Revelation discussion - 2 of 2

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Timothy Litteral wrote:
 
> Rev. Blume:
> > Not be so flat in my response, but I must give a
> conclusive "Wrong."
> >
> > 1 Cor 3:17  If any man defile the temple of God, him
> shall God
> > destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye
> are.
> >
> > This verse uses the term "TEMPLE OF GOD".  Is it
> "exclusively" used
> > for the "building" that stood on the temple mound?  No.
> > Is this a reference to what you would call "John's day"?
> Yes.
> > John was alive and well when this verse was written.
> >
> > So your premise is not correct, brother.
> 
> Me:
> No, actually that premise is not correct.  You have still
> not shown that this is what Paul meant but only what he
> COULD have meant by the statement.  

Brother, Paul said, "WHICH TEMPLE YE ARE."

1 Cor 3:16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and 
that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

That is conclusive.

>  my next point provides a
> reasonable explanation of how the son of perdition COULD be
> standing in a literal building.  You have raised nothing
> that would exclude this.  

Brother, Paul said YE ARE THE TEMPLE OF GOD in verse 16.
The Spirit of God DWELLS IN YOU.

Unless you are back to 2 Thess. 2.  Nevertheless you
are incorrect in saying THE TEMPLE OF GOD refers
to a building only.  Maybe you are telling me this here, anyway.
And I know 2 Thess. is not conclusive, but cross-reference
supports it.  Where is your cross reference? 

> It is also very possible that
> this son of perdition is sitting in BOTH the Temple of God
> (body of a believer) as a cognizant, willful blasphemer of
> the Holy Ghost and in a literal building on the Temple
> Mount.

True.  But I feel it safer to conclude it is the believer
rather than a buidling since I see no cross references that support
a buidling.

I know what people USE to say it is:

Mat 24:15  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of 
desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the 
holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Mat 24:16  Then let them which be in Judaea flee into 
the mountains:

But that occurred in 70 AD.  People actually fled Judaea
then in response to this very command.

> > > The next point made was that God must somehow approve
> of
> > > the Temple for it to wear the title "Temple of God" but
> > > what about when the Temple was used for the worship of
> > > idols?  It was still refered to as the Temple of God.
> 
> Rev. Blume:
> > The same thing can be said for our bodies.
> 
> Me:
> I have forgotten to state that I think you are correct
> about the interpretation of us being the Temples of God 

Oh, okay.  That is why I wrote the above.  You mixed me up a bit
when you say Paul did not mean us, since you were
obviously thinking of 2 Thess 2 and not 1 Corinthians.

> and
> even if I cannot prove that this term was used
> "exclusively" for the building it is it cannot be proven
> that it was used exclusively for the body of the believer
> by any means.  

Agreed.  But due to the similarity of wording in 1 Cor 6, used by the
SAME AUTHOR who wrote 2 Thess, it seems pretty strong an argument
when no similar wording is as close to 2 Thess 2 regarding a 
building.

Again, I feel Paul would not call a building THE TEMPLE after
the age of the shadows of ritualism has passed away.

> This term applied to the building until it
> was destroyed by the Romans and will be applied to the
> Temple that the Jews are in the process of funishing and
> prefabricating as I write.

BAck to my point concerning a future trib period.  This keeps cropping
up and we must address the issue upon which basis you believe there
to be a future trib period.  You did mention, though too briefly,
taht Revelation's reference to 3.5 years points that way.  And I indicated
rather detailingly that the ORIGINAL idea of a 7 year trib comes from
an incorrect interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27.   

If there is NO future trib period then all the thoughts about a temple
to be built according to "prophecy" is incorrect.  See what I mean
by studying the basis for paradigms in our interpretations.  So many
take the thought of s future trib. period for granted and do not stop
to think that this whole thread of thoughts BEGINS with an unproven
assumption that ther is a future trib period.

> Is it logical to assume that they will indeed build this
> Temple and dedicate it in the name of Jehovah, Jehovah
> STILL being A name of God?

So what if they build it?  It will mean nothing to God, and I do not 
feel it is prophesied about.  The Orthodox Jews believe that the FOURTH
temple will be built by God.  "Except the Lord build the house, they
labour in vain."  Little do they know that HOUSE is the CHURCH!!!  :-)

> Rev. Blume:
> And I feel that salvation and spiritual growth are spoken
> of MORE than endtime events.
> 
> Me:
> O think they are interwoven but as I said a little later
> that the salvation aspect is the most inportant.

Perhaps that is spot-on the money!!!  May the Lord lead us to all truth!


> Me:
> I think this is a much better way to present my ideas and
> allow Rev.
> Blume's INSPIRING analysis to remain predominant.  I have
> heard
> salvation preached from Revelation but never by a Oneness
> preacher.  I have seen many of these things personally but
> haven't had the oportunity to "examine" them.  This is a
> good thing.

I think Oneness people can preach salvation from Revelation
better than anybody, since we Know who the ONE is on the throne!!!
:-)


-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm