PDA

View Full Version : Mk 13:14



napsnsnacks
Jan 4th 2009, 01:35 AM
After all my 30 or so years interest in prophecy I realized something that never occurred to me before even though I may have read it so many times, so maybe one of you might have pondered this, possibly may even have an answer:

MK 13:14

"But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:"

" standing where it ought not"

So, do we know about this already but don't readily recognize it (kind of like green on grass) and then it falls on us like a ton of bricks when it happens to show up in the wrong place since just like we may not notice the green on grass till its 6 inches high.

At the moment it seems that this "abomination of desolation" is in a place where it is commonly accepted but not known as an "abomination of desolation" but we are to beware when it shows up where it OUGHT NOT TO BE.

So this "abomination of desolation" is pre-existent of its reference in MK 13:14 or else we would not have been warned about seeing it in a location where its not supposed to be.

So according to this verse, we know who or what the abomination of desolation is, but currently, WHERE is it?

This is about physical location.

Knowing this apparently is mandatory or how would we ever recognize that it was in the wrong place?

As prophecy usually goes, we are all quacks in our labelings and accusations and assumptions and until it actually happens and it never seems to happen according to our preferred and comfortable musings as these things trickle out a little at a time as time passes so maybe its time in our world we know the current existence of the abomination of desolation so that we will know that it is in the wrong place when it shows up in the temple?

.

markdrums
Jan 4th 2009, 01:48 AM
After all my 30 or so years interest in prophecy I realized something that never occurred to me before even though I may have read it so many times, so maybe one of you might have pondered this, possibly may even have an answer:

MK 13:14

"But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:"

" standing where it ought not"

So, do we know about this already but don't readily recognize it (kind of like green on grass) and then it falls on us like a ton of bricks when it happens to show up in the wrong place since just like we may not notice the green on grass till its 6 inches high.

At the moment it seems that this "abomination of desolation" is in a place where it is commonly accepted but not known as an "abomination of desolation" but we are to beware when it shows up where it OUGHT NOT TO BE.

So this "abomination of desolation" is pre-existent of its reference in MK 13:14 or else we would not have been warned about seeing it in a location where its not supposed to be.

So according to this verse, we know who or what the abomination of desolation is, but currently, WHERE is it?

This is about physical location.

Knowing this apparently is mandatory or how would we ever recognize that it was in the wrong place?

As prophecy usually goes, we are all quacks in our labelings and accusations and assumptions and until it actually happens and it never seems to happen according to our preferred and comfortable musings as these things trickle out a little at a time as time passes so maybe its time in our world we know the current existence of the abomination of desolation so that we will know that it is in the wrong place when it shows up in the temple?

.


My belief is that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Epiphanes (167 BC ) which was the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.
Jesus was in essence saying, "Remember this event. The same type of thing is going to take place again soon. Some of you disciples standing here will personally witness this when it happens again.

Antiochus Epiphanes invaded the temple sanctuary, & erected a statue of Zeus Olympus, and slaughtered Pigs on the altar... spilling "unclean blood".. desecrating the temple. (The abomination which left the temple desolate)

Then, according to Jesus' prophecy, TITUS, (not long after Nero's reign) invaded the temple & slaughtered the Pharasees on the altar, (again, leaving it desolate of God's presence.)

Make sense?
;)

MacGyver
Jan 4th 2009, 02:38 AM
Here is what St. Augustine says, "Matthew says, standing in the holy place; but with this verbal difference Mark has expressed the same meaning; for He says where it ought not to stand, because it ought not to stand in the holy place."

third hero
Jan 4th 2009, 06:32 AM
IMHO napsnacks,
The idea of the abomination of desolation being in the spot where it is not suppose to be is what caused me to believe that the abomination is not what we think it is.

In Matthew 24 and 2 Thesalonians 2:4 mentions the temple by name. In both places, the Abomination is founnd in the Holy place.

The Holy Place, otherwise known as the Holy of Holies, is a place that only the high priest in an ephod can go into, and only once a year. Anyone who is not the high priest who goes into the Holy of Holies will find theirselves dead. If the high priest does not have the ephod on, he dies. The point? Anyone who is not the high priest, who stands in the Holy of Holies, dies. (I know I read it in the OT somewhere, but I am getting tired, and I'll have to get back to you on the vhapter and verse).

I believe that the abomination that causes desolation is a person, and not a statue, a pig, or anything else. Here is why.

As you have noted in Mark 13, the abomination is standing where it is not suppose to be. In Matthew 24, the places is identified as the Holy Place. IN 2 Thesalonians 2:4, we find the man of sin, standing in the Holy place of the temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Because he does not die, he will be the abomination, for no one, especially not a Gentile, is allowed in the holy of holies. Having him there, profaning God in the spot where the Ark of the covenant is suppose to be, is nothing short of abominable. If he, the man of sin, lives after proclaiming himself to be God in the Holy of Holies, then he will become the Abomination.

This would cause just about every Jew on earth to reject him as a heretic, and they will be most vocal in the desecration of their most holy place. At that point, the abomination willl give orders for the armies that surrounded Jerusalem up to that point to converge and eliminate the inhabitants there. This order would make Jerusalem desolate, as everyone there will be seeking an escape route as they flee from the abomination that causes desolation.

See, it actually makes sense, I think:idea::lol:

napsnsnacks
Jan 4th 2009, 12:40 PM
IMHO napsnacks,
The idea of the abomination of desolation being in the spot where it is not suppose to be is what caused me to believe that the abomination is not what we think it is.

In Matthew 24 and 2 Thesalonians 2:4 mentions the temple by name. In both places, the Abomination is founnd in the Holy place.

The Holy Place, otherwise known as the Holy of Holies, is a place that only the high priest in an ephod can go into, and only once a year. Anyone who is not the high priest who goes into the Holy of Holies will find theirselves dead. If the high priest does not have the ephod on, he dies. The point? Anyone who is not the high priest, who stands in the Holy of Holies, dies. (I know I read it in the OT somewhere, but I am getting tired, and I'll have to get back to you on the vhapter and verse).

I believe that the abomination that causes desolation is a person, and not a statue, a pig, or anything else. Here is why.

As you have noted in Mark 13, the abomination is standing where it is not suppose to be. In Matthew 24, the places is identified as the Holy Place. IN 2 Thesalonians 2:4, we find the man of sin, standing in the Holy place of the temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Because he does not die, he will be the abomination, for no one, especially not a Gentile, is allowed in the holy of holies. Having him there, profaning God in the spot where the Ark of the covenant is suppose to be, is nothing short of abominable. If he, the man of sin, lives after proclaiming himself to be God in the Holy of Holies, then he will become the Abomination.

This would cause just about every Jew on earth to reject him as a heretic, and they will be most vocal in the desecration of their most holy place. At that point, the abomination willl give orders for the armies that surrounded Jerusalem up to that point to converge and eliminate the inhabitants there. This order would make Jerusalem desolate, as everyone there will be seeking an escape route as they flee from the abomination that causes desolation.

See, it actually makes sense, I think:idea::lol:

It does make sense that Satan in the form of antichrist could be the only interest who could stand there without being killed.

As for the statue you mentioned, this abomination of desolation is a statue that for what it's worth comes to life right?

Not to be paranoid but this guy is known before he actually takes up space there so if we keep an eye on any interests who currently claim to be God...so finding a statue that could fit that description...or have that inscription on it...

markdrums
Jan 4th 2009, 01:19 PM
It does make sense that Satan in the form of antichrist could be the only interest who could stand there without being killed.

As for the statue you mentioned, this abomination of desolation is a statue that for what it's worth comes to life right?

Not to be paranoid but this guy is known before he actually takes up space there so if we keep an eye on any interests who currently claim to be God...so finding a statue that could fit that description...or have that inscription on it...

The abomination (concerning Antiochus Epiphanes) was a combination of a person AND an event.
The desecrating of the temple with unclean blood was an abomination. When that happened, God no longer dwelt in the temple... thus making it desolate....or "causing desolation".

When Jerusalem was surrounded by Roman armies, it was the signal that Jesus' prophecy was beginning fulfillment. Jesus mentions DANIEL'S "abomination prophesy" as a reference, ad indicating that the very same thing would happen again.

napsnsnacks
Jan 4th 2009, 03:26 PM
The abomination (concerning Antiochus Epiphanes) was a combination of a person AND an event.
The desecrating of the temple with unclean blood was an abomination. When that happened, God no longer dwelt in the temple... thus making it desolate....or "causing desolation".

When Jerusalem was surrounded by Roman armies, it was the signal that Jesus' prophecy was beginning fulfillment. Jesus mentions DANIEL'S "abomination prophesy" as a reference, ad indicating that the very same thing would happen again.

The temple now is the body of believers so, if the temple is rebuilt why would God be in it anyway as He was in the holy of holies?

Can't all this be done without God reinhabiting the temple the way he did?

markdrums
Jan 4th 2009, 07:56 PM
The temple now is the body of believers so, if the temple is rebuilt why would God be in it anyway as He was in the holy of holies?

Can't all this be done without God reinhabiting the temple the way he did?

That's the thing.
God will not "dwell" in a new temple. So if there were to be another temple, it wouldn't be "Holy", meaning it couldn't be desecrated by someone or something.
So, How could there be a future "Abomination of Desolation" in a temple, if God is not present within that temple to MAKE IT Holy?

See what I mean?

It would merely be a building built by human hands, which people would "call" a temple.... but the fact is, it would not BE a temple in the true sense.

MacGyver
Jan 4th 2009, 10:01 PM
That's the thing.
God will not "dwell" in a new temple. So if there were to be another temple, it wouldn't be "Holy", meaning it couldn't be desecrated by someone or something.
So, How could there be a future "Abomination of Desolation" in a temple, if God is not present within that temple to MAKE IT Holy?

See what I mean?

It would merely be a building built by human hands, which people would "call" a temple.... but the fact is, it would not BE a temple in the true sense.Excellent point!

third hero
Jan 5th 2009, 05:31 AM
It does make sense that Satan in the form of antichrist could be the only interest who could stand there without being killed.

As for the statue you mentioned, this abomination of desolation is a statue that for what it's worth comes to life right?

Not to be paranoid but this guy is known before he actually takes up space there so if we keep an eye on any interests who currently claim to be God...so finding a statue that could fit that description...or have that inscription on it...

Now this is my personal thoughts here. I believe that a statue would not have the same effect as one standing in a place that that person is not suppose to be, and profane God entirely by claiming that he is God, and not the god that the Temple was rebuilt for. (now understand that I do not believe that the next temple will in fact be God's temple, but to the Jew who will build it, they will believe that it is, and will name that temple the Temple of God). Having a person standing in the Holy of Holies and utterly defiling not only the temple, but the city AND the people of that city would have a much more significant impact.

That's not to say that the statue couldn't fulfill that role, but I do not believe that it could do what the man of sin wants to do. Besides, the power of the statue comes from the second beast's manipulation of the first beast's power, (Revelation 13). It seems to me that the abomination will happen before the False prophet is given his power.

third hero
Jan 5th 2009, 05:50 AM
That's the thing.
God will not "dwell" in a new temple. So if there were to be another temple, it wouldn't be "Holy", meaning it couldn't be desecrated by someone or something.
So, How could there be a future "Abomination of Desolation" in a temple, if God is not present within that temple to MAKE IT Holy?

See what I mean?

It would merely be a building built by human hands, which people would "call" a temple.... but the fact is, it would not BE a temple in the true sense.

I see what you are saying, markdrums. As a believer, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the idea that the "Third temple" will not be holy.

However, the reason why the man of sin will be able to stand in the Holy of Holies is exactly the reason that you mention here. The whole idea of the third temple being made is for the purpose of exposing to Israel the apostacy that they have committed for the last 1900 years.

You see, the temple is vital to Judaism. They believe that they can not truly honor God until another temple is built. They do not understand that God has moved on, and that He no longer needs a temple to inhabit, because He inhabits the hearts and souls of men, which are now the true temples of God. This reminds me of Romans 11:25-26. These verses tells us that Israel in part has been blind, and that blindness will one day be removed. The idea of the Temple needing to be rebuilt is one of the portions of blindness that has infected a large portion of the Israelites.

