|
|
Post by venge on Aug 29, 2020 9:23:00 GMT -6
So I DO NOT believe, nor did I intend to say that the Spirit-filled Christian is vulnerable to the Apostacy or could become a son of perdition. No. scripture does not suggest this. However, we do not know the heart of a person, and in whom they are truly resting their faith. This has been my point.
But...
It says the son of perdition sits in the Temple. If followers of Christ are the Temple of God and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, then it does seem to say that the son of perdition is in followers of Christ (spirit-filled Christian as you put it).
The only other choice is if the Temple does not mean the Body of Christ but something else.
This is what I am trying to understand for those that say it's not a physical temple or a physical man.
Yes, I believe you receive and are sealed with the Holy Spirit at the moment of your salvation (conversion - whatever name you want to give it)
Eph 1:13 when you believed on Him, you are sealed with the Holy Spirit (also Eph 4:30)
Romans 8:9 believers have the Spirit in them (also Romans 8:11)
2 Cor 1:21-22 seals us and gives us the Spirit in our hearts
2 Cor 5:5 we are given the Spirit as a guarantee , First, I want to thank you. Because you are taking an honest look at this rather then dismissing it. Not that you agree, but you're being open minded. I appreciate that; even if you hold another view. That is something we all (myself included) can learn from. With myself on the topic, I believe in a real life single man of sin because for me, he is the false prophet. I know you are already aware I do not believe a physical temple is needed to fulfil this prophecy. But, I wanted to respond to your open question above (highlighted in red). I came to my conclusion because of many Old Testament passages about this same matter. I wish I was a better writer explaining how I came to understand it. Some may ask, if you think the man is physical, why isnt the temple...you cannot take 1 part physical and the other spiritual. I agree. But with this verse, I take the first part the action of the man of sin and this action is what makes causes him to do the second part. Thus, making the second part not literal but how God may see things. I have always said it is based on a prideful heart. Why do I mention the church then being the temple? Because all throughout the NT text, the Church is called the temple. Paul says that over and over and never once does he mention a new physical temple. When we reach this verse, some assume it because of the word "sit", which is really stand up in or place or various other meanings. To literally sit in the temple would be to be placed in the Holy of Holies and be on the mercy seat of the ark. You could build a temple, but without the ark - there is no seat. Even if it were found, that would not change the Christian perspective that we believers are the temple. So to answer your question, have you looked at some of the commentaries in Biblehub? Each has their own idea of this and they are all interesting. Please read it and don't consider it a wall of text. I think it will answer your question. Ellicott says: Ellicott views the temple as the Holy of Holies and not a literal sitting in the temple. He views it poetical/prophectical in description as do I. Barnes is alittle different: He believe the temple is the Church and explains how sitting in it means to him. I am unsure if the man of sin sits in the Church. I am not opposed to it, and still hold it a possibility. Matthew Poole: Gill says: None of these commentators believe in a literal sitting, that is why I posted them for others to understand these positions. Augustine of Hippo, an early church father, says this: When I read the text, His lifting himself above God is the main focus in the underlined above. It is what causes his downfall. His prideful heart places himself as ruler of all, that is loved and admired by all. That is only for God alone. So that he is acting as if he takes the the place of Christ, who sits at the right hand of God and who was between the cherubim on the mercy seat. I see the second part as how God might see it. Someone who thinks they can take my place (God) in their hearts of others. Perhaps I said this before but I am trying to better explain my position. Perhaps I did not. In the end of things, I only ask of Natalie , disciple4life , stormyknight , and anyone else that sees a literal temple and in the end, will not be convinced otherwise. I just ask that even if you look for a literal one, keep your eye open for the other, if the literal doesn't happen. My point was always to arm brothers and sisters in Christ to possibility they might not have previously thought. |
|
|
|
Post by disciple4life on Aug 29, 2020 10:01:57 GMT -6
So I DO NOT believe, nor did I intend to say that the Spirit-filled Christian is vulnerable to the Apostacy or could become a son of perdition. No. scripture does not suggest this. However, we do not know the heart of a person, and in whom they are truly resting their faith. This has been my point.
