Four questions makes me a robot

[Zao is life]

If AI answers my four questions with exactly what I've been saying and trying to get others to understand, does that mean that I'm a robot?

ChatGPT,

Does Daniel 9:26 associate the abomination of Daniel 9:27 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and does Daniel 11:31 associate the abomination of Daniel 11:31 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple?

ChatGPT said:

Great precision in your question — let’s examine the texts closely, in context, and see what Daniel 9:26–27 and Daniel 11:31 actually say, and how they relate to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

✉ Summary of both passages: Abomination linked to destruction of city/Temple?

Daniel 9:26–27 Yes — destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is explicitly mentioned, and the abomination is connected to it.

Daniel 11:31 No — the abomination is linked to defilement/desecration and cessation of sacrifice, but not to destruction of the city or Temple itself.

In short:

Daniel 9:26–27 presents the abomination as part of a sequence that includes the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Daniel 11:31 presents the abomination as part of the profaning of the sanctuary and stopping of daily sacrifices, but not destruction of the Temple or city.

Daniel 9:26–27 associate the abomination with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

Yes — Daniel 9:26 explicitly mentions the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (Temple).

Then Daniel 9:27 speaks of stopping the sacrifices and setting up abominations that bring desolation.

The two verses are connected: the destruction in 9:26 flows into the desecration and cessation of sacrifice in 9:27.

So in 9:26–27, yes — the abomination is closely linked to the destruction of the city and Temple.

Daniel 11:31
“And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering, and they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.”

➡ Does it associate the abomination with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

No — not directly with destruction. Instead, it focuses on desecration of the Temple (the sanctuary).

The continual burnt offering is stopped, and something abominable (commonly understood as pagan worship or idol) is put in its place.

The passage describes defilement, not the actual destruction of the city or Temple building.

 

[Zao is life]

ChatGPT,

Can the Old Testament Temple of God be considered a biblical type of the New Testament temple of God?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the Old Testament Temple of God can be considered a biblical type of the New Testament temple of God. This is a well-established concept in Christian theology and biblical typology, where physical structures or events in the Old Testament are viewed as symbolic of spiritual realities that are fulfilled in the New Testament.

Understanding the OT Temple as a Type:
The Old Testament Temple was a literal, physical structure built by Solomon (and later rebuilt after the Babylonian exile) that served as the dwelling place of God's presence among His people. The temple, with all its furnishings and rituals, pointed forward to deeper spiritual truths that would be revealed in the New Testament.

In biblical typology:

The OT Temple serves as a type of the spiritual temple that is revealed in the New Testament, which is not a physical building but a spiritual reality centered in Christ and His people.

The OT Temple as a Type of the NT Temple
God's Dwelling Place:

In the Old Testament, the Temple was the dwelling place of God among His people (Exodus 25:8, 1 Kings 8:10-11). The glory of the Lord filled the temple in a tangible, physical sense.

In the New Testament, the concept of the temple of God is spiritualized. The NT temple refers to Jesus Christ as the true temple (John 2:19-21) and the collective body of believers who are individually temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19, Ephesians 2:21-22).

Jesus as the True Temple:

In the Gospels, Jesus replaces the physical temple as the new locus of God's presence. In John 2:19-21, when Jesus is questioned about the temple, He says, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John clarifies that Jesus was speaking of the temple of His body.

Jesus is the fulfillment of all that the temple represented. The physical temple was a shadow of His incarnation—God Himself dwelling with His people.

The Church as the NT Temple:

The New Testament also teaches that believers together form a spiritual temple:

Ephesians 2:21-22 says that in Christ, "the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord, and in him, you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

1 Peter 2:5 calls believers "living stones," being built into a spiritual house to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 teaches that believers are the temple of God, and God's Spirit dwells within them.

The High Priest and the Sacrifice:

In the Old Testament, the temple was where the priest offered sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16).

In the New Testament, Jesus is both the High Priest (Hebrews 4:14) and the sacrifice (John 1:29, Hebrews 9:14). His sacrifice, made once for all, replaces the old sacrificial system that was carried out in the physical temple.

Access to God:

The physical temple represented the place where God's people could access His presence. However, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that only once a year on the Day of Atonement.

In the New Testament, the veil of the temple was torn at Jesus' death (Matthew 27:51), symbolizing that all believers now have direct access to God through Christ. The spiritual temple is now accessible to all, not just through the physical building, but through faith in Christ.

Key Points of Typology
The OT temple as a shadow: The physical structure and rituals of the OT temple were a shadow or type of the greater spiritual reality that would be revealed in the New Testament. The temple system foreshadowed the work of Christ and the church as the new temple.