So, when the Israelites move to rebuild the temple, they will believe that they are doing God's will. To them, they are doing the Holy acts of God. They will believe that everything that they will do shall be holy.

Now, considering that the temple is part of the deception, would it not be like Satan to immitate the "smoke coming out of the Holy of Holies" that the Lord had done so many years ago? Wouldn't that make the deception all the more believable?

The time in which the blinders fall from the eyes of the Israelites would BE THE ADVENT OF THE BEAST! If a man who is "tainted blood", or for that matter, a Gentile, stands in the compartment of the temple called, "the Holy of Holies", and proclaim himself to be God, then wouldn't that give us all of the ammunition that we, the believers, would need in order to bring the remnant of Israel, aka, those of Jacob's bloodline who were not in Jerusalem when that event happens, to their true lord, Lord Jesus? When the man of sin reveals himself at the temple, then we would all know that the blinders have indeed fallen from the eyes of Judaism. They will have no choice but to see the plain truth, that God was never in that temple, we were right, and they need to repent, bringing into sharp focus Zechariah 12:10-14.

Do you see how this all fits? The third temple has to be rebuilt, because without it, the man of sin can not come, and the blinders that are on the unsaved Israelites will not be removed. Moreover, 2 Thessalonians 2:2 tells us that the "Day", which is the day of the Lord's gathering of us to Himself in the air, can not happen until both the apostacy and the advent of the man of sin happens first. The temple is NOT going to be holy, although the Israelites will think that it will be, and there is a possibility that God will allow Satan to fool the world by furthering the deception.

John146
Jan 5th 2009, 05:25 PM
I see what you are saying, markdrums. As a believer, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the idea that the "Third temple" will not be holy.

However, the reason why the man of sin will be able to stand in the Holy of Holies is exactly the reason that you mention here. The whole idea of the third temple being made is for the purpose of exposing to Israel the apostacy that they have committed for the last 1900 years.

You see, the temple is vital to Judaism. They believe that they can not truly honor God until another temple is built. They do not understand that God has moved on, and that He no longer needs a temple to inhabit, because He inhabits the hearts and souls of men, which are now the true temples of God. This reminds me of Romans 11:25-26. These verses tells us that Israel in part has been blind, and that blindness will one day be removed. The idea of the Temple needing to be rebuilt is one of the portions of blindness that has infected a large portion of the Israelites.

So, when the Israelites move to rebuild the temple, they will believe that they are doing God's will. To them, they are doing the Holy acts of God. They will believe that everything that they will do shall be holy.

Now, considering that the temple is part of the deception, would it not be like Satan to immitate the "smoke coming out of the Holy of Holies" that the Lord had done so many years ago? Wouldn't that make the deception all the more believable?

The time in which the blinders fall from the eyes of the Israelites would BE THE ADVENT OF THE BEAST! If a man who is "tainted blood", or for that matter, a Gentile, stands in the compartment of the temple called, "the Holy of Holies", and proclaim himself to be God, then wouldn't that give us all of the ammunition that we, the believers, would need in order to bring the remnant of Israel, aka, those of Jacob's bloodline who were not in Jerusalem when that event happens, to their true lord, Lord Jesus? When the man of sin reveals himself at the temple, then we would all know that the blinders have indeed fallen from the eyes of Judaism. They will have no choice but to see the plain truth, that God was never in that temple, we were right, and they need to repent, bringing into sharp focus Zechariah 12:10-14.

Do you see how this all fits? The third temple has to be rebuilt, because without it, the man of sin can not come, and the blinders that are on the unsaved Israelites will not be removed. Moreover, 2 Thessalonians 2:2 tells us that the "Day", which is the day of the Lord's gathering of us to Himself in the air, can not happen until both the apostacy and the advent of the man of sin happens first. The temple is NOT going to be holy, although the Israelites will think that it will be, and there is a possibility that God will allow Satan to fool the world by furthering the deception.You are acknowledging that this alleged third temple would not be holy. But Jesus referred to a place that He called holy. He didn't say that others would call it the holy place. He called it the holy place. You're basically saying that He called a place that wasn't (or wouldn't be) truly holy "the holy place". Why would He have done that? Why wouldn't He have clarified that the place He was talking about wasn't truly holy?

The temple standing at the time He spoke those words was still "the holy place" at that time. He was referring to Jerusalem and the temple standing at that time and what was going to happen there in the future (70 AD). We can see that in the parallel passage from Luke:

Luke 21
20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This passage shows that the abomination of desolation is directly related to the armies surrounding Jerusalem, which happened around 70 AD. If Jesus was referring to a future temple that would not be holy then I don't believe for a second that He would have called it "the holy place".

markdrums
Jan 5th 2009, 05:56 PM
You are acknowledging that this alleged third temple would not be holy. But Jesus referred to a place that He called holy. He didn't say that others would call it the holy place. He called it the holy place. You're basically saying that He called a place that wasn't (or wouldn't be) truly holy "the holy place". Why would He have done that? Why wouldn't He have clarified that the place He was talking about wasn't truly holy?

The temple standing at the time He spoke those words was still "the holy place" at that time. He was referring to Jerusalem and the temple standing at that time and what was going to happen there in the future (70 AD). We can see that in the parallel passage from Luke:

Luke 21
20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This passage shows that the abomination of desolation is directly related to the armies surrounding Jerusalem, which happened around 70 AD. If Jesus was referring to a future temple that would not be holy then I don't believe for a second that He would have called it "the holy place".

I think we're actually on the same page...
I don't think there's going to be another temple built at all. Although if it WERE to be built, it would have nothing to do with scripture.

Jesus made it clear that the temple which was still standing at the time he gave the Olivet DIscourse, would be destroyed.

Maybe I worded my other post a little funky...... ?

third hero
Jan 5th 2009, 07:09 PM
You are acknowledging that this alleged third temple would not be holy. But Jesus referred to a place that He called holy. He didn't say that others would call it the holy place. He called it the holy place. You're basically saying that He called a place that wasn't (or wouldn't be) truly holy "the holy place". Why would He have done that? Why wouldn't He have clarified that the place He was talking about wasn't truly holy?

The temple standing at the time He spoke those words was still "the holy place" at that time. He was referring to Jerusalem and the temple standing at that time and what was going to happen there in the future (70 AD). We can see that in the parallel passage from Luke:

Luke 21
20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This passage shows that the abomination of desolation is directly related to the armies surrounding Jerusalem, which happened around 70 AD. If Jesus was referring to a future temple that would not be holy then I don't believe for a second that He would have called it "the holy place".

At the time that Jesus walked the earth, th Holy of Holies was Holy indeed. The reason was that the Holy Spirit still resided there, while Jesus walked the earth. Every Israelites in the 1st century knew that the most holy place was found in the temple. After Lord Jesus's death, the Holy Spirit left the holy of Holies, and the holiness of that place was gone. We are all in agreement here.

As far as Luke 21 is concerned, I also agree that most of that chapter focused on what would happen at 70 AD, including the destruction of the temple and the city being trampled by Gentiles "until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:24), which started at 70AD and has not been completed yet.

And now to the point of dissention. When Paul wrote 2 thes 2:3-8, did he not know that the Holy Spirit left the Temple? I believe that he did. So if that is the case, why would he say that the man of sin would as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God"?

I believe that Paul knew that at that time, there were many temples built dedicated to many gods. He also had the task of identifying which building the man of sin would enter in and proclaim his godhood in. The Temple at his time, although the Holy Spirit had left it then, was indeed a temple that was dedicated to God. Whether it was actually holy or not was of no consequence. The prevailing idea was that the temple was the earthly representative of God's footstool, an idea that the modern-day Judism practicers still hold today.

I believe that the context of this passage is vital to understanding what Paul was saying here. The temple, even though it was not holy after Christ's death, represented a building that was didicated to the God of the Israelites, whom we believe in and serve today. In order for the man of sin to be revealed, he has to stand in a place that is dedicated to the God of Israel and proclaim himself to be God in order for us to see that he is truly the man of sin. Without a building, this event can not happen. (remember, Titus did not stand in the Holy of Holies and proclaim anything, let alone a status as a god). Therefore, a building has to be built, and didicated to God, in order for the man of sin to be revealed. Whether it is actually holy or not is inconsequential.

John146
Jan 5th 2009, 09:44 PM
I think we're actually on the same page...
I don't think there's going to be another temple built at all. Although if it WERE to be built, it would have nothing to do with scripture.

Jesus made it clear that the temple which was still standing at the time he gave the Olivet DIscourse, would be destroyed.

Maybe I worded my other post a little funky...... ?Well, my post was directed to third hero, not to you, so I wasn't really commenting on anything you had said.

John146
Jan 5th 2009, 09:54 PM
At the time that Jesus walked the earth, th Holy of Holies was Holy indeed. The reason was that the Holy Spirit still resided there, while Jesus walked the earth. Every Israelites in the 1st century knew that the most holy place was found in the temple. After Lord Jesus's death, the Holy Spirit left the holy of Holies, and the holiness of that place was gone. We are all in agreement here.

As far as Luke 21 is concerned, I also agree that most of that chapter focused on what would happen at 70 AD, including the destruction of the temple and the city being trampled by Gentiles "until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:24), which started at 70AD and has not been completed yet.

And now to the point of dissention. When Paul wrote 2 thes 2:3-8, did he not know that the Holy Spirit left the Temple? I believe that he did. So if that is the case, why would he say that the man of sin would as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God"?

I believe that Paul knew that at that time, there were many temples built dedicated to many gods. He also had the task of identifying which building the man of sin would enter in and proclaim his godhood in. The Temple at his time, although the Holy Spirit had left it then, was indeed a temple that was dedicated to God. Whether it was actually holy or not was of no consequence. The prevailing idea was that the temple was the earthly representative of God's footstool, an idea that the modern-day Judism practicers still hold today.

I believe that the context of this passage is vital to understanding what Paul was saying here. The temple, even though it was not holy after Christ's death, represented a building that was didicated to the God of the Israelites, whom we believe in and serve today. In order for the man of sin to be revealed, he has to stand in a place that is dedicated to the God of Israel and proclaim himself to be God in order for us to see that he is truly the man of sin. Without a building, this event can not happen. (remember, Titus did not stand in the Holy of Holies and proclaim anything, let alone a status as a god). Therefore, a building has to be built, and didicated to God, in order for the man of sin to be revealed. Whether it is actually holy or not is inconsequential.I disagree. I don't believe Paul would refer to a temple that is not truly the temple of God as the temple of God. That would be rather confusing IMO. I see no reason to think that he was speaking of anything except what he himself would consider to be the temple of God and I don't believe that he would have called the physical temple standing at that time the temple of God. And I especially don't believe he would refer to a temple built in the far distant future as the temple of God. In other scripture he refers to individual believers and the church body as the temple of God.

third hero
Jan 6th 2009, 05:01 AM
I disagree. I don't believe Paul would refer to a temple that is not truly the temple of God as the temple of God. That would be rather confusing IMO. I see no reason to think that he was speaking of anything except what he himself would consider to be the temple of God and I don't believe that he would have called the physical temple standing at that time the temple of God. And I especially don't believe he would refer to a temple built in the far distant future as the temple of God. In other scripture he refers to individual believers and the church body as the temple of God.

You are seeing the word temple under one set of descriptions, the ones that make the human body the temple of God. That definition is only true under certain conditions. Before the Lord died on the cross, the Temple of God was indeed a building. There are more conditions in which the word temple is used, and even Paul used that term in differing conditions.

Paul understood that the man of sin can not stand in the heart of a man and proclaim himself to be God. That is physically, and spiritually impossible. Therefore, the only place that he could have been talking about would be the temple that was dedicated to God by the Israelites. There is no error in his part or confusion, unless you tend to think that every time the word Temple was used in scripture, it referred to the human heart.

markdrums
Jan 6th 2009, 05:07 AM
You are seeing the word temple under one set of descriptions, the ones that make the human body the temple of God. That definition is only true under certain conditions. Before the Lord died on the cross, the Temple of God was indeed a building. There are more conditions in which the word temple is used, and even Paul used that term in differing conditions.

Paul understood that the man of sin can not stand in the heart of a man and proclaim himself to be God. That is physically, and spiritually impossible. Therefore, the only place that he could have been talking about would be the temple that was dedicated to God by the Israelites. There is no error in his part or confusion, unless you tend to think that every time the word Temple was used in scripture, it referred to the human heart.


