Who is the restrainer?

[Lovette]

Yes, history will repeat itself. There will be a third temple and the Antichrist will declare himself as God in it. When he does, it will become another "abomination of desolation", which is why I mentioned "Prophetic Telescoping" happening. It happened on a smaller scale during the destruction of the 2nd temple and will happen on a much larger scale for the last time when the Antichrist arrives.

No there won't be a physical brick and mortar third temple. The Aqsa mosque is the "abomination of desolation" that will remain till the Lord returns.

 

[Revelation1v8]

No there won't be a physical brick and mortar third temple. The Aqsa mosque is the "abomination of desolation" that will remain till the Lord returns.

Then you are completely ignoring Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 that go into great detail about the third temple and Revelation 11:1. The final "abomination of desolation" is the Antichrist himself declaring himself to be God.

 

[Lovette]

Then you are completely ignoring Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 that go into great detail about the third temple and Revelation 11:1. The final "abomination of desolation" is the Antichrist himself declaring himself to be God.

There won't be a physical third temple, even if there is, built at a nearby site, it won't be legitimate.

 

[Revelation1v8]

There won't be a physical third temple, even if there is, built at a nearby site, it won't be legitimate.

Regardless of what you consider to be "legitimate", the Bible tells us that Jesus will return to Jerusalem on earth to reign as King over all the earth (Zechariah 14:9) for 1,000 years to restore Israel and replenish its people before the final battle of Gog & Magog and the final Great White Throne Judgement as described in Revelation 20.

 

[Researcher]

How do you figure that?

I know precisely what the Abomination of Desolation was because I have done a proper, verse-by-verse study and interpretation of the Book of Daniel as well as other books in the Bible. There is only one conclusion that can be reached.

Maybe you should look up the definition of "Abomination of Desolation":

No need to. I have the verses to teach me, not man's imagination of how to define it.

The Abomination of Desolation is a biblical phrase referring to an idolatrous act or sacrilegious object that defiles God’s holy place, specifically the Temple in Jerusalem, resulting in spiritual and physical desolation.

You literally used no verses to make your case. Paraphrasing will not cut it.

Here is a deep dive I did recently...

Thread 'Daniel's 1260 vs. 1290 vs. 1335 vs. 2300 Days'

Jul 5, 2026

The purpose of this thread is to discover what would happen if all of Daniel's 'days' prophecies were consistently interpreted using the Day/Year Principle:

The day-year principle or year-for-a-day principle is a method of interpretation of Bible prophecy in which the word day in prophecy is considered to be symbolic of a year of actual time.

Day-year principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This would include prophecies regarding the Two Witnesses found in the Book of Revelation. In other words, they prophecy for 1260 years.

Here is a condensed list of the various 'days'...

• Researcher
• Replies: 179
• Forum: Bible Discussion Forum

• 

There are many verses from Daniel 11 that I interpreted.

 

[Researcher]

The Abomination of Desolation is not the Crucifixion. In Daniel, the phrase always refers to a defiling act performed by a hostile ruler against the sanctuary — never to the suffering of the Messiah. Jesus, speaking in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, quotes Daniel and tells His disciples to watch for a future desecration event, not a past one, and He places it as the trigger for the flight of Judea, which occurred in 70 AD. Luke interprets the same prophecy as Jerusalem being “surrounded by armies,” not Golgotha. The Crucifixion is the atoning act of the spotless Lamb, not a desecration of the holy place; it fulfills the sacrifices, it does not defile them. The abomination is an act of hostile intrusion, not divine redemption. So while Antiochus IV is not the final referent, the Crucifixion cannot be the referent either — the text’s structure, timing, and typology simply do not allow it

You did the same thing as @Revelation1v8 . Paraphrasing will not prove your case. Here are some basic questions you need to have answers to before attempting to solve anything prophetic:

• What does 'establish the vision' mean in Daniel 11:14"
• Who is the Daughter of Women in Daniel 11:17?
• What are the Ships of Chittim? in Daniel 11:30?
• What are the 'tidings out of the east and out of the north' in Daniel 11:44

If none of you here know the answers, then you have no business teaching prophecy in my opinion.

 

[Researcher]

Fallen angels rebelled long before Paul wrote...

They fall all the time.

 

[Researcher]

The power of the Two Witnesses will come from the Holy Spirit therefore the Holy Spirit must be the Restrainer because once the Witnesses are resurrected and raptured the Antichrist will finally rule the complete world.

