Remember, that goes both ways. How do you know it's not the temple standing at that time? Did Paul say it's a different one than the one still standing? Did he say "Not the one everyone is familiar with, but a futuer one". This is where the burden of proof falls, to show (if you believe Paul meant the physical temple) it's about a future temple. Why didn't Paul just say a future temple?Roger wrote:Sean,
Thank you for all of your posts. I would like to keep this thread of conversation on a friendly basis and maintain an attitude of brotherly love.
I disagree with you though that the futurist has "the burden of proof" placed upon them that Paul was talking about a physical temple. Just because you make such a statement doesn't make it so.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?Roger wrote: Also I would ask you this.....If Paul meant by his statements to the Thessalonian believers that some entity like the papacy was going to rise and exault itself above all that is called God, why didn't he just say so. Why would he play"word games" with those believers. If he was attempting to reassure them as to the coming of the Lord, it seems to me he would have spoke plainly to them and not in some kind of double talk.
2Th 2:6 And now you know what holds back, for him to be revealed in his own time.
It seems that Paul already told them what it was, but didn't want to repeat it on "paper". If Paul would have said it's the Roman empire that is restaining the man of sin and must be removed, Paul would be speaking treason against Rome of which he was a citizen. That wouldn't be a smart thing for Paul to do, since Rome could intercept this letter and have some hard evidence to accuse Paul. Paul was already being accused of speaking against Rome, this would have only made things worse.
On the other hand, if the restainer was the Holy Spirit, why not says so. Why be vauge. Paul would have had no reason to be vauge about that.
Now think carfully about what you just said because it's a great point. Now, keeping that in mind, lets use the same logic and apply it to the futurist view. The temple of God in that view is the Jewish temple, were the old covenant (now obsolete and defunct) was housed, and were animal sacrifices were performed as a type and shodow looking forward to the fulfillment found in Christ. If the "temple of God" is that kind of future temple then, to follow your logic, "then that would make us have to believe that the Jewish temple with all of its NOW unnesessary animal sacrifices is the temple of God". This would be an abomination because it rejects the sufficiency of Christ blood, going back to weak and beggary elements.Roger wrote: Now if what you are saying is true here in that Paul really was talking about "the church" and not a physical temple.....then that would make us have to believe that the Catholic Church with all of its heretical Mary worship is the temple of God and I absolutely refuse to believe that. Since the man of sin is sitting or will sit in "the temple of God" and he is the head of the Catholic church then the Catholic Church must be the temple of God according to your view.
This would be a bad situation, because Paul said the church is the temple of God, and Hebrews said the tabernacle was a copy of heavenly things. Jesus now mediates at the true tabernacle, not the copy made with hands. To put a now obsolete practice back into effect is to deny Chirst has sufficiently accomplished their fulfillment.
Finally, if we like it or not, the "catholic church" was the only church for a long time (about 1000 years) and they did keep the bible intact. It didn't start as a monster, it became one. Just as the Jewish system became corrupt by them adding traditions (just like the Roman Catholics later did). You can't look at that and say that just beacuse the Jews made a mess of things that there was no longer true Judaism at the core.