I highlighted an important piece of your post.
;)

Before, & after.....

If AFTER the crucifixion the temple is Jesus himself, and we are also the temples of the Holy Spirit......
Why would scripture infer that things will revert back to the "before" scenario?

That would be counter productive, to say the least.

KnowwhatImean?
:saint:

third hero
Jan 6th 2009, 06:46 PM
I highlighted an important piece of your post.
;)

Before, & after.....

If AFTER the crucifixion the temple is Jesus himself, and we are also the temples of the Holy Spirit......
Why would scripture infer that things will revert back to the "before" scenario?

That would be counter productive, to say the least.

KnowwhatImean?
:saint:

I am not trying to revert back to anything. Would it have been better if Paul would've said, "the man of sin will stand in the part of the temple that was dedicated to God, where the Holy of Holies used to be, and proclaim himself to be God"? This is what I am reading when I read this passage in 2 Thes 2:3-4. I am not seeing the Temple as holy, and I thought I made that point clear a few posts ago. I thought I called the Temple, "part of the Great Deception that blind Israelites still follow". I called it what Paul called it, because that is what the Judaists will call it. Will it be holy? Not in the least. I never said that it would be.

I have spoken to a boatload of Israelites that still practice Judaism. Their main goal is to have the "Temple of God" rebuilt. To them, it is holier than anything else on earth. It is their lives' mission. Their religion will be complete when it is built. It is part and parcel to the reason why they deny Lord Jesus as Messiah. The Temple, to them, is Holy. Is it to us? No. Are they going to build a temple to another god? In their minds, no. We know better, because the temple that they are laboring so hard to build will be used by the man of sin to proclaim his Godhood.

Now I know that some amils believe that the third temple will not be built, and you believe that there is no need for any temple. You cite that the Lord's temples are now our bodies, and that He does not reside in buildings. I agree with your evidence, but not your conclusion. This is what we need to make clear.

There is a reason why a temple needs to be built. The Lord's return depends on it. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 tells us that the time of the Lord's return can not happen until both the apostacy happens and the Man of Sin is revealed. Verse 4 tells us that he will proclaim himself to be God in the "Temple of God". Now I do not believe that the man of sin can be revealed in the heart of a man. I do not believe that a man can sit in the heart of a Believer, and proclaim himself to be God. Therefore, the temple that is mentioned here has to be a building. The Judaists worshipped God in "the Temple of God", much like we worship God in the church building. Does the Lord actually reside there in "the Temple of God"? Does the Lord reside there in a church building? If both of these answers are no, and they are, then it does not matter if a building is called "temple of God" or "church". It is called what it is called so that people can identify it. Paul's use of "temple of God" is an identifier that tells us where the man of sin will be revealed. The man of sin can not be revealed unless that building is in existence. Paul didn't say just any temple. It will not be a Mosque, or a Temple of Buddha, or any other temple but the one that the Israelites deemed Holy for about 3000 years. The "Temple of God", aka Solomon's Temple, aka "My Father's House" (Matthew 22) is the place in which the man of sin will proclaim his claim of godhood at.

In that respect, the temple is needed. It is not holy, just like the church building is not holy, for as you contend, the REAL Temple of God is the heart of the Believer. We know this, and no Christian will disagree, unless they do not know. (at which point we can show the scriptures telling them what the actual Temple truly is). I am hoping that I have hammered this point home, and so in conclusion, without the Temple in Jerusalem, the Lord can not return. Without the revealing of the man of sin, the Lord can not return. The temple is needed to both reveal the man of sin, and bring about the period of the Lord's return. I believe that some Christians see this, and that is why they are aiding the Judaists in attempting to build another temple. the sooner that is done, the sooner the man of sin is revealed, and we can get our reward as believers and be with Lord Jesus forever.

John146
Jan 6th 2009, 07:21 PM
You are seeing the word temple under one set of descriptions, the ones that make the human body the temple of God. That definition is only true under certain conditions.The temple of God also refers to the corporate body of believers, the church, in 2 Cor 6:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22.