The Two Witnesses already completed their mission long ago. They prophesied for 1260 years from Moses to John the Baptist:

Luke 16:16 - The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

The Day/Year Principle everyone uses for Daniel's seventy weeks also applies to the 1260, 1290, 1335 and 2300 days.

 

[Lovette]

Regardless of what you consider to be "legitimate", the Bible tells us that Jesus will return to Jerusalem on earth to reign as King over all the earth (Zechariah 14:9) for 1,000 years to restore Israel and replenish its people before the final battle of Gog & Magog and the final Great White Throne Judgement as described in Revelation 20.

I never denied any of that. All that I'm saying is that there's no physcal third temple on the temple mount.

 

[OMC]

You did the same thing as @Revelation1v8 . Paraphrasing will not prove your case. Here are some basic questions you need to have answers to before attempting to solve anything prophetic:

• What does 'establish the vision' mean in Daniel 11:14"
• Who is the Daughter of Women in Daniel 11:17?
• What are the Ships of Chittim? in Daniel 11:30?
• What are the 'tidings out of the east and out of the north' in Daniel 11:44

If none of you here know the answers, then you have no business teaching prophecy in my opinion.

You are not actually addressing my argument.You are deflecting by demanding answers to unrelated details in Daniel 11 so you can claim “I have no business teaching prophecy.” That is not exegesis — it is gatekeeping.
My original argument stands: the Abomination of Desolation cannot be the Crucifixion because every biblical usage of the phrase refers to a hostile desecration of the sanctuary, never to the atoning work of the Messiah. Jesus places the event after His ministry, as a future sign for Judea, and Luke interprets the same prophecy as Jerusalem being surrounded by armies — not Golgotha. The Crucifixion fulfills the sacrificial system; it does not defile it. Therefore, the text’s grammar, structure, and typology exclude the Crucifixion as the referent, regardless of anyone’s ability to answer unrelated questions about Daniel 11.**
Your reply is just a diversion, not a real rebuttal. None of the questions you listed — “establish the vision,” “daughter of women,” “ships of Chittim,” or “tidings out of the east and out of the north” — have anything to do with Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, the Abomination of Desolation, or the Crucifixion. They’re completely irrelevant to the point I made. It’s a classic move: when someone can’t refute the actual text, they change the subject and demand that I pass their test instead.

 

[Researcher]

Then you are completely ignoring Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 that go into great detail about the third temple and Revelation 11:1. The final "abomination of desolation" is the Antichrist himself declaring himself to be God.

That is incorrect. The Temple described in Ezekiel will never be built. Most get this one wrong because of a lack of doing their proper homework.

Scripture teaches us plainly that Ezekiel's Temple was a *conditional promise*:

Ezekiel 43:11 - And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

That word *if* is a big deal. We all know that the Israelites did not show shame nor did they repent, etc. According to God's clear instructions, Ezekiel was to show them the plans on that condition. Since they did not meet those conditions, the plans were scrapped. Had Ezekiel showed them the plans, he would be in violation of God's command.

Again, according to the Word of God, Ezekiel's Temple will never be built. New Jerusalem supersedes it. Sure, there are some similarities, but they are obviously not the same thing.

 

[Lovette]

In order to believe that you would have to ignore Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 that goes into great detail about the description of the third temple that is unlike any of the previous two.

Don't you think that's describing the New Jerusalem? As in Rev. 21-22?

 

[Revelation1v8]

You did the same thing as @Revelation1v8 . Paraphrasing will not prove your case. Here are some basic questions you need to have answers to before attempting to solve anything prophetic:

• What does 'establish the vision' mean in Daniel 11:14"
• Who is the Daughter of Women in Daniel 11:17?
• What are the Ships of Chittim? in Daniel 11:30?
• What are the 'tidings out of the east and out of the north' in Daniel 11:44

If none of you here know the answers, then you have no business teaching prophecy in my opinion.

Until you can explain away Zechariah, chapters 12 through 14, you don't have any business teaching prophecy either.

 

[OMC]

That is incorrect. The Temple described in Ezekiel will never be built. Most get this one wrong because of a lack of doing their proper homework.

Scripture teaches us plainly that Ezekiel's Temple was a *conditional promise*:

Ezekiel 43:11 - And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

That word *if* is a big deal. We all know that the Israelites did not show shame nor did they repent, etc. According to God's clear instructions, Ezekiel was to show them the plans on that condition. Since they did not meet those conditions, the plans were scrapped. Had Ezekiel showed them the plans, he would be in violation of God's command.

