Wars and Rumors of Wars

[dwight92070]

LOL!

EZEKIEL 37 about the TWO STICKS!

And many... Scriptures in the Book of Isaiah, and others of God's prophets, like Ezekiel 47 & 48!

Even the Ezekiel 36 Chapter God is declaring His FUTURE GATHERING of the tribes of Israel back to the holy lands He promised their fathers. And He was speaking that to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL especially, which at that point in Ezekiel's time means ONLY the ten northern tribes of LOST ISRAELITES. This means you cannot simply claim He was speaking about the TINY GROUP of Jews that returned in 1948 that started today's nation called Israel.

Ezekiel 37:1-8 God was bringing them back physically to their homeland from Babylon, but it says even then that "there was no breath in them". They were still dead spiritually. Verses 9-14 So God told Ezekiel to prophesy to the Holy Spirit to come and bring spiritual life into them. This happened on the Day of Pentecost, as they acknowledged Jesus as their king (David in verse 24, was a type of the Messiah) Verses 15-28 Now in Christ Jews from Judah, the southern kingdom, and Jews from Ephraim, the northern kingdom, become "one stick", united as one body. The new covenant, called an everlasting covenant, is in verse 26. The first covenant was not everlasting, but the new covenant is. Then He would set His sanctuary in their midst, which is the body of Christ. Don't you know that we, both Jew and Gentile, are the temple of the Holy Spirit? He will dwell with us, again Jew and Gentile. Jesus said, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make Our abode with him." John 14:23
So this is not a prophecy of the end times, but of their return to their homeland, and subsequent acceptance of their Messiah at His first coming. Unfortunately, most of the Jews in Jesus' day rejected Him.
Also the new covenant was first given ONLY to the house of Israel, but later God spoke to Peter in a vision in Acts 10, about opening up the gospel to ALL men, i.e. the Gentiles as well, the spiritual Israel, or the true Israel of God. Of course Paul was called as an apostle primarily TO the Gentiles.

Ezekiel 47-48 are the tail end of a description of a temple (starting in chapter 40), which was NEVER built. God told Ezekiel that this temple would be built ONLY IF WHEN THEY SEE THE PLANS FOR IT, THEY MAY BE ASHAMED OF THEIR INIQUITIES AND REPENT. In other words, there was a condition to be met, before God would allow them to build this particular temple. This temple was never built because obviously, they did not repent.
Again, this is not a prophecy of the end times. It's a description of a temple that never was.

There's no prophecy that promises that Israel will return to its land in the end times. If you know of one, please identify it.

 

[Rockson]

Ezekiel 37:1-8 God was bringing them back physically to their homeland from Babylon, but it says even then that "there was no breath in them". They were still dead spiritually. Verses 9-14 So God told Ezekiel to prophesy to the Holy Spirit to come and bring spiritual life into them. This happened on the Day of Pentecost, as they acknowledged Jesus as their king (David in verse 24, was a type of the Messiah) Verses 15-28 Now in Christ Jews from Judah, the southern kingdom, and Jews from Ephraim, the northern kingdom, become "one stick", united as one body. The new covenant, called an everlasting covenant, is in verse 26. The first covenant was not everlasting, but the new covenant is. Then He would set His sanctuary in their midst, which is the body of Christ. Don't you know that we, both Jew and Gentile, are the temple of the Holy Spirit? He will dwell with us, again Jew and Gentile. Jesus said, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make Our abode with him." John 14:23
So this is not a prophecy of the end times, but of their return to their homeland, and subsequent acceptance of their Messiah at His first coming. Unfortunately, most of the Jews in Jesus' day rejected Him.
Also the new covenant was first given ONLY to the house of Israel, but later God spoke to Peter in a vision in Acts 10, about opening up the gospel to ALL men, i.e. the Gentiles as well, the spiritual Israel, or the true Israel of God. Of course Paul was called as an apostle primarily TO the Gentiles.

Ezekiel 47-48 are the tail end of a description of a temple (starting in chapter 40), which was NEVER built. God told Ezekiel that this temple would be built ONLY IF WHEN THEY SEE THE PLANS FOR IT, THEY MAY BE ASHAMED OF THEIR INIQUITIES AND REPENT. In other words, there was a condition to be met, before God would allow them to build this particular temple. This temple was never built because obviously, they did not repent.
Again, this is not a prophecy of the end times. It's a description of a temple that never was.

There's no prophecy that promises that Israel will return to its land in the end times. If you know of one, please identify it.

So I'm truly seeking to review what I think about this subject. So what would you say about the 1 Thess 2 : 1,4 down below? I just see no credible way to accept "our gathering together unto him" doesn't mean the rapture.

Now 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. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who 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.

 

[dwight92070]

So I'm truly seeking to review what I think about this subject. So what would you say about the 1 Thess 2 : 1,4 down below? I just see no credible way to accept "our gathering together unto him" doesn't mean the rapture.

Now 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. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who 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.

