2 Thess 2:1-12, (A Future Temple) Isaiah 66:1-9 Shows This To Be True, Same Events!

[Nehemiah6]

You say there must be a literal [3rd] temple in Jerusalem in the future. But you do not explain why it must be in Jerusalem.

For the Jews there can be only one temple, one *holy place*, and one city in which this temple will sit. And that is Jerusalem.

When Paul says "temple of God" in connection with the Antichrist he means exactly that. When Jesus said "holy place" He meant exactly that. When Daniel said "the city and the sanctuary" he meant Jerusalem and the temple which would sit there. When Daniel said "the sacrifice and the oblation will cease" he meant the temple sacrifices in the third temple in Jerusalem.

In the Olivet Discourse, Christ already predicted the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD. But then He went on to speak about the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place followed by the Great Tribulation and the cataclysmic cosmic events which would follow. Since the Great Tribulation is in the future, so is this temple in the future.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

The Antichrist will not be the high priest of the future third temple. He will literally claim to be God, and demand the worship of the inhabitants of the world. See Revelation 13.

Thank you for offering this challenge. I feel that my answers withstand this test. But please give me you opinion if they do.

The pope does Claim to be God. He is called "Holy Father". [Matthew 23:9]

He also accepts worship allowing people to bow to him, kiss his feet or hand, and by praying to him. [Rev 22:8-9] When Catholics site the "Our Father" it may sound that they are praying to the Holy Father who is in Heaven. But this is a deception. They are praying to the Holy Father who sits in the Holy Places of the Vatican Temple.

 

[Scribe]

When Paul said "sitteth in the temple of God" the temple was standing and there is no way that his readers would have understood anything other than the temple in Jerusalem. Therefore it is expected that a Jewish temple will be rebuilt. When Paul wrote this Jesus had already provided salvation through faith in the cross and resurrection and we know that Hebrews says that having been made partakers of the Holy Ghost through faith in Christ they could not return to the Jewish temple system, and yet it was still referred to as the temple of God. A temple could be rebuilt and be the temple of God that Paul was talking about only if it were a rebuilding of that same temple. This is sound hermeneutics and I expect a temple to be standing when that Wicked one is revealed.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

For the Jews there can be only one temple, one *holy place*, and one city in which this temple will sit. And that is Jerusalem.

That was correct before Jesus gave up his Spirit and torn the veil from top to bottom [Matthew 27:50-51]
This event immediately means that the sacrifice of the Christ was completed and therefore the literal stone temple was needed no more. Forever.

The true 3rd temple is not a literal stone temple. The true 3rd temple is a metaphorical temple which Paul describes in Ephesians where both Jew and Gentile are both reconciled to God through Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:12 tells us that "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him."

Conclusion: Jew and Gentile share in the same temple (metaphorical, and forever temple)

When Paul says "temple of God" in connection with the Antichrist he means exactly that. When Jesus said "holy place" He meant exactly that. When Daniel said "the city and the sanctuary" he meant Jerusalem and the temple which would sit there. When Daniel said "the sacrifice and the oblation will cease" he meant the temple sacrifices in the third temple in Jerusalem.

In 2 Thessalonians 2, When Paul says "temple of God" he is talking about a false temple, and literal stone temple unlike the metaphorical temple he describes in Ephesians. This false but literal stone temple is what Satan will prepare to deceive the World. We know that this is a false temple because the man of Lawlessness sits in this temple. A true temple of God would have the true Spirit of God in it.
Why God is capitalized is because he (Satan) will deceive many into worshiping the man of lawlessness like he is the true God and Holy Father.

Therefore there is no requirement for this false temple to be in Jerusalem. Satan can place this false temple where ever he wishes. He will place it in a city that will deceive the most people.

In the Olivet Discourse, Christ already predicted the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD. But then He went on to speak about the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place followed by the Great Tribulation and the cataclysmic cosmic events which would follow. Since the Great Tribulation is in the future, so is this temple in the future.

This is very tough to all address here because it contains many difficult things. Can we hold off on this until we further get in order the 3rd temple?

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

In the Olivet Discourse, Christ already predicted the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD. But then He went on to speak about the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place followed by the Great Tribulation and the cataclysmic cosmic events which would follow. Since the Great Tribulation is in the future, so is this temple in the future.

