Hindsite wrote: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; Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
I hold that is the Pope of Rome, but that is a separate discussion, but lets look at the Scriptures themselves on this matter.
One important rebuttal to your understanding of that text is also the fact that a Jewish temple would never be called "The Temple of God"
in the New Covenant.
The Jewish temple was only a temple of God when God dwelt there in the holy of holies; however, after the tearing of the veil on the day of the Crucifixion, God no longer dwells there. The temple of God is the Christian church
, where God now dwells (Matthew 18:20, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
Likewise, just as Christ described His body as the True Temple in the Gospels (which we already discussed); its also noteworthy that the Church is now called "the body of Christ"
(1 Corinthians 12:12-14, Ephesians 4:1-16).
Hence, Scripture itself seems to teach that the "Temple of God" is 1. where God dwells
and 2. the Body of Christ.
Thus, given #1 and #2 above, would a Jewish Temple offering blood sacrifices again be:
1. Where God Dwells?
2. The Body of Christ?
So, Given #1 and #2 above, would the church be the Temple of God spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2? Let us ask again:
1. Is the Church where God dwells?
2. Is the Church the Body of Christ? Answer: Yes.
So, given the Scriptural evidence, is there a need for a rebuilt temple for the fulfillment of the prophecy by St. Paul regarding the man of sin? Absolutely Not.
That being said, given the Scriptural evidence, is there a need for a man of sin to arise from within the church itself who will proclaim himself to be equal-to/same-as God? Yes Indeed.
Thus, you have agreed that the prophetic vision of the OT regarding the rebuilding of the Temple was understood and explained by Christ as referring to His body, and when you were asked why you still support such a doctrine in spite of this, you supplied 2 Thess 2; however, if by using the same standard we used to explain the OT prophecies it is also shown that 2 Thessalonians 2 cannot possibly be talking about the Jewish temple, then on what basis do you believe that it will be rebuilt?
I see no Scriptural basis for such a belief at all whatsoever.
Drlee wrote:Jesus is gathering his followers right now. He has been for over two thousand years.
There is no need to physically rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Drlee wrote:To VS point. A case could be made for asserting that St. Peters Basilica is the new temple. (There could be other candidates or none at all.)
I think whatever case one wishes to make, it must be grounded in coherent exegetical methodology with historic precedent in the teachers of the church, not textual eisegesis and "innovation in the area of religion".
This is why Scriptura Scripturae Interpres
is so important in hermeneutics.
Drlee wrote:Strict chronological adherence to some divine master plan is a trap.
This sounds oddly irreligious, I guess I would say we should only adhere strictly to a chronology if its biblically warranted, in the case of what we are discussing, it is not and is not really a strict chronology as the dispensational system has gaps in its prophetic timeline. I abandoned partial preterism for similar reasons.
Drlee wrote: It is simply buying time for some more sin before one finally 'gets serious'.
There can be truth to this, but give @Hindsite some credit, for the belief in the Rapture as a sudden event is a disincentive for sinning, even if I believe the rapture is a false doctrine that lacks scriptural support (what I like to describe as advental triple-vision as they see multiple comings of Christ instead of one
true second coming as the historic faith professed).
Likewise, some of the most pious believers I ever met (if not the most pious) were post-millennialists who did not believe Christ would return until the entire globe was first Christianized (indeed, this was my former position from when I was Reformed).
I am currently what one would call an "optimistic" A-millennialist and a historicist when it comes to Christian eschatology.