Obviously you meant 2 Thess., not 1 Thess. It is my understanding that from the early church on, most believed that the Papacy of the Roman Catholic church was the man of lawlessness - probably with the exception of Catholics themselves. and the one who restrains him was the Roman Emperor. As long as Rome ruled, the Papacy had power, but still had to submit to Rome. When Rome fell, apparently the Papacy was growing in power. Rome did not fall, apparently, in a single day, but over a long period of time. Some say 476 A.D. was a major turning point, when a Roman emperor was defeated.
Many popes claimed to be God Himself, and welcomed worship. Immense persecution of the true body of Christ was increasing. In fact, between 500 A.D. and 1500 A.D., the Roman Catholic church slaughtered and killed over 50 million believers! Truly popes responsible for such horrific murders and torture could rightfully be called men "of lawlessness".
This appears to be the belief of this chapter for most of the history of the church, and I can see why. However, a Jesuit priest, Franciso Ribera, invented the idea that the man of lawlessness was an end time individual called the Anti-Christ. Obviously, he was trying to take the blame off of the Catholic church. Little did he know how popular his made-up interpretation would become, even today.


"The Roman Catholic Church had Jesuit Priest Francisco Ribera, a brilliant man with a doctorate in theology, write a 500 page commentary with an opposing view, where he manipulated prophecies in the books of Daniel and Revelation, to create an end-time 7-year tribulation antichrist.

"Ribera applied all of Revelation to the end time rather than to the history of the church.

"His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time; instead of a beast, which the Bibles says is a powerful kingdom (the Roman Catholic Church).

"He said that the Antichrist would be an infidel from outside the church of God; instead of someone who presents himself as Christ (the Pope, who calls himself the Vicar of Christ).

"He said that the Antichrist would make a 7-year peace agreement with the Jews.

"The most important passage that they manipulated is the 70 Weeks of Daniel prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27.

"They applied the 70th week of Daniel to an end times Antichrist, replacing the 7-year period of Jesus new covenant being offered to the house of Israel from 27-34 A.D.

"These may be the four most important prophecy verses in all of the Bible, because of the end times deceptions that are based on them.

"To read a Bible study that proves that the covenant of the 70th week of Daniel was from Jesus Christ, not an end time Antichrist, click on 70 Weeks Of Daniel Covenant Deception

"This idea, called Futurism, deferred accusations away from the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy, so Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist."



I agree with you that 2 Thessalonians 2:1 does refer to the rapture, which I believe happens within seconds or minutes after Christ returns. But Paul said that these other things had to happen first, even though Paul did not know how much time would elapse before the 2nd coming/rapture.

I almost forgot: in verse 3 where the man of lawlessness "takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God".
What does this mean? Well, whenever Paul spoke of God's temple, he was ALWAYS REFERRING TO THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE TRUE CHURCH, NOT a PHYSICAL TEMPLE. So many popes, granted not all, presented themselves to the church as God Himself, worthy of worship.

Of course we still have the Roman Catholic Church today, which seems relatively harmless. That could change, but it really wouldn't change anything about the awful history of that church, in killing multiplied millions of true believers. As far as I know, no pope has ever admitted this horrendous history, much less cried out for forgiveness for what their church did. So the "man of lawlessness" label still seems to apply to the Papacy as a whole. Just like we should never forget the Holocaust, so we should never forget this great evil.

 

[Rockson]

It is my understanding that from the early church on, most believed that the Papacy of the Roman Catholic church was the man of lawlessness - probably with the exception of Catholics themselves. and the one who restrains him was the Roman Emperor. As long as Rome ruled, the Papacy had power, but still had to submit to Rome. When Rome fell, apparently the Papacy was growing in power. Rome did not fall, apparently, in a single day, but over a long period of time.

First thanks for your post. You put some time to answer. Ok about the above....sure an early church time probably did look to Popes as the lawless one, or ones plural. Every generation is prone to look about them to look for end times sign posts.

Some say 476 A.D. was a major turning point, when a Roman emperor was defeated.
Many popes claimed to be God Himself, and welcomed worship. Immense persecution of the true body of Christ was increasing. In fact, between 500 A.D. and 1500 A.D., the Roman Catholic church slaughtered and killed over 50 million believers! Truly popes responsible for such horrific murders and torture could rightfully be called men "of lawlessness".
This appears to be the belief of this chapter for most of the history of the church, and I can see why. However, a Jesuit priest, Franciso Ribera, invented the idea that the man of lawlessness was an end time individual called the Anti-Christ. Obviously, he was trying to take the blame off of the Catholic church. Little did he know how popular his made-up interpretation would become, even today.

Perhaps though the shifting of who the antichrist might be normally does change even without this Fransico Ribera developing his belief

"The Roman Catholic Church had Jesuit Priest Francisco Ribera, a brilliant man with a doctorate in theology, write a 500 page commentary with an opposing view, where he manipulated prophecies in the books of Daniel and Revelation, to create an end-time 7-year tribulation antichrist.

Innumerable number of Bible teachers has went over various verses as well. Darby, and well known dispensationalist as well, I wouldn't think it could be said they aren't thinking with their own minds. Their assessments may still be incorrect but I wouldn't say the were following a one man's opinion. (Francisco Ribera)


(

"Ribera applied all of Revelation to the end time rather than to the history of the church.

"His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time; instead of a beast, which the Bibles says is a powerful kingdom (the Roman Catholic Church).

