Two Questions About The Temple

[StanJ]

The Holy Spirit didn't have to be given in order to be active. I can quote Scripture which suggests the Holy Spirit, being a part of the triune God was active at creation some eons ago. So too could it have been acting when Jesus died for us on the Cross.

"It is also rendered" - ha! There are so many versions of Daniel 9:27 because it is such a difficult passage to interpret! So you can find just about any way you'd like to have the original language made suitable for you. That rendition misses the mark for me by quite a wide margin so as to be illegitimate! The word abomination is not an adjective modifying the Temple in the original Hebrew. What you have presented as Scripture is literally wrong so as to completely warp Scripture to say something it does not say in the Hebrew. Shame on the authors for shoddy work.

As far as sticking to the OP, each thread takes on a life of its own. The question of where the anti-Christ sets up is quite pertinent to the person the OP says he is as to who restrains him as well. Either his take on it matches all of it, or it doesn't match it in part.

I'm sure you think you are right, and I am wrong; just as much as I think i am right and you are very much wrong.

The Spirit of God is NOT the same as the Holy Spirit, and yes feel free to quote scripture to support your assertions, ALWAYS.

Here are 5 modern English translations that DON'T use temple.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209%3A27&version=NET;ESV;NASB;NLT;NRSV

Feel free to ignore them as well.

As the oldest extant manuscripts of the OT are in Greek, I would suggest you may be lending to much credence in whatever commentary you are referring to.
The Septuagint and Theodotion show the Hebrew as wing.
IMO, this could very well be referring to the Islamic Temple which is already there, or not. Assuming without any evidence, scripture or otherwise, and being adamant about it doesn't mean you're right, it just shows your convinced beyond reasoning.

Now if you can SHOW that there is ANY indication that a future temple WILL be built then please do so, otherwise you are inferring something in this verse that is NOT in context with the NT.

The purpose of any discussion forum is to show how you are right, not just think it, and THAT is done by properly exegeting scripture. Others will decide which is proper.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The Spirit of God is not the Holy Spirit? Oh really? So there are two? So we have a Quad God instead of a triune one?

Right. Abomination is not referring to the Temple as you put out at first. I'm ignoring nothing; you're dancing.

The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. So any translation problems are not going to be solved by going to a translation. The texts we rely upon to translate into English are the Masoretic texts, which may not be the best ones available; but with the first Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, they're all we have. I suggest you study textual criticism before lecturing me on the LXX.

Your opinion is just that.

Rev 11:1-2 establishes a Temple in the first half of the one 'seven.'

If you're going to properly exegete you might want to start with a better version than the one you produced making an abomination of the Temple - which leads to your erroneous assignment to the Dome of the Rock. THAT structure does not include the "Holy Place."

P.S. kanap is wing, but how that gets interpreted, aye there's the rub. I take a figurative approach on this word using its attribute of speed. The KJV does the same thing, but I think they miss the mark with oversheltering as the function of a wing. It can be used for that, but only in a minor role. The anti-Christ rushes out like a flood in Daniel 11; the end comes quickly.

 

[StanJ]

Marcus if you don't understand the different ways God manifested Himself in the OT and the NT then I can't really help you. It's Bible 101.

Abomination refers to idolatry and you're avoiding my question about where this temple is depicted as actually being constructed in some future time?
That is dancing.

I suggest you study the LXX and how reliable it IS. Maybe you don't know who wrote it and that it is the oldest extant copy of the OT we have?
Most modern translations of the OT use the following manuscripts;
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with influence from Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, and Aramaic Targums.

Rev 11:1-2 in about the temple IN heaven, not on earth. When John wrote Revelation, around 90 AD, the temple was already destroyed. I showed you five translations, so which one don't you like?

The Temple mount IS where the last Temple was, so it obviously contained the Holy Place. Now there is only the Dome and as no idols were in the temple the only abomination that could happen would be in the Dome where the anti-Christ would practise it. He sure isn't going to be worshipping our God.

I trust the credentialed scholars of the translations I posted. If you can show how they are wrong then do so, but please provide your accreditations at the same time.

 

[Phoneman777]

Scripture interprets Scripture:

The first definition of naos is a physical Temple!

