Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[CrowCross]

Dispensational Premillennialism is not what is written in scripture. It is an interpretation of scripture, not scripture. It is a very unique and very different interpretation of scripture and a very unique and different interpretation that proves difficult to discuss because its adherents will not discuss it honestly. Outsiders making the attempt must endure constant changes of topic, frequent digressions, derogatory personal commentary, and false equivalencies in which a theology is call scripture.

For now, all I am asking is that you discuss the exegetical and logically necessities of correctly perceiving a third temple would not be recognized by God. Can you do that?

I believe I already have....because you disagree doesn't make it as you say.

I have already shown your amount of animals needed to be sacrificed as fallacy and not a daily requirement for the Jews. It's to the point it's not really worth discussing that with you anymore.

All reading of the scriptures fall under the category of "interpretation". Some black and white and some gray. Chuckle...guys like you tend to think your misguided interpretation is the only and correct interpretation.

You to date have not shown what is mentioned in the bible about the temple, antichrist etc has been fulfilled nor has history shown your belief to be historical. All you have done is nay-say about the 3rd temple. Perhaps you don't believe it has been fulfilled and in that case never presented your view what the temple is about.

You failed to recognize post 5 in another thread of the same topic and what @Rella had to say about what is currently happening.

You asked for explicit wording that spoke directly of a temple being built in the future....as if that's the standard...yet pointed out to you that you can't find scripture that explicitly points out the trinity. As with the trinity the dots concerning the third temple are easily connected and you have been shown this numerous times...always demeaning the pre-tribulation theological argument as if you have refuted the truth of their scriptural view.

 

[Josheb]

I believe I already have....because you disagree doesn't make it as you say.

I have already shown your amount of animals needed to be sacrificed as fallacy and not a daily requirement for the Jews. It's to the point it's not really worth discussing that with you anymore.

I disagree but even if the numbers are low you did not address the correlation to the unrecognized temple.

All reading of the scriptures fall under the category of "interpretation".

Nope. Completely incorrect.

A verse that states, "Jesus wept," means exactly what it states. There is no need, nor any warrant for adding any interpretation.

Chuckle...guys like you....

Another attempt to make this personal that is fruitless and digressionary.


You believe God will not recognize a third temple. I agree. There are certain exegetical and logical necessities that follow that statement. Is that understood? Regardless of what those necessities may (or may not) be, do you acknowledge that viewpoint does not exist in a void without relevance to anything else in scripture?

 

[Josheb]

You to date have not shown what is mentioned in the bible about the temple, antichrist etc

Because....

1. I have yet to receive actual answers to the questions that underlie the premise of a third temple and
2. This op is not about the antichrist, the man of lawlessness or any other matter.

This op is about the temple, and the post easily demonstrate how difficult it is for futurists to stay on topic and not obfuscate the discussion with digressions like the antichrist and the mol. It took you multiple posts to finally acknowledge there isn't a single verse in the Bible that actually, specifically, explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. When 2 Thessalonians is broached by the futurist that proves to be a decoy because the text doesn't state another temple will be built and the discussion invariably turns into a debate about the MoL, not a third temple. I am not going to go oof topic. Because I am not going to go off topic all the complaints and accusations about not discussing the antichrist, the MoL, the color of Ms. McGonigal's hair last Thursday are a waste of time that demonstrates the failure of the futurist to stay on topic. What I have not said about other matters is no evidence regarding the temple at all.

You said you did not think God would recognize the third temple.

• Why build one if it's not going to be recognized?
• Why would God want one built if He's not going to recognize it?
• Why would God prophecy something he won't recognize will be instrumental in His bringing the Jews to salvation?

These (and others) are very relevant to the agreed upon belief God won't recognize the temple. Don't simply tell me the Jews are going to build the temple in disobedience because when it comes to eschatological prophecies those are all fulfilments of covenant promises. They are not like the Messianic prophecies describing the disobedience of Messiah-rejecters. Those sets of prophecies are not in the same category. You understand this, yes? Dispensationalism teaches God has two different peoples; one is the Jews of Israel, and the other is the Christians of the Church. Dispensationalism teaches God will bring the Jews of Israel to salvific faith in Christ through a set of future events, one of which is the building of another temple and Dispensationalism teaches that temple will be built sometime in our future. This is the teaching of Dispensationalism, not my opinion.

You believe a third temple will not be recognized by God and I agree!!! We may agree for different reasons, but we both believe the temple will not be recognized by God.

So why would God want the Jews to build an unrecognized third temple as an instrument of salvation? Do you not see the conflict inherent in that belief? Imagine, for example, a Messiah God did not recognize. The Jews raise up a messiah that God does not recognize but God is, nonetheless, going to use that unrecognized messiah to bring those propagating that messiah to salve them.