But...
It says the son of perdition sits in the Temple. If followers of Christ are the Temple of God and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, then it does seem to say that the son of perdition is in followers of Christ (spirit-filled Christian as you put it).
The only other choice is if the Temple does not mean the Body of Christ but something else.
This is what I am trying to understand for those that say it's not a physical temple or a physical man.
It seems that there is a lot of speculation and imagining what the text may mean to us, and a lot of ignoring what the text actually says. Another thing missing is cross-referencing, and having scripture interpret scripture.
Yes, I believe you receive and are sealed with the Holy Spirit at the moment of your salvation (conversion - whatever name you want to give it)
Eph 1:13 when you believed on Him, you are sealed with the Holy Spirit (also Eph 4:30)
Romans 8:9 believers have the Spirit in them (also Romans 8:11)
2 Cor 1:21-22 seals us and gives us the Spirit in our hearts
2 Cor 5:5 we are given the Spirit as a guarantee
You are 100% correct, Natalie , Your post further underscores the importance for a solid standard of Bible interpretation. The Text can never mean what it never said. - If the text seems to make literal sense, seek no other sense or it will be nonsense." - Before we can ask the question, "What does this passage mean to me, in my culture," we have to ask "What did the text mean to them, in their culture". 1. First off, we know that the Temple is not unholy, as some suggest, - the text explicitly says God's Temple. 2. Could this be our hearts?? Categorically not. Why? Because the text says that the Man of Lawlessness, Son of Perdition stands in the temple. It's a visible, physical act, and something that is an abomination - like sacrificing a pig, or making a statue of himself. [Due to the radical egotism/ demand that all the world worship him, - it will most likely be telecast around the world anyway] This is taking what the text plainly says, and making it mean something that it doesn't say. 3. You can't take epistles and randomly decide that part of a text is symbolic -- this is eisegesis - reading something into the text that is not there. -[ie, that the temple is evil/ unholy, and that the temple is symbolic, when all the instruments and the red heifer is literal/actual. 4. The assumption that this is a symbol of a man exalting himself above God -as pride, - condition of the heart is utterly and completely false - because this is not symbolic literature - it was written as letters of doctrine to real people at the time, and we can't see/ witness what's in a person's heart. Furthermore, one Christian sees rioting and looting and burning stores as mostly peaceful protests, and another sees it for what it is - evil, violence and hatred. People "see" /understand even real events as very different. Look at Covid, - mask mandate, "national change shortage" and RFID chip, for the greater common good. 5. Is the temple necessary?? Yes,and No. Do we need a 3rd temple to have our sins forgiven- No, but does God see it at necessary - Yes. Despite the fact that most ignore the fact that scripture explicitly says we will have a physical temple. Hmmmm.  Does this change the fact that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. ?? Not in the least. Just because we [Read Gentiles] don't need a 3rd temple for forgiveness of sins, doesn't mean God doesn't have another purpose. If the Temple were not necessary or unholy, then God wouldn't have a Temple for Christians in the Millennium. Is the 3rd Temple, - the same as the one in the Millennium? No! The Third temple [which they have the architectural plans and red heifer is referred to as the Tribulation Temple] and the 4th Temple is the Millennial Temple. The Millennial Temple will require some major geographical changes. Excellent articles for reference - and they also highlight the errors of people who interpret these as symbolic. israelmyglory.org/article/the-tribulation-and-millennial-temples/www.growingchristians.org/devotions/two-future-temples/#gsc.tab=0 |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Aug 29, 2020 11:49:16 GMT -6
venge , thanks for your post and for your explanation. I think I see where you are coming from, or at least I am starting to, even though I still hold a literal interpretation for both the man and the temple. A literal man and figurative temple is easier for me to understand then figurative of both. Some of those commentaries I understand and some are going to take a little more consideration and focus.  Barnes for example (as easy to understand) - I can see how the man of sin is very much like the False Prophet when you consider a passage like Rev 13:13-15. This gives me some new things to think about. I would think though that then he would be sitting in a false church and not the real one. So Paul should have used the word "church" instead of the phrase "temple of God". (But you said you don't see it the same way as Barnes, so you don't have to defend his position ) I still don't see how they are so sure that Paul did not mean it literally. I see nothing Paul says to indicate that it should be taken figuratively/poetically. Any other time Paul uses "temple of God" he adds something like "you are that temple". It's clear in those passages that it is a metaphor. He doesn't do that in 2 Thes 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 30, 2020 6:54:55 GMT -6