So you're saying the beast is Catholicism which has been "alive" or active for a few thousand years.....First not trying to back Catholicism. I could even think the false prophet in Rev could be a leader from that system. Doesn't seem to me though the beast of Revelation is some long political entity lasting such a long period of time

"This idea, called Futurism, deferred accusations away from the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy, so Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist."

In their day though that was futurism. They were looking around at current events seeking to find a match between what Paul stated and what they thought they were seeing.

I agree with you that 2 Thessalonians 2:1 does refer to the rapture, which I believe happens within seconds or minutes after Christ returns. But Paul said that these other things had to happen first, even though Paul did not know how much time would elapse before the 2nd coming/rapture.

Seems to me though (seeing no years of time God told Paul) the feel of the text though seems to imply the false leader sit in the temple and immediately right after that the Lord comes. The feel of the text has observe the false leader and then KNOW the coming of Christ will be RIGHT after that. Have a hard time accepting the false leader seen and now OK wait another 1000 years.

I almost forgot: in verse 3 where the man of lawlessness "takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God".
What does this mean? Well, whenever Paul spoke of God's temple, he was ALWAYS REFERRING TO THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE TRUE CHURCH, NOT a PHYSICAL TEMPLE. So many popes, granted not all, presented themselves to the church as God Himself, worthy of worship.

To me is just doesn't have a right feel to it. Yes in another place an analogy us used as the church being a temple I have to agree with you there.....but he's giving a sequence of things to actually look for before the Lord. I think he would know if he said a temple in the context of his passage people would really think he meant a physical temple. I think we would have said here it wasn't.

So the "man of lawlessness" label still seems to apply to the Papacy as a whole.

I consider Catholicism very much like the Pharisees or Sadducees of Christ's day. They have small measures of some truths but mixed within it are ludircious assertions of what they consider to be truth. Many other possibilities could be or become the lawless one too that has nothing to do with Catholicism.

 

[civic]

There is no getting around the fact Paul says there is a Temple of God in Thessalonians in the end times.

cf Rev 13:6- And it opened its mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, those dwelling in heaven.

 

[Azriel]

I like this from @Ahar

The saints who died during the tribulation will be raised and Christ will establish His throne in Jerusalem. The city and the Temple will be rebuilt. This is the Messianic age which will last for a thousand years

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/could-it-be-happening-now.707/post-30414

This explains it in a lot more detail:

What is the messianic age / messianic kingdom? | GotQuestions.org

What is the messianic age? What is the messianic kingdom? What does the Bible teach about the messianic age?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[dwight92070]

There is no getting around the fact Paul says there is a Temple of God in Thessalonians in the end times.

cf Rev 13:6- And it opened its mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, those dwelling in heaven.

Paul speaks of the temple of God 6 times in the New Testament, other than 2 Thessalonians 2:4. In EACH (this is true, Azriel) of the other 6 times, he ALWAYS is referring to the body of Christ, NOT a physical temple. So you think that Paul is now referring to a physical temple in Thess.? Not likely.
Peter also speaks of the body of Christ as the temple of God in 1 Peter 2:4-5.
What's more likely is that Paul is referring to the papacy in the Catholic church as the man of lawlessness and the Roman emperor as the one who restrains. This is what most of the church believed until the Catholics, namely Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit priest, in the 1500's, invented a new "interpretation" about an antiChrist and a secret rapture, in an attempt to take the guilt off of the Catholic church for killing multiplied millions of believers, who were not Catholics, including Jews. Some say they killed between 50 and 100 million nonCatholics between 500 A.D. and 1500 A.D.
It's well known that many of the popes claimed to be God, demanding worship from even the body of Christ, which is the temple of God, and which further explains 2 Thess. 2:4.

 

[civic]

Paul speaks of the temple of God 6 times in the New Testament, other than 2 Thessalonians 2:4. In EACH (this is true, Azriel) of the other 6 times, he ALWAYS is referring to the body of Christ, NOT a physical temple. So you think that Paul is now referring to a physical temple in Thess.? Not likely.
Peter also speaks of the body of Christ as the temple of God in 1 Peter 2:4-5.
What's more likely is that Paul is referring to the papacy in the Catholic church as the man of lawlessness and the Roman emperor as the one who restrains. This is what most of the church believed until the Catholics, namely Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit priest, in the 1500's, invented a new "interpretation" about an antiChrist and a secret rapture, in an attempt to take the guilt off of the Catholic church for killing multiplied millions of believers, who were not Catholics, including Jews. Some say they killed between 50 and 100 million nonCatholics between 500 A.D. and 1500 A.D.
It's well known that many of the popes claimed to be God, demanding worship from even the body of Christ, which is the temple of God, and which further explains 2 Thess. 2:4.

Context determines the meaning of the word. Exegesis 101. In Thess and Rev its a real temple. Your doctrinal position is interfering with the exegesis of the passage.