Underlying the premise of another temple is the presupposition God wants another temple built. No rebellion ever occurs without God allowing it. That's not the same thing as God dictating or directly causing the rebellion. I'm not conflating want and cause. Every rebellion God allows He uses for His purposes but not every rebellion is a rebellion He wants for a specific purpose of His. Dispensationalism implicitly teaches God wants an unrecognized temple built and built for salvific intent.

Why would God want something He's not going to recognize? The short answer might be, "Because He intends to use it to bring the Jews to salvation in Christ," but that answer leads to other problems more detrimental than the ne it hopes to solve. It has God wanting disobedience as the means of salvation.

Therefore, this idea God will not recognize the future temple is a belief that warrants discussion and that conversation is not happening.

 

[Arial]

Considering there currently isn't a temple....and considering scripture speaks of a temple in the future...I would say YES to your question. "Does Scripture say one will be built?"

Strange though, isn't it, that in all the pages of the NT including Matt 24, the building of a third temple is never mentioned. Wouldn't that be very, very, important a thing to mention? And considering that Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it u in three days?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21).

And considering 1 Cor 3:16-17; 1 Pet 2:5; Eph 2:20-22 there are other options much more likely than a physical stone temple in interpreting the passage you refer to. Is it possible for you to acknowledge that it is an option?

I agree, no Jew will be saved by sacrificing animals. Then again that won't last long as the anti-christ ends it when he sets up shop in the temple calling himself God.

That is not the teaching of premil/dis. So again I ask, if you have hodge-podged together your own private premil/dis view, you need to define it and do so succinctly. Otherwise it makes for a non-conversation. Also, I think you have said the above without even bothering to check if it fits with any scripture even one misinterpreted. It does not timeline track even with your own view that you have put forth---or so it seems to me.

As to the rest of your paragraph???? Quite strange and sound somewhat ad-hoc.

It isn't ad hoc because it is not introducing it in order to rescue anything I have said from refutation or criticism. The ad hoc is actually on your side by calling my post ad hoc. You introduced that because you do not want to address the teaching of dis/amil concerning the temple and the animal sacrifices. Just like you would not deal with it the first two times I asked you to. It is you who is saying the Jews are going to build the third temple and institute the sacrifices. And now you have said it is the anti-Christ who is going to bring them to a stop. You who claims God is not going to accept it. And you who claims to be dis/amil. What I posted that you won't deal with is the dis/amil view.

I've stated it numerous times...We are currently in the Matt 24 birth pangs. I don't know how long that will last or how deep into it we will go.
Then the 1 Thes 4:16 resurrection/rapture event happens. The antichrist is revealed. Some sort of peace treaty signed which opens the way to build a temple.
Eventually (as much happens such as Rev 8) those that remain on earth and survive till Rev 13 will see the completion of the beast system that is being built right now at this moment. (assuming the time line of Rev is linear.) At the end of the 7 years Jesus returns to earth on the depicted white horse. The physical seconds coming. Would you like more explanation or will you continue with your fallacy?

What is my fallacy?

Where does the Bible say he will have two second comings? I know what you are interpreting as the first partial coming. I am not asking for something you interpret as a partial second coming. I am asking where the Bible actually says there will be a partial second coming and another full second coming?

When doe this 1000 year reign of Christ start? What happens during those thousand years? Is the proposed third temple standing during that time?

 

[CrowCross]

I disagree but even if the numbers are low you did not address the correlation to the unrecognized temple.

Nope. Completely incorrect.

A verse that states, "Jesus wept," means exactly what it states. There is no need, nor any warrant for adding any interpretation.

What I said was...and I quote...."All reading of the scriptures fall under the category of "interpretation". Some black and white and some gray. " It seems as if you intended to be deceptive.

Another attempt to make this personal that is fruitless and digressionary.


You believe God will not recognize a third temple. I agree. There are certain exegetical and logical necessities that follow that statement. Is that understood? Regardless of what those necessities may (or may not) be, do you acknowledge that viewpoint does not exist in a void without relevance to anything else in scripture?

You have a rather strange approach to things. In the bible we read of people "resurrecting" when Jesus died. One sentance then silence.

Scripture mentions a temple in the future that the ant-christ identifies himself as God in...in Revelations we see a measurement of a future temple.
Just as we accept the resurrection of people from the tomb we can also understand there will be a 3rd temple as the bible mentions it.

 

[CrowCross]

So why would God want the Jews to build an unrecognized third temple as an instrument of salvation?