Before the Lord died on the cross, the Temple of God was indeed a building. There are more conditions in which the word temple is used, and even Paul used that term in differing conditions.Paul never referred to the physical temple as the temple of God. 2nd Thessalonians, of course, was written after the Lord died on the cross.


Paul understood that the man of sin can not stand in the heart of a man and proclaim himself to be God. That is physically, and spiritually impossible.Again, the temple of God can also refer to the church in general. And, of course, we know that false teachers can work their way in among the church to deceive people like it talks about here:

Acts 20
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.


Therefore, the only place that he could have been talking about would be the temple that was dedicated to God by the Israelites.Again, I don't believe for a second that Paul would refer to such a temple as the temple of God since it would not truly be the temple of God. He gave no indication at all that he was only talking about a temple that the Israelites would think was the temple of God.


There is no error in his part or confusion, unless you tend to think that every time the word Temple was used in scripture, it referred to the human heart.No, but I believe every time the phrase "temple of God" is used it refers to a true temple of God, whether physical or spiritual, and not one that people only think is the temple of God.

third hero
Jan 6th 2009, 07:56 PM
The temple of God also refers to the corporate body of believers, the church, in 2 Cor 6:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22.

So, the man of sin is going to stand in the hearts of a company of believers to proclaim his godship.


Paul never referred to the physical temple as the temple of God. 2nd Thessalonians, of course, was written after the Lord died on the cross.

So again, when Paul states thatthe man of sin will stand in the Temple of God, he is saying that he, the man of sin, is going to stand in the heart of a man.


Again, the temple of God can also refer to the church in general. And, of course, we know that false teachers can work their way in among the church to deceive people like it talks about here:

Acts 20
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.

Is the church holy? Or is the believer in that church holy?


Again, I don't believe for a second that Paul would refer to such a temple as the temple of God since it would not truly be the temple of God. He gave no indication at all that he was only talking about a temple that the Israelites would think was the temple of God.

That is you opinion.


No, but I believe every time the phrase "temple of God" is used it refers to a true temple of God, whether physical or spiritual, and not one that people only think is the temple of God.

Not so, as 2 thessalonians 2:4 states. The fact that a physical being can not stand in s spiritual place to proclaim something is evience enough that Paul's mentioning of "temple of God" has some reference other than the soul of a human being. What about in the book of Acts, when the disciples were teaching Christ's fundamentals in front of the Temple? was that place the human heart also?

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, -Acts 2:46

Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, [being] the ninth [hour]. Acts 3:1

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; Acts 3:2

Do you see where I am going here? Acts, like 2 Thessalonians 2, was written after the Lord's death on the cross. And they called it, the temple.

napsnsnacks
Jan 7th 2009, 01:36 AM
Ok, heres what I gleaned from the conversation so far.

1. The Abomination of Desolation is a person/statue that animation (life) was given to, that somehow gained access to and occupied the holy of holies in the future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, claimed to be God and outraged the Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah but still know something is desperately evil with the "entity" occupying the holy of holies.

2. Since the advent of Pentecost the temple of the Holy Spirit is now the body and mind of the believer.

3. God will not go back to inhabit the holy of holies in any rebuilt temple so there is by definition no more holy of holies in any temple made with human hands.

4. This abomination of desolation may be in the minds and hearts of the masses of people who claim to be Christians but as time unfolds they really aren't what they say they are because the fruit the bear in public and private is neither holy or Christian.

So what now?

Does the church have it's own version of this:

REV 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

So for the purposes involved just replace Jews with "Christians," "Church" for synagogue and switch "Satan" for "hypocrisy."

napsnsnacks
Jan 7th 2009, 08:38 PM
..................Anyone?

third hero
Jan 9th 2009, 05:52 PM
I do not believe that the abomination that causes desolation will be found in the hearts of the "believers who are not believers".

I believe that the abomination that causes desolation has to happen in a building in a city, or else it can not cause any sort of desolation. It is called this because when the abomination happens, it will cause Jerusalem to be uninhabited for a time, as the Beast will send in his armies and attempt to wipe out Israel from existence. (Think holocaust without the 8 year timeline).

It can not happen if only the abomination happens in the hearts of wanna-be Christians.