venge , thanks for your post and for your explanation. I think I see where you are coming from, or at least I am starting to, even though I still hold a literal interpretation for both the man and the temple. A literal man and figurative temple is easier for me to understand then figurative of both. Some of those commentaries I understand and some are going to take a little more consideration and focus. Barnes for example (as easy to understand) - I can see how the man of sin is very much like the False Prophet when you consider a passage like Rev 13:13-15. This gives me some new things to think about. I would think though that then he would be sitting in a false church and not the real one. So Paul should have used the word "church" instead of the phrase "temple of God". (But you said you don't see it the same way as Barnes, so you don't have to defend his position ) I still don't see how they are so sure that Paul did not mean it literally. I see nothing Paul says to indicate that it should be taken figuratively/poetically. Any other time Paul uses "temple of God" he adds something like "you are that temple". It's clear in those passages that it is a metaphor. He doesn't do that in 2 Thes 2. , Well, I said I still hold it (Barnes commentary) as a possibility. I don't discount it and I can see some rational for it over a physical temple. In his account, I had previously thought of how a man would "take God's seat" in the Church. That is what he is doing when he "sits in the temple". Not the temple itself, but the innermost chamber on the mercy seat. So I looked at it today. I used America as inspiration. Can a man of sin, full of himself, his ego, slander, lies, be welcomed in Church communities. We do have Trump. I am not saying he's the AC. I'm using this as an example. The Church in whole has elected this bramble bush to reign over us. Though he has policies that seem to "help Christians", he also has policies that are completely against God imho. He is a man not of the Church and is in many ways leading the Church or at least speaks for some Churches and that is sad. Now, I said this is an example... I can see how a man of sin can enter the body of Christ and how a man can lead them away from Christ. Not in name or the focus of Christ per se, but perhaps lead them towards what the man of sin wants which is fleshly and not heavenly. Putting the Church on a pedestal perhaps and even himself all the while everything he touts is a stumbling block for others if they are not careful. Does the man of sin work for the Church's of the world to craft policies for them? Do these policies, though they seem rightful...are they loving to all groups...even when they are in sin...? I don't know if this is the true meaning, but I can see how it might go down if it was to take the seat of Christ as the one who does everything for the church perhaps. Not actually sitting on the ark and mercy seat in a rebuilt temple, just the idea that taking God's seat means what it is...he is, in a way, usurping control of what should be God's (glory, honor, his sheep, his laws etc) and always will be regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by disciple4life on Aug 30, 2020 8:13:51 GMT -6
A person could use any leader- Trump, Macron, Biden, Josh McDowell, or Putin, etc etc but it still doesn't answer any of the questions by Mike, Natalie or myself. What is the hermeneutical basis to take an epistle that is a real letter to real believers in a real church and assume it's symbolic, when the context and genre is otherwise?? The huge problem with taking a passage and making it symbolic [insert American famous person] is it only creates more holes. How do Christians in Europe or Africa or India, who neither understand American politics nor care, nor speak English determine when said person - Joel Olsteen/ takes his place above God in the American Pentecostal/Lutheran/ Baptist church.?? The other conundrum is that a person who says the 3rd temple is symbolic- what about the 4th temple. [Millennial temple]. Scripture is clear that we will have sacrifices. So then we have actual/literal sacrifices but in an imaginary temple.  It is a very slippery slope, when one arbitrarily makes the text mean what it doesn't say, how can we be sure that anything Paul said was literal? Maybe the passage about fornication was really just symbolic for people who aren't committed- spiritual adultery, and who determines? A better scenario is Occams Razor - the most plain, straightforward solution is usually the correct one - and "when a passage seems to make literal sense, we seek no other sense, or it becomes nonsense." I can't convince anyone against their will but I like to choose the bridge with the fewest broken and missing planks. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Aug 30, 2020 12:34:06 GMT -6
Here's the other places Paul uses Temple of God (or God's Temple in some translations) I am using NKJV here because it uses "Temple of God"
clearly a metaphor - a person cannot be a physical building yet God can dwell in that person
again the metaphor
according to Blue Letter Bible, these two and 2 Thes 2:4 are the only times Paul uses the phrase "Temple of God". Most of the time when Paul is speaking of the church he uses the word "church". He doesn't refer to the church as the Temple of God except in the two passages above when he's exhorting the believers to live holy lives. Of the other references to Temple of God in the NT, three refer to physical buildings and one to God's temple in heaven. So, it seems to me that when it's a metaphor then it's clear in the text.
ETA: when Paul uses the phrase Temple of God and tells believers they are that temple, in context, it seems also that he is speaking to individuals not a corporate church. Therefore, if he is also using this phrase in 2 Thes wouldn't he use it in the same way? Which would seem to say that the man of lawlessness would be sitting in each believer. The other options seem to be that Paul means the physical temple in Jerusalem or he is using a third meaning which he doesn't explain to his audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Aug 30, 2020 12:47:08 GMT -6
disciple4life, Here's something I was thinking about ...the playing out of end times things focuses on a tiny piece of land and a small group of people. God is going to finish what He started with Israel. What would the revealing of a false teacher/prophet in the Christian Church mean to the Jews? Nothing. Unless the prophet has managed to combine Judaism and Christianity somehow. (After all, we are all God's children right? the faith of Abraham?) Then maybe he could be symbolically sitting in the church and physically sitting in the Temple to take God's place in both. But then we are back to showing that Paul is speaking of a physical temple.
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 30, 2020 19:43:09 GMT -6
A person could use any leader- Trump, Macron, Biden, Josh McDowell, or Putin, etc etc but it still doesn't answer any of the questions by Mike, Natalie or myself. What is the hermeneutical basis to take an epistle that is a real letter to real believers in a real church and assume it's symbolic, when the context and genre is otherwise?? The huge problem with taking a passage and making it symbolic [insert American famous person] is it only creates more holes. How do Christians in Europe or Africa or India, who neither understand American politics nor care, nor speak English determine when said person - Joel Olsteen/ takes his place above God in the American Pentecostal/Lutheran/ Baptist church.?? The other conundrum is that a person who says the 3rd temple is symbolic- what about the 4th temple. [Millennial temple]. Scripture is clear that we will have sacrifices. So then we have actual/literal sacrifices but in an imaginary temple. It is a very slippery slope, when one arbitrarily makes the text mean what it doesn't say, how can we be sure that anything Paul said was literal? Maybe the passage about fornication was really just symbolic for people who aren't committed- spiritual adultery, and who determines? A better scenario is Occams Razor - the most plain, straightforward solution is usually the correct one - and "when a passage seems to make literal sense, we seek no other sense, or it becomes nonsense." I can't convince anyone against their will but I like to choose the bridge with the fewest broken and missing planks. Who said it was symbolic? Neither I or any of the commentators that I posted. At least I don’t remember them saying that. There are enough people that believe, as some known commentators do, that it isn’t literal. The discussion on that is why we are here. We know the reason behind a literal temple so that point is moot. The question is, are we understanding Paul’s words correctly. And that takes research, prayer and guidance by the Holy Spirit. For one, if Paul meant a literal Holy place, you don’t need a temple. Only the Sanctuary w/the ark. But here’s an issue with that for me..if the Jews build the sanctuary..what makes it Holy? They are enemies for the gospel sake. They are blind and deaf to the truth. God left their house desolate. What makes brick and mortar Holy? Because they say it is or does God need to say it, command it to be built or manifest within it as in old times? Because he won’t do that, how is it Holy? Crafting a structure and calling it Holy doesn’t make it Holy. Neither does it have any special relationship with God. For that matter, creation of it once again denies Christ and just refocuses those back to servitude under the law. Why would Christ think to make it Holy? So a man entering that sanctuary is the same as entering a bathroom. Unless it’s Holy to God, it’s another room and has no bearing. So I’m asking questions about each too. Though we both pick a side, I don’t stop asking questions about the other. I may have an opinion, but I’m searching for truth...not the opinion on currently settled on. So I am always thinking rationals for each. Scripture is such that it’s only truth and doesn’t leave room for error. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Aug 30, 2020 20:08:40 GMT -6
Venge - could man call something Holy but yet it's not?
