The REAL "man of sin"

[Davy]

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Apostle Paul was warning the brethren against false doctrine some crept in unawares was spreading. So he sent them that 2 Thess.2 Epistle to remind the brethren of what he had taught them at the first.

2 Thess 2:1-5
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That 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.

3 Let 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;
4 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.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
KJV


If you study all... of your Bible, then it becomes easy to understand just who Apostle Paul is talking about as that coming "man of sin" and "son of perdition" that will appear in Jerusalem in a new stone temple for the end, and set himself up over all that is called... God, or that is worshipped.

Apostle Paul then later links the false working by that coming "man of sin" to Jerusalem with the false one Lord Jesus taught about for the end in His Olivet discourse of Matthew 24:23-26. Jesus warned that if someone comes up to you and says something like, "Lo, Christ is here, or there", Jesus said do not believe it. That is within the time of "great tribulation" He showed, which is only at the very end of this present world. And that is the "man of sin" that Paul was reminding the brethren about (including us today).

That future event about that "man of sin" coming to play God in Jerusalem for the end, also involves another standing Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem, what Paul pointed to with "the temple of God".

Jesus showed that too when He quoted from the Book of Daniel about the "abomination of desolation" idol event that will spiritually desolate the future Jew's temple in Jerusalem, per Daniel 11, Daniel 9:27, and Daniel 8:9-14. Now if you have not studied about that prophecy per the Book of Daniel for the end of this world, then you will default to men's stupid theories that leave Bible Scripture, and who are not given to understand this event for the very end of this world.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Apostle Paul was warning the brethren against false doctrine some crept in unawares was spreading. So he sent them that 2 Thess.2 Epistle to remind the brethren of what he had taught them at the first.

2 Thess 2:1-5
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That 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.

3 Let 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;
4 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.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
KJV


If you study all... of your Bible, then it becomes easy to understand just who Apostle Paul is talking about as that coming "man of sin" and "son of perdition" that will appear in Jerusalem in a new stone temple for the end, and set himself up over all that is called... God, or that is worshipped.

My question is, Will this "temple" be a "new stone temple" as you suggest? As I've said before, the building of the temple of Solomon, and the rebuilding of the temple under Zerubbabel, were both done with great pomp and ceremony or with great attention to the event. This "temple" of Antichrist's revelation has nothing to explain it in any detail.

In my view, it is either Antichrist's claim to God's throne in heaven or his adoption of some other earthly temple. I see no substantial evidence that a "temple of Law" will be rebuilt to accommodate a false Messiah? On the contrary, the writer of Hebrews speaks explicitly against such a notion. The old temple has passed away forever in favor of the true heavenly temple. And the book of Revelation references the temple as being in heaven, except when it is used as a symbolic figure of worship in Rev 11.

Apostle Paul then later links the false working by that coming "man of sin" to Jerusalem with the false one Lord Jesus taught about for the end in His Olivet discourse of Matthew 24:23-26. Jesus warned that if someone comes up to you and says something like, "Lo, Christ is here, or there", Jesus said do not believe it. That is within the time of "great tribulation" He showed, which is only at the very end of this present world. And that is the "man of sin" that Paul was reminding the brethren about (including us today).

I believe Jesus warned, in his Olivet Discourse, of his own time and generation. He warned that false Christs would appear among the Jewish People to mislead them at a time when they should've been paying attention to their own sins and lies.

Certainly, there have been false Christs among the Gentiles after Jerusalem fell. But in this particular context, Jesus was speaking to his apostles about their experience among the Jewish People, whose leaders would deceive them.

That future event about that "man of sin" coming to play God in Jerusalem for the end, also involves another standing Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem, what Paul pointed to with "the temple of God".

Jesus showed that too when He quoted from the Book of Daniel about the "abomination of desolation" idol event that will spiritually desolate the future Jew's temple in Jerusalem, per Daniel 11, Daniel 9:27, and Daniel 8:9-14. Now if you have not studied about that prophecy per the Book of Daniel for the end of this world, then you will default to men's stupid theories that leave Bible Scripture, and who are not given to understand this event for the very end of this world.

My view, as I've stated elsewhere, is that Dan 11 is about the Abomination of Desolation of Antiochus 4--not the Antichrist. Same with Dan 8.

On the other hand, Dan 9.27 is about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is the passage Jesus references in his Olivet Discourse, I believe.

The Roman army was the AoD on that occasion. I don't wish to die on this hill with you--just state my opinion, since your opinion is also noted. Thank you.

 

[covenantee]

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

Ephesians 2:21-22
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:4
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.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Greek

 

[Keraz]

We Christians build Church's and Cathedrals to worship God in.
If we go to live in the holy Land, as is well prophesied, then we would build a new Temple in Jerusalem. As Zechariah 6:15 says.

Regarding the 'man of sin', he must be alive now and will be revealed when he sits in the new Temple, as described in 2 Thess 2:4.
Jesus was not talking about a past event in Matthew 24:15.......let the reader understand. Seems some don't want to understand.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Paul's temples:
"naos" spiritual:
"eidóleion" physical:
"hieros/hieron" physical:

I'm not sure that's correct. "Naos" is applied to physical temples, as well. I do think that the differences in these words are for a reason and may suggest a nuanced view of temple in 2 Thes 2.4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

But the operating word here is, I think, "God's." It is "God's temple," which may refer to His temple in heaven, as opposed to his temple on earth, which Jesus had already dismissed as no longer relevant and devoted to destruction, a cursed thing.

 

[covenantee]

"Naos" is applied to physical temples, as well.

Not by Paul. He uses it consistently to describe the spiritual temple of the believer, collectively the Church, in five instances preceding Thessalonians. And he instead uses "eidóleion" and "hieros/hieron" in instances describing the physical temple.

In comparing Scripture with Scripture, it is entirely exegetical to conclude that Paul is using "naos" with consistency to refer to the Thessalonian temple as a spiritual temple.

The man of sin takes up residence within the spiritual temple of the Church, usurping and arrogating Divine authority.

 

[Keraz]

his temple on earth, which Jesus had already dismissed as no longer relevant and devoted to destruction, a cursed thing.

Jesus Prophesied the destruction of the Second Temple. He said that for the Christian era, we represent the Temple of God.
But nothing that Jesus said precludes the building of a third Temple, in fact in His recitation to John, He mentions another Temple. Revelation 11:1 and it is only in Revelation 21:32, in Eternity; when no Temple will be required.

What I would like to know, is why some Christians flatly deny the possibility of a new Temple, dedicated to God and built by the Christian peoples. As is Prophesied in Zechariah 6:15, Haggai 2:7-9, Isaiah 2:2-3, +
This kind of rejection of the Prophetic Word, shows that another agenda and wrong beliefs are forcing their errors.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus Prophesied the destruction of the Second Temple. He said that for the Christian era, we represent the Temple of God.
But nothing that Jesus said precludes the building of a third Temple, in fact in His recitation to John, He mentions another Temple. Revelation 11:1 and it is only in Revelation 21:32, in Eternity; when no Temple will be required.

What I would like to know, is why some Christians flatly deny the possibility of a new Temple, dedicated to God and built by the Christian peoples. As is Prophesied in Zechariah 6:15, Haggai 2:7-9, Isaiah 2:2-3, +
This kind of rejection of the Prophetic Word, shows that another agenda and wrong beliefs are forcing their errors.

I reject the building of a new 3rd temple because the passages you site have an alterative explanation, and unless confirmed in the New Testament would appear to be contrary to NT teaching. As I said before, the temple of Solomon and the temple of Zerubbabel were built with much adieu, indicating the importance of these things in prophetic history. There is no such revelry with respect to a supposed "3rd temple."

I don't dismiss completely the possibility of a 3rd temple, but only because there is a distant chance in my mind due to 2 Thes 2.4. Rev 11 is not convincing to me because it appears to be a symbolic presentation of worship, a diorama of sorts.

The book of Revelation does not wait until the New Creation to present the New Jerusalem without a literal temple. Parts of the temple are depicted in the account of the time of Antichrist's Reign. The ark appears, and the altar appears during that time, indicating these are purely symbolic of heavenly realities.

And the tabernacle was constructed and patterned after a temple in heaven. So I see no need for an earthly temple anymore. Jesus said worship would no longer be in Jerusalem but anywhere a person wishes to worship God.

 

[Keraz]

I see no need for an earthly temple anymore. Jesus said worship would no longer be in Jerusalem but anywhere a person wishes to worship God.

If people can't see how the Christian peoples will go to live in the holy Land, then the building of a new Temple does seem unlikely.
But there are many Prophesies which say how the faithful peoples of God will inhabit it and they will build a new Temple.

After Hie Returns, King Jesus will rule the world from this new Temple, as undeniably stated in Isaiah 2 and Zechariah 14:16-21

 

[Zao is life]

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Apostle Paul was warning the brethren against false doctrine some crept in unawares was spreading. So he sent them that 2 Thess.2 Epistle to remind the brethren of what he had taught them at the first.

If you study all... of your Bible, then it becomes easy to understand just who Apostle Paul is talking about as that coming "man of sin" and "son of perdition" that will appear in Jerusalem in a new stone temple for the end, and set himself up over all that is called... God, or that is worshipped.