Mt 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.'

That word is naos.

So is it here:

Mt 23:35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

and here:

Mt 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Jesus said the Abomination would be set up in the Holy Place.

Exodus 26:33 Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.

Paul uses naos in 2Th 2:4 when the Man of Lawlessness is in the Temple.

Jesus and Paul are in agreement.

Scripture interprets Scripture; the Temple in 2Th 2:4 is a physical building.

Brother, let's not ignore the fact that "naos" is used to represent things other than the literal temple and when coupled with the fact that prophecy is given in symbolic terms, your insistence that the word must refer to the literal temple is purely subjective. The leaders of the Papacy have for centuries sat in the temple of God showing themselves to be God anyone with a competent knowledge of church history knows that this system fits all the identifying marks of prophecy, unless one inserts a "gap" in the prophetic time flow - something which is not done in any other time prophecy of Scripture.

Like all Jesuit Futurists, those who subscribe to a "Holy Spirit" Restrainer have failed to offer an explanation as to why Paul didn't proudly and joyfully proclaim His might and power and ability to the Thessalonians and the church at large. Such news would have provided great comfort to those who would hear that the Comforter was easily restraining the rise of Antichrist by means of a hard, thick boot about his scrawny neck, but for some reason Paul chose in this singular instance alone to keep hush hush about His power and might.

Never mind that it makes no sense for Paul to have remained quiet in his epistle about the Restrainer when it was his business to proclaim His power.
Never mind that the Early Church Fathers unanimously believed Paul referred to the Roman Empire - unanimity which could have only resulted from historical consistency.
Never mind that the Early Church PRAYED for the continuation of the persecuting Roman Empire, for fear of the Antichrist which would arise on the heels of its fall.
Never mind that when the Roman Empire fell, the Papacy arose and FULFILLED ALL THE IDENTIFYING MARKS OF THE ANTICHRIST IN PROPHECY.

Jesuit Futurists have no answers to the above arguments, and it is guaranteed that any responses will be another round of "proof" texts as to why the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit.

Many Christians today subscribe to the view of Jesuit Futurism which teaches that there will be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem called the “Temple of God” in which a future Antichrist will arise and sit down on a literal throne and deceive people into believing that he is the long awaited Christ who has finally returned. We should consider the following questions:

1) Would God refer to any rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as the “Temple of God” in which the sacrifices offered would be a national rejection of Messiah the Prince and a collective Jewish middle finger in the face of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

2) Since the “Temple of God” in heaven (Revelation 11:19 KJV) and our heavenly High Priest Jesus (Hebrews 8:1-2 KJV) have both always been the “anti-types” to which the earthly “types” pointed, would God refer to any rebuilt temple in Jerusalem – which temple and its associated priesthood would be utterly useless and completely irrelevant to Him – as the “Temple of God”?

The obvious answer is “no”. To what, then, was Paul referring when he spoke of the Antichrist who is to sit in the “temple of God, showing himself that he is God” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV?

The view of Protestant Historicism is that the phrase “temple of God” is a prophetic symbol interpreted to mean the “church” based on the fact that every single time Paul refers to the church as a “temple” he uses the Greek “naos” – the exact same word translated “temple” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV:

• 
  1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV
  
• 
  1 Corinthians 3:17 KJV
  
• 
  1 Corinthians 6:19 KJV
  
• 
  2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV
  
• 
  Ephesians 2:21 KJV
  

Protestant Historicism teaches that Antichrist – which means “for Christ”; “in place of Christ”; “instead of Christ”; “in behalf of Christ” – is the Papacy, where the man at the head of the Papal system, the Pope, has from since its inception in 538 A.D. usurped Christ's seat of authority over the church and has there seated himself claiming to be “God on earth”, “Jesus Christ Himself hidden under the veil of flesh”, “Holy Father”, “Dispenser of Grace”, etc... – all titles and attributes that belong to Jesus Christ alone. The Antichrist could not arise so long as the Caesars occupied the throne in Rome, as unanimously taught by the Early Church Fathers, but once the Roman Empire fell, the Papacy arose swiftly and the “Man of Sin” seated himself over the church in the very seat vacated by the Caesars, and the line of succession of Popes has done so throughout history.