2 Thess 2:4 the word is ναός

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3485: ναός

ναός, ναοῦ, ὁ (ναίω to dwell), the Sept. for הֵיכָל, used of the temple at Jerusalem, but only of the sacred edifice (or sanctuary) itself, consisting of the Holy place and the Holy of holies (in classical Greek used of the sanctuary or cell of a temple, where the image of the god was placed, called also δόμος, σηκός, which is to be distinguished from τό ἱερόν, the whole temple, the entire consecrated enclosure; this distinction is observed also in the Bible; see ἱερόν, p. 299{a}): Matthew 23:16f, 35 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29; John 2:19; Revelation 11:2; nor need Matthew 27:5 be regarded as an exception, provided we suppose that Judas in his desperation entered the Holy place, which no one but the priests was allowed to enter ((note the εἰς (others, ἐν) of T Tr WH)). with Θεοῦ, τοῦ Θεοῦ, added: Matthew 26:61; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 11:1; used specifically of the Holy place, where the priests officiated: Luke 1:9, 21f; of the Holy of holies (see καταπέτασμα), Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.

Rev 13:6- the word is σκηνή

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4633: σκηνή

σκηνή, σκηνῆς, ἡ (from the root, ska 'to cover' etc.; cf. σκιά, σκότος, etc.; Latincasa, cassis, castrum; English shade, etc.; Curtius, § 112; Vanicek, p. 1054f), from (Aeschylus), Sophocles and Thucydides down; the Sept. chiefly for אֹהֶל, often also for מִשְׁכָּן, also for סֻכָּה; a tent, tabernacle (made of green boughs, or skins, or other materials): Matthew 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33; Hebrews 11:9; αἱ αἰώνιοι σκηναί (see αἰώνιος, 3), Luke 16:9 (et dabo iis tabernacula aeterna quae praeparaveram illis, 4 (5) Esdr. ); of that well known movable temple of God after the pattern of which the temple at Jerusalem was subsequently built (cf. B. D., under the word ): Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 9:1 Rec.st, 21; with τοῦ μαρτυρίου added (see μαρτύριον, c. at the end), Acts 7:44; the temple is called σκηνή in Hebrews 13:10; σκηνή πρώτη, the front part of the tabernacle (and afterward of the temple), the Holy place, Hebrews 9:2, 6, 8; of the Holy of holies, Hebrews 9:3; the name is transferred to heaven, as the true dwelling-place of God and the prototype of the earthly 'tabernacle' or sanctuary, Hebrews 9:11; Revelation 13:6; hence, ἡ σκηνή ἡ ἀληθινή, heaven, Hebrews 8:2;

conclusion: I rest my case in both instances its the physical temple of God.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Rockson]

Paul speaks of the temple of God 6 times in the New Testament, other than 2 Thessalonians 2:4. In EACH (this is true, Azriel) of the other 6 times, he ALWAYS is referring to the body of Christ, NOT a physical temple. So you think that Paul is now referring to a physical temple in Thess.? Not likely.
Peter also speaks of the body of Christ as the temple of God in 1 Peter 2:4-5.
What's more likely is that Paul is referring to the papacy in the Catholic church as the man of lawlessness and the Roman emperor as the one who restrains.

But you're stating it includes various Pope's throughout history.....plural......the text speaks of one man. And when I look at places the temple meaning God's people is used as a comparison it seems in those text to bring that up as a point that he is talking about the church. so there's a complete understanding. I'd expect surely if Paul meant this (the temple in 2 Thess meaning the church) I'd think we could expect it would have been clarified.

It's well known that many of the popes claimed to be God, demanding worship from even the body of Christ, which is the temple of God, and which further explains 2 Thess. 2:4.

But you see that's the problem in what you're saying. It would have to read men of lawlessness (plural) ....but it states a man (singular) not men plural.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man (not men) of sin be revealed, the son (not sons plural) of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself (not themselves) above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he (singular not plural) as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

 

[dwight92070]

But you're stating it includes various Pope's throughout history.....plural......the text speaks of one man. And when I look at places the temple meaning God's people is used as a comparison it seems in those text to bring that up as a point that he is talking about the church. so there's a complete understanding. I'd expect surely if Paul meant this (the temple in 2 Thess meaning the church) I'd think we could expect it would have been clarified.


But you see that's the problem in what you're saying. It would have to read men of lawlessness (plural) ....but it states a man (singular) not men plural.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man (not men) of sin be revealed, the son (not sons plural) of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself (not themselves) above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he (singular not plural) as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

THE man of lawlessness is the whole Roman Catholic church system, which includes the papacy. There's no problem with that at all, which is why the church of the body of Christ, true Christians, believed this was the interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 from the early church all the way to the reformation in the 1500's. At that point (I think it was the late 1500's) Francisco Ribera, a Catholic Jesuit priest, came up with a NEW interpretation of 2 Thess. 2, which removes the Catholic church from being the bad guy. His interpretation changed the man of lawlessness to an end time antiChrist, and the church would be the one who restrains him -verse 6, until the rapture. Sound a lot like dispensationalism, doesn't it? The Catholic church killed between 50 and 100 million nonCatholic Christians and Jews between 500 A.D. and 1500 A.D., so I don't think they can remove their "Bad Guy" history. Even though they're not doing that today, they still keep people from reading their Bibles, which, in itself, is terrible. Does this mean that no Catholics were saved or are saved today? No, some Catholics are believers, but if they get into the word of God and believe it and practice it, which that church discourages, I think they would want to leave that whole religious system, as many have. As you probably know, the Catholic church is filled with many unBiblical practices. Unfortunately, they teach that only the priests, and ultimately the Pope can properly interpret the Bible, so they discourage their people from reading it. Who is it that would tell people NOT to read the Bible? Of course, Satan. Aren't many Protestant churches also filled with many unBiblical practices too? Yes, they are too, which is why I left the traditional Protestant church system in 2001 and have gone to a home church ever since. At least most of the Protestant churches ENCOURAGE Bible reading as do most home churches.

