of God.

ShirleyFord
Jan 9th 2008, 09:14 PM
The NT disciples called the temple the Temple of God. Paul called it the same thing. Remember, John lived during that time period as well, and so it's only natural for them to call the temple, the Temple of God. They did not have to play with words as we do today. They knew what it was, and it's insignificance to the true worship of God both back then and today.

The second stone temple in Jerusalem was called "the temple of God" in the Gospels, once by Matthew - speaking of Jesus going into the stone temple, once by Luke - speaking of Zacharias going into the stone temple before John the Baptist was born, and once by a false witness of Jesus - when Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." But as John told us in John 2, Jesus was speaking of His body. All of the others times when the second stone temple was mentioned in the Gospels, it was referred to only as "the temple".

Paul spoke of the second stone temple but referred to it as "the temple". When he spoke of "the temple of God" several times in his epistles, he made it clear that he wasn't referring to any stone temple. Check Paul's epistles and his words written in Acts. If he meant a future third stone temple as "the temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, then that was his only reference.

jeffweeder
Jan 10th 2008, 12:56 AM
It was always God's intention to dwell in us.
He couldnt do that until Christ cleansed us.

Mograce2U
Jan 10th 2008, 05:08 PM
How can a temple that God is no longer dwelling in be called the temple of God? That makes absolutely no sense.
...

I didn't say it could. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not saying the temple of God that Paul referred to in 2 Thess 2:4 is the hearts of NT saints. I'm saying it's referring to the church as a whole.

The following passages illustrate the kind of thing that I believe Paul is referring to in 2 Thess 2.

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. - Acts 20:28-31

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;The illustration you are using is Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders about a warning he is giving to them. And you apply this to the Church universal for all time, rather than to something specific for them? What about the application for them - how should we view that? And is not the letter to the Thessalonians also about something specific that concerns them, since Paul mentions having already discussed this with them when he was with them? It seems a near future application is needed before we go far future with his words to make it fit into the Revelation given to John.

Mograce2U
Jan 10th 2008, 05:15 PM
The second stone temple in Jerusalem was called "the temple of God" in the Gospels, once by Matthew - speaking of Jesus going into the stone temple, once by Luke - speaking of Zacharias going into the stone temple before John the Baptist was born, and once by a false witness of Jesus - when Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." But as John told us in John 2, Jesus was speaking of His body. All of the others times when the second stone temple was mentioned in the Gospels, it was referred to only as "the temple".

Paul spoke of the second stone temple but referred to it as "the temple". When he spoke of "the temple of God" several times in his epistles, he made it clear that he wasn't referring to any stone temple. Check Paul's epistles and his words written in Acts. If he meant a future third stone temple as "the temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, then that was his only reference.
Hi Shirley,
So we see that there are two temples of God, one earthly and one spiritual during this NT period before the earthly temple was destroyed. Seems we need to discern which is in view by the context whether it is called the temple of God or merely the temple. And since the apostles still honored the earthly temple while it was yet standing, it is not a misnomer to refer to it as the temple of God - else why did they go there to pray and perform a vow?

John146
Jan 10th 2008, 06:46 PM
The illustration you are using is Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders about a warning he is giving to them. And you apply this to the Church universal for all time, rather than to something specific for them?

Both



And is not the letter to the Thessalonians also about something specific that concerns them, since Paul mentions having already discussed this with them when he was with them? It seems a near future application is needed before we go far future with his words to make it fit into the Revelation given to John.

If you're speaking about 2 Thess 2 then the context of what Paul speaks about in that chapter is established at the beginning:

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. - 2 Thess 2:1-2

It applied to them in that he had to inform them that the day of the Lord/coming of Christ was not at hand. He explained what had to happen first before the day of the Lord would come. The things he talks about in that chapter certainly do not only apply to the Thessalonian church. It applies to us today as well since the day of the Lord has not yet come.

third hero
Jan 10th 2008, 07:21 PM
Well given that Darbyism has influenced just about every seminary in the past 100+ years, I guess you could expect traces of it to appear just about everywhere. As soon as you encounter the nation of Israel as a separate chosen people of God, you have come across this doctrine - whatever name you want to give it!

Its a bit like denying you are a Calvinist when you say you are of the Reformed faith. Some things just go hand in hand.

You know, I didn't comment on this before but...
:rofl:that's really funny! :rofl::rofl:

third hero
Jan 10th 2008, 07:34 PM
Eric, #113 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1489121&postcount=113)
(2 Th 2:4 KJV) 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, showing himself that he is God.

This can only happen in a temple in which God was no longer dwelling in. If the Holy Spirit is dwelling in the hearts of NT saints, then an unholy spirit cannot be there too. Greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. An unholy spirit could however enter the temple of God upon the earth once God's presence was no longer there. And that John is told to measure the temple the altar and the worshippers who are still there, makes more sense that he is referring to the temple building which was about to be destroyed. Such measuring in the past was to mark off the holy area for the Lord's return.

The picture of Jesus standing on mount Zion is similar to the picture Ezekiel sees when the presence of the Lord left the temple before its destruction. When He returned to it after that it was to then bring judgment.

Whoa mograce... I'm wearing you down buddy.. I'M WEARIN YOU DOOWN!!!!!:rofl:

This just proves that it is not merely a Darbyism to think that a temple that is dedicated to God being used by the enemy. This is my point entirely.

Eric, you say that the temple in Israel, after the veil was rented, was no longer the actual place of God. Both Mograce and I absolutely agree with you. what we are saying is that.. well... just like Mograce said. The only way for an evil spirit to enter the temple that was dedicated to God, which the second temple, and I believe the third will be as well, is if God is not actually at that temple. If God was still residing in temples, how could anyone enter therein and blaspheme Him right in front of His face? Both you and I know that such a notion would be impossible, since God hates sin, and one proclaiming oneself to be God is, in my opinion, the chief of sins.

This is why I continue to say that a third temple will have to be erected. There is no place that is dedicated to God like there was back then, as every true believer knows that the Holy Spirit resides in us, and when HE is manifested in the physical realm, it is because there are believers there, and the Holy Spirit is revealing Himself through the temples that are present, the believers. It's not like it was before the death of our Lord, where the Holy Spirit was limited to residing in a few chosen ones and also inside the Temple.

Whether you like it or not, no one to this date has fulfilled 2 Thes 2:3-4. I call this the sign of the abomination that causes desolation. I could be wrong, but I know that this is suppose to happen before the Lord returns, as verses 1-2 stipulates. Whether it is the abomination r not, the fact still remains that in order for this to be fulfilled, a buiulding that is called the temple of God has to be present. We know that it is not the ACTUAL temple of God. However, to the blind Israelites, they will not be able to tell the difference until it is too late, where they wil build a temple, call it the temple of God, and the man of sin will walk right on in, and claim it as his. this is my point, Eric. (I am not calling the building called the Temple of God the ACTUAL Temple of God. I am calling it the building that the Israelites will build, and they will call it the temple of God until the representative of Satan will claim the temple as his. I hope you can finally see my point Eric, because the ide of a temple being built is not designated to the Darbyites alone.

I believe that a temple will be erected because both the prophecy of the revealing of the man of sin is not fulfilled as of yet, and the temple that is mentioned in Revelation 11 has never been built. These are my only reasons, and nothing else matters as far as I am concerned concerning the temple. It holds no other significance other than to serve as the place where the man of sin is revealed.

third hero
Jan 10th 2008, 07:45 PM
The second stone temple in Jerusalem was called "the temple of God" in the Gospels, once by Matthew - speaking of Jesus going into the stone temple, once by Luke - speaking of Zacharias going into the stone temple before John the Baptist was born, and once by a false witness of Jesus - when Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." But as John told us in John 2, Jesus was speaking of His body. All of the others times when the second stone temple was mentioned in the Gospels, it was referred to only as "the temple".

Paul spoke of the second stone temple but referred to it as "the temple". When he spoke of "the temple of God" several times in his epistles, he made it clear that he wasn't referring to any stone temple. Check Paul's epistles and his words written in Acts. If he meant a future third stone temple as "the temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, then that was his only reference.

Shirley,
I honestly believe that Paul had no idea that the temple would be destroyed. If you read Paul's epistles, he fully expected the Lord to come in his lifetime, and it was only during his final trip to Rome where he started telling people about living and doing their duties while waiting for the Return of the Lord. Take a look at the letters to the Thesalonians for examples.

There are examples of Paul and other referring to the Temple of God being the body of the believer, but that was the context of those passages, where it was obvious that the temple mentioned was not the one built by the hands of men. That very same context has to be applied to other scriptures as well. Jesus called His body a temple, this is true. Jesus also said that not one stone will stand upon another, as the temple will be taken down. Was He talking about His body then? You see, the context is what is the most important. The disciples gathered around the Temple, and even went into the Temple during sabbaths, trying to convince their brethern the truth concernning the Lord Jesus. The Temple was the same temple that was called the Temple of God, the same place that Jesus called His Father's house. When one say, "the temple", they are not talking about some temple somewhere else. No. They were talking about the same Temple that is called the Temple of God. There is no getting around this point Shirley.

Context is very important, and it is equally important even if you want to use other scriptures to define other scriptures. Those scriptures with like contexts should be used, and not those who use the same words with completely different definitions. Jesus is the first to mention two temples, the house of God, and the human body. That is not about end times POV, but rather about the context of a passage. I did not need John's example to see what Christ was talking about in Luke when he told the pharisees to destroy this temple, pointing at himself, and in three days, he will rebuild it. Any Christian should know what that meant. However, we can not use that example to define Paul's use of the temple of God in 2Thes 2. It is obvious that a man can not sit in the heart of a human, and so by context alone, the man of sin has to sit in a place called the temple of God. This is my point.

Mograce2U
Jan 10th 2008, 08:49 PM
TH,
Now here's the rub in what we disagree about: a temple that HAD been ordained of God for His presence is the only temple that can apply. The 3rd temple you propose would not be a temple of God BECAUSE He no longer dwells in temples made by human hands. Which is why the Mosque of Omar is as good as any for some future time, if that were the case. A temple made holy is because God ordained it such - men cannot do this. The 2nd temple could qualify, where a future 3rd temple cannot. They could pour a herd of cow's blood on that one and it would never be sanctified.

John146
Jan 10th 2008, 09:14 PM
Whoa mograce... I'm wearing you down buddy.. I'M WEARIN YOU DOOWN!!!!!:rofl:

MoGrace is a woman. :lol:



Eric, you say that the temple in Israel, after the veil was rented, was no longer the actual place of God. Both Mograce and I absolutely agree with you. what we are saying is that.. well... just like Mograce said. The only way for an evil spirit to enter the temple that was dedicated to God, which the second temple, and I believe the third will be as well, is if God is not actually at that temple. If God was still residing in temples, how could anyone enter therein and blaspheme Him right in front of His face? Both you and I know that such a notion would be impossible, since God hates sin, and one proclaiming oneself to be God is, in my opinion, the chief of sins.

This is why I continue to say that a third temple will have to be erected. There is no place that is dedicated to God like there was back then, as every true believer knows that the Holy Spirit resides in us, and when HE is manifested in the physical realm, it is because there are believers there, and the Holy Spirit is revealing Himself through the temples that are present, the believers. It's not like it was before the death of our Lord, where the Holy Spirit was limited to residing in a few chosen ones and also inside the Temple.

My point is that a temple where God is not present cannot be called the temple of God. You are saying absolutely nothing to refute that.



Whether you like it or not, no one to this date has fulfilled 2 Thes 2:3-4.

When did I say it was fulfilled?



I call this the sign of the abomination that causes desolation. I could be wrong, but I know that this is suppose to happen before the Lord returns, as verses 1-2 stipulates. Whether it is the abomination r not, the fact still remains that in order for this to be fulfilled, a buiulding that is called the temple of God has to be present.

No, I don't believe so. Show me why that is the case. So far, you're not doing that. Give me the evidence that a building where God isn't even present would be worthy of being called the temple of God.



We know that it is not the ACTUAL temple of God. However, to the blind Israelites, they will not be able to tell the difference until it is too late, where they wil build a temple, call it the temple of God, and the man of sin will walk right on in, and claim it as his.

I guess I will have to say this a thousand times (but not literally a thousand times): it is Paul calling it the temple of God, not unbelieving Israelites. You might think Paul would call a useless building built by unbelieving Israelites for the purpose of practicing their false religion the temple of God, but I certainly don't.



this is my point, Eric. (I am not calling the building called the Temple of God the ACTUAL Temple of God. I am calling it the building that the Israelites will build, and they will call it the temple of God until the representative of Satan will claim the temple as his. I hope you can finally see my point Eric, because the ide of a temple being built is not designated to the Darbyites alone.

I see your point just fine. But unless you can show that 2 Thess 2:3-4 is saying that the Israelites call it the temple of God rather than the man named Paul who was writing while being inspired by God, then I can't agree with you.



I believe that a temple will be erected because both the prophecy of the revealing of the man of sin is not fulfilled as of yet, and the temple that is mentioned in Revelation 11 has never been built. These are my only reasons, and nothing else matters as far as I am concerned concerning the temple. It holds no other significance other than to serve as the place where the man of sin is revealed.

Wow, the supposed future temple of God serves no purpose other than it is required to be there in order for the man of sin to be revealed? In that case, it will have nothing in common at all with the previous temples of God. What exactly would make it worthy of being called the temple of God if that is its only purpose or significance?

Mograce2U
Jan 10th 2008, 09:31 PM
Both



If you're speaking about 2 Thess 2 then the context of what Paul speaks about in that chapter is established at the beginning:

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. - 2 Thess 2:1-2

It applied to them in that he had to inform them that the day of the Lord/coming of Christ was not at hand. He explained what had to happen first before the day of the Lord would come. The things he talks about in that chapter certainly do not only apply to the Thessalonian church. It applies to us today as well since the day of the Lord has not yet come.Eric,
About all you can really surmise from that passage is that the Lord had not come YET, at the time Paul wrote those words. To say that the DOTL that was coming is still in our future is a leap you make because you are equating the modern teaching of the rapture and the gathering together Paul was speaking about as one in the same. But what has been going on for almost 2000 years if not that men are being gathered to the Lord? It is quite possible that something spiritual like the resurrection of the OT dead saints did happen in the 1st century and that marked the marriage of the Lamb in its fullness for those OT saints. I see no reason not to expect that now we ought not to have an hope of resurrection upon death, since we too have a part in the first resurrection - which we see they did too.

Receiving a spiritual body sure sounds like a spiritual event to me. None of which is witnessed by physical human eyes. And why would robes be given to spirits to wear if there was no body to be covered? When Paul spoke of never being unclothed, he meant in body. And he didn't expect to spend anytime "sleeping" before that happened. There were however some who were still sleeping when he said it.

I expect that when I die I will enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb with the needed garment on - a resurrected & glorified spiritual body given to the new man who was birthed in me in this life, while my old man of flesh & bones rots in the ground in the carcass defiled by his sin. Jesus on the other hand is in His same earthly, but now glorified human body - because no sin was in Him. Only His body never saw corruption.

(1 Cor 15:50 KJV) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

John146
Jan 10th 2008, 09:41 PM
Shirley,
I honestly believe that Paul had no idea that the temple would be destroyed.

You don't think Paul knew what Jesus taught about no stone being left upon another? I'm sure he did.

third hero
Jan 10th 2008, 09:47 PM
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, ...
...Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1-2, 5

I present to you, my thesis part two.

Again, I keep on repeating that the temple of old, the second one, was called the Temple of God, even though the Spirit of God was no longer present. Now I introduce to you Paul's warning against the wicked ones in these last days. One of those warnings is that the men will have forms of godliness while denying it's power. This can be interpreted in various ways.

The application I am using is the thought that a temple which is destroyed being resurrected, having a form of godliness while denying it's power. What do you call a place like that?

Whether you like it or not, a temple is in the process of being cleared by both the Israeli government and the Muslim clerics, all orchestrated by the Sanhedrin, another resurrected abomination. If they succeed, they will rebuild a temple, and they will call it, the Temple of God. I this building different from the other one, the second? No. Why? Because both were equally useless to God. The second temple had a form of godliness, but lacked the power of God, and became like the withered olive vine.

I understand that you are still contending that the Temple of God will never be rebuilt, and your reasoning is that God does not need such a place anymore to be worshipped. I am not saying that this place is a place where the Lord is worshipped, and with that point, I agree that the temple that will be built will not be the True Temple of God, just like the second temple, once the veil was rented, ceased to be the truye temple of God.

With that said, a temple wil be built, and it will be called the temple of God. Whether you want them to or not, the Sanhedrin are desperate to rebuild, even to the point that they are going to fulfill Revelation 11:1-2 by giving up plans to rebuild the outer court. Whether you like the name of that building or not, it is going to be called the Temple of God, built in the likeness of the former temple of God.

What does that mean to us? What I have been saying all along. The purpose of the temple being built is so that the beast will defile it...... I say defile because he will stand in the "holy Place". Has it been sanctified by God? Of course not. That will not stop the Sanhedrin, as it did not stop them back then. To them, it will be defiled. To us, we would call it, a temple with a form of godliness, but denying the power of God, like any other backslidden person.

Whether you acknowledge it as the temple is irrelevant. They are going to build one, and I stake my evidence on 2 Thes 2 and Revelation 11, both of which has not been fulfilled yet.

John146
Jan 10th 2008, 09:50 PM
Eric,
About all you can really surmise from that passage is that the Lord had not come YET, at the time Paul wrote those words. To say that the DOTL that was coming is still in our future is a leap you make because you are equating the modern teaching of the rapture and the gathering together Paul was speaking about as one in the same.

Modern teaching? I don't think so. The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him is yet future. Have you become a full preterist?



But what has been going on for almost 2000 years if not that men are being gathered to the Lord?

So, do you think 1 Thess 4:13-17 is not speaking of a future event, either?



It is quite possible that something spiritual like the resurrection of the OT dead saints did happen in the 1st century and that marked the marriage of the Lamb in its fullness for those OT saints.

Where does Scripture speak of this?



I see no reason not to expect that now we ought not to have an hope of resurrection upon death, since we too have a part in the first resurrection - which we see they did too.

Where does Scripture say that we will be resurrected upon death? I know of Scripture that says we will all be resurrected at the same time (Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, Matthew 13:24-30, Matthew 13:47-50).



Receiving a spiritual body sure sounds like a spiritual event to me.

It's also physical because we know that we will have bodies like Christ's after His resurrection. And His was both physical and spiritual.



None of which is witnessed by physical human eyes. And why would robes be given to spirits to wear if there was no body to be covered?

The robes are a symbolic representation of the righteousness of the saints.

And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. - Rev 19:8




When Paul spoke of never being unclothed, he meant in body. And he didn't expect to spend anytime "sleeping" before that happened. There were however some who were still sleeping when he said it.

I expect that when I die I will enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb with the needed garment on - a resurrected & glorified spiritual body given to the new man who was birthed in me in this life, while my old man of flesh & bones rots in the ground in the carcass defiled by his sin. Jesus on the other hand is in His same earthly, but now glorified human body - because no sin was in Him. Only His body never saw corruption.

(1 Cor 15:50 KJV) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Again, Scripture teaches that we will all be resurrected at the same time, so what you're saying does not line up with Scripture.

third hero
Jan 10th 2008, 09:50 PM
Eric,
About all you can really surmise from that passage is that the Lord had not come YET, at the time Paul wrote those words. To say that the DOTL that was coming is still in our future is a leap you make because you are equating the modern teaching of the rapture and the gathering together Paul was speaking about as one in the same. But what has been going on for almost 2000 years if not that men are being gathered to the Lord? It is quite possible that something spiritual like the resurrection of the OT dead saints did happen in the 1st century and that marked the marriage of the Lamb in its fullness for those OT saints. I see no reason not to expect that now we ought not to have an hope of resurrection upon death, since we too have a part in the first resurrection - which we see they did too.

Receiving a spiritual body sure sounds like a spiritual event to me. None of which is witnessed by physical human eyes. And why would robes be given to spirits to wear if there was no body to be covered? When Paul spoke of never being unclothed, he meant in body. And he didn't expect to spend anytime "sleeping" before that happened. There were however some who were still sleeping when he said it.

I expect that when I die I will enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb with the needed garment on - a resurrected & glorified spiritual body given to the new man who was birthed in me in this life, while my old man of flesh & bones rots in the ground in the carcass defiled by his sin. Jesus on the other hand is in His same earthly, but now glorified human body - because no sin was in Him. Only His body never saw corruption.

(1 Cor 15:50 KJV) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Parting ways yet again....:cry:
According to the teaching of Lord Jesus, the point of the gathering is an event that "all of the tribes of the world will see". It will be seen with the human eye. This is not juxtaposing "rapture" with the Meeting, or the Gathering that both Christ and Paul talked about.

This event is to be an event that people are to see, and mourn over. This is what Jesus taught, and John highlighted in Revelation 19.

John146
Jan 10th 2008, 10:07 PM
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, ...
...Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1-2, 5

I present to you, my thesis part two.

Again, I keep on repeating that the temple of old, the second one, was called the Temple of God, even though the Spirit of God was no longer present. Now I introduce to you Paul's warning against the wicked ones in these last days. One of those warnings is that the men will have forms of godliness while denying it's power. This can be interpreted in various ways.

The application I am using is the thought that a temple which is destroyed being resurrected, having a form of godliness while denying it's power. What do you call a place like that?

Not the temple of God. The first two temples were built upon instruction from God. This rebuilt temple you're speaking about would be built upon instruction from unbelieving Israelites.



Whether you like it or not, a temple is in the process of being cleared by both the Israeli government and the Muslim clerics, all orchestrated by the Sanhedrin, another resurrected abomination. If they succeed, they will rebuild a temple, and they will call it, the Temple of God.

They can call it anything they want but that doesn't make it so.



I this building different from the other one, the second? No. Why? Because both were equally useless to God. The second temple had a form of godliness, but lacked the power of God, and became like the withered olive vine.

Yes, it became that way which is why Jesus rendered it desolate (Matthew 23:38). It was no longer the temple of God at that point.



I understand that you are still contending that the Temple of God will never be rebuilt, and your reasoning is that God does not need such a place anymore to be worshipped. I am not saying that this place is a place where the Lord is worshipped, and with that point, I agree that the temple that will be built will not be the True Temple of God, just like the second temple, once the veil was rented, ceased to be the truye temple of God.

Why would Paul call a building the temple of God that wasn't the true temple of God? To confuse people?



With that said, a temple wil be built, and it will be called the temple of God.

I don't believe Paul would call it the temple of God. It doesn't matter one bit what unbelievers would call it.



Whether you want them to or not, the Sanhedrin are desperate to rebuild, even to the point that they are going to fulfill Revelation 11:1-2 by giving up plans to rebuild the outer court. Whether you like the name of that building or not, it is going to be called the Temple of God, built in the likeness of the former temple of God.

Again, why would unbelievers be able to determine what is the temple of God and what is not?



What does that mean to us? What I have been saying all along. The purpose of the temple being built is so that the beast will defile it...... I say defile because he will stand in the "holy Place". Has it been sanctified by God? Of course not.

No place that is not sanctified by God can be legitimately called the holy place or the temple of God.



That will not stop the Sanhedrin, as it did not stop them back then. To them, it will be defiled. To us, we would call it, a temple with a form of godliness, but denying the power of God, like any other backslidden person.