The Jews may tear down the Islamic “Dome of the Rock”.
They may rebuild a third Jewish temple.
They may offer meaningless sacrifices, offerings, and incense just as they continued to do after God tore the veil of the second Temple in half to signify that He was done with all such things.

They may claim that this rebuilt temple is the “Temple of God”, but it will never be His temple, for the only temple on earth that God considers the “Temple of God” is built not of stones, but of those who are in Christ Jesus.

Like all Jesuit Futurists, those who subscribe to a "Holy Spirit" Restrainer have failed to offer an explanation as to why Paul didn't proudly and joyfully proclaim His might and power and ability to the Thessalonians and the church at large. Such news would have provided great comfort to those who would hear that the Comforter was easily restraining the rise of Antichrist by means of a hard, thick boot about his scrawny neck, but for some reason Paul chose in this singular instance alone to keep hush hush about His power and might.

Never mind that it makes no sense for Paul to have remained quiet in his epistle about the Restrainer when it was his business to proclaim His power.
Never mind that the Early Church Fathers unanimously believed Paul referred to the Roman Empire as the Restrainer - unanimity which could have only resulted from historical consistency.
Never mind that the Early Church PRAYED for the continuation of the persecuting Roman Empire, for fear of the Antichrist which would arise on the heels of its fall.
Never mind that when the Roman Empire fell, the Papacy arose and FULFILLED ALL THE IDENTIFYING MARKS OF THE ANTICHRIST IN PROPHECY.

Jesuit Futurists have no answers to the above arguments, and it is guaranteed that any responses will be another round of "proof" texts as to why the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit without even one feeble attempt to address the OP question...because there simply is no explanation.

 

[StanJ]

Phoneman this is not the only thread you are trying to sell you wares in. It does NOT matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be the same for anyone who KNOWS the word. The Holy Spirit is the restrainer of lawlessness, pure and simple.
Jesus said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". If you think any kind of evil restrains evil, you DON'T understand the Bible whatsoever.

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman this is not the only thread you are trying to sell you wares in. It does NOT matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will always be the same for anyone who KNOWS the word. The Holy Spirit is the restrainer of lawlessness, pure and simple.
Jesus said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". If you think any kind of evil restrains evil, you DON'T understand the Bible whatsoever.

OK, have it your way. I'll ask TWO questions:

1) Who is the Restrainer?

2) If the Holy Spirit is the Restrainer, then for what reason would Paul choose to hide His identity from the world in his letter to the Thessalonians seeing that Paul had NEVER up to that time nor after since failed to declare the Holy Spirit's might and power?

PLEASE ANSWER BOTH QUESTIONS.

 

[StanJ]

PLEASE ANSWER BOTH QUESTIONS.

I have, and you ignore the answers and ask more questions.

 

[ATP]

Many Christians today subscribe to the view of Jesuit Futurism which teaches that there will be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem called the “Temple of God” in which a future Antichrist will arise and sit down on a literal throne and deceive people into believing that he is the long awaited Christ who has finally returned. We should consider the following questions:

1) Would God refer to any rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as the “Temple of God” in which the sacrifices offered would be a national rejection of Messiah the Prince and a collective Jewish middle finger in the face of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

2) Since the “Temple of God” in heaven (Revelation 11:19 KJV) and our heavenly High Priest Jesus (Hebrews 8:1-2 KJV) have both always been the “anti-types” to which the earthly “types” pointed, would God refer to any rebuilt temple in Jerusalem – which temple and its associated priesthood would be utterly useless and completely irrelevant to Him – as the “Temple of God”?

The obvious answer is “no”.

You bring up a good point. Spiritual temple vs. Physical temple.
But if you're stating that born again believers can be possessed by the devil, that would be an incorrect observation.
2 Thess 2:4 is referring to wolves in sheep's clothing Matt 7:15, nonbelievers.

