Could that be because, as Jesus states,
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
Of course, if he is already at work, then that would be present tense, but the context of the scripture is that of the future coming of Christ and His conquest of the said, "he".
The passage in Thessalonians is clear that he is already at work, so I agree with you and the passage on that point. The passage is also clear that in the future
, all that is left with respect to the man of sin/son of perdition is his revelation
and subsequent destruction
, so I agree with you and the passage on that point.
Most of your other questions would have been fully answered with just a quick read of this thread, which I suggested and still suggest. It would be unfair to the other participants in this thread to rehash everything that I have been saying, but for your sake, I will give some quick answers. For further explanation, I refer you to my other posts in this thread.
Are you seriously in question of whether the AC will try to claim he is God in the future Tribulation
The passage in Thessalonians does not mention either an "AC" OR claims of deity, so I am not discussing those at the moment. The topic of this thread is the 2nd letter to the church at Thessalonika.
lamb7 wrote:...or is it that you question a "physical" temple and are trying to prove that it is not physical?
I don't question a physical OR a non physical temple. What I have been laboring to do is to point out that when God calls something the "temple of God
," this is vastly different from calling something a "temple." The phrase "temple of God
" means something entirely different from the word "temple." The designation "temple of God
" is NEVER used "metaphorically." All "temples of God
" in Scripture are literal "temples of God
." It matters not whether we can see or feel them. The only "temple of God
" that is different from the other 3 is the one that was an earthly building. It differed from the other 3 in that GOD DID NOT DWELL IN IT
. It was hallowed by God's name (see what God said to Solomon) - hence the designation "temple of God
" - but God did not dwell there.
The only time the phrase "temple of God
" is used as a "picture" or "shadow" of something (a 'metaphor' if you will) is when it is used in reference to a physical, earthly building (according to Heb 9). In such a case, the earthly building is a shadow
of the "temple of God
" that is Heaven - not the other way around. The last "temple of God
" that was a "shadow" of the true "temple of God
" was the temple house of Jesus' day. At the crucifixion, the veil in this house was supernaturally torn from top to bottom. It ceased to be the "temple of God
" but became just
a "temple," as evidenced by all of the book of Acts. Read specifically Stephen's response to the religious council of the day. This house was "a figure
for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances
, imposed on them until the time of reformation
. But Christ being come
an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building
" (Heb 9:9-11). It doesn't get any clearer than that.
The temple of God that is the believer's body is a literal temple of God. The Holy Spirit dwells in it.
The temple of God that is the body of Jesus Christ is a literal temple of God. The Son dwells in it.
The temple of God that is Heaven is a literal temple of God. The Father dwells in it.
The temple of God that was the earthly building was a literal temple of God. But God did not dwell there. It was a shadow of the heavenly temple of God.
One of those is entirely physical: (the earthly building). Two are physical temples of God with varying degrees of the supernatural/spiritual: (the body of the believer, the glorified body of Christ). One is entirely spiritual/supernatural: (the Heavenly temple of the Father).
lamb7 wrote:Are you trying to state that Christ has already come?
No no no. If that was my point, how easily could I have stated it! I have made it abundantly clear in this thread that I do not believe Christ has come (a second time).
lamb7 wrote:That the AC has already been unveiled and has already "sat" in the temple of God?
The man of sin/son of perdition has not been revealed yet. The Apostasy has not happened yet. The unveiling of the man of sin/son of perdition will happen in close proximity to the day of Christ, according to the passage in the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians. Neither has occurred.
Because what you put forth seems to point in that direction, imo.
As with anything, you would have to take specific comments that I have made and show that they "point in that direction." If something I have written indeed seems to point in the wrong direction (with respect to Scripture), then the best way to refute it is not by refuting the perceived
implication, but by refuting the explicit statement that points to the implication.
lamb7 wrote:I truly don't understand your purpose in any of this.
My purpose has been clearly stated from the beginning: to LEARN. Nothing more. Now I have added another purpose: to WARN. To warn unbelievers in the church.
Is this truly messing with your faith? Has it become a stumbling block for you?
I truly thank you for any genuine concern. I can honestly tell you that my faith has never been stronger. The Word of God never messes with my faith. None of this is a stumbling-block for me, but I thank you immensely for your genuine concern. I freely admit that I am in constant need of greater faith, but this study has not diminished the faith that I have.