I have studied it all, and taken note of the fact that It was all written in Greek first, and the noticeable thing about the temple written about in 2 Thess 2:4 is that Paul used the Greek word naós in reference to that temple - a word which he consistently used when speaking about the bodies of individual Christians, and the congregations of Christians as the tabernacle (temple) of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21-22).

However Paul used the Greek word hierón in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (which was still standing) in 1 Corinthians 9:13.

All of which is remarkable if Paul was talking about a temple in Jerusalem in 2 Thess 2:4 and using the word naós, because the last time that the New Testament uses the word naós in reference to the temple in Jerusalem, is in the verses in the Gospels which tell about the tearing of the veil between that holy place / holy of holies, which occurred when Jesus died on the cross.

Once in the New Testament, the word naós is NOT referring to the sanctuary of God: Acts 19:24, where it refers to the sanctuary of the goddess Diana. The rest of the time it's referring to the sanctuary of God, and after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the temple, the first time the word naos is used again, is in Acts:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

In the New Testament, the following verses:-

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21:21; 2; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22

are all talking about the bodies of individual Christians as the temple, the congregation as the temple, and the temple in heaven, and all use the word naos.

This is unlike the New Testament's use of the Greek word hieron, which continues to be used in all references to the temple in Jerusalem even after the tearing of the veil (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1-3, 8 & 10; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:20-21 & 24-25; Acts 5:42; Acts 21:26-30; Acts 22:17; Acts 24:6, 12 & 18; Acts 25:8; Acts 26:21; 1 Corinthians 9:13).

The only exceptions are where the priests of that temple accuse Paul of defiling their temple, and use the words translated into English as "this holy place", which in the Greek reads "hagios topos", meaning sacred or holy place, but even in those verses the word naos is not used for the temple in Jerusalem, it being after the time the veil in the naos was torn .

This use of the word naos following the verses telling of the tearing of the veil seems to be the case even with Revelation 11:1-2, because there are no verses in the Revelation where "Babylon the Great", or the city "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt", or the cities of the nations which fell when the 7th bowl of wrath was poured out, are called "the holy city",

but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem "the holy city" three times: Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

Revelation 11:2 is talking about the holy city. The Greek calls the temple that Revelation 11:1 is referring to, naós - it uses the word naós for "temple". The other city referred to in Revelation chapter 11, is referred to as a city that is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

So if Paul was talking about a temple in Jerusalem in 2 Thess 2:4, then why on earth he would be inconsistent, both with his own use of the word hierón in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (which was still standing), and the word naós when speaking about the bodies of individual Christians, the congregations of Christians as the tabernacle (temple) of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21-22), as well as inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament in the way the two Greek words are used, is not easy to explain - unless of course, Paul isn't talking about a temple in Jerusalem in 2 Thess 2:4.

[Strongs Greek Dictionary] 02411 (English: Temple)
ἱερόν hierón, hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts, whereas 3485 [naós] denotes the central sanctuary itself (of the Temple in Jerusalem, or elsewhere).​

 

[Zao is life]

Jesus showed that too when He quoted from the Book of Daniel about the "abomination of desolation" idol event that will spiritually desolate the future Jew's temple in Jerusalem, per Daniel 11, Daniel 9:27, and Daniel 8:9-14. Now if you have not studied about that prophecy per the Book of Daniel for the end of this world, then you will default to men's stupid theories that leave Bible Scripture, and who are not given to understand this event for the very end of this world.

I partly agree, because this is what Wikipedia has to say about the phrase "Abomination of Desolation":
​

=================================​

"Abomination of Desolation" is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."
(Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia)​

=================================​

However, what I believe is very important to note is that:

(i) The abomination of desolation (singular) set up by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" (Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11) in 167 BC in the temple in Jerusalem, was 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.

(ii) Daniel 9:26-27 prophesied that abominations (plural) were going to be committed that the text associates with the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the temple).

So the above facts suggest that the temple that the abomination of desolation will be placed in, will not be destroyed, nor will the city - Revelation 11:1-2's New Jerusalem, the holy city (see my Post #10, above this post). They cannot be destroyed because their builder is Christ - but the temple can be defiled by the man of sin|son of perdition - himself the idol in the temple - and cleansed after he is destroyed, and the temple then reconsecrated to God, like the 2nd temple was.