Christ as the fulfillment: Just as the temple in the OT was the place of God's presence, Christ Himself is the ultimate fulfillment of that. The temple was a type that pointed to His coming.

The Church as the spiritual temple: After Christ, the church—the collective body of believers—is now the spiritual temple of God, where God's presence dwells by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16).

Summary
Yes, the Old Testament Temple can indeed be considered a biblical type of the New Testament temple of God.

The OT temple was a symbol of God’s presence, worship, and access to Him, all of which were fulfilled in Christ, who is the true temple.

The NT reveals that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the temple, and believers themselves are now the spiritual temple of God, where His presence dwells.

This type-antitype relationship between the OT temple and the NT temple is foundational to understanding the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant in Christ.

 

[Zao is life]

ChatGPT,

Is Antiochus IV Epiphanes a type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, there is a strong argument among many biblical scholars that Antiochus IV Epiphanes can be considered a type of the man of sin or man of lawlessness described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Let me break it down for you:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes and His Actions
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Greek king who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 to 164 BCE, is infamous for his blasphemous acts against the Jewish people and their faith. Here are some key events that align with the description of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:

Desecration of the Temple:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up a pagan altar in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and offered swine’s flesh on it (a direct violation of Jewish law). He also erected an image of Zeus within the temple, which was a direct assault on the worship of God.

In Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27, we see a prophecy about the "abomination of desolation" (a desecration of the temple), which many interpret as being fulfilled by Antiochus IV's actions.

Persecution of the Faithful:

He persecuted the Jewish people mercilessly, forbidding the practice of Judaism and enforcing Hellenistic culture. His reign was marked by violence, oppression, and attempts to force people to worship him as a god.

Arrogance and Pride:

The name “Epiphanes” means “God Manifest,” which is a reflection of his own blasphemous arrogance, as he portrayed himself as a god on earth. He exalted himself in a way that echoes the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, who "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped."

2 Thessalonians 2:4 and the Man of Sin
In 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the man of sin is described as someone who:

Exalts himself above all that is called God or worshiped.

Sits in the temple of God and declares himself to be God.

This figure will be associated with the end times, just before the second coming of Christ.

Comparison: Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Man of Sin
Desecration of the Temple:

Antiochus desecrates the physical temple, while the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians is associated with the spiritual temple of God (the church). However, the parallel in arrogance and self-exaltation is clear.

Self-Exaltation:

Antiochus IV exalts himself above the worship of the true God, claiming divine status. The man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 similarly opposes all forms of worship and declares himself as God.

End Times Figure:

While Antiochus was a historical figure, the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians is more likely to be a future, eschatological figure, often associated with the Antichrist. Antiochus, however, serves as a type of this future figure, with his actions serving as a precursor or foreshadowing of the full fulfillment of the prophecy.

Typological Interpretation
In biblical typology, a type is an earlier person, event, or thing that serves as a pattern or foreshadowing of something to come. While Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a historical figure, his blasphemous actions in the desecration of the temple and his self-exaltation provide a type or pattern of the man of sin who will appear in the end times.

Thus, Antiochus IV is often viewed as a type of the Antichrist or man of sin described in 2 Thessalonians 2. He exemplifies the spirit of lawlessness and rebellion against God that will be fully manifest in the final end-times figure, but his actions do not represent the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy.

In Summary:
Yes, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is often considered a type of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, as his actions foreshadow the self-exaltation, lawlessness, and desecration that will characterize the future Antichrist.

Antiochus' actions provide a historical precedent for the end-times figure described in the New Testament, but his reign was only a shadow of the ultimate manifestation of evil that will come.

It's important to note that while Antiochus IV was a historical figure, the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians has a more eschatological significance, pointing to a future fulfillment at the end of the age.

 

[Zao is life]

ChatGPT,

If the Old Testament Temple of God can be considered a biblical type of the New Testament temple of God, and this is a well-established concept in Christian theology and biblical typology, where physical structures or events in the Old Testament are viewed as symbolic of spiritual realities that are fulfilled in the New Testament,

then can the idol placed in the Old Testament temple by Antiochus IV be considred symbolic of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and can Antiochus IV be considered a type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, it is indeed possible to consider the idol placed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the Old Testament temple as symbolic of the man of sin (or man of lawlessness) described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and to view Antiochus IV as a type of this figure.

This interpretation draws from the principles of biblical typology, where historical events, figures, or symbols in the Old Testament point forward to greater spiritual realities in the New Testament, especially in the context of the Antichrist and the end times.

1. The Idol in the Temple and the Man of Sin:
In 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Paul describes the man of sin (also referred to as the man of lawlessness) as someone who:

Opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship.

Sits in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

This figure is often associated with the Antichrist or a future end-times ruler who will desecrate the temple and demand worship.

The Idol of Zeus in the Temple:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Second Temple in Jerusalem by setting up a pagan altar and placing an idol of Zeus (or possibly an image of himself) inside the temple. He also offered sacrifices on it, including pigs, which was an abomination to the Jewish people (1 Maccabees 1:54-59, Daniel 11:31).

This act of desecrating the temple by placing an idol in it is often referred to as the “abomination of desolation,” a phrase that has eschatological significance in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15).

In this context, the idol placed by Antiochus IV in the Old Testament temple can be seen as a type or symbol of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 because both:

Desecrate the temple of God: The idol in the temple by Antiochus symbolizes the desecration of the holiness of the temple, much like the man of sin in the future will desecrate the spiritual temple of God (the church) and demand worship.

Proclaim themselves to be God: Antiochus IV’s actions were part of a larger self-exaltation where he portrayed himself as a god, which reflects the self-exalting nature of the man of sin who will elevate himself above all forms of worship (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

2. Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a Type of the Man of Sin:
In biblical typology, a type is a person, event, or object in the Old Testament that prefigures something greater in the New Testament. Antiochus IV is often considered a type of the Antichrist or the man of sin because of the parallels between his actions and the prophecy about the future man of lawlessness. Let’s explore these similarities:

1. Self-Exaltation and Blasphemy:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes claimed the title “Epiphanes,” meaning "God Manifest," and demanded that the people worship him as a god. His arrogance and self-exaltation reflected the same spirit of blasphemy and pride that is attributed to the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, who "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God."

2. Desecration of the Temple:
As mentioned, Antiochus IV desecrated the Jewish Temple, setting up an idol in the Holy of Holies, which is a prophetic foreshadowing of the man of sin who will enter the temple of God and declare himself to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Matthew 24:15).

3. Persecution of the Faithful:
Antiochus IV engaged in violent persecution of the Jewish people, forbidding them from practicing their faith and enforcing Hellenistic worship. This kind of opposition to the true faith mirrors the activities of the man of sin in the end times, who will persecute the saints and attempt to destroy the faithful (Revelation 13:7).

4. The “Abomination of Desolation”:
Antiochus IV’s actions are specifically referenced as the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9:27, a phrase that Jesus also uses in Matthew 24:15 to describe a future desecration of the temple. This indicates that the act of desecrating the temple by Antiochus IV was a type or foreshadowing of the ultimate abomination that will occur at the hands of the man of sin in the last days.

3. Summary:
The Idol of Antiochus IV in the temple can indeed be symbolic of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Both represent desecration, blasphemy, and self-exaltation over God, fulfilling similar roles in biblical typology.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes can be considered a type of the man of sin or Antichrist because his actions—particularly the desecration of the temple and self-exaltation—foreshadow the actions of the future figure who will emerge in the end times.

While Antiochus IV was a historical figure, his actions provide a prophetic pattern of the Antichrist to come, aligning with the broader themes of persecution, self-exaltation, and desecration of sacred things that will characterize the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 and the book of Revelation.

 

[Zao is life]

So Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 have everything to do with one another because both are associated with a temple that was not / will not be destroyed (neither the "city" nor "the temple"), and the biblical type for both passages is Daniel 11:

The text of Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31 links both verses to:-

(a) daily sacrifices for sin being removed (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and
(b) an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

The text of Daniel 12:11-12 also links the 1,290 days and 1,335 days that the verses are talking about, to both daily sacrifices for sin being removed in the temple of God; and an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place in the temple.

Not destroyed: The abomination of desolation set up by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" in 167 BC in the holy place of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, is not associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or of the temple in it: After he was ousted by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed, and reconsecrated to God.

This took place around 236 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D.

Destroyed: The text of Daniel 9:26-27 associates the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the temple) with abominations,

Not destroyed: but the abomination of desolation set up by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" in 167 BC in the holy place of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, is not associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or of the temple in it.

 

[Davidpt]

I guess I can accept that A4E is a type for the the one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. What I can't accept is that Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 is meaning A4E. I simply cannot accept that the angel lied to us in Daniel 12:4 by telling us that he had Daniel shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end, but that this didn't include Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11. In no universe is the time of the end meant in Daniel 12:4 meaning during the days of A4E.

We already have A4E mentioned in Maccabees, and by name even. Nowhere in the Bible though, is A4E even mentioned, not one single time. Yet some see him all over the place in Daniel 8, 11, and 12, when some of the rest of us are taking clues from the texts that those passages are involving end times not the days of A4E.

Something else to keep in mind, pertaining to daily sacrifices. Christ fulfilled the daily sacrifices. As a matter of fact Christ fulfills them daily , meaning spiritually speaking, otherwise no one is covered daily. Christ and what He accomplished on the cross is the daily sacrifice being taken away, meaning spiritually speaking, since the one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is directing worship towards it and away from the one true God, thus causing the mass falling away recorded in verse 3. But everyone ones to interpret everything in the literal sense when it comes to prophecies in the OT, even though passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:4, which is connected with this subject proves these prophecies in question in the OT are not meaning in the literal sense.

No doubt, if the daily sacrifices being taken away per what is recorded in Daniel 11 and 12 is meaning literal animal sacrifices, it is then absurd to apply these things to the 21st century. I don't even remotely disagree with that. But, if the daily sacrifices being taken isn't meaning literal animal sacrifices, but is meaning in a spiritual sense, in that case it is not even remotely unreasonable to apply this to the 21st century. The problem is then this. Some insist these daily sacrifices can only be understood in one sense and one sense only, the literal sense. As if there are no other options. That would be like insisting that the temple meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 can only be understood in one sense and one sense only, the literal sense. As if there are no other options.

Instead of interpreting Scripture with Scripture like we are supposed to do, let's just say that anything pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all of that involves, that the OT was completely silent about that, had zero to say about it. That the NT had nothing to reveal about any OT prophecies in the OT, such as Daniel 12:11.

As to Daniel 12:12, look what follows that verse. Seriously, what does verse 13 have to do with the days of A4E, assuming verses 11-12 are involving his days? That is taking verses 11-12 out of context big time by applying verse 11 and 12 to the days of A4E when verse 13 does not support that interpretation. The same way, for example, that it is taking Matthew 24:34 out of context big time by applying the 1st century leading up to 70 AD to that verse when the context of the verses surrounding it are not even remotely involving the the 1st century leading up to 70 AD.

And the ironic thing about it, those that are taking Daniel 12:11-12 to be meaning the days of A4E even though they know plain as day that verse 13 does not fit the days of A4E, agree with my point in regards to Matthew 34 I just made. But why though, when what they are doing with Daniel 12:11-12 in light of Daniel 12:13 is no different than what Preterists are doing with Mathhew 24:34 in light of the verses surrounding it?

How can ppl be so clueless sometimes? If verse 12 mentions that one is blessed who waits and comes to the 1335th day and that verse 13 then follows, how can there then even be still more days after this 1335th day before verse 13 is finally fulfilled? Where does it ever mention any more days after mentioning this 1335th day? Why are some interpreters adding to the texts things not remotely found in the texts? Why are some interpreters adding more days after this 1335th day before verse 13 can finally be fulfilled? There are no other verses between verse 12 and 13 where some more alleged days can fit before verse 13 can be fulfilled.

Daniel 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

IMO, and one has to think outside of the box in order to see this, the following, for one, is the fulfillment of verse 12. After all, no one, except for maybe Preterists and Pretribbers, are going to argue that the following verse does not lead to the fulfillment of Daniel 12:13 at the time.

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.


This passage and Daniel 12:12 both involve waiting and making it to the end, then being blessed for doing so. Unless one wants to argue that watching doesn't also involve waiting. That would be like arguing that one is sitting at a bus stop watching for their bus to arrive, but that it doesn't involve them waiting for it to arrive. Except no one would argue that. Clearly then, watching also involves waiting and that both Daniel 12:12 and Revelation 16:15 have this in common, waiting then being blessed for having done so, and that the latter also undeniably leads to the fulfillment of Daniel 12:13 at the time, meaning once the coming recorded per the latter is initially fulfilled. The 1290 days mentioned in Daniel 12:11 are involving some of the days that they have to make it through first before the coming recorded in Revelation 16:15 can be fulfilled. But some interpreters want to conceal this fact by applying Daniel 12:11 to the days of A4E instead.

The fact Revelation 16:15 is sandwiched between the 6th and 7th vial, this tends to tell us that His coming doesn't precede the first 6 vials of wrath. Otherwise, what is the point in placing verse 15 between the 6th and 7th vial if the coming meant in verse 15 can be meaning before the 6th and 7th vial, can even be meaning before the first vial, thus Pretrib?