By the way, your argument about singular/pronouns would also have to apply to "he who restrains" in verse 6. If this is a reference to the raptured
believers, as dispensationalists say, then it would have to say "they (plural) who restrain", not "he (singular) who restrains." So your argument
doesn't work consistently. Which is why I believe the man of lawlessness is the Roman Catholic church/popes and "he who restrains" is the whole Roman government system/emperors. When Rome untimately fell - some say in the 500's, the Papacy filled the void, so to speak, and took on even greater power, even though they had great power before.

 

[Rockson]

THE man of lawlessness is the whole Roman Catholic church system, which includes the papacy.

But this is why I have reservations about what you're saying. If the verses in Thessalonians meant a system I think it would have said so. It spoke of A MAN of lawlessness and then the gathering would take place. (the rapture) Some have said well it's a group of Popes all throughout history but the verse has it in the singular...A MAN.

There's no problem with that at all, which is why the church of the body of Christ, true Christians, believed this was the interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 from the early church all the way to the reformation in the 1500's.

Well yeah from the time of when it could be said Catholicism started those that resisted them would say that. That don't mean they were right though any more then people of our generation of been right thinking Jesus would come back in 1988.

As you probably know, the Catholic church is filled with many unBiblical practices.

It's my belief that is correct yes. But such doesn't mean we can say they're the Man of lawlessness as referred to in 2 Thess 2 : 3

 

[civic]

But this is why I have reservations about what you're saying. If the verses in Thessalonians meant a system I think it would have said so. It spoke of A MAN of lawlessness and then the gathering would take place. (the rapture) Some have said well it's a group of Popes all throughout history but the verse has it in the singular...A MAN.

Well yeah from the time of when it could be said Catholicism started those that resisted them would say that. That don't mean they were right though any more then people of our generation of been right thinking Jesus would come back in 1988.

It's my belief that is correct yes. But such doesn't mean we can say they're the Man of lawlessness as referred to in 2 Thess 2 : 3

Yes a man is a human being and not a system. The man of sin teaches a false system, a false religion of deception.

 

[dwight92070]

Context determines the meaning of the word. Exegesis 101. In Thess and Rev its a real temple. Your doctrinal position is interfering with the exegesis of the passage.

2 Thess 2:4 the word is ναός

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3485: ναός

ναός, ναοῦ, ὁ (ναίω to dwell), the Sept. for הֵיכָל, used of the temple at Jerusalem, but only of the sacred edifice (or sanctuary) itself, consisting of the Holy place and the Holy of holies (in classical Greek used of the sanctuary or cell of a temple, where the image of the god was placed, called also δόμος, σηκός, which is to be distinguished from τό ἱερόν, the whole temple, the entire consecrated enclosure; this distinction is observed also in the Bible; see ἱερόν, p. 299{a}): Matthew 23:16f, 35 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29; John 2:19; Revelation 11:2; nor need Matthew 27:5 be regarded as an exception, provided we suppose that Judas in his desperation entered the Holy place, which no one but the priests was allowed to enter ((note the εἰς (others, ἐν) of T Tr WH)). with Θεοῦ, τοῦ Θεοῦ, added: Matthew 26:61; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 11:1; used specifically of the Holy place, where the priests officiated: Luke 1:9, 21f; of the Holy of holies (see καταπέτασμα), Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.

Rev 13:6- the word is σκηνή

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4633: σκηνή

σκηνή, σκηνῆς, ἡ (from the root, ska 'to cover' etc.; cf. σκιά, σκότος, etc.; Latincasa, cassis, castrum; English shade, etc.; Curtius, § 112; Vanicek, p. 1054f), from (Aeschylus), Sophocles and Thucydides down; the Sept. chiefly for אֹהֶל, often also for מִשְׁכָּן, also for סֻכָּה; a tent, tabernacle (made of green boughs, or skins, or other materials): Matthew 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33; Hebrews 11:9; αἱ αἰώνιοι σκηναί (see αἰώνιος, 3), Luke 16:9 (et dabo iis tabernacula aeterna quae praeparaveram illis, 4 (5) Esdr. ); of that well known movable temple of God after the pattern of which the temple at Jerusalem was subsequently built (cf. B. D., under the word ): Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 9:1 Rec.st, 21; with τοῦ μαρτυρίου added (see μαρτύριον, c. at the end), Acts 7:44; the temple is called σκηνή in Hebrews 13:10; σκηνή πρώτη, the front part of the tabernacle (and afterward of the temple), the Holy place, Hebrews 9:2, 6, 8; of the Holy of holies, Hebrews 9:3; the name is transferred to heaven, as the true dwelling-place of God and the prototype of the earthly 'tabernacle' or sanctuary, Hebrews 9:11; Revelation 13:6; hence, ἡ σκηνή ἡ ἀληθινή, heaven, Hebrews 8:2;

conclusion: I rest my case in both instances its the physical temple of God.

hope this helps !!!

