Replies

>>>When did the man of sin sit in the Temple of God at Jerusalem declaring himself to be God?<<< It never said he would sit in the Temple of Jerusalem. You made that up, or someone did and you plagarized. Paul very well may have been referring to either the spiritual temple (which he generally did in his epistles,) or to a pagan shrine or temple. This is the Greek: nah-os’; from a primary nai>w (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple: — shrine, temple. In every case where Jesus or the apostles referred to the body as the temple, that same Greek word was used.

Your argument is unconvincing. The same Greek word "nah-os" is used in the following cases, and in context with what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians it does not fit your interpretation, which comes across as trying to stretch the evidence to save your theory (similar to dating Revelation early, etc.). All your theory hangs on many slender threads.

Here is the same Greek word translated as temple:

Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor !

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

And again

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

And again

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Therefore, Paul was writing about the Temple of God in Jerusalem, not the human body of the Antichrist. No, Nero's palace in Rome was not the Temple of God.

>>>Your argument is unconvincing. The same Greek word "nah-os" is used in the following cases, and in context with what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians it does not fit your interpretation, which comes across as trying to stretch the evidence to save your theory (similar to dating Revelation early, etc.). All your theory hangs on many slender threads.<<<

My evidence is convincing. I don't have to pretend it is a physical temple, so I don't need any evidence to prove that it is. There is no such evidence in existence, anyway.

The only way the Greek word would be "evidence" is if it was the same Greek word that was used directly for the Jerusalem Temple, which it is not. Indirect references can go either way.

In the case of the temple John referenced in Rev 11, which I believe was referring to the Jerusalem Temple, John was referring to a temple in a vision, not the actual temple. Otherwise, how could he have measured it from Patmos? In Paul's temple, there is no indication one way or the other whether it is spiritual or physical. The only evidence points to spiritual.

One other major piece of evidence I have on my side is: where is the other evidence? Shouldn't something as significant as the building of a third temple have all sorts of N.T. references?

>>>Therefore, Paul was writing about the Temple of God in Jerusalem, not the human body of the Antichrist. No, Nero's palace in Rome was not the Temple of God.<<<

Again, you do not know that. You are only speculating, and you have no supporting evidence whatsoever.

I don't know why you brought Nero into the picture, because I never really considered him to be the one Paul was referring to, beyond a casual peek and discard. Paul spoke of the "man of sin" as one of their own who fell away, much like Judas. Both were even given the same label: the son of perdition.

John also spoke of those who fell away:

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 Jn 2:18-19 KJV)

Hebrews spoke of it as if it were not uncommon:

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb 6:4-6 KJV)

There were some real shenanigans going on in Jerusalem before the siege, including false christs and prophets, just like Jesus predicted. The most horrendous were the three factions that had divided control of the city into three parts. According to one of Josephus' witnesses, they defiled the temple and all sacred areas.

Philip