This would make sense of the fact that there is a correlation between 2 Thess 2 and Matthew 24:

​

 

[Timtofly]

So if Paul was talking about a temple in Jerusalem in 2 Thess 2:4, then why on earth he would be inconsistent, both with his own use of the word hierón in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (which was still standing), and the word naós when speaking about the bodies of individual Christians, the congregations of Christians as the tabernacle (temple) of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21-22), as well as inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament in the way the two Greek words are used, is not easy to explain - unless of course, Paul isn't talking about a temple in Jerusalem in 2 Thess 2:4.

"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" Strongs

Seems it is up to personal interpretation or context.

According to you, John was to go around and measure every human body, no?

"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."

There is your proof, no?

Some of us conclude that the word naos is not limited to a person's body also called a temple. For one, one use is figurative and one is literal. God literally sits on a GWT. He may have even before creation as heaven and earth is not necessary for this throne to exist.

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

We see this GWT can still literally exist without an earth or heaven. So technically God can dwell within creation itself literally as the one on the throne. We see this mentioned throughout history. We also see that God can figuratively dwell in the human naos.

However in Revelation 11:1 John does not measure just those human bodies, he also measures the Temple and the alter. That is if you are still going with each body of a human is a literal temple, and not figurative. Seems by context, John is making a distinction between a literal temple, a literal alter, and a literal human. Since he is told in context to measure all three.

So it is consistent in Scripture that if John was to measure a literal naos then Paul could be talking about that same naos in conjunction with this created being who also sits in the same naos that John is measuring.

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, 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."

"That man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 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."

"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: And there are seven kings: And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

So this eighth "king" sits in a Temple and goes into perdition according to both Paul and John.

What an alter is and who that 8th king is may be a different argument than the literal temple. Many still seem confused even about how this temple is used. They don't understand the alter, and they certainly fail to point out this man of sin that is called a beast throughout the book of Revelation.

There may be clues, because one of the 7 churches was Pergamos that received a copy of Revelation. But that would probably be too easy, so dismissed.

"And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth."

A replica of that alter can still be found in a museum in Berlin, Germany. Interestingly, the viewing was stopped until 2027, for reconstruction purposes, in October. Not to dwell on it much longer, but it should be a clue about who taught the Greeks their mythology. At least according to Revelation 2:12-13.

The word alter can simply be the place where God comes to dwell with mankind. Not just a construct to offer sacrifices. Another hint is given by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-32

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another."

An alter can also be a place to sit. God sitting with humankind literally through Jesus as the Prince to come. The GWT will not be in a building, but the throne of Jesus will be in that Temple literally.

That "man of sin" has been hand in hand with world government from the start of that 7 headed dragon.

"And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads."

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is"

This dragon is the symbolism showing that every kingdom since Babylon, has been part of Satan's attack against Israel. Jerusalem will be the place Jesus sets up His throne, and that will still be the same Temple and throne mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1.

 

[covenantee]

So if Paul was talking about a temple in Jerusalem in 2 Thess 2:4, then why on earth he would be inconsistent, both with his own use of the word hierón in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (which was still standing), and the word naós when speaking about the bodies of individual Christians, the congregations of Christians as the tabernacle (temple) of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21-22), as well as inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament in the way the two Greek words are used, is not easy to explain - unless of course, Paul isn't talking about a temple in Jerusalem in 2 Thess 2:4.

According to you, John was to go around and measure every human body, no?

According to you, Paul is John, yes?

If you'd take the time to read your own excerpt from FOTG's post, you'd notice that all of his Scripture references are from Paul's epistles.

Paul is fully consistent in distinguishing between "naós", and "hierón" (and "eidóleion").

And Paul is not John.

 

[Timtofly]

And Paul is not John.

Never posted that.

as well as inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament

This post claims the "rest of the NT". That is why I commented on that quote.

Are you saying Paul wrote the whole NT, or just simply not comprehending what people post?

 

[ScottA]

The beliefs expressed here in the Original Post [again], are merely what has been propagated by those "false teachers" foretold by both Peter and Paul, who were "already at work" in the church since the its beginning. Many are their victims.

I say again, just as Jesus clarified that we who are first born of the lineage of Adam are the sons of our father the devil (and therefore must be born again of the spirit of God)--we are that "man of sin" revealed in the flesh...and Paul's message in 2 Thessalonians 2 was simply to say that until we each are first revealed as sons of the devil, Jesus will not come knocking on the door within us just as He promised, of which "no one knows the day nor the hour."

As for the Temple--you/we are that temple.

 

[covenantee]

Are you saying Paul wrote the whole NT, or just simply not comprehending what people post?

Are you saying John wrote the whole NT, or just simply not comprehending what FOTG posted?

 

[Zao is life]

According to you, Paul is John, yes?

If you'd take the time to read your own excerpt from FOTG's post, you'd notice that all of his Scripture references are from Paul's epistles.