Whether you acknowledge it as the temple is irrelevant. They are going to build one, and I stake my evidence on 2 Thes 2 and Revelation 11, both of which has not been fulfilled yet.

I don't care if they build a temple. It means nothing. You are making the mistake of thinking that unbelievers can determine whether or not a building is one that Scripture would call the temple of God, and I couldn't disagree more with that idea.

third hero
Jan 17th 2008, 07:28 PM
well, it looks as though we will just have to agree to disagree. Pity. Oh well, it was a good conversation anyway. Thanks.

ShirleyFord
Jan 19th 2008, 07:30 PM
Hi Shirley,
So we see that there are two temples of God, one earthly and and one spiritual during this NT period before the earthly temple was destroyed.

Both the second stone temple and the body of Christ were physical temples while Jesus was physically on earth and while the stone temple was still standing. The physical temple of Christ was destroyed when His physical body died on the cross for our sins. But in 3 days He raised His physical dead body at His resurrection for our justification.

Jesus is now the physical temple of God in heaven. And the true Church, those in Christ, are the true physical temple of God on the earth.

Most of Paul's epistles were addressed to the leaders of the local congregations in the different areas instructing them on what to do when they gathered together. The same was true of the Revelation that Jesus instructed John to write down and send it to the 7 local Churches for instruction. And we see in all of these that there were members of the different congregations who were not in Christ but were pretending to be.

I believe that the temple of God on the earth is also the local congregation just as Jesus used this example of "the kingdom of God is within you."

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.



Certainly Jesus didn't mean that the kingdom of God was inside the bodies of the ungodly, Christ-rejecting Pharisees who would soon have Him put to death. No, Jesus meant that He (the King) and His disciples (His kingdom) were the kingdom of God standing in the midst of the Pharisees, standing in the midst of Jerusalem, standing in the midst of all of the nation of Israel.

The kingdom of God didn't cease being the kingdom of God when those who were not of the kingdom of God was in its midst. Nor did the temple of God cease being the temple of God just because those who were not the temple of God came into its midst as the local Church gathered together.


Seems we need to discern which is in view by the context whether it is called the temple of God or merely the temple.

What is there to discern? It is written in God's word as plain as day, except in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. And as I have already pointed out in several different posts, if Paul meant a stone temple (either the second stone temple still standing at that time or a third one to be built after the second one was destroyed) when he wrote "the temple of God", it would have been the only time that he did. And he gives no further details about it or explanation.

And let's not forget that Paul was writing this letter to the Thessalonian Church to encourage them, not to confuse them by leaving it up to them to try and figure out what he was actually saying. He has never called the second stone temple still standing in Jerusalem during his ministy "the temple of God". So what would cause these Thessalonians to even think that Paul is referring to the stone temple back in Jerusalem in 2 Thessalonians 2:4?

The Gentile Thessalonians in the Church there at Thessalonica have probably never come close to Jerusalem before or have ever seen the second stone temple in Jerusalem. Besides, Paul doesn't mention that "the temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is a stone temple or is the one standing in Jerusalem. So I don't think we have the liberty of forcing this Scripture to say what it doen't say.


And since the apostles still honored the earthly temple while it was yet standing, it is not a misnomer to refer to it as the temple of God - else why did they go there to pray and perform a vow?

Where do you find written that the apostles "honored" the earthly stone temple after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ?

Acts 3:1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.


Nothing is said about them going to pray in the temple.

As we continuing reading Acts 3, we find that they were going into the gate of the temple onto Solomon's porch of the temple.

2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;

3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.


All of the temple complex including the many different buildings, gates, porches and courtyards was called the temple.

After the lame man was healed, we find him with Peter and John going into the temple together. But we find that "in the temple" was not inside the building itself of the temple, but they went to Solomon's porch:

8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God:

10 And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.


Paul didn't take a vow and go to the temple in Jerusalem because he "honored" it and considered it to still be the temple of God.

ShirleyFord
Jan 19th 2008, 09:48 PM
The following passages illustrate the kind of thing that I believe Paul is referring to in 2 Thess 2.

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. - Acts 20:28-31



Great Scriptural reference Eric of the local Church congregation being the temple of God.

Thanks. :)


Shirley

Mograce2U
Jan 19th 2008, 10:01 PM
Shirley,
While Peter & John may not have actually gone into the temple to pray, it is because of the event that intercepted them with the healing of lame man - it doesn't disprove that it was initially their intent in going there.

The disciples continued to visit the stone temple post Pentecost:

(Acts 2:46-47 KJV) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, {47} Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

An angel sends the apostles there to preach:

(Acts 5:19-20 KJV) But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, {20} Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.

In Acts 19 over the dissension that occurred about the temple of Diana, there is no hint that Paul ever went there to preach.

When Paul was performing his vow at the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus speaks to him while he is in prayer:

(Acts 22:17-18 KJV) And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; {18} And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

In his testimony about that event he says this:

(Acts 24:11-12 KJV) Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. {12} And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:

(Acts 24:17-18 KJV) Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. {18} Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.

(Acts 25:8 KJV) While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

And while John is the one who points out the temple of Jesus' body, he also records Jesus saying the stone temple is "My Father's house".

(John 2:16 KJV) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

Which later He shows its connection to the heavenly house:

(John 14:2 KJV) In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

So whether a change did occur for the use of the phrase "temple of God", we do see that God still had expectations for the stone temple while it was yet standing.
EDIT: Which shows it remained sanctified for the Father's use.

(Rev 11:1-2 KJV) And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. {2} But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

To be consistent with your premise for which temple is in view here, then the holy city that is to be trampled by Gentiles for 3 1/2 years is the heavenly Jerusalem? And what is the court and the altar symbolizing?

ShirleyFord
Jan 20th 2008, 12:33 AM
Shirley,
While Peter & John may not have actually gone into the temple to pray, it is because of the event that intercepted them with the healing of lame man - it doesn't disprove that it was initially their intent in going there.