Again, according to the Word of God, Ezekiel's Temple will never be built. New Jerusalem supersedes it. Sure, there are some similarities, but they are obviously not the same thing.

I actually agree with that reading.
Ezekiel 43:11 makes the whole thing explicitly conditional—“if they be ashamed of all that they have done…”—and that “if” is not a throwaway word.
The command is: if they show shame and repent, then show them the form of the house, its ordinances, and laws so they can keep it; but Israel never met those conditions, so the blueprint was never meant to be implemented.
If Ezekiel had gone ahead and presented the plans anyway, he would have violated the very condition God attached to them.
So in my view, Ezekiel’s temple is a scrapped, conditional offer, and the reality that actually comes is New Jerusalem, which supersedes it—related in theme, but clearly not the same structure.

 

[Revelation1v8]

I never denied any of that. All that I'm saying is that there's no physcal third temple on the temple mount.

Well, I guess you should do some research then on why the temple in Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 is different from the first two temples.

 

[Lovette]

Well, I guess you should do some research then on why the temple in Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 is different from the first two temples.

Don't you think that's describing the New Jerusalem? As in Rev. 21-22?

 

[Revelation1v8]

Don't you think that's describing the New Jerusalem? As in Rev. 21-22?

No, I've already checked into that. The dimensions of the New Jerusalem don't match the description of the temple described in Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48. There won't be an actual temple in the New Jerusalem because the Bible tells us that God/Jesus are the temple and the light of the new city/heaven.

 

[Lovette]

No, I've already checked into that. The dimensions of the New Jerusalem don't match the description of the temple described in Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48. There won't be an actual temple in the New Jerusalem because the Bible tells us that God/Jesus are the temple and the light of the new city/heaven.

Then that'll be a new temple in Jerusalem for the millennial kingdom, after the Lord's return. Until then, " Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," saith the Lord.

 

[Researcher]

You are not actually addressing my argument.

Of course I am. The Abomination of Desolation comes from the Book of Daniel. There are all kinds of references. Here are a couple:

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

If one does not understand the verses, they have no business teaching about it. This is common sense.

You are deflecting by demanding answers to unrelated details in Daniel 11...

Nope and they are not unrelated. I posted two verses already.

so you can claim “I have no business teaching prophecy.” That is not exegesis — it is gatekeeping.

Call it what you want, it is obvious you are not able to prove why anyone should believe you.

My original argument stands: the Abomination of Desolation cannot be the Crucifixion because every biblical usage of the phrase refers to a hostile desecration of the sanctuary, never to the atoning work of the Messiah.

Prove it. Post your verse-by-verse interpretations so that we may see how you reached your conclusion.

Jesus places the event after His ministry, as a future sign for Judea, and Luke interprets the same prophecy as Jerusalem being surrounded by armies — not Golgotha.

You are still paraphrasing. The verses I posted teach that the Abomination of Desolation comes first, then the destruction comes later.

Jesus warns about it here as well:

Luke 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Abomination/Crucifixion first, destruction of Jerusalem later, just as Daniel teaches.

The Crucifixion fulfills the sacrificial system; it does not defile it.

And here is the quote: "...the daily sacrifice shall be taken away..."

Therefore, the text’s grammar, structure, and typology exclude the Crucifixion as the referent, regardless of anyone’s ability to answer unrelated questions about Daniel 11.

The questions I raise are about establishing the exact timing of the Abomination of Desolation. It is clear this is over your head. Sorry to give you the bad news. The fact is that Daniel 11 teaches that the Abomination of Desolation is not future and it was not Antiochus IV Epiphanes. If you understood the verses, you would know this.

Your reply is just a diversion, not a real rebuttal.

Speak for yourself. I posted the link to my study. I did my part.

None of the questions you listed — “establish the vision,” “daughter of women,” “ships of Chittim,” or “tidings out of the east and out of the north” — have anything to do with Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, the Abomination of Desolation, or the Crucifixion. They’re completely irrelevant to the point I made. It’s a classic move: when someone can’t refute the actual text, they change the subject and demand that I pass their test instead.

Read the thread I made Brother. Take the time to understand how I reached my conclusion. I am not ignorant, nor do I parrot what others say.

​

 

[Revelation1v8]

Then that'll be a new temple in Jerusalem for the millennial kingdom, after the Lord's return. Until then, " Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," saith the Lord.

That's a very real possibility, so maybe there's a 4th temple, because the Bible tells us that the Antichrist will sit in a "temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.