Paul is fully consistent in distinguishing between "naós", and "hierón" (and "eidóleion").

And Paul is not John.

That's why I didn't bother to reply. It's just a distraction. Full of things that would take half an hour to correct. I was answering Davy's post anyway, not Tim's.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm not sure that's correct. "Naos" is applied to physical temples, as well.

With the exception of the New Testament's only reference to a shrine for Diana as the naos, naos is not even once applied to any physical temple again after the verses telling about the tearing of the veil in the physical temple in Jerusalem.

You can go look at each verse. You will not even find one after the verses telling of the tearing of the veil using the word naos in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (and you should look at each verse before sticking to that argument).

After the tearing of the veil God's sanctuary is called naos and the physical temple in Jerusalem is called hieron. Up until the tearing of the veil both words were used in reference to the Jerusalem temple.

And the only time naos refers to a pagan temple in the New Testament is in Acts 19:24. Every other time it's referring to God's sanctuary - in Jerusalem up until the tearing of the veil, and in Christians, the church and the temple in heaven after that.

 

[Zao is life]

"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" Strongs

Seems it is up to personal interpretation or context.

According to you, John was to go around and measure every human body, no?

"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."

There is your proof, no?

Some of us conclude that the word naos is not limited to a person's body also called a temple. For one, one use is figurative and one is literal. God literally sits on a GWT. He may have even before creation as heaven and earth is not necessary for this throne to exist.

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

We see this GWT can still literally exist without an earth or heaven. So technically God can dwell within creation itself literally as the one on the throne. We see this mentioned throughout history. We also see that God can figuratively dwell in the human naos.

However in Revelation 11:1 John does not measure just those human bodies, he also measures the Temple and the alter. That is if you are still going with each body of a human is a literal temple, and not figurative. Seems by context, John is making a distinction between a literal temple, a literal alter, and a literal human. Since he is told in context to measure all three.

So it is consistent in Scripture that if John was to measure a literal naos then Paul could be talking about that same naos in conjunction with this created being who also sits in the same naos that John is measuring.

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, 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."

"That man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 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."

"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: And there are seven kings: And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

So this eighth "king" sits in a Temple and goes into perdition according to both Paul and John.

What an alter is and who that 8th king is may be a different argument than the literal temple. Many still seem confused even about how this temple is used. They don't understand the alter, and they certainly fail to point out this man of sin that is called a beast throughout the book of Revelation.

There may be clues, because one of the 7 churches was Pergamos that received a copy of Revelation. But that would probably be too easy, so dismissed.

"And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth."

A replica of that alter can still be found in a museum in Berlin, Germany. Interestingly, the viewing was stopped until 2027, for reconstruction purposes, in October. Not to dwell on it much longer, but it should be a clue about who taught the Greeks their mythology. At least according to Revelation 2:12-13.

The word alter can simply be the place where God comes to dwell with mankind. Not just a construct to offer sacrifices. Another hint is given by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-32

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another."

An alter can also be a place to sit. God sitting with humankind literally through Jesus as the Prince to come. The GWT will not be in a building, but the throne of Jesus will be in that Temple literally.

That "man of sin" has been hand in hand with world government from the start of that 7 headed dragon.

"And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads."

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is"

This dragon is the symbolism showing that every kingdom since Babylon, has been part of Satan's attack against Israel. Jerusalem will be the place Jesus sets up His throne, and that will still be the same Temple and throne mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1.

You're thinking aloud again, combining different subjects and your own views on them, not answering what I said, answering what I did not say.

 

[Randy Kluth]

With the exception of the New Testament's only reference to a shrine for Diana as the naos, naos is not even once applied to any physical temple again after the verses telling about the tearing of the veil in the physical temple in Jerusalem.

You can go look at each verse. You will not even find one after the verses telling of the tearing of the veil using the word naos in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (and you should look at each verse before sticking to that argument).

After the tearing of the veil God's sanctuary is called naos and the physical temple in Jerusalem is called hieron. Up until the tearing of the veil both words were used in reference to the Jerusalem temple.

And the only time naos refers to a pagan temple in the New Testament is in Acts 19:24. Every other time it's referring to God's sanctuary - in Jerusalem up until the tearing of the veil, and in Christians, the church and the temple in heaven after that.

Yes, that is likely significant that *after* the tearing of the veil, one word is chosen over the other in reference to the temple. And that's because "naos" refers more to the temple proper, whereas "heiron" refers to the entire environment of the temple. There is no "naos" after it is destroyed in 70 AD. But your point is well-taken. I'll have to think about this when I have less interruptions. Thank you!