Who is the restrainer?
- Thread starter Lovette
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nope.
He sits in the Body Temple, i.e., Satan will incarnate in the flesh.
Use some common sense. Not all flesh is considered the temple of God. Only those who have the Holy Spirit residing in them are considered temples for God.
No, it is not. We all have a spirit, but we don't all have the Holy Spirit that seals us and regenerates us as children of God.
They are synonymous. The Holy Spirit comes from God who gave it. The sealing you refer to is a renewal. Jesus was not born without the Holy Ghost, he recieved a renewal.
Anyhow, blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is obviously a thing, which is what the Man of Sin does.
They are not synonymous. Maybe you should read John, chapter 14 again. Jesus only sends His Holy Spirit to understand and remember the things that he said and taught to His believers. If everyone already had the Holy Spirit to even know and understand who God/Jesus is, every person on earth would be considered saved. Those who don't know or understand who God is do NOT have the Holy Spirit to guide them into understanding and Truth, which every living soul on earth does NOT automatically have.
You keep insisting I “prove” the abomination is not the Crucifixion, but you haven’t actually engaged the definition Scripture gives. Every single occurrence of the phrase abomination of desolation describes a hostile desecration of the sanctuary — an act committed by an enemy, against the temple, resulting in its defilement. The Crucifixion is the exact opposite: it is the fulfillment of the sacrificial system, not its pollution. Christ’s offering ends sacrifice because it is accepted, not because it is an abomination.
Jesus Himself places the abomination after His ministry, as a future sign for Judea to flee. Luke interprets the same prophecy as Jerusalem surrounded by armies, not Golgotha. You can repeat “Crucifixion first, destruction later,” but repetition is not exegesis. The text does not call the Cross an abomination, and it does not call the Messiah a desecrator.
Your appeal to Daniel 11 is simply a diversion. “Daughter of women,” “ships of Chittim,” “tidings out of the east and north” — none of that establishes that the Crucifixion fits Daniel’s pattern of a pagan invader profaning the sanctuary. You’re demanding I adopt your entire interpretive grid before you’ll even address the actual point. That’s not how exegesis works.
My argument stands: A hostile desecration is not the atoning work of the Lamb of God. A future sign for Judea is not an event already past. A pagan profaner is not the Messiah.
Until you can show — from the text — that Scripture ever uses “abomination of desolation” to describe God’s own ordained sacrifice, your conclusion remains your assertion, not Daniel’s
Saying this is “over my head” doesn’t change the fact that you still haven’t demonstrated—from the text—that the Crucifixion fits the biblical definition of the abomination of desolation. You keep appealing to Daniel 11 as if its complexity somehow proves your point, but none of the details you’re leaning on—“establish the vision”, “daughter of women”, “ships of Chittim”, “tidings out of the east and north”—actually show that the Messiah’s atoning death is the desecration Daniel describes.
Daniel 11 may very well point to a future desecrator other than Antiochus, but that still doesn’t make the Crucifixion the abomination. The issue isn’t timing; it’s category. Daniel’s abomination is always a hostile profanation of the sanctuary by a wicked ruler, not the fulfillment of the sacrificial system by the spotless Lamb. Jesus places the abomination after His ministry as a future sign for Judea, and Luke identifies it with Jerusalem surrounded by armies, not Calvary.
So no—your timing argument doesn’t overturn the textual definition. Until you can show, from Scripture itself, that the Bible ever uses “abomination of desolation” to describe God’s own ordained sacrifice rather than a pagan desecration, your claim remains an assertion, not exegesis.
I see what you’re trying to express, and I appreciate the desire to honor what God is doing in His people.
But I need to say this gently: when we take a rich biblical image like “temple” and immediately equate every future temple reference with “the church,” we start smoothing out distinctions Scripture itself keeps in place.
Yes, the New Testament calls believers the temple of the Holy Spirit — that’s a beautiful truth, and I hold it dearly.
But that doesn’t automatically mean every prophetic mention of a temple is meant to be absorbed into that metaphor.
Paul uses temple language to describe our identity in Christ, not to reinterpret every temple passage in the prophets. So I’m not disagreeing with the spiritual reality you’re pointing to; I’m simply being careful not to collapse categories the biblical authors kept distinct. My goal is to let each passage speak in its own context without forcing it into a single mold
Do we have a time line which indicates when the anti christ declares himself as god?
We know the jews will only be in agreement with him for 3 yrs then war breaks out.
Wouldn't this declaration of anti christ be considered a abomination?
Just thinking..
We know the jews will only be in agreement with him for 3 yrs then war breaks out.
Wouldn't this declaration of anti christ be considered a abomination?
Just thinking..
Scripture never gives a timeline in which an “antichrist” figure signs a treaty with Israel for three years and then declares himself God; that sequence comes from a particular interpretive system, not from the text itself.Do we have a time line which indicates when the anti christ declares himself as god?
We know the jews will only be in agreement with him for 3 yrs then war breaks out.
Wouldn't this declaration of anti christ be considered a abomination?
Just thinking..