You can't really rest your case, if you don't have a case to start with, and you don't. Obviously the Greek word(s) for "temple" means an actual temple. So what? The word "temple" can be used in a symbolic way as well, as did Jesus and John and Paul. You must have skipped those classes in Exegesis 101, or else you've drunk the dispensational kool-aid, that every verse in the Bible can only be taken literally, which they themselves violate repeatedly.

John 2:19-21 Jesus is speaking, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Was Jesus speaking of the literal temple made of stone? Of course not, even John understood His symbolic meaning of the word temple, as he explains in verse 21:
"But HE WAS SPEAKING OF THE TEMPLE OF HIS BODY."

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Paul speaking, "Do you not know that YOU ARE A TEMPLE OF GOD and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE.

Is Paul saying that we are a literal temple made from stone? Obviously not, he is speaking symbolically.

1 Cor. 6:19 "OR DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT YOUR BODY IS A TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO IS IN YOU ... ?"

2 Corinthians 6:16 "Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? FOR WE ARE THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD ..."

Again Paul uses the words "temple of God" symbolically.

In fact, Paul never uses the term "temple of God" or "temple of the Holy Spirit" to mean the real temple. So why would he mean that in 2 Thess. 2?
ONLY because that's how you wish to interpret it, even though Paul never uses it that way. Actually the originator of that interpretation was Francisco Ribera, the Catholic priest in the late 1500's, who I have mentioned before. His purpose was to stop the Catholic church from being accused of being the man of lawlessness, which I believe it is, as did the entire body of Christ for most of its history.

 

[civic]

You can't really rest your case, if you don't have a case to start with, and you don't. Obviously the Greek word(s) for "temple" means an actual temple. So what? The word "temple" can be used in a symbolic way as well, as did Jesus and John and Paul. You must have skipped those classes in Exegesis 101, or else you've drunk the dispensational kool-aid, that every verse in the Bible can only be taken literally, which they themselves violate repeatedly.

John 2:19-21 Jesus is speaking, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Was Jesus speaking of the literal temple made of stone? Of course not, even John understood His symbolic meaning of the word temple, as he explains in verse 21:
"But HE WAS SPEAKING OF THE TEMPLE OF HIS BODY."

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Paul speaking, "Do you not know that YOU ARE A TEMPLE OF GOD and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE.

Is Paul saying that we are a literal temple made from stone? Obviously not, he is speaking symbolically.

1 Cor. 6:19 "OR DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT YOUR BODY IS A TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO IS IN YOU ... ?"

2 Corinthians 6:16 "Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? FOR WE ARE THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD ..."

Again Paul uses the words "temple of God" symbolically.

In fact, Paul never uses the term "temple of God" or "temple of the Holy Spirit" to mean the real temple. So why would he mean that in 2 Thess. 2?
ONLY because that's how you wish to interpret it, even though Paul never uses it that way. Actually the originator of that interpretation was Francisco Ribera, the Catholic priest in the late 1500's, who I have mentioned before. His purpose was to stop the Catholic church from being accused of being the man of lawlessness, which I believe it is, as did the entire body of Christ for most of its history.

The context of the verses I quoted along with the Greek lexicon I used support my post not yours. I used exegesis from the actual texts in their context and you have ran from those verses to other verses to make your argument which is eisegesis.

 

[dwight92070]

The context of the verses I quoted along with the Greek lexicon I used support my post not yours. I used exegesis from the actual texts in their context and you have ran from those verses to other verses to make your argument which is eisegesis.

Total nonsense. The "other" verses that I quoted, are also verses that you quoted. But you didn't even notice that, did you? And the reason that I quoted those specific verses is to show that they obviously do not refer to a real temple, but are symbolic for the body of Christ. That's exegesis. In fact it's a common understanding of the English language, which it has been translated into. Also I read every single verse you listed. I even agree with you that most of the verses DO speak of an actual temple. But a majority of verses saying that it refers to a real temple, does not mean that the minority of verses also refer to a real temple. In fact, to interpret those few verses as a reference to a real stone temple, is in fact, eisegesis. You are reading into the text a literal meaning that is not intended by the speaker. How can you misunderstand John's statement "But He was speaking of the temple of His body" Or Paul's statements "we are the temple of the living God" or "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?"? Only because you don't want to admit that they do not refer to a real temple. Nor does 2 Thess. 2. You're so loyal to a made - up system called dispensationalism, that you read every verse through that filter. Consequently you can't even acknowledge obvious meanings to verses. It's time to remove the filter and read the Bible without those presuppositions. Instead of interpreting verses through dsp glasses, try examining dsp beliefs through what the Bible actually is saying. The two contradict one another.

 

[Rockson]

Again Paul uses the words "temple of God" symbolically.

