The double-standards of the preterist and why I left that system

[SomeDisciple]

The church is comprised of true believers only, not fake ones, the fake christians arent the temple of God. The living stones are built up to the spiritual temple. That is why it can only be fulfilled by a physical temple

I think the argument (from the preterist side) is that Paul's man of lawlessness is also a metaphor; but that's convoluted. If the Apostles taught that the eschatological Day of the Lord was just the 70 destruction of Jerusalem; the why would the Thessolonicans care? What would it matter to them if it was still coming, or already came and went? Why would John write a huge scroll with all these metaphors about the destruction of Jerusalem? They already heard it was going to happen, so why do they need a cryptological "revelation" about something they already knew.

 

[GaryA]

How do you understand 3-13 then?; because I don't see how that lines up with the historic events if John is measuring the historic temple.

I understand it as talking about the Two Witnesses (future) - in a different time frame than verses 1-2 (past).

Why is it that it cannot be possible?

As Somedisciple asked. Why not? I think it can only be referring to a physical building because of the connection to Mark 13, seeing the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be. { What connection? }

Even if we were to concede that you are correct and the AoD already occured, it would still lead one to question how could 2 Thess 2:4 be fulfilled by the church? The church is comprised of true believers only, not fake ones, the fake christians arent the temple of God. { Neither is any physical building. } The living stones are built up to the spiritual temple. { Exactly. } That is why it can only be fulfilled by a physical temple { That is why it cannot be fulfilled by a physical temple. }

What exists today (or can/could exist today) that the Bible would consider to be legitimately called 'the temple of God'?

 

[GaryA]

I think the argument (from the preterist side) is that Paul's man of lawlessness is also a metaphor; but that's convoluted. If the Apostles taught that the eschatological Day of the Lord was just the 70 destruction of Jerusalem; the why would the Thessolonicans care? What would it matter to them if it was still coming, or already came and went? Why would John write a huge scroll with all these metaphors about the destruction of Jerusalem? They already heard it was going to happen, so why do they need a cryptological "revelation" about something they already knew.

Just to clarify - "just in case" - I am 'historicist' and not 'preterist' - I believe the 'Day of the Lord' is still yet future - I do not believe it was circa 70 A.D.

 

[Mem]

I understand it as talking about the Two Witnesses (future) - in a different time frame than verses 1-2 (past).



What exists today (or can/could exist today) that the Bible would consider to be legitimately called 'the temple of God'?

Scripture says that Jesus spoke of the temple of His body when He declared that it would be raised in 3 days. And a verse that strikes me as a parallel verse is the one speaking in comparison between Moses and Jesus, the house and the builder of the house. That coupled with the consideration that not even Jesus declared himself God apart from answering, "I AM," it would seem to me that anybody 'declaring himself to be god' would effectively be embodying at least the spirit of the AOD.

 

[Komentaja]

I understand it as talking about the Two Witnesses (future) - in a different time frame than verses 1-2 (past).



What exists today (or can/could exist today) that the Bible would consider to be legitimately called 'the temple of God'?

Tell us now. What does exactly 2 Thess 2:4 mean. We know what you believe its not, tell us what it is

 

[SomeDisciple]

I understand it as talking about the Two Witnesses (future) - in a different time frame than verses 1-2 (past).

That seems like odd time jump from one verse to the next... but I suppose if we think of vv 1&2 as attached to the previous chapter (eating the scroll like Ezekiel) and then the following verses as referring to Zechariah (the 2 witnesses) then maybe it isn't such an awkward jump. I dunno. I guess I can't hate on, or be mad at, that POV. And the fact that it's once described in months and then in days might even reinforce the idea that the time periods are "similar but different" ?

I still maintain that if construction of a temple in accordance with the prophecy of Ezekiel is constructed, then no one has a biblical basis to object; It is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen in our immediate timeframe; but I don't think it's impossible.

I say we have no biblical basis to object, because Jesus while he walked the earth was the temple of God, and he co-existed with the brick-and-mortar temple of God and it was still the temple of God. Then the church was the temple of God on earth and it co-existed with the same temple for forty years: and even though the OC had been superseded, at no point was the church ever instructed to ignore, disregard, or disrespect the temple or the levitical priesthood. Just because it isn't part of the new covenant doesn't mean that it isn't ordained by God for a purpose and carry legitimacy and authority from God.

Just to clarify - "just in case" - I am 'historicist' and not 'preterist' - I believe the 'Day of the Lord' is still yet future - I do not believe it was circa 70 A.D.

Yeah, I think we've actually had this conversation before- this is just a really hard bible study topic; and I've prayed, and asked the Lord to please, please, please just make me *poof* understand everything... still waiting on that one. But, I just wanted to emphasize how far preterists can go to shove everything into 70AD. Full pret has some "strong" points; but it's really a paper tiger.

 

[GaryA]

If-and-when the site ever stays up long enough for me to post a reply...