But Robin, how can we say what the Bible doesn't say? Nowhere do we find written in the Scriptures that Peter and John ever went to the stone temple to pray. Nothing is said about their intentions. But we do know from all other Scripture that their full intentions always were to obey God and bring glory to His name.

The lame man asking for alms was not an inconvenience or hinderance to them from doing what God wanted them to do. God sent them to the temple that day just for that one man to show forth the glory of God to the Jews who would be gathered there.

Nothing is said in Acts 3 about Peter and John going to the stone temple in Jerusalem since they honored it as the temple of God.





The disciples continued to visit the stone temple post Pentecost:

(Acts 2:46-47 KJV) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, {47} Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The disciples didn't have to go to the temple or to a certain place to praise God.

Jews were saved daily in Jerusalem according to Acts 2:47, in the temple and in their homes in throughout the city. The disciples went to where unsaved Jews were in Jerusalem in Acts 2 and preached the good news of Jesus Christ, their Messiah.


An angel sends the apostles there to preach:

(Acts 5:19-20 KJV) But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, {20} Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.



I believe that the apostles went to the same place to preach the in the temple that Jesus went to, Solomon's porch:

Jn 10:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

Acts 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

Acts 5:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.





When Paul was performing his vow at the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus speaks to him while he is in prayer:


(Acts 22:17-18 KJV) And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; {18} And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.


You need to re-read Acts 21 and 22 Robin for there you would find that what Paul was speaking in Acts 22:17-18 about a time shortly after his conversion long before he began his ministry and long before the events that happened while he was shut up in the temple those 7 days in Acts 21.

Paul is not in the temple when he is speaking in Acts 22. Look back at Acts 21. He had been arrested while in the temple and removed from the temple:

Acts 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.

32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul.

33 Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.

34 And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle.

35 And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people.

36 For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him.

37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?

38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?

39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,


Paul gives his testimony of how he was saved and what God had called him to do:


Acts 22:
Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10 And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.


We find what Paul testified to in Acts 22 written in Acts 9. But Paul here adds the detail of praying in the temple when he came back to Jerusalem from Damascus after his conversion. Paul doesn't say why he prayed in the temple or what part of the temple complex he was in when he prayed. And notice in Acts 22 that Paul simply calls the temple in Jerusalem "the temple".







In his testimony about that event he says this:

(Acts 24:11-12 KJV) Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. {12} And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:

Notice that Paul still doesn't call the stone temple "the temple of God". And he said that he went up to Jerusalem to worship, not to the temple.

Paul was his own defense attorney speaking on his own behalf to the Jewish leaders at his trial before them. He is in essence saying that the charges that have been brought against him are false.


(Acts 24:17-18 KJV) Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. {18} Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.

Again, Paul is giving his defense against the false charges against him. And again, he simply calls the stone temple, "the temple".


(Acts 25:8 KJV) While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.


Yet at another trial of Paul, he is defending himself against the false charges brought against him. And again we find that he speaks of the stone temple in Jerusalem as simply "the temple".





And while John is the one who points out the temple of Jesus' body, he also records Jesus saying the stone temple is "My Father's house".

(John 2:16 KJV) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.


Let's look closely at the Scripture and see what Jesus was referring to:

John 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psalms 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.

9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.


Mt 21:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Mk 11:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Lk 19:46 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=46) Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.


Where it is written:


Isaiah 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.






Which later He shows its connection to the heavenly house:

(John 14:2 KJV) In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

So whether a change did occur for the use of the phrase "temple of God", we do see that God still had expectations for the stone temple while it was yet standing.
EDIT: Which shows it remained sanctified for the Father's use.



The earthly stone temple was patterned after the literal heavenly tabernacle in heaven. God did sanctify the earthly tabernacle and the first and second stone temple which pointed to the true temple Jesus Christ and His Church. Nothing I have ever found in the NT says that the stone temple in Jerusalem remained "sanctified for the Father's use" after Jesus fulfilled all that the stone temple pointed to.

third hero
Jan 21st 2008, 04:40 PM
Well, it seems to me like this is another round of semantics. Shirley, it seems as though you wantto acknowledge the idea of the body of a man who has given himself to Lord Jesus as the "Temple of God" while denying the possibillity of a place being called a "Temple of God" when even Jesus himself called that place HIs Father's House. Is semantics that important?

Fact, there was a building called the Temple of God, by both believers and non. Fact, until Christ died, it was the actual temple that the Spirit of God resided in. Fact, even though the Spirit left that place, it was still called the Temple of God. Another FACT. If the israelites build another temple, they are going to call it the "temple of God". Semantics aside, this is a reality that can not be avoided.

John146
Jan 21st 2008, 06:02 PM
Another FACT. If the israelites build another temple, they are going to call it the "temple of God". Semantics aside, this is a reality that can not be avoided.

But what unbelieving Israelites call a building is completely meaningless, unless Paul (based on 2 Thess 2:4) would agree with them and also call it the temple of God. Do you actually think that this meaningless building that they want to build is something Paul would call the temple of God? If so, please explain how that can be the case.

third hero
Jan 21st 2008, 06:14 PM
But what unbelieving Israelites call a building is completely meaningless, unless Paul (based on 2 Thess 2:4) would agree with them and also call it the temple of God. Do you actually think that this meaningless building that they want to build is something Paul would call the temple of God? If so, please explain how that can be the case.

All Paul knew is that a man would stand in the place called the temple of God and proclaim himself to be God. Whether it would have been the second temple or a third, I believe that Paul would call it the Temple, since it would fit every other aspect of the temple of God in antiquity with the only exception being that the Spirit of God is not in it.

In other words, if a bunch of Muslims built a building in honor of the Jewish God in Jerusalem and had it stand in the same spot as the second temple, which did not have the Spirit of God in it, and called it the Temple of God, tell me how you can cause them to change the name?

Even if it was Jewish fanatics that built the place, and still called it the Temple of God, who are you to say that they can not call a building what they see fit?