As for me I wouldn't say so. I think we should keep in mind what Paul was talking about here. This wasn't something new he was bringing them talking about this. This is something already known from Jesus. Paul was really talking about what Jesus referred to in Matt 24: 15

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), Matt 24:15

I just did a little scan....didn't go through too many of them but commentaries on Bible Hub. Seems most of the theologians of the past believe that was talking about the real temple in Jersualem.....in fact they don't even seek to demonstrate that it was but proceed as if it's self evident. But that was what Paul was referring to in 2 Thess 2. See it below,

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thess 2: 1,4

So where did Paul get this? Well it was the teaching of Jesus what we now know as Matt 24:15 So compare Matt 24:15 to 2 Thes 2: 1,4 and you have a perfect match. So again read he Matt 24:15 commentaries....on hub....believe you'll find most of them consider it's self evident....it is a physical temple.

In fact, Paul never uses the term "temple of God" or "temple of the Holy Spirit" to mean the real temple. So why would he mean that in 2 Thess. 2?

Jesus did in Matt 24:15 where Paul got this teaching from.

ONLY because that's how you wish to interpret it, even though Paul never uses it that way.

Well for sure not when he was using the word temple figuratively. But Jesus wasn't in Matt 24:15 And that's where Paul got this teaching.

Actually the originator of that interpretation was Francisco Ribera, the Catholic priest in the late 1500's, who I have mentioned before. His purpose was to stop the Catholic church from being accused of being the man of lawlessness, which I believe it is, as did the entire body of Christ for most of its history.

Dwight there's thousands upon thousands of people doing their best to interpret the scriptures who have never heard of Francisco Ribera. The real question is what do we all believe the scripture is saying. I wouldn't try to make it seem everyone if following a guy they've never heard of....what sense is that?

 

[dwight92070]

As for me I wouldn't say so. I think we should keep in mind what Paul was talking about here. This wasn't something new he was bringing them talking about this. This is something already known from Jesus. Paul was really talking about what Jesus referred to in Matt 24: 15

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), Matt 24:15

I just did a little scan....didn't go through too many of them but commentaries on Bible Hub. Seems most of the theologians of the past believe that was talking about the real temple in Jersualem.....in fact they don't even seek to demonstrate that it was but proceed as if it's self evident. But that was what Paul was referring to in 2 Thess 2. See it below,

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thess 2: 1,4

So where did Paul get this? Well it was the teaching of Jesus what we now know as Matt 24:15 So compare Matt 24:15 to 2 Thes 2: 1,4 and you have a perfect match. So again read he Matt 24:15 commentaries....on hub....believe you'll find most of them consider it's self evident....it is a physical temple.



Jesus did in Matt 24:15 where Paul got this teaching from.


Well for sure not when he was using the word temple figuratively. But Jesus wasn't in Matt 24:15 And that's where Paul got this teaching.

Dwight there's thousands upon thousands of people doing their best to interpret the scriptures who have never heard of Francisco Ribera. The real question is what do we all believe the scripture is saying. I wouldn't try to make it seem everyone if following a guy they've never heard of....what sense is that?

First, Matthew 24:15 does not use the word temple - Jesus uses the words "holy place". Jerusalem is also called the holy city many times. Even Daniel 9:26 which Jesus refers to says, "the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" - obviously Titus the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The real guy the dsp are following is John Nelson Darby, who systematized dispensationalism (and is called the father of dsp) in around 1830 , even though some dsp wouldn't even want to admit that.
Rather they say they get their interpretation from the Bible. And J.N. Darby "adopted" much of what he put together from Francisco Ribera.

Let's look at a real perfect match:
Matthew 24:15-16 "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), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains."

Mark 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it (notice it doesn't say "he") should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains."

Luke 21:20-21 "BUT WHEN YOU SEE JERUSALEM SURROUNDED BY ARMIES, then recognize that her DESOLATION is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, ... "

Obviously Jesus did not give different information to His disciples in these three passages from the three synoptic gospels. Luke, however, speaking primarily to a Gentile audience, instead of using the phrase "abomination of desolation", which the Gentiles would not understand, says "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies". Luke actually tells the Gentiles what Jesus' phrase "abomination of desolation" means. The Roman army was standing where it should not be (because the Jews should have accepted their Messiah) - surrounding Jerusalem to destroy it.

Clearly the abomination of desolation Jesus is referring to is Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

Also, why are both Jesus and Paul being secretive here? For example, "let the reader understand". Also Jesus doesn't tell us where the armies are from - Rome. Why? Also Paul in 2 Thessalonians never calls the man of lawlessness "the antiChrist". Then he says, "Do you remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now ..." Why doesn't he simply remind them in this letter exactly who or what he is referring to?
The reason seems quite clear. Rome was in control of Israel. If revealing to their audience that either "the man of lawlessness", or "he who now restrains, until he is taken out of the way", was Rome itself -then they could be putting the Jews lives in danger long before 70 A.D. Paul could reveal this info personally with them face-to-face, but he didn't want a written record to be discovered by the Romans.

As it turns out, the body of Christ very early on believed the man of lawlessness was the Roman Catholic church/popes and the one who restrains was the Roman government/emperors.

