Man of Sin, Sitting in the Temple of God

Status
Not open for further replies.

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
When Jesus says, "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," He is talking to all of the Church throughout time,not just the apostles 2000 years ago.The bible is written for our benefit .

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness".2 Timothy,3:16.

When He says "this generation" ,He means this evil generation,not only then, but for all time.Do you think we do not have an evil generation now?Should we call our evil generation by another name?Evil is evil,no mater what time frame you look at.

andreas.:candle:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
andreas- look at how Jesus useres those terms he is applying it to a spefic context. and further more since i believe that eschatalogicl kingdom of God has broken into history and is progressing and while we are in the already/not period of history i would have a hard time describing this as solely evil. so in a sence yes and in a sence no. but i would never use the words in passages quote it to describe this present time we are in..he was speaking to particular people about events they would see in their life time. i am waiting for exegetical rebuttal.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Maybe I'm in the minority on this board, being partial-preterist, but is it not a hasty generalization fallacy to equate every single instance of the word "temple" with referring to only one definition or idea, rather than using context to determine the most plausible meaning? It seems to me that in the contexts of the "man of sin" verses, the obvious interpretation would be the actual Temple, and a spiritualized interpretation would make little sense.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by andreas
When Jesus says, "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," He is talking to all of the Church throughout time,not just the apostles 2000 years ago.The bible is written for our benefit .

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness".2 Timothy,3:16.

When He says "this generation" ,He means this evil generation,not only then, but for all time.Do you think we do not have an evil generation now?Should we call our evil generation by another name?Evil is evil,no mater what time frame you look at.

andreas.:candle:

Just because Scripture can be useful and applicable at all times does not mean we can re-interpret or force interpretations on verses that are completely foreign to their historical context.
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Maybe I'm in the minority on this board, being partial-preterist, but is it not a hasty generalization fallacy to equate every single instance of the word "temple" with referring to only one definition or idea, rather than using context to determine the most plausible meaning? It seems to me that in the contexts of the "man of sin" verses, the obvious interpretation would be the actual Temple, and a spiritualized interpretation would make little sense.

Gabriel- Why do you think Paul would call a physical building in Jerusalem, the temple "of God", since God no longer dwelt in it?
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by sastark
Gabriel- Why do you think Paul would call a physical building in Jerusalem, the temple "of God", since God no longer dwelt in it?

Because it was the temple of God. I don't think Paul is trying to make a theological statement about the location of God's Holy Spirit at that point in time, I think he is, like Christ, warning the Christians against the great destruction of Jerusalem that is to come so that they may endure and save themselves. I don't know, this is just the simplest and most logical interpretation from where I'm sitting. Not to mention the fact that, if otherwise, Christ is a false prophet and liar, but that's another topic... :um:
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Gab- I'm not talking about any other prophetic passage besides 2 Thess 2. In this particular instance, why do we assume that Paul is referring to the temple building in Jerusalem? I mean, we can even seperate the discussion of that question from any eschatological meaning.

Regardless of any eschatological meaning, why would Paul refer to a building as the temple of God after Christ had been crucified?

What is the meaning of the veil being torn, if this physical building was still the temple of God?
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
Matthew Henry:

2. The characters here given, v. 4. (1.) That he opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; and thus have the bishops of Rome not only opposed God's authority, and that of the civil magistrates, who are called gods, but have exalted themselves above God and earthly governors, in demanding greater regard to their commands than to the commands of God or the magistrate. (2.) As God, he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now, so the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, as Dominus Deus noster papa--Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terrâ--Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papæ--The dominion of God and the pope is the same?
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
John Calvin:

In the temple of God. By this one term there is a sufficient refutation of the error, nay more, the stupidity of those who reckon the Pope to be Vicar of Christ, on the ground that he has his seat in the Church, in whatever manner he may conduct himself; for Paul places Antichrist nowhere else than in the very sanctuary of God. For this is not a foreign, but a domestic enemy, who opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. But it is asked, how the Church is represented as the den of so many superstitions, while it was destined to be the pillar of the truth? (1 Timothy 3:15.) I answer, that it is thus represented, not on the ground of its retaining all the qualities of the Church, but because it has something of it remaining. I accordingly acknowledge, that that is the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges.
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Matthew Henry:

2. The characters here given, v. 4. (1.) That he opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; and thus have the bishops of Rome not only opposed God's authority, and that of the civil magistrates, who are called gods, but have exalted themselves above God and earthly governors, in demanding greater regard to their commands than to the commands of God or the magistrate. (2.) As God, he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now, so the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, as Dominus Deus noster papa--Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terrâ--Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papæ--The dominion of God and the pope is the same?