I thought this and both came to the same conclusion that the temple would not be a means of salvation.
Mod Edit: Violation of rules 2.1 and 2.2

 

[CrowCross]

Where does the Bible say he will have two second comings? I know what you are interpreting as the first partial coming. I am not asking for something you interpret as a partial second coming. I am asking where the Bible actually says there will be a partial second coming and another full second coming?

Mod Edit: Content deleted for disrespect and off topic rules violation

How does Acts 1 say Jesus will return? My bible speaks of the same way in which Jesus left and we see something very similiar to the way Jesus left in 1 Thes 4.

When Jesus returns physically we see mention of a white horse.....do you remember talking about this?
I don't know if you noticed but Jesus didn't leave on a white horse.

Mod Edit: Content deleted for disrespect and off topic rules violation
you'll see two returns.

 

[prism]

A return to a practicing temple on earth , in spite of what Hebrews, Eph 2-3, Jn 2, 4 say is a delusion.

‘A time is coming and NOW IS when the true worshippers…’

Actually Paul laments that the temple keeps seeking the hope of Israel by operating all the temple practices in his time instead of realizing the resurrection was the fulfilled enthronement of David’s vision, Acts 2:30,31

You said 'people'. Hopefully, true worshippers are people, too

 

[Arial]

Once again you post in a deceptive manner.

I highly recommend you stop doing that.

Responding to you seems to be a waste of my time.

James 3:1-12. Taming the Tongue.

One would think by now, the bit would be hurting.

 

[Josheb]

What I said was...and I quote...."All reading of the scriptures fall under the category of "interpretation".

And I disagreed. Reading scripture as written (where exegetically appropriate) is not interpretive and it does not require interpretation.

Some black and white and some gray. " It seems as if you intended to be deceptive. You have a rather strange approach to things.

Nice ad hominem.


Bye

 

[EarlyActs]

You said 'people'. Hopefully, true worshippers are people, too

Of course, Eph 3.

 

[Rella]

Okey dokey,

I admit to not having read every reply here but one thing I do not recall seeing in this debate of will there or wont
there be a 3rd temple is where "The AntiChrist".... The bad endtimes one will sit.....

There has been a lot of suggestion that he will sit in Rome because Rome is on 7 hills.... But there has more recently been more discussion of
him sitting in the 3rd temple........

I have been looking into this and it seems there are 2 Christian Interpretations of “Where Antichrist Sits”

The first being the FUTURIST interpretation which is considered a 'modern' popular view....

This is the view taught in many evangelical and prophecy-focused circles based on 3 biblical passages.


They connect three passages:

2 Thes 2:3-4

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

This being interpreted as a future rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem, not the church.

Because of Dan 9:27

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

Futurists believe “the abomination of desolation” will occur in a rebuilt temple.

AND see Matt 24:15

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),

Jesus references Daniel’s “abomination,” which makes some think a physical temple must exist again.

ERGO

There must be a literal 3rd Temple.
The Antichrist will sit in that temple.
Thus, this eliminates ROME as a possibility.


This view only became widely popular in the last 150–200 years (through Darby, Scofield, and modern prophecy teachers).



_______________________________________________________________________

The other view is the Historic Christian interpretation ... "early Protestant and many church fathers

It seems for most of history, Christians believed:

The “temple of God” = the Church, not a building​

This is based on:

1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Ephesians 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,

Before I go on I need to comment here.... I do not feel strongly one way or the other on any view of this... other then to say
that I, personally, from everything I have read or heard believed that this referenced temple of God was in Rome... on the 7 hills....

That is because it certainly is the classic Protestant historicist interpretation that was extremely common from the Reformation until the early 20th century:

The Antichrist = a final Roman pope.... And He will sit in St. Peter’s Basilica (the “temple of God”) in Vatican City→ Vatican City is inside Rome, the city on seven hills and Thus he fulfills “sitting in the temple of God” (2 Thess 2) while the woman sits on seven hills (Rev 17).

Even though the “story” isn’t directly stated in one place in the Bible, it’s a synthesis of 2 Thessalonians 2 + Revelation 17 + the historical identification of Rome as the seven-hilled city.

So while the idea of the Antichrist "sitting in the house of God" (or "the temple of God") on a city with seven hills comes primarily from two passages in the New Testament, combined with centuries of Christian interpretation, prophecy speculation, and (especially in Protestant circles) anti-Catholic polemics.

However.....
The belief that the Antichrist will “sit in the house of God on the seven hills” is a historic Protestant interpretation that identifies:

The “temple of God” = the greatest church in Christendom (St. Peter’s in Rome)

The “city on seven hills” = Rome/Vatican

The man who sits there claiming divine honors = the Pope (or a future Pope)

We almost never pay any attention to......

The Temple