2 Thess 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Apostasy Enters The Church

Paul also warned in the book of Acts of apostasy arising from within the church:

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

The Apostle Peter specifically warned the church of falling into the apostasy of lawlessness:

2 Pet 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked (lawlessness), fall from your own stedfastness.

The word Peter uses is G113 in Strong's concordance:

113. athesmos, ath'-es-mos; from G1 (as a neg. particle) and a der. of G5087 (in the sense of enacting); lawless, i.e. (by impl.) criminal:--wicked.

Note that athesmos has the sense of the negative of enacting, which is to say lawless, criminal, opposed to law. This is what characterizes the apostasy of the man of sin in the church, he opposes God's law.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Marcus if you don't understand the different ways God manifested Himself in the OT and the NT then I can't really help you. It's Bible 101.

My Pastor has Ph.D in theology and he is in agreement with me that the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are synonymous. Which is why I don't take lessons in basic theology off of websites or message boards, from the likes of you, Keras, or the Phoneman.

Again, you assume much to say what I "don't understand," and as such, since I do know what I understand, you are very much ignorant and not well suited then to teach me.

And by the way, it is a basic Christian tenet found in the Bible that God is unchanging. So any difference in "manifestations" then is shaped by the observer, and not God in three parts. That the Jewish rabbis have "missed" God is an understatement, as we can see all three parts of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the OT. That even the authors didn't recognize the differences as we define them does not change how we can, with the revelation of Christ, recognize them in the OT despite their not having the exact same phrasing.

 

[Phoneman777]

I have, and you ignore the answers and ask more questions

You have answered nothing because Jesuit Futurism has no answer to my question.

You bring up a good point. Spiritual temple vs. Physical temple.
But if you're stating that born again believers can be possessed by the devil, that would be an incorrect observation.
2 Thess 2:4 is referring to wolves in sheep's clothing Matt 7:15, nonbelievers.

2 Thess 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Apostasy Enters The Church

Paul also warned in the book of Acts of apostasy arising from within the church:

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

The Apostle Peter specifically warned the church of falling into the apostasy of lawlessness:

2 Pet 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked (lawlessness), fall from your own stedfastness.

The word Peter uses is G113 in Strong's concordance:

113. athesmos, ath'-es-mos; from G1 (as a neg. particle) and a der. of G5087 (in the sense of enacting); lawless, i.e. (by impl.) criminal:--wicked.

Note that athesmos has the sense of the negative of enacting, which is to say lawless, criminal, opposed to law. This is what characterizes the apostasy of the man of sin in the church, he opposes God's law.

Not talking about demonic possession, just bad leadership. Just as in Jesus' day when many of the faithful were forced to endure corrupted leadership, so during the Dark Ages when the faithful were told to either submit to the authority of the church of Rome or die, the people endured the same. However, the "woman" of Revelation 12 that fled "into the wilderness" is symbolic of the true church that went underground for 1260 years during the Dark Ages while the Papacy reigned and the members went by the titles of Waldenses, Albigensis, Hugenots, Bogamills, Lollards, etc. These were those who, while the Pope sat in the temple of God showing himself to be God, steadfastly kept the faith, copied and preserved the Scriptures, and circulated them as best they could. Often, many were caught and never heard from again, and the fruits of their labors to keep the truth alive until the Protestant Reformation struck the death blow to the falsehoods of Papal dogmas will not be known until we get to the kingdom.

 

[ATP]

However, the "woman" of Revelation 12 that fled "into the wilderness" is symbolic of the true church that went underground for 1260 years during the Dark Ages...

Do you believe Rev 12 is a future event, and who do you believe the woman is.

 

[StanJ]

You have answered nothing because Jesuit Futurism has no answer to my question.

As I said, you don't want to listen because of your obsessions with this so called RCC conspiracy. I don't really care how or even if the RCC did this, they would be wrong.
I don't follow the teachings of the RCC and have not even when I was one. I was saved OUT of the RCC but I don't obsess and look for them in every dark corner like you appear to do.

 

[ATP]

Naos - This Greek term for "temple" (naos) was used for the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple, though no seat was in it. The term was also employed for pagan temples where deities were enthroned. This may imply that the Jewish temple must be physically rebuilt (cf. Dan. 9:24-27), possibly following Ezekiel 40-48, but not necessarily. Remember the Jewish temple had no place to sit. It was only a Greek temple (i.e., Zeus') which had a throne. If literal this phrase could not refer to a Jewish place of worship.