Without addressing Abomination of Desolation, the Great Tribulation, or cataclysmic cosmic events -->

Yes, I believe the 3rd literal temple (which I believe is a false temple) will be around through most or all of the tribulation.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

When Paul said "sitteth in the temple of God" the temple was standing and there is no way that his readers would have understood anything other than the temple in Jerusalem. Therefore it is expected that a Jewish temple will be rebuilt. When Paul wrote this Jesus had already provided salvation through faith in the cross and resurrection and we know that Hebrews says that having been made partakers of the Holy Ghost through faith in Christ they could not return to the Jewish temple system, and yet it was still referred to as the temple of God. A temple could be rebuilt and be the temple of God that Paul was talking about only if it were a rebuilding of that same temple. This is sound hermeneutics and I expect a temple to be standing when that Wicked one is revealed.

But look at what was built and completed in 360 AD. The Old St. Peter's Basilica, which was a temple to dedicated to St. Peter, the claimed first pope. From its very beginnning this was always a "Temple of the Pope" or a "Shrine of the Pope". The Pope Claiming to be Holy Father, which is God, therefore this was the "temple of God" Paul prophesied about in 2 Thess 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_St._Peter's_Basilica

Construction began by orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine I between 318 and 322, and took about 40 years to complete.
Constantine went to great pains to build the basilica on the site of Saint Peter's grave.
The altar of Old St. Peter's Basilica used several Solomonic columns. According to tradition, Constantine took these columns from the Temple of Solomon and gave them to the church;
The giant mosaic, commissioned by Cardinal Jacopo Stefaneschi, occupied the whole wall above the entrance arcade facing the courtyard. It depicted St. Peter walking on the waters.

This was all a shrine or temple to St. Peter the "Pope" from its inception. A shrine or temple of the pope. Man of Lawlessness.

 

[Scribe]

But look at what was built and completed in 360 AD. The Old St. Peter's Basilica, which was a temple to dedicated to St. Peter, the claimed first pope. From its very beginnning this was always a "Temple of the Pope" or a "Shrine of the Pope". The Pope Claiming to be Holy Father, which is God, therefore this was the "temple of God" Paul prophesied about in 2 Thess 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_St._Peter's_Basilica

Construction began by orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine I between 318 and 322, and took about 40 years to complete.
Constantine went to great pains to build the basilica on the site of Saint Peter's grave.
The altar of Old St. Peter's Basilica used several Solomonic columns. According to tradition, Constantine took these columns from the Temple of Solomon and gave them to the church;
The giant mosaic, commissioned by Cardinal Jacopo Stefaneschi, occupied the whole wall above the entrance arcade facing the courtyard. It depicted St. Peter walking on the waters.

This was all a shrine or temple to St. Peter the "Pope" from its inception. A shrine or temple of the pope. Man of Lawlessness.

It is a rule of hermeneutics to ask "what did the author mean" and "what did the reader of his day understand him to mean" It is impossible that Paul could have been referring to a catholic cathedral. It would be impossible for the readers of his day to understand him to mean that. Therefore you can rule that interpretation out. He was referring to the temple that was standing at the time, and his readers understood it to be that temple. That was the only Temple of the Lord they had any knowledge of.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

It is a rule of hermeneutics to ask "what did the author mean" and "what did the reader of his day understand him to mean" It is impossible that Paul could have been referring to a catholic cathedral. It would be impossible for the readers of his day to understand him to mean that. Therefore you can rule that interpretation out. He was referring to the temple that was standing at the time, and his readers understood it to be that temple. That was the only Temple of the Lord they had any knowledge of.

Definition 1 of Hermeneutics: the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.
Definition 2 of Hermeneutics: The primary need of Hermeneutics is to determine and understand the meaning of Biblical text. The purpose of Hermeneutics is to bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the Biblical writers through a thorough knowledge of the original languages, ancient history and the comparison of Scripture with Scripture.

So let us re-read the first verse of 2 Thessalonians 2 and determine the so called hermeneutics.

2 Thessalonians 2 " Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him,"

So here is the proper Hermeneutics:

Paul sets the context of 2 Thessalonians 2 in his first line with the first our and especially the second our being gathered together to him,".
first our and especially the second "our being gathered together to him,". is clearly addressing all believers in Christ in all generations present and yet to come. This message is for 1st century believes, you and me, all believers in between, and all believers yet to come after us.

" our being gathered together to him," is a timeless message to all of us believers!!

So please ponder this: How does and did 2 Thessalonians 2 benefit any of us believers that have come in the last 2000 yrs when no temple has been built in Jerusalem for the last 2000 yrs?

The Answer by your interpretion is that 2 Thessalonians 2 has been of no benefit to all these generations of believers that have come so far.

But when you see that the false "temple of God" Paul warned us about here came to be in 360 AD, now you can see that 2 Thessalonians 2 benefit was a warning to all believers about the coming and existing of this false temple

But look at what was built and completed in 360 AD. The Old St. Peter's Basilica, which was a temple to dedicated to St. Peter, the claimed first pope. From its very beginnning this was always a "Temple of the Pope" or a "Shrine of the Pope". The Pope Claiming to be Holy Father, which is God, therefore this was the "temple of God" Paul prophesied about in 2 Thess 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_St._Peter's_Basilica

Old St. Pters's Basilica was replaced by the modern day St. Peter's Basilica around the 1500s. This false temple, (which may or may not be replaced by a third temple), will be here until Christ returns.

What is also interesting is that the Old St. Peter's Basilica was modeled after Solomon's temple, and the 2nd St. Peters Basilica looks to be modeled after Herod's temple. FYI folks.

 

[Dave-L]

This is TOTALLY FALSE. Jesus cannot be the temple made without hands in this context. The context was the crucifixion of Christ and His resurrection.

JOHN 2:18-22: THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

But there will be a literal temple in Jerusalem in the future, and it will be desecrated by the Antichrist.

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” John 2:19–21 (KJV 1900)

“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?” 1 Corinthians 6:19 (KJV 1900)

 

[Scribe]

Definition 1 of Hermeneutics: the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.
Definition 2 of Hermeneutics: The primary need of Hermeneutics is to determine and understand the meaning of Biblical text. The purpose of Hermeneutics is to bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the Biblical writers through a thorough knowledge of the original languages, ancient history and the comparison of Scripture with Scripture.

So let us re-read the first verse of 2 Thessalonians 2 and determine the so called hermeneutics.

2 Thessalonians 2 " Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him,"

So here is the proper Hermeneutics:

Paul sets the context of 2 Thessalonians 2 in his first line with the first our and especially the second our being gathered together to him,".
first our and especially the second "our being gathered together to him,". is clearly addressing all believers in Christ in all generations present and yet to come. This message is for 1st century believes, you and me, all believers in between, and all believers yet to come after us.

" our being gathered together to him," is a timeless message to all of us believers!!

So please ponder this: How does and did 2 Thessalonians 2 benefit any of us believers that have come in the last 2000 yrs when no temple has been built in Jerusalem for the last 2000 yrs?

The Answer by your interpretion is that 2 Thessalonians 2 has been of no benefit to all these generations of believers that have come so far.

But when you see that the false "temple of God" Paul warned us about here came to be in 360 AD, now you can see that 2 Thessalonians 2 benefit was a warning to all believers about the coming and existing of this false temple

But look at what was built and completed in 360 AD. The Old St. Peter's Basilica, which was a temple to dedicated to St. Peter, the claimed first pope. From its very beginnning this was always a "Temple of the Pope" or a "Shrine of the Pope". The Pope Claiming to be Holy Father, which is God, therefore this was the "temple of God" Paul prophesied about in 2 Thess 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_St._Peter's_Basilica

Old St. Pters's Basilica was replaced by the modern day St. Peter's Basilica around the 1500s. This false temple, (which may or may not be replaced by a third temple), will be here until Christ returns.

What is also interesting is that the Old St. Peter's Basilica was modeled after Solomon's temple, and the 2nd St. Peters Basilica looks to be modeled after Herod's temple. FYI folks.

You posted a definition of hermeneutics but the rules are more like the following:
1) Historical-Cultural and Contextual Analysis
2) Lexical-Syntactical Analysis
3) Theological Analysis
4) Literary Analysis
5) Application

I would say that this conversation concerning the Author's intended meaning in the phrase "temple of God" would be determined using the 2) rule Lexical-Syntactical Analysis which would be accomplished by completing the following steps.
A. Identify the general literary form
B. Trace the development of the author's theme and show how the passage under consideration fits into the context.
C. Identify the natural divisions (paragraphs and sentences) of the text.
D. Identify the connecting words within the paragraphs and sentences and how they aid in understanding the author's progression of thought.
E. Determine what the individual words mean.
1. Identify the multiple meanings a word possessed in its time and culture.
2. Determine the single meaning intended by the author in a given context.
F. Analyze the syntax to show how it contributes to the understanding of the passage.
G. Put the results of your analysis into non technical, easily understand/understood words that clearly convey the author's intended meaning to the English Reader.