:eek::eek::eek:You are KIDDING me! The pope has claimed those titles?
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Gab- that is why we must not interpret Scripture based on perceived mindsets of indivuduals who lived thousands of years ago, but rather we must interpret Scripture with Scripture. Which leads me back to my question of, why would Paul call a physical building the "temple of God" if he taught at other times that the church is the temple of God?
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Matthew Henry:

2. The characters here given, v. 4. (1.) That he opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; and thus have the bishops of Rome not only opposed God's authority, and that of the civil magistrates, who are called gods, but have exalted themselves above God and earthly governors, in demanding greater regard to their commands than to the commands of God or the magistrate. (2.) As God, he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now, so the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, as Dominus Deus noster papa--Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terrâ--Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papæ--The dominion of God and the pope is the same?

:eek::eek::eek:You are KIDDING me! The pope has claimed those titles?

Yepper, here is some supporting documentary evidence:

Note...Since this point has recently been questioned, we add some corrobative evidence. The first paragraph is taken from Woods, Our Priceless Heritage, 35 f. "œHas not the Church of Rome been guilty of this great sin in paying to the Pope the reverence due to God along? It has been guilty of this great sin. In a gloss of the Roman Canon Law the words "˜our Lord God the Pope´ appear. It declares that "œto believe that our Lord God the Pope has not power to decree as he has decreed is heretical." Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum Inter, Tit. XIV, cap. IV, Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685"¦Writers on the Canon Law have said: "˜The Pope and God are the same; so he has all power in heaven and earth.´ (Barclay, Cap. XXVII, p.218.) Pope Nicholas I (died 867) declared, "œthe appellation of God was confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." (Labb. Dist. 96, Can. 7.) The Doge of Venice declared that he would honor Clement VII "˜as a deity on earth´. (Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. IX, p.246.) The Pope on August 22, 1929, referring to the political troubles in Malta, which had been caused by the unjustifiable demands of the Roman Church authorities there, declared to Maltese citizens that "˜to be with the Bishops and the Pope meant to be with Jesus Christ, of whom they must think when they looked at a Bishop, and that whosoever is not under the protection of the Pope shall be overcome!´ Pope Leo XIII blasphemously said: "œI occupy the place of Almighty God on earth!" (See also Dwight, Theology Explained and Defended, IV, 10.) Calov also has a paragraph which is short and to the point (Biblia illustrata, N.T., Tom. 11:908): Quod in temple Dei vel Eccledi homo ille peccati facturus erat secundum Apostolum. Qui in jure Canonico Dominus Deus noster vocatur, canon, Satis, dist. 96 gloss. ad extr. cum inter. In concilio Lateranensi sess. IX in Papa implendum dicitur illud: Adorebunt eum omnes reges terrae, gentes servient ei. Seas I dictum est Pontifici: Tibi data est omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Quod etiam exstat in Ceremonii libr I, tit. VII, sect. 7. In eodem concilio sees. VI Leo X dictus est Leo de trobo Juda, et radix David. Bellarminus praefatic in III. Controv. Gener. Pontifici applicat illud Esa. XXVIII, Ecce ego ponam. in fundamentis Sion lapidem. angularem. etc. Franciscus Panigorola dixit 1, II. Part I. Papam esse unum illum Dominum, de quo Paulus loquitur Eph. 4. In Canonistarum libris passim legitur, quod Papa habeat coeleste arbitrium, quod habeat idem Deo consistorium, idem cum Christo tribunal, quod potestas ejus se extendat ad coelestia, terrestria, et infernalia, quod Papae commissae Sit tota spiritualis machina, quod Papa sit omnia ... The passages referred to by Calov as occurring in the decrees of the councils, appear in Mansi Amplissima Collectio (32: col. 803. 892. 924); Fifth Lateran Council, 1512?1517: Sed ne fleveris, filia Siont qui,a eace venit Leo de tribu Juda Radix David: Ecce suscitavit tibi Deus salvatorem, qui salvabit te manibus vastantium, et populum Dei de manu persequentium liberabit. Te, Leo, beatissime, salvatorem venturum speravimus ... In te uno, vero atque legitimo Christi et Dei vicario, propheticum illud debuerit rursus impleri: Adorebunt eum. omnes reges terrae, omnes gentes servient ei ... Quapropter Bernardus ad Eugenium tamquam ad summum hierarchicum in caelo ecclesiae virum, in quo erat onnis potestas supra omnes potestates tam caeli quam terrae, recte scripserat: Tibi data est omnis potestas; in qut totum dicit, nihil excludit. (This section is taken from an oration of Archbishop Stephen of Torcelli in honor of Leo X.) Practically every volume of Mans offers additional evidence of the fact that divine honors were offered to the Pope and received by him. The closest parallel to this situation is found in Acts 12:21?23.

Source: http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/K/KretzmannShibboleth/KretzmannShibboleth.rtf

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
You say potato, I say potato. That's about all the proof I think we can find to assert either way. I simply don't see it your way. *shrug* This is why there are so many eschatological camps, in my opinion.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
You say potato, I say potato. That's about all the proof I think we can find to assert either way. I simply don't see it your way. *shrug* This is why there are so many eschatological camps, in my opinion.