See 1Cor.3:16, 2Cor.6:16 and Eph. 2:20 – 22.

In these passages the expression “Temple” is used. In Greek the word is ‘naos’, which, according to Baxter’s Lexicon, means “a dwelling, or the dwelling of a deity, or the Holy Place of the Temple in Jerusalem. So, just as we differentiate between the “front porch, the back door, the hallway, the lounge and the kitchen’, the Greek makes a difference between the Temple building and the Holy Place in the Temple. So “naos” does not mean the actual building, or literal Temple – it means the Sanctuary, or special place of Holiness.

The different words used in the Greek make a lot of sense when read in context. For example, when Jesus said to the Jews “Behold your house is left to you desolate” he used the word ‘naos’.(Mat.23:38) He could have used the word ‘heiron’ which means the whole Temple building, but he wanted to convey the meaning of the Sanctuary, where the Holy place was, where God was supposed to dwell when the High Priest entered. It was in the ‘naos’ where the curtain or Vail ripped from top to bottom, and it was the ‘naos’ which God left, in order to dwell instead, inside His Church.

For other verses which use the word ‘naos’ see Mat.23:16, 17, 26:61, 27:5, 40, 51, Mark 14:58, 15:29, 38, Luke 1:9,21, 22, 23:45, John 2:19, 20, 21, Acts 7:48, 17:24, 1Cor.3:16, 17, 6:19, 2Cor.6:16, Eph.2:21, 2Thess. 2:4, Rev. 3:12, 7:15, 11:1, 2, 19, 14:15, 17, 15:5, 6, 8, 21:22, 16:1, 17.

In every case where the word ‘naos’ is used it means the ‘sanctuary’ or ‘Holy Place’. If ‘Naos meant the old Jewish building, the actual stone and wood Temple, it would make nonsense of most of the references using ‘naos’. For example Eph.2:21 – how could the Church grow into an holy ‘heiron’, that is, an actual sone and wood building? The word used is ‘naos’ because God wants the Church to grow into a ‘Holy Sanctuary’.

 

[brakelite]

Phoneman. You have written well, and clearly shown the truth, and have asked unanswerable questions. Indeed, whatever building may or may not be erected in the future by the deceived Jews, (which by the way have very little connection to OT Judaism, being proponents and teachers of Talmud not Torah) , that in no wise could ever be entitled, the Temple of God. It would not, nor could ever be, God's temple. Thus, when Paul was writing of a future temple belonging to God, it could not possibly be any physical building, but could ONLY be that spiritual temple he refers to elsewhere in his writings, the church. And for anyone to constantly refer to a commentary in support of their argument is terribly weak.
Therefore in order to seek an answer to Paul's claim that the antichrist woud one day rule in the temple of God and claim lordship, we can only look to that one power who progressively throught the dark ages did just that. To utterly ignore history, to utterly ignore the blasphemous claims of Rome, to utterly ignore the dangers that the role Rome pose today through Jesuitism in the creation and propogation of futurism now so prevalent in the church, is to simply give more power to the papacy in her role as lord of the temple, which now is in great danger of apostatising completely and surrendering to Rome en masse.

 

[StanJ]

Oh my, another vehement anti RCC proponent.

 

[brakelite]

Oh my, another vehement anti RCC proponent.

True Protestants have been vehently against the policies and practices of the RCC for 500 years. Unless you or anyone else can provide evidence that Rome has changed her habits I see to reason to desist.

 

[[email protected]]

Many Christians today subscribe to the view of Jesuit Futurism which teaches that there will be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem called the “Temple of God” in which a future Antichrist will arise and sit down on a literal throne and deceive people into believing that he is the long awaited Christ who has finally returned. We should consider the following questions:

1) Would God refer to any rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as the “Temple of God” in which the sacrifices offered would be a national rejection of Messiah the Prince and a collective Jewish middle finger in the face of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

2) Since the “Temple of God” in heaven (Revelation 11:19 KJV) and our heavenly High Priest Jesus (Hebrews 8:1-2 KJV) have both always been the “anti-types” to which the earthly “types” pointed, would God refer to any rebuilt temple in Jerusalem – which temple and its associated priesthood would be utterly useless and completely irrelevant to Him – as the “Temple of God”?