All I know is this. The Israelites are preparing to build a temple. They are going to call it the "temple of God". It is my belief that this building will be the place where the prophecy in 2 Thesalonians 2 will come to pass. Call it what you want, I do not care. However, this game of semantics is really boring me, and therefore I think it should stop.

I am not saying that any building is the ACTUAL Temple of God, I am saying that a building that is called the "Temple of God" will be the staging ground from not only the abomination that causes desolation, but at the same time, will be the place where the evil one will reveal himself, just as Paul said he would.

Now I ask you, am I calling Paul a liar? Am I placing unnecessary worth in a building? Am I drawing straws at the usage of the words "Temple of God"? I say again that what we are debating here is nothing more than semantics, my usage of a phrase versus your preference for that phrase. It's really quite unremarkable, and boring at the same time.

John146
Jan 21st 2008, 06:34 PM
All Paul knew is that a man would stand in the place called the temple of God and proclaim himself to be God. Whether it would have been the second temple or a third, I believe that Paul would call it the Temple, since it would fit every other aspect of the temple of God in antiquity with the only exception being that the Spirit of God is not in it.

Paul did not called it "the place called the temple of God". He called it "the temple of God". Therefore, it was what he would call the temple of God. If it was what others would call the temple of God, but not him, then he would have clarified that.



In other words, if a bunch of Muslims built a building in honor of the Jewish God in Jerusalem and had it stand in the same spot as the second temple, which did not have the Spirit of God in it, and called it the Temple of God, tell me how you can cause them to change the name?Can you explain to me why it would be something Paul would call the temple of God just because those Muslims called it that? It doesn't matter what they call it. They could call it heaven, but would that make it so?



Even if it was Jewish fanatics that built the place, and still called it the Temple of God, who are you to say that they can not call a building what they see fit? You're just not getting it. Who cares what they call it? Why does that matter? Where is the Scripture that tells us unbelievers can decide what the temple of God is?



All I know is this. The Israelites are preparing to build a temple. They are going to call it the "temple of God". It is my belief that this building will be the place where the prophecy in 2 Thesalonians 2 will come to pass. Call it what you want, I do not care. However, this game of semantics is really boring me, and therefore I think it should stop.This is not a game of semantics. Your constant reference to semantics bores me. Semantics Shmemantics. That's not what this is. You can't just brush off the importance of the fact that whatever temple of God Paul refers to, it is something that he would call the temple of God while inspired by the Holy Spirit.



I am not saying that any building is the ACTUAL Temple of God, I am saying that a building that is called the "Temple of God" will be the staging ground from not only the abomination that causes desolation, but at the same time, will be the place where the evil one will reveal himself, just as Paul said he would.Where do you get that Paul implies that "the temple of God" that he is speaking about is not the ACTUAL temple of God? It sure seems like you are reading a lot into the text.



Now I ask you, am I calling Paul a liar? Am I placing unnecessary worth in a building? Am I drawing straws at the usage of the words "Temple of God"? I say again that what we are debating here is nothing more than semantics, my usage of a phrase versus your preference for that phrase. It's really quite unremarkable, and boring at the same time.You really like that word "semantics", don't you? ;) So, you're saying that determining what Paul meant by that phrase by using Scripture as well as what Paul would consider the temple of God doesn't matter because we can just get our understanding of Scripture from the ones who build this building that you're talking about. What they call it is what's important and not what Paul or the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write those words would call it. I see.

third hero
Jan 21st 2008, 07:10 PM
Paul did not called it "the place called the temple of God". He called it "the temple of God". Therefore, it was what he would call the temple of God. If it was what others would call the temple of God, but not him, then he would have clarified that.

Your opinion only. I have a passage that plainly calls the place where the man of sin will reveal himself as "the temple of God".


Can you explain to me why it would be something Paul would call the temple of God just because those Muslims called it that? It doesn't matter what they call it. They could call it heaven, but would that make it so?

What do you call outer space? Space? Heaven? That void out there? A name is a name, and it matters not if Jewish folk or muslims, or misguiuded Christians create a place and call it "The Temple of God", a name is just that. a name. Making a mountain out of nothing is like dividing anything by 0. You already know the result.


You're just not getting it. Who cares what they call it? Why does that matter? Where is the Scripture that tells us unbelievers can decide what the temple of God is?

Unbelievers made the first and second temple. It is the right of the Israelite to make a temple that represents not only their culture, but also the God they are suppose to be following after. That's what you fail to realize. It is not in your hands, or mine.


This is not a game of semantics. Your constant reference to semantics bores me. Semantics Shmemantics. That's not what this is. You can't just brush off the importance of the fact that whatever temple of God Paul refers to, it is something that he would call the temple of God while inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What do you call it then? We are debating over a building, one that has been called the Temple of God, and another that will be. It's word-play at it's simplest. You want every reference in the Bible concerning the "temple of God" to mean the human body. It just doesn'ty work that way. Context sheds greater light than just blanket word-tag.


Where do you get that Paul implies that "the temple of God" that he is speaking about is not the ACTUAL temple of God? It sure seems like you are reading a lot into the text.


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. 2 Thes 2:4

Where is the "reading into" in this scripture?

You really like that word "semantics", don't you? ;) So, you're saying that determining what Paul meant by that phrase by using Scripture as well as what Paul would consider the temple of God doesn't matter because we can just get our understanding of Scripture from the ones who build this building that you're talking about. What they call it is what's important and not what Paul or the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write those words would call it. I see.

It seems to me that this is just a difference of opinion here. You have a different opinion of whom called a building what, and the context of the passages say something else entirely. That's not something that I want to get into, becausse that is between you and the writers of the NT.

Mograce2U
Jan 21st 2008, 07:34 PM
Doug & Eric,
Personally I think you are both making this too convulted, and I blame futuristic thinking as the culprit. If Antiochus could do this in the past then it must have some bearing on Paul's words since he is describing a similar scenario in 2 Thes. The body of Christ being this temple as a corporate gathering of believers, seems too far fetched for the context Paul gives us. And a future temple built by unbelievers is going beyond the fact that there was a temple still standing in Paul's day.