As D4L pointed out, Jesus Himself referred to the Temple as His Father's house? Was God actually residing there at the time?
Could the Jews build a temple, call it the Holy place (or Temple of God), yet have it be in name only?
What was the Temple called at the time Paul was writing his letter?
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Aug 30, 2020 20:39:58 GMT -6
sorry, one more post for me then I will have to probably take a break for a bit...I've got a couple of busy days and won't be on as much. I thought occurred to me, and so I did some googling. Ellicott lived 1819-1905 Barnes lived 1798-1870 Poole 1624-1679 Gill 1697 -1771 Augustine 354-430 None of these guys saw a nation of Israel. Although Ellicott would have seen the meeting of the First Zionist Congress. I do not know what they believed, but I do know that a lot of Christians thought God was done with Israel. Some thought that the Church had replaced Israel. There would be no more nation of Israel. Would that have affected their interpretation of Scripture. No doubt.
No Israel, no temple, no need for one either. It would have been by metaphor.
ETA: found this quote from Irenaeus, in the late second century "But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” He was also writing at the time of no nation of Israel and no temple. |
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 31, 2020 6:59:56 GMT -6
Venge - could man call something Holy but yet it's not? As D4L pointed out, Jesus Himself referred to the Temple as His Father's house? Was God actually residing there at the time? Could the Jews build a temple, call it the Holy place (or Temple of God), yet have it be in name only? What was the Temple called at the time Paul was writing his letter? -Yes, man could call something Holy and it not be so. -I don't know if God was residing there at that time. I would have to research it for a definitive answer. -Yes, the Jews could build a temple and call it Holy. To them it may be more than in name...but does that mean the same to Christ? -I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you referring to the naos? If so, that is the inner room: one consisting of the Holy of Holies The Holy place always exists regardless if a temple is built or not. I don't think a new temple's Holy place takes the place of a more perfect one by Christ. So if it were constructed, the Jews would want to follow it under the servitude of the law and not grace. I suppose anything God makes Holy can stay Holy unless God says otherwise. But does God request a new one to be built thereby making it Holy, or is this the inclination of man thereby not necessarily making it Holy. The last temple was approved by God to be built. So in that matter, his Father's house was supposed to be Holy. The people are what causes the issue. If Christ makes a better sanctuary, whether the Jews believe it or know of it...I don't think that means they ought to return to a destroyed one by God and rebuild it to return as a dog to its vomit (the problems associated in it that they did, not the temple itself). It becomes a stumbling block that they will glorify more then the creator. Is there any time in the NT that Christ/God says that he will want/need/or have another temple built? I havent found one and I looked all over the internet too. It doesnt exist, so this poses a problem imo. That doesnt mean I am right, it means we need to figure out why Paul said this to his hearers. They understood the sanctuary as the Holy place. They knew God resided in it. They also knew that God didnt reside in a temple made by hands and he dwells within the body of Christ. As you pointed out, those things were explained to them in detail but when we get to prophecy in 2 Thess 2:4, it isnt explained as such. Is it because it is different? If it is, its the only time Paul does that. Otherwise, why would he tell his listeners that the man of sin will sit on the mercy seat? Wouldnt one of them ask? Wasnt it taken to Babylon or destroyed or lost? He doesnt mention that knowing the ark is gone. So his true meaning couldnt be a lost wooden box or an empty room in the back of the temple. That also doesnt mean it has to be within us either. I suppose more searching is needed... |
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 31, 2020 7:09:24 GMT -6
sorry, one more post for me then I will have to probably take a break for a bit...I've got a couple of busy days and won't be on as much. I thought occurred to me, and so I did some googling. Ellicott lived 1819-1905 Barnes lived 1798-1870 Poole 1624-1679 Gill 1697 -1771 Augustine 354-430 None of these guys saw a nation of Israel. Although Ellicott would have seen the meeting of the First Zionist Congress. I do not know what they believed, but I do know that a lot of Christians thought God was done with Israel. Some thought that the Church had replaced Israel. There would be no more nation of Israel. Would that have affected their interpretation of Scripture. No doubt.
No Israel, no temple, no need for one either. It would have been by metaphor.
ETA: found this quote from Irenaeus, in the late second century "But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” He was also writing at the time of no nation of Israel and no temple. I agree. But seeing Israel could also affect ones judgment. If they were to see it, they may have said it is a literal temple and depart from their writings; But them not seeing it and reading their commentaries provides insight. I have been looking to see if other commentators offer other explanations on this verse. The dates or birth don't effect me as much as if they were men of God. The Holy Spirit and study will guide a man to the truth regardless of what age they are born in. So I am open to any year of birth. |
|
|
|
Post by disciple4life on Aug 31, 2020 9:46:13 GMT -6
- Venge said, "Is there any time in the NT that Christ/God says that he will want/need/or have another temple built?" It's in scripture, it's in Zechariah, which is scripture. It seems that you don't accept passages from the OT, or maybe just in this case? I'm confused. Do you also think that the Millennial Temple is symbolic, and that all nations, all people groups coming to celebrate Feast of Booths is symbolic?? Not a trick question, - just an honest, straight forward one. This goes back to the point earlier about cross-referencing, and interpreting scripture with scripture. We use Daniel to interpret Revelation. Prophecy is the biggest doctrine in all the Bible, and it is cross-referenced and confirmed all through the Bible - Joel, Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Psalms, Amos, - in fact most of the scriptures relating to prophecy are in the OT. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 New American Standard Bible 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
- Venge said "As you pointed out, those things were explained to them in detail but when we get to prophecy in 2 Thess 2:4, it isnt explained as such. Is it because it is different? If it is, its the only time Paul does that. Otherwise, why would he tell his listeners that the man of sin will sit on the mercy seat?"
Neither Paul nor anyone said that the man of sin will sit on the mercy seat.
That is eisegesis - reading something into the text that it not there. Here's the passage - Matthew 24:15[ Perilous Times ] “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).
- Venge said "Who said it was symbolic? Neither I or any of the commentators that I posted. At least I don’t remember them saying that. There are enough people that believe, as some known commentators do, that it isn’t literal. The discussion on that is why we are here.
"
The main focus of the discussion is regarding a literal/physical 3rd temple, and you have been making points as to why it's not literal/symbolic, and mike mike , Natalie, and myself have asked questions that you have not answered. I don't pretend to speak for any of them, but it seems clear from multiple posts that's why you said that it's symbolic/not literal/we are the temple/ etc. etc. Do you now mean that you do believe the 3rd temple is literal/actual, and the Man of Lawlessness is literal/actual? On the other thread, "What is the 3rd temple" where the same topic was also discussed, I said that I wouldn't comment on that one any more -so people would be free to have dialogue about a symbolic/non-literal 3rd temple. - Venge said, "The Holy place always exists regardless if a temple is built or not."