I agree to a large extent. That is why I am not dogmatic about eschatological matters within the framework of the Reformed Confessions. The reason that I got involved in this in the first place is because I have often seen preterists be severely dogmatic about preterism (not that I ascribe this to Hermenio).

I find that ironic, since preterism (which I think has some excellent points) is completely dependent on the highly disputed point of the date of Revelation.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I see the Pope of Rome as an antiChrist, but not *the* one referred to in the book of Revelation. There's a difference between a proper exegetical interpretation of Scripture, in its original historical and biblical context, and the extent of that particular text's application.

John was writing to Christians who were being burned alive to light dinner parties for Emperor Nero, a man who forced all Roman citizens to worship his image and call him Lord.

Revelation, if not applicable to the churches it was actually written to (those in Asia Minor who were *heavily* persecuted in the first century as a result of Emperor worship), is a seemingly irrelevant portion of Scripture.

The Bible can be relevant and helpful to us believers for all times *without* directly speaking about situations we are facing, because we can always relate in some ways to the situations the Bible was originally speaking about.

That said, eschatology is not a point of division, in my opinion. Unless you're premil :lol:
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
Herminio,
There are only two generations that span the time dimension,the generation of evil and the generation of God.

"And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet". Luke 11:2

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" 1 Peter 2:9
In Luke 11:2 ,am i not correct in saying that the aposles were standing there with Christ as he said those words?If so ,were they part of "THIS EVIL GENERATION"?God forbid. Jesus never said, "you baddies are an evil generation with the exception of the goodies". No ,He did not specify,He called it "this evil generation",which existed at His time, before and after His time.
andreas.:candle:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
andreas- context context context brother, who is the "this generation"? it was jews to whom Jesus was speaking to. forgive me if i sound argumenitive (i admit i have much sanctification left) but we can all proof text till we are blue in the face, that is why we sit back and ask how would the original audience understood these passsages. contextually when Jesus speaks about "this generation" or "this evil generation" he is refering to the first century isreal. it was they who would recieve the greater judgment (and they did in 70ad) b/c the rejercted the greater Jonah and Solomon (cf. matt. 12:38-42) the did not recognize the day of God's visitation so their beloved city was destroyed with her children (cf. Luk.19:41-44) they were to weep for thier children due to the judgment that was coming (Luk 23:26-31) i can go on and on...to say that these passages refer to the interadvental age is to rip it out of its context in order to make it fit into a system. i am strong supporter of the already/not yet structure of biblical eschatology but i will not force every passage into a framework when the passage does not call for it. we all need to be careful about how we are letting our systems dictate our exegesis
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
"That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;"
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.Luke 11:50-51


You keep telling us that "this generation" applies to the scribes of that time,although that is your own interpretation,as the scriptures say nothing of the sort.

If that is the case ,then why should the people standing there would be responsible for the deaths of all the prophets that existed years before Christ?
I am not, and you are not, responsible for other people's sins."Every man shall be put to death for his own sin". Deuteronomy 24:16

andreas.:candle:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
you miss the point by rejecting Jesus the true prophet that all the ot prophets pointed to they in fact reject the message of them all. remember Jesus told them that by rejecting him they rejected moses and the prophets.
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
You insist that ,"This generation" means those living there at the time .If that is the case, then none of the Apostles,or any of the chosen generation standing there , could be saved, because Christ said that generation couldn't.
andreas.:candle:
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
So "this generation" by your own admission, is not the chosen generation ,but the generation of evil.

andreas.:candle:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
no "This generation" are the jews living in the first century. Jesus in the olivet discourse said that he would preserve the elect living dur that time by shortening the days.
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
This generation shall not pass,till all these things ARE FULFILLED.Matthew 24:34

What are these things?


" And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Mathew 24:4-14

Are you honestly telling us that all these things were fulfilled in 70 A.D?

May be according to you but not Matthew 24.

andreas.:candle:
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
yes all those things occured by 70 if you would like we can go point by point

1. persecution: read acts and the epistles
2. wars and rumor of wars: roman civil war and the war of the jews occured at this time
3. the great famine in jerusalem
4. earthquackes recorded in gospel and acts
5. gospel preached to the whole world see Col.1:5-6, 23; Rom. 1:8

hope this helps
 

andreas

Puritan Board Sophomore
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:29-34


HAS THE SUN BEEN DARKENED?HAS THE MOON STOPPED GIVING HER LIGHT?HAVE THE STARS FALLEN FROM HEAVEN?HAS ANYONE SEEN THE SON OF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN WITH GREAT POWER AND GLORY?HAVE THE ELECT BEEN GATHERED BY THE ANGELS FROM THE FOUR WINDS?

May be Josephus has seen all these things, and passed the information to the Preterists.The bible tells us that these things will happen at the end ,not in 70 A.D.

andreas.:candle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top