It shouldn't be that hard for us to understand what Paul expected his readers to grasp.

John146
Jan 22nd 2008, 08:32 PM
Doug & Eric,
Personally I think you are both making this too convulted, and I blame futuristic thinking as the culprit.

That may apply to Doug, but my thinking is that Paul was speaking of a temple that existed at that time, so I actually agree with you on that. But I obviously disagree about which temple he was speaking about. I believe the temple of God that he was referring to that existed even then still exists now. Is that futuristic thinking? Not really. It's neither futuristic nor preteristic.



If Antiochus could do this in the past then it must have some bearing on Paul's words since he is describing a similar scenario in 2 Thes. The body of Christ being this temple as a corporate gathering of believers, seems too far fetched for the context Paul gives us.

The context of the passage is established in the first verse as the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. In other words, the day of the Lord(verse 2). That day will not come until the falling away and the man of sin being revealed happens first. Since the second coming will at least be around 2,000 years since that time, I don't believe the falling away and man of sin being revealed happened way back then even though the mystery of iniquity was already at work at that time. Instead, I associate it with the time of Satan's little season when he is no longer restrained and is able to deceive the nations again as he did before Christ came the first time.



It shouldn't be that hard for us to understand what Paul expected his readers to grasp.

I agree.

One thing that doesn't add up about your view is that there is no specific mention of Israel, Jerusalem or Rome to be found in the entire chapter(2 Thess 2). Your only basis for thinking it has to do with the events of 70 AD is the mention of "the temple of God". And it's pretty obvious that the interpretation of that term is not one that is without differences of opinion among believers. Because of this, what I believe we have to do is look at how Paul uses the term "the temple of God" or phrases similar to it (holy temple in the Lord - Ephesians 2:21) elsewhere. Elsewhere, he uses it in terms of our bodies as well as in reference to the corporate body of Christ, which of course is the church.

Then there is also the issue of whether Paul would have called Herod's temple the temple of God at that point in time and we obviously disagree on that as well. This doesn't prove anything necessarily, but the fact is that he never used that term for Herod's temple in any Scripture that he wrote.

Eric

Mograce2U
Jan 23rd 2008, 03:51 AM
<snip>
One thing that doesn't add up about your view is that there is no specific mention of Israel, Jerusalem or Rome to be found in the entire chapter(2 Thess 2). Your only basis for thinking it has to do with the events of 70 AD is the mention of "the temple of God". And it's pretty obvious that the interpretation of that term is not one that is without differences of opinion among believers. Because of this, what I believe we have to do is look at how Paul uses the term "the temple of God" or phrases similar to it (holy temple in the Lord - Ephesians 2:21) elsewhere. Elsewhere, he uses it in terms of our bodies as well as in reference to the corporate body of Christ, which of course is the church.

Then there is also the issue of whether Paul would have called Herod's temple the temple of God at that point in time and we obviously disagree on that as well. This doesn't prove anything necessarily, but the fact is that he never used that term for Herod's temple in any Scripture that he wrote.

EricThis verse tells me I have another place I can look to see what Paul is talking about:

(2 Th 2:5 KJV) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

That takes me to Acts 17, when the Jews began persecuting the Thessalonians at the time Paul came preaching there. These to me, are the ones who must fill up their apostasy. It is the apostasy of Israel that is in view - not the Church. These Jews in Thessalonica were also party to the rebellion that was underway which did lead up to the events of 70AD - details of which is found in Josephus.

(Luke 23:18-19 KJV) And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: {19} (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

Such seditions were going on even at the time of the cross.

ShirleyFord
Jan 23rd 2008, 11:30 AM
This verse tells me I have another place I can look to see what Paul is talking about:

(2 Th 2:5 KJV) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

That takes me to Acts 17, when the Jews began persecuting the Thessalonians at the time Paul came preaching there.

Are you using Acts 17 to support your view of this Scripture?

1 Thess 2:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=52&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:


When we actually read Acts 17, we find that the unbelieving Jews were after Paul and Silas in Thessalonica to stop them from preaching Christ:

1 Now when they (Paul and Silas - Acts 16) had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.

9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.


The only reason these unbelieving Jews attacked the house of Jason was to get Paul and Silas who had preached the gospel of Christ in the Jewish synagogue there at Thessalonica (not to the Thessalonian Church) for 3 sabbaths straight. And some of the Jews of Thessalonica believed the gospel along with a multitude of Gentiles.

But when these unbelieving Jews and the mob they had put together couldn't find Paul and Silas, they took Jason and other believers staying with him to the rulers of the city. But when they couldn't get any info from them about the whereabouts of Paul and Silas, they let them go.

Mograce2U
Jan 23rd 2008, 04:39 PM
Shirley, #147 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1509853&postcount=147)

The only reason these unbelieving Jews attacked the house of Jason was to get Paul and Silas who had preached the gospel of Christ in the Jewish synagogue there at Thessalonica (not to the Thessalonian Church) for 3 sabbaths straight. And some of the Jews of Thessalonica believed the gospel along with a multitude of Gentiles.

But when these unbelieving Jews and the mob they had put together couldn't find Paul and Silas, they took Jason and other believers staying with him to the rulers of the city. But when they couldn't get any info from them about the whereabouts of Paul and Silas, they let them go.Ok, and what did that set in motion as a result? Was it not that even their own countrymen began persecuting them? All thru Macedonia & Asia this was the the sort of thing that happened in tandem with Paul's visits - instigated by the Jews who were following him around.

ShirleyFord
Jan 24th 2008, 04:13 AM
This verse tells me I have another place I can look to see what Paul is talking about:

(2 Th 2:5 KJV)It is the apostasy of Israel that is in view - not the Church. These Jews in Thessalonica were also party to the rebellion that was underway which did lead up to the events of 70AD - details of which is found in Josephus.

(Luke 23:18-19 KJV) And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: {19} (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

Such seditions were going on even at the time of the cross.

It was Barabbas who was charged with sedition, along with murder, not the Jewish leaders.