Do you really not understand this scripture?
Reading this thread from the beginning, you will see that I did not understand 2Thess2 at first. When I posted my first post in this thread, I had no idea what 2Thess2 was about - I had no biases and no understanding of it. In the beginning, I tried superimposing the AOD passages from Matthew and Daniel onto the passage in Thessalonians, thinking that would help me understand it. I did that with some other passages. However, after just reading 2Thess over and over and praying, I came to realize that it was not necessarily speaking about the same thing as the other passages. How obvious! I felt like such a fool! I came to realize that it is crucial to know what one passage is saying in context, before superimposing it on another. Right now, I am still studying 2Thess2, so I am not superimposing it on Revelation or Daniel or Matthew. The differences between all of them are obvious. Though there are similarities, there are indeed differences, so to be absolutely true to what God spoke, we must know what each is saying individually before examining them together. Now, I am NOT saying that we need to understand EVERYTHING in the passage under study - but we certainly need to get EVERYTHING that we can out of the context, before seeing how it relates to another passage. That is my guiding principle, anyway. If you choose a different course of study, that is between you and God.
I know I have come to understand much more about it than I did when I started this thread, but I can't say for sure that I get all of it. For example, as I have stated before, I am still trying to understand exactly how vv. 9&10 fit into the rest of the verses.
For you seem like an intelligent person with much understanding ...
Though I appreciate your compliment, I cannot accept it. Intelligence has nothing to do whatsoever with studying our Father's Word. All that is required is reading, faith and prayer. Those are the only things I seek.
...and I can't understand what really troubles you.
What troubles me more than anything
(as I have stated already) is that the professing
church (the congregation/assembly, not the body of Christ) is filled with unconverted/unbelieving
people who are partaking in the "mystery of iniquity" and "love not the truth" and will therefore be sent "a strong delusion" and will also partake in "The Apostasy" and thereby reveal themselves for who they really are - the "man of sin/son of perdition" - and will be destroyed by our Lord upon His coming. (I refer you to my previous posts in order to understand what all of that means. Actually, I refer you to Scripture to understand what that means.)
What is it you are trying to say?
Whatever I am "trying to say" has been said. I have no hidden agenda. I am studying the Word, as I assume you are. In the process I am sharing what I have learned. I aspire to write/speak EXPLICITLY, not implicitly. If I didn't state it, I didn't mean it. However, I'll be the first to admit that I am not as clear as I would like to be, so if you do not understand something that I have actually written, feel free to ask for clarification before assuming something.
You're pointing out grammatical things, but to what end?
Pointing out "grammatical things" is a last resort for me. I have already stated that I am not a Greek scholar nor do I pretend to be. I have already stated that knowing Greek is not required for understanding God's Word fully. I have provided a careful analysis of this passage in previous posts with minimal "grammatical things." Some commentators thought that what I had stated was absurd; now I am trying to point out that even a clear unbiased reading of God's Word with all of the grammatical nuances taken into consideration specifically points to a present-day (even in Paul's day) man of sin/son of perdition who will be revealed in the future. That's my purpose of pointing out "grammatical things".
The other purpose is to show that even in the letter to the Thessalonians, as in all of the rest of the Bible, GOD
sits in the "temple of God
." No one else. That's why I pointed out that the tense of the verb "sitteth" is different from the other 5 verbs in that half-sentence (2:4). It is non-specific with respect to time, because God sits in the "temple of God
" eternally, without respect to time. It is necessary for me to add that I came to this conclusion BEFORE learning about the tense of the verb, so it is not the primary foundation for my understanding of this passage. However, my crude grammatical analysis certainly seems to support it.
I hope that clears up any concerns that you have toward/about me. In the future, I think that any personal comments about someone's faith in God and the Scriptures would best be addressed via private message to the party in question. Nothing is added to the discussion by bringing it down to such a personal level in such an impersonal medium. I hope that everyone else participating in this discussion can forgive me for the VERY long reply (I didn't realize how long this would be), but a public accusation/question requires a public response/explanation. I really hope this will not happen again.
I sincerely wish you clarity and understanding as you study the Scriptures with the help of the One Who told His servants what to write in His Book.
ps: I really hope this thread doesn't get shut down for getting off-topic so much.