Crusader13
New member
There is no more Temple. What Temple is this still future Antichrist supposed to set himself up in?
- Status
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The Church.
Crusader13
New member
That’s not what the verse says. You’re applying a literal reading but then give a symbolic interpretation when refuting my point, but to prove your point, you apply a symbolic reading with a literal interpretation.
Basically, by that logic, you’re saying Nero didn’t set himself up in the actual Temple of God, but the Temple of God isn’t the actual Temple of God, it’s the future Church. Which is where this future Antichrist will place himself in.
That makes no sense.
Basically, by that logic, you’re saying Nero didn’t set himself up in the actual Temple of God, but the Temple of God isn’t the actual Temple of God, it’s the future Church. Which is where this future Antichrist will place himself in.
That makes no sense.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
Your understanding implies that this passage is referring to Nero physically going into the Temple and setting up shop. That’s not what it means.
Nero, didn’t need to go down into the Temple to accomplish this. The Temple was the dwelling place of God, the Temple was where sacrifices took place and the central focus of Jewish worship. The high priest and the Jewish hierarchy were given the task of entering the Temple and performing their holy duties. In essence they, above all others, should’ve remained Holy and reverent. Instead they lost their faith and mislead the Jewish faithful.
Nero, demanded worship and allegiance from his subjects and the Jewish leaders sided with Nero. They literally said as much when they proclaimed “We have no King but Caesar!”
Jesus knew this as well, because the Jewish leaders tried to insinuate that just because they didn’t believe in Him, they still believed in God the Father. But Jesus told them, “You are of your father the devil”.
The Roman Empire had all but lured Jerusalem away from the Lord. Hence we read about the harlot and the beast in Revelation. What happened to the harlot? The beast turns and devours her. What happened between Jerusalem and Rome? Rome turns on Jerusalem and destroys both the city and the Temple.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Nero didn’t physically or symbolically do this.
A bit of vague historical placing right? This was said to Pilate. As far as we know from the record, Nero’s beef was with the Jews when the Jewish revolt began.
The Antichrist destroys his false religious system.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
It did make sense until recently.
Crusader13
New member
He did. Even if you choose not to recognize it.
So you believe the beast and the harlot were not Rome and Jerusalem or are you implying something else?
I only ask because you’ve disagreed with my posts but you haven’t given alternative interpretations to what the prophecies actually mean. For example, you didn’t explain how the Christians of the future are going to be given over to the synagogues and why only Christians in Judea have to flee to the mountains.
The problem with your view, as I see it, are these verses can’t be interpreted alone and the moment you try to connect them with what takes place in other books, such as Revelation, the futurist interpretation falls apart.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
You finally figured it out.
Jerome and others took this futuristically.
And again, has the Son of Man been seen in the clouds?
He blamed the Christians for the fire. He didn’t st himself up in the Temple as God historically.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And there are others who believe the Temple will be rebuilt. So that doesn’t necessarily limit it to 70 A.D.
Last edited:
M
Montrose
Guest
Crusader13
New member
I’m aware of this belief, I was just asking if it’s a belief that you hold to.
True, but that doesn’t make it correct. Jerome also held that the deuterocanonical books were not authoritative. That doesn’t make him right in that regard either.
And yes, according to Josephus there were signs in the sky on the day the Temple fell.
I don’t deny this. But as with Jerome, their belief in this interpretation, doesn’t make it correct.
The issue is that there is no prophecy in scripture that speaks of a third temple being built. And nothing in today’s society even hints at how modern day Christians are going to be dragged into synagogues and how fleeing to the mountains is going to save them.
If you believe that these verses are speaking about the second coming and the end of time, then simply running to the mountains is not going to save anyone.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
No Jesus on the clouds.
And Josephus had reasons to make the Romans look good. He was a traitor Jew.
A
Autumn-Smoke
Guest
Here is another explanation which I’ve heard and personally would believe in. I don’t think The Day of the Gentiles is about the temple, but about Jerusalem itself.
Here again is the scripture:
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.”… “They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.”
This happened when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 a.d. and the Jewish people were dispersed to the nations.
“Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This speaks of Jerusalem’s restoration when the Jewish people have been restored to their capitol and the Gentiles no longer control it (or as the scripture says, “Trample on it”). There are 2 different dates when it is believed this prophecy was fulfilled. (1) When Israel became a nation once again in 1948; (2) When the 6 day war ended in 1967 because as a result of the Six Day War, the entire city of Jerusalem and its holy sites came under Jewish control. Israel reunified the city, extending Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration.
The signs in the sky follow sometime after this prophecy has been fulfilled.
Last edited:
- Status