This is an assumption, but it doesn't say this anywhere. The Holy Place is a distinct phrase for a distinct physical inner part of the physical Temple, where only the priests could go. It's a set phrase and it is used more than 50 times through out the Old and New Testament, and has a very clear and specific meaning. You seem to be conflating this established set phrase with the Temple in general, and by extension, we. Let's be honest - if @thenewguy comes on here and pontificates about amazing research that reveals that "the Holy Place" is actually the tomb where Christ was buried, or "the baptistry in a Southern Baptist church only" - venge and mike , Natalie , stormyknight , kjs , @gary, bernie , yardstick , Beloved , nana , boraddict and a dozen more sheepdogs would be on him like Saran wrap on a hot biscuit, saying, "Uhhm, hey, just a minute, @thenewguy - welcome to the forum, ... but what on earth makes you say that?? You would ask for other evidence from scripture, and likely others would ask him about other sources from History or the Midrash, or commentaries, but the point being, it's an established phrase for 4000 years or so, and it has established meaning. It's not Applebees, or the Baptistry in a Southern Baptist church only, or the Tomb of Christ, or the Temple. Scripture can never mean what it never said. Again - we have to ask what did the phrase "The Holy Place" [not Temple] mean to the 1st Century Jewish audience? We are back at Occam's Razor. There is no reason to take a passage that is not poetry, not allegory, and twist it to make it symbolic/ not literal.  
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 31, 2020 16:39:51 GMT -6
D4L, I cannot have a conversation with you on this subject because you’re not open to it. You see one way and only one way. I will continue to look for truth. BTW, we don’t need a degree in divinity to understand God’s word. I happily will discuss with @natalie, mike and others even if they disagree with me as long as they are open to discussion |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Aug 31, 2020 17:25:25 GMT -6
Here is some reading for you venge . (I'd still like an answer as to how you know that Paul is not being literal. Or maybe how his audience would know he wasn't being literal because the Temple of God was still standing when he wrote to them.)
I found some comments by various people throughout history. There is a variety of interpretations. I agree with you that when they lived doesn't matter except that I know life circumstances can influence how we interpret things. For example, “If, as it seemed clear to the Reformers, the papacy was the Man of Sin, and St. Peter’s was the 'temple' in which he usurped the place and prerogatives of Christ, then, this premise established, all the other conclusions connected with their scheme of prophetic interpretation must logically follow. To establish the premise was the first thing to be done, and once the theory became a settled conviction it was no difficult thing to find scriptures which appeared to confirm their view. “ (A. W. Pink, The Antichrist, page 8)
Some of the following see it as a literal temple and some even thought it was to take place during their lifetime. One even points his finger at Rome. They all thought they were right, but obviously that can't be.
Iraneaus, an early church father (studied under Polycarp who had studied under John) (lived ~ 130 to 202) (in his Against Heresies Book V, chapter 30) Gregory of Tours, who wrote at the end of the sixth century A.D.:—
A. W. Pink (The Antichrist)
A. R. FAUSSET (found on Blue Letter Bible) (published 1871 before the current state of Israel was re-established) Warren Wiersbe (modern day) (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary pg 736-737)- Weirsbe also further comments that this worship is the apostasy.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary (modern day) (Walvoord and Zuck pg 718) This commentary also leans toward the apostasy being the worship of Antichrist.
John Macarthur (in his study Bible) Chuck Smith - (also found on Blue Letter Bible) Some of the early church fathers thought the falling away was happening during their lifetime:
from Cyril of Jerusalem (ca 313-386) after quoting 2 Thes 2:3-10 – Jerome also thought it was in his day as there was a statue of Hadrian where the temple had been: John Chrysostom (ca A.D. 347-407) Sees it as the temple and churches
Mathew Henry saw the Antichrist as the bishops of Rome (his commentary is on Blue Letter Bible) - |
|