The only place where someone “takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” is 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Paul never ties that act to a seven‑year covenant, a three‑year agreement, or a political alliance with Israel.
Likewise, Revelation never says the Jews will be “in agreement with him for three years,” nor does it place a self‑deification event at the midpoint of a treaty.
As for whether such a declaration would be an abomination, Jesus defines the “abomination of desolation” as a desecrating act in a holy place (Matt 24:15), not simply a boast or claim, and Paul’s description in 2 Thessalonians 2 may echo that pattern — but Scripture does not supply the timeline your question assumes. The safest approach is to stay with what is written: Paul describes a man of lawlessness who exalts himself, Jesus describes a desecration event, and neither provides the three‑year structure often repeated in modern prophecy teaching.
I already provided the link in post #65, which of course you ignored.
Here it is again...
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:
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'...
Day-year principle - Wikipedia
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'...
The ball is now in your court to prove what *you* claim is true using verses. You will not be able to. I already know this.
@Revelation1v8 hasn't bothered to review the detailed verses I provided either.
You two do nothing but blow hot air. The forum sees it. Go to my thread and prove me wrong if you dare.
Good luck.
These verses speak of the Times of the Gentiles being fulfilled:
| Luke 21:24 - And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. |
| Romans 11:25 - For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. |
Some believe the Antichrist will appear after that happens:
Are we there yet?
Another sign that we are given is this verse:
| Matthew 24:37-38 - But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark |
As I mentioned earlier, the Falling Away could have to do with fallen angels. The above verses are warning us about a time that will soon come when the Sons of God will once again create hybrid humans as they did in the days of Noah. We already see the public being prepared for this. Look for the term 'Interdimensional Beings' to become mainstream.
The final phase of Nebuchadnezzar's image refers to the 'mingling of seed' of these Interdimensional Beings, or fallen angels:
The Man of Sin joins with the Ten Kings who appear to be Heavenly Principalities (similar to the ones described in Daniel) that end up defecting.
There are all kinds of videos out there that cover this.
| Daniel 2:43 - And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. |
The Man of Sin joins with the Ten Kings who appear to be Heavenly Principalities (similar to the ones described in Daniel) that end up defecting.
There are all kinds of videos out there that cover this.
Not Paul, but Lord Jesus himself taught that the future temple of worship will be neither Jerusalem nor anywhere else, but in spirit and truth, inside the body temple. It wasn't just a metaphor, but very explicit statement.
The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”
Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
When someone tells me, “I know precisely what the Abomination of Desolation was because I’ve done a proper verse‑by‑verse study,”I already provided the link in post #65, which of course you ignored.
Here it is again...
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:
Day-year principle - Wikipedia
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'...
The ball is now in your court to prove what *you* claim is true using verses. You will not be able to. I already know this.
@Revelation1v8 hasn't bothered to review the detailed verses I provided either.
You two do nothing but blow hot air. The forum sees it. Go to my thread and prove me wrong if you dare.
Good luck.
I immediately recognize the problem: confidence is not exegesis, and certainty is not proof. Every sect, every system, every theological camp claims “proper study.” What matters is whether the interpretation actually follows the text’s grammar, context, and canonical usage — not whether someone feels convinced by their own reading.
I don’t accept conclusions just because someone says they reached them “properly.” If the verses truly teach what you claim, then show me the textual chain — the Hebrew terms, the narrative flow, the prophetic structure, and how Daniel’s usage aligns with Jesus’ usage. Simply asserting “I have the verses to teach me” is not an argument; it’s a slogan. Scripture is not a toy we wave around to validate our system. It demands careful handling, and it harmonizes with itself without needing the scaffolding of dispensational charts or human timelines.
Until you demonstrate your conclusion from the text itself — not from your confidence, not from your system, not from your claim of “proper study” — your statement remains an assertion, not a proof.
When I read Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman, I don’t see Him abolishing the category of a temple; I see Him correcting her assumption that worship is geographically restricted. He tells her that true worship is not tied to Gerizim or Jerusalem, because the Father seeks worshipers who come to Him in spirit and truth. That’s about the mode of worship, not the non‑existence of any future temple. Jesus never says, “There will never again be a temple,” and He never redefines every prophetic temple passage as “the body of believers.” He simply tells her that salvation is not locked to a mountain.
And when Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” I don’t treat that as a universal definition of “temple.” John explicitly tells me He was speaking of His body, not redefining every future use of the word. If Jesus’ body were the final and only meaning of “temple,” then Paul could never say I am the temple of the Holy Spirit, and Revelation could never speak of the heavenly temple. Scripture uses the word naos in multiple ways, and Jesus’ statement in John 2 is one of those ways — not the only one.
So when someone tells me, “Jesus taught that the future temple will be only inside the body,” I simply point out that He never said that. He taught that worship is not confined to a location, and He taught that His own body is the true dwelling of God — but He never erased the prophetic temple language of Ezekiel, Zechariah, or Revelation. I’m not going to collapse all those categories into one metaphor just because a system wants them flattened. The text deserves better than that.