The obvious answer is “no”. To what, then, was Paul referring when he spoke of the Antichrist who is to sit in the “temple of God, showing himself that he is God” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV?

The view of Protestant Historicism is that the phrase “temple of God” is a prophetic symbol interpreted to mean the “church” based on the fact that every single time Paul refers to the church as a “temple” he uses the Greek “naos” – the exact same word translated “temple” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV:

• 
  1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV
  
• 
  1 Corinthians 3:17 KJV
  
• 
  1 Corinthians 6:19 KJV
  
• 
  2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV
  
• 
  Ephesians 2:21 KJV
  

Protestant Historicism teaches that Antichrist – which means “for Christ”; “in place of Christ”; “instead of Christ”; “in behalf of Christ” – is the Papacy, where the man at the head of the Papal system, the Pope, has from since its inception in 538 A.D. usurped Christ's seat of authority over the church and has there seated himself claiming to be “God on earth”, “Jesus Christ Himself hidden under the veil of flesh”, “Holy Father”, “Dispenser of Grace”, etc... – all titles and attributes that belong to Jesus Christ alone. The Antichrist could not arise so long as the Caesars occupied the throne in Rome, as unanimously taught by the Early Church Fathers, but once the Roman Empire fell, the Papacy arose swiftly and the “Man of Sin” seated himself over the church in the very seat vacated by the Caesars, and the line of succession of Popes has done so throughout history.

The Jews may tear down the Islamic “Dome of the Rock”.
They may rebuild a third Jewish temple.
They may offer meaningless sacrifices, offerings, and incense just as they continued to do after God tore the veil of the second Temple in half to signify that He was done with all such things.

They may claim that this rebuilt temple is the “Temple of God”, but it will never be His temple, for the only temple on earth that God considers the “Temple of God” is built not of stones, but of those who are in Christ Jesus.

You assume too much sir. Blinded by your hatred of Roman Catholics, you have made assertions that are unBiblical and unworthy of your cerebral capacity, which is sufficient to seek the truth if you wish it.

Unfortunately this post, like so many erects a monument to its own bias and then uses scripture as peripheral support. Scripture is not used as a tool to seek truth, but as a supporting argument for bigotry. So it was in Jesus' day and so it continues to the present time.

In the book of Exodus, God directed Moses in the construction of the desert tabernacle. The form and basic design of it was a pattern for the three heavens spoken of in later portions of Holy Writ. It was a holy place to be constructed by the Hebrews at the direction and design God intended. Later, during the reign of Solomon (books of the Kings) the first temple was built in Jerusalem. It followed the same pattern. In the days of Herod, the second temple was completed and polished (its refurbishment having begun generations before when the Jews returned from Babylon).

Today Jews often refer to the modern state of Israel as the third temple, even though the structure of geography, government and industry do not coincide with the Biblical standard - the Jewish standard.

According to the Bible there is virtually NO difference between 'spiritual' and 'physical' existence. They are all a part of the whole as created by Almighty God. The design of the tabernacle and temple illustrate the form, limitations and functions of each. There are barriers and properties of each that differ from one another, but they are all part of the whole. What man would deny the impact of God upon his life? What man would deny that spiritual regeneration does not also profit the physical body and its journey through life? Is not one thing part of the other? Can a man take a sword and divide himself as though by edict of Solomon and give one side to the world and the other side to the spirit? No, he cannot. All of it belongs to God.

Divisions are a tool of theologians, philosophers and scientists for understanding. It is not the way things are made. To confuse an academic device for reality is to flirt with heresy and error in truth.

As for rants against the Roman Catholic church, I can only share what one wise back woods preacher once said to me.

"God is able to pluck His own geese."

In other words, don't worry about it. It's God's business after all, isn't it? Are we not called to pray for our brothers and sisters? Or are we called to preach hate and lies against them. Let the reader judge for himself, but let him judge wisely.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[StanJ]

True Protestants have been vehently against the policies and practices of the RCC for 500 years. Unless you or anyone else can provide evidence that Rome has changed her habits I see to reason to desist.

Because Jesus said so. I have no idea what you mean by a true Protestant?
Roman Catholicism is not more representative of Christianity than Pentecostalism is, or ANY denom. We are all individually representative of the Christian faith and are also commanded to love our enemies, NOT vilify or castigate them.

 

[brakelite]

You Stan and choir loft previously both make the same error...you are confusing our protests as being personally against individual members of the RCC, whereas, and I think I can be so presumptous as to speak for phoneman also, our beef is not against people...it is against people's wrong ideas...against a church's wrong ideas. In the Roman church there are many genuine Christians who love God and serve Him to the best of their understanding. They are Christians in the fullest sense of of Biblical Christianty, although likely immature and having a lack of understanding in Biblical conceptes and truth. But they are Christians not because they are Roman Catholic, but in fact despite the church. For I would be so bold as to venture that if one was to make a list of Christian churches, I for one would never include the RCC on that list. Yet Rome claims to be Christian, and millions have been deceived into believing this and follow the priests and trust in their judgment, their teachings, and believe that by doing so they are therefore on their way to heaven. But Jesus says we are to trust Him. not put pur faith in man, nor in mans' institutions. Knowing this, that there are millions who are deceived and following pagan priciples and traditions, are we to keep quiet because we are to "love" them? Is it love to hide the truth from those who are deceived? Is it love to hide the truth from the vast majority of Christendom are are heading for a crisis in the which they also will be deceived by the very same institution?

In the book of Revelation in chapter 14 there is a warning message for the church to give to the world. It is described by the angel as being a part of the everlasting gospel. An integral part of these messages include a very stern warning concerning Babylon because she has deceived all nations into joining in her spiritual adultery. A church, once true, now fallen, because she is now in a intimate relationship with the kings of the world.

Rome, through and through. Not only is it wise to warn the world of the danger this organisation presents, but according to Revel.14, we are called to give this warning, shouting it with a loud voice even if need be.

 

[StanJ]

You Stan and choir loft previously both make the same error...you are confusing our protests as being personally against individual members of the RCC, whereas, and I think I can be so presumptous as to speak for phoneman also, our beef is not against people...it is against people's wrong ideas...against a church's wrong ideas. In the Roman church there are many genuine Christians who love God and serve Him to the best of their understanding. They are Christians in the fullest sense of of Biblical Christianty, although likely immature and having a lack of understanding in Biblical conceptes and truth. But they are Christians not because they are Roman Catholic, but in fact despite the church. For I would be so bold as to venture that if one was to make a list of Christian churches, I for one would never include the RCC on that list. Yet Rome claims to be Christian, and millions have been deceived into believing this and follow the priests and trust in their judgment, their teachings, and believe that by doing so they are therefore on their way to heaven. But Jesus says we are to trust Him. not put pur faith in man, nor in mans' institutions. Knowing this, that there are millions who are deceived and following pagan priciples and traditions, are we to keep quiet because we are to "love" them? Is it love to hide the truth from those who are deceived? Is it love to hide the truth from the vast majority of Christendom are are heading for a crisis in the which they also will be deceived by the very same institution?

In the book of Revelation in chapter 14 there is a warning message for the church to give to the world. It is described by the angel as being a part of the everlasting gospel. An integral part of these messages include a very stern warning concerning Babylon because she has deceived all nations into joining in her spiritual adultery. A church, once true, now fallen, because she is now in a intimate relationship with the kings of the world.

Rome, through and through. Not only is it wise to warn the world of the danger this organisation presents, but according to Revel.14, we are called to give this warning, shouting it with a loud voice even if need be.

Revelation is for the church, the real church, which is the Body of Christ. Nowhere are we instructed to bring condemnation to ANY group. Condemnation is God's to give, and His alone. If you want to debate those in the RCC then go to an RCC forum and debate them. There is no warning there unless you infer it into that text. It is a Revelation of Jesus Christ about what will happen. Unless you can show a proper understanding of Revelation, your opinion is NOT acceptable Biblically.