Step E. sub step 2 Determine the single meaning intended by the author in a given context brings us to the conclusion that Paul would have been talking about the Temple of God that stood in his day. He would have no thought or idea about The Old St. Peter's Basilica, therefore it would be IMPOSSIBLE that this could be what he intended. It would be impossible for his readers to think he was talking about The Old St. Peter's Basilica, there only understanding could be the temple of God that they were all aware of. If he were talking about our bodies being the temple of God I think he would have given more of an indication in the text, but it is obvious he is speaking about Daniels Prophecy. This will be the temple in Jerusalem. Do not stumble in unbelief that the prophesy can be fulfilled. There was no Israel before 1948. The prophesies about them being a nation were scoffed at by many in the past, they do not scoff any longer. The temple can be rebuilt in a very short time, even a few months with modern building methods. It will be a testimony to the accuracy and faithfulness of the word of God when this prophesy is fulfilled as literally as prophesies about the literal hanging on the tree and casting lots for his clothes and being buried in a rich mans tomb were fulfilled.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

CLICK TO EXPAND
I went into your post and put comments in orange italicized underneath the assumptions you have made because your extensive rules for Hermenutics doesn't include the making of assumptions.

You posted a definition of hermeneutics but the rules are more like the following:
1) Historical-Cultural and Contextual Analysis
2) Lexical-Syntactical Analysis
3) Theological Analysis
4) Literary Analysis
5) Application

I would say that this conversation concerning the Author's intended meaning in the phrase "temple of God" would be determined using the 2) rule Lexical-Syntactical Analysis which would be accomplished by completing the following steps.
A. Identify the general literary form
B. Trace the development of the author's theme and show how the passage under consideration fits into the context.
C. Identify the natural divisions (paragraphs and sentences) of the text.
D. Identify the connecting words within the paragraphs and sentences and how they aid in understanding the author's progression of thought.
E. Determine what the individual words mean.
1. Identify the multiple meanings a word possessed in its time and culture.
2. Determine the single meaning intended by the author in a given context.
F. Analyze the syntax to show how it contributes to the understanding of the passage.
G. Put the results of your analysis into non technical, easily understand/understood words that clearly convey the author's intended meaning to the English Reader.

Step E. sub step 2 Determine the single meaning intended by the author in a given context brings us to the conclusion that Paul would have been talking about the Temple of God that stood in his day.

Using Hermenutics perhaps you can deduce what Paul was thinking. Perhaps maybe you are right That Paul was thinking this was about Herod's temple. But if this is the case then Paul was wrong because it was destroyed within a generation of him writing this letter.
So what is obvious today is that this prophesy is not about Herod's Temple.

He would have no thought or idea about The Old St. Peter's Basilica, therefore it would be IMPOSSIBLE that this could be what he intended.

Of course Paul would have no thought of St Peter's Basilica. It didn't exist at that time. What point is this?
Even Daniel made clear that he did not understand the prophesies that God gave him [Daniel 8:27]

In fact, you make an argument against yourself. You say it is IMPOSSIBLE for Paul to know about a new different temple in Rome 300 yrs after his life. If this is so, then it would also be IMPOSSIBLE for Paul to know about a new different temple in Jerusalem 2000+ yrs after his life.

It would be impossible for his readers to think he was talking about The Old St. Peter's Basilica, there only understanding could be the temple of God that they were all aware of.

Of course, because It didn't exist at that time. Again, what point is this?

If he were talking about our bodies being the temple of God I think he would have given more of an indication in the text, but it is obvious he is speaking about Daniels Prophecy.

This will be the temple in Jerusalem.

You are assuming because Herod's Temple stood in Jerusalem when Paul wrote his letter , it must mean that a 3rd temple must eventually stand in Jerusalem too. But Jesus is Lord of both Jew and Gentile. So there is no requirement for a third temple to be in Jerusalem. And Paul did not write that there was a requirement for the location of this third temple. You are assuming a location requirement.

Do not stumble in unbelief that the prophesy can be fulfilled. There was no Israel before 1948. The prophesies about them being a nation were scoffed at by many in the past, they do not scoff any longer. The temple can be rebuilt in a very short time, even a few months with modern building methods. It will be a testimony to the accuracy and faithfulness of the word of God when this prophesy is fulfilled as literally as prophesies about the literal hanging on the tree and casting lots for his clothes and being buried in a rich mans tomb were fulfilled.

Here you are spiking the ball and you are not even close to the end zone yet. This is all assumption that you will reach the end zone (prophesy fulfillment).
Even if a third temple is built in Jersusalum doesn't make the prophesy fulfilled. There in the temple there must stand a man would claims himself God, and must perform or oversee of miracles, amd must decieve many and must place on the foreheads of his followers the mark and so much more. Good luck with your assumptions!!!

 

[Prycejosh1987]

Just imagine how evil the devil actually is, if i was the devil i would do what preacher Robert Breaker said he would do. I would sit in a beach and give up. The devil is only making things worse for himself, the loudest screamer and most tormented in hell will be the devil without a doubt.