where is this holy place for what you believe to be the antichrist to set?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
New Jerusalem Temple, is it literal?
- Thread starter jonahmano
- Start date
where is this holy place for what you believe to be the antichrist to set?
turnorburn
Member
Here's your temple..
I Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Don't we know by now who antichrist is, I've posted enough information about his identity?
I Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Don't we know by now who antichrist is, I've posted enough information about his identity?
turnorburn
Member
These folks knew.. what's happened to us??
Founders of "Mainline" Churches Knew Who Anti-Christ Was
The following quotes show just how far the churches of today have strayed from the wisdom of their founding fathers.
Martin Luther
(1483-1546) (Lutheran)
"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 2, pg. 121 by Froom.
John Calvin
(1509-1564) (Presbyterian)
"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt...I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from "Institutes" by John Calvin.
Cotton Mather
(1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from "The Fall of Babylon" by Cotton Mather in Froom's book "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Knox
(1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from "The Zurich Letters" pg. 199 by John Knox.
Thomas Cranmer
(1489-1556) (Anglican)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from "Works" by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
John Wesley
(1703-1791) (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers...He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped...claiming the highest power, and highest honor...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from "Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms" by John Wesley, pg. 110.
Roger William
(1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vessals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to changed times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
Quoted from GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE by Woodrow.
Founders of "Mainline" Churches Knew Who Anti-Christ Was
The following quotes show just how far the churches of today have strayed from the wisdom of their founding fathers.
Martin Luther
(1483-1546) (Lutheran)
"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 2, pg. 121 by Froom.
John Calvin
(1509-1564) (Presbyterian)
"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt...I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from "Institutes" by John Calvin.
Cotton Mather
(1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from "The Fall of Babylon" by Cotton Mather in Froom's book "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Knox
(1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from "The Zurich Letters" pg. 199 by John Knox.
Thomas Cranmer
(1489-1556) (Anglican)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from "Works" by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
John Wesley
(1703-1791) (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers...He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped...claiming the highest power, and highest honor...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from "Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms" by John Wesley, pg. 110.
Roger William
(1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vessals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to changed times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
Quoted from GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE by Woodrow.
turnorburn if this threads gets derailed form the topic
New Jerusalem Temple, is it literal?
You will be put on read only..
New Jerusalem Temple, is it literal?
You will be put on read only..
New Jerusalem Temple is literal.
Unless you think the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are not literal.
turnorburn
Member
The new Jerusalem come down from heaven is real..
Thanks reba
Thanks reba
Last edited by a moderator:
Edward
2024 Supporter
That is the rub, no sacrifices are needed, and there is no temple, so how in the
world could it be literal?
Ahem...
First off, I think we can agree that mankind is stupid enough to perform sacrifices, if there were
a temple... Right?
Secondly, man has always been looking for prophecies that have or needed to be fulfilled. See where we are...the season.
Imagine 1946...Bible study...blah blah blah...Israel needs to do such and such...oh wait, how can that be? There is no Israel, and hasn't been for nigh 2000 years...so it must already be fulfilled...not!
Suddenly, in 1947, Israel gets reborn through an act of God...!!!
So there is no temple, sans the temple of the Holy Spirit...are we to interpret metaphor and carve it in stone, because there is no literal temple in existance?
I think not. Besides, Sister...you know man, what's the stupidest thing we could do now? That's what they'll prolly do, build a temple!
Considering man's track record on top of scripture, ID say there's a really really good chance that they will construct a new temple. A literal one. Cause that's how mankind rolls...
So as i understand your post you believe the Lamb is a literal lamb?
Oh, very much so.
John 1:29;
"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!".
Malachi
Member
When the third Temple is in place, the Jews will regard it as "the holy place" because it will be erected on the Temple Mount and will be seen as a Jewish temple by both Jews and others. It is not seen as holy by God, but by men. And in reality it will be most unholy (from God's perspective).
Malachi
Member
It is not mankind as such, but Jews in Israel who are planning on building this temple. While it is totally unnecessary from the Christian perspective, that is not relevant to the Jews. And it will be hijacked by the Antichrist.
JohnDB
Member
Tel Aviv is the current capital of Israel?
Even if someone built a Temple (all materials are standing by currently) moving the Government to a new location would take longer than construction.
Then there is the backlash from the Moslem world...it would be an all out war.
(Mohammed would be wrong)
Soooo
Either the beliefs about Antichrist setting himself up in a Temple is wrong.... Or there's a long way to go before one could be built.
Even if someone built a Temple (all materials are standing by currently) moving the Government to a new location would take longer than construction.
Then there is the backlash from the Moslem world...it would be an all out war.
(Mohammed would be wrong)
Soooo
Either the beliefs about Antichrist setting himself up in a Temple is wrong.... Or there's a long way to go before one could be built.
Sinthesis
Member
Apparently a temple is necessary from your Christian perspective, yet the fact that the State of Israel hasn't bothered with a new temple demonstrates it is unnecessary to them.
markathome
Member
You know that there is a sentence before Revelation 21:2 ? Revelation 21:1
Where in Scripture does it say Men will regard it as a holy place but God doesn't?
markathome
Member
https://www.google.com/search?q=temple+mount&source=lnms&tbm=isch&biw=1280&bih=631
Looks like there's already a temple there? A pretty one with a gold top.
Revelation 21:22
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
As long as we are on this earth we are involved with symbols / types / shadows. At the end of time / eternity the symbols cease / are completed.
New Jerusalem is coming down, and in that context it may have some symbols and some spiritual reality. The Father and Son have replaced the former temple we tend to think of.
Revelation 3:20 Has part of it in us.
This is about all this redneck mind can conceive of.
eddif
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
As long as we are on this earth we are involved with symbols / types / shadows. At the end of time / eternity the symbols cease / are completed.
New Jerusalem is coming down, and in that context it may have some symbols and some spiritual reality. The Father and Son have replaced the former temple we tend to think of.
Revelation 3:20 Has part of it in us.
This is about all this redneck mind can conceive of.
eddif
Malachi
Member
Because it had been traditionally (and therefore would be) the holy place for the Temple in Jerusalem. The location would indicate that it was the holy place, but the activities within that Temple would violate that holiness. *Holy* means set-apart, and the Temple Mount was set apart ever since Abraham took Isaac up to Mt. Moriah.