Did you notice Paul says, "For the mystery of lawlessness is ALREADY AT WORK" in 2 Thess. 2:7? IN OTHER WORDS, THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS WAS ALIVE AND WELL DURING HIS LIFETIME. And he was being restrained AT THAT TIME.

 

[dwight92070]

By the way, ignorance of church history is not an excuse. ALL dispensationalists should know, or at least soon find out who Francisco Ribera was, as well as J N Darby - and what they did. I'm not even a dsp, and I know.

 

[Rockson]

First, Matthew 24:15 does not use the word temple - Jesus uses the words "holy place". Jerusalem is also called the holy city many times. Even Daniel 9:26 which Jesus refers to says, "the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" - obviously Titus the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The real guy the dsp are following is John Nelson Darby, who systematized dispensationalism (and is called the father of dsp) in around 1830 , even though some dsp wouldn't even want to admit that.
Rather they say they get their interpretation from the Bible. And J.N. Darby "adopted" much of what he put together from Francisco Ribera.

Let's look at a real perfect match:
Matthew 24:15-16 "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), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains."

Mark 13:14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it (notice it doesn't say "he") should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains."

Luke 21:20-21 "BUT WHEN YOU SEE JERUSALEM SURROUNDED BY ARMIES, then recognize that her DESOLATION is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, ... "

Obviously Jesus did not give different information to His disciples in these three passages from the three synoptic gospels. Luke, however, speaking primarily to a Gentile audience, instead of using the phrase "abomination of desolation", which the Gentiles would not understand, says "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies". Luke actually tells the Gentiles what Jesus' phrase "abomination of desolation" means. The Roman army was standing where it should not be (because the Jews should have accepted their Messiah) - surrounding Jerusalem to destroy it.

Clearly the abomination of desolation Jesus is referring to is Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

Also, why are both Jesus and Paul being secretive here? For example, "let the reader understand". Also Jesus doesn't tell us where the armies are from - Rome. Why? Also Paul in 2 Thessalonians never calls the man of lawlessness "the antiChrist". Then he says, "Do you remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now ..." Why doesn't he simply remind them in this letter exactly who or what he is referring to?
The reason seems quite clear. Rome was in control of Israel. If revealing to their audience that either "the man of lawlessness", or "he who now restrains, until he is taken out of the way", was Rome itself -then they could be putting the Jews lives in danger long before 70 A.D. Paul could reveal this info personally with them face-to-face, but he didn't want a written record to be discovered by the Romans.

As it turns out, the body of Christ very early on believed the man of lawlessness was the Roman Catholic church/popes and the one who restrains was the Roman government/emperors.

Did you notice Paul says, "For the mystery of lawlessness is ALREADY AT WORK" in 2 Thess. 2:7? IN OTHER WORDS, THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS WAS ALIVE AND WELL DURING HIS LIFETIME. And he was being restrained AT THAT TIME.

So sum all this up to me in the following way....No1 this happened....No2 this happened and No 3 etc.

Now 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.
So do you believe this has happened above or will happen yet?

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (so when did this falling away happen past/future in your way of thinking 70 AD?)


4Who 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. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
(So you're saying what? Rome was withholding the Popes from coming forth?)

7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.<---so what's this mean to you?

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: <---so when does this happen? Are you saying it will happen a Pope in our day?

 

[dwight92070]

So sum all this up to me in the following way....No1 this happened....No2 this happened and No 3 etc.

Now 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.
So do you believe this has happened above or will happen yet?
Dwight -The 2nd Coming and the rapture are still future.

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (so when did this falling away happen past/future in your way of thinking 70 AD?)

Dwight- Past, during the centuries between Paul and the 500's. The Roman church was growing in power, but was limited by the Roman Emperor. But it was also getting corrupt and falling away from the pure gospel of the apostles, if it ever had the pure gospel to begin with, but it surely caused many to stumble. Once you replace the body of Christ with a strong dictatorial organization, you have fallen away, and taken many with you.


4Who 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. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
(So you're saying what? Rome was withholding the Popes from coming forth?)

Dwight -I don't think they stopped them from naming Popes, but they sure limited their authority, until such time that Rome fell, in the 500's.

7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.<---so what's this mean to you?

Dwight -The New King James gives a more accurate reading here, I think: " ... only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way." The Roman emperor's were restraining the Catholic church from their desire to have godlike authority over the people. Of course, even the emperors thought they were God. In the centuries before Rome fell, the church and the Roman government were becoming intertwined, so that the church authority and Rome's authority were melding together, until eventually Rome fell. Then the Catholic church was in charge and the great 1000 year slaughter of between 50 and 100 million non-Catholics began. People who had a copy of the scripture - it would have to be a scroll - would be killed. Even after this slaughter, they still propagated their doctrinal lies and misinterpretations of the Bible, and they largely still do that today.

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: <---so when does this happen? Are you saying it will happen a Pope in our day?

Dwight -Sure, if he is not a disciple of Christ. All unbelievers will experience the wrath of God, but especially hypocrites who profess to represent and know God and commit horrendous acts or present false teaching. Doesn't the Bible say: Let not many of you become teachers, because we shall incur a stricter judgment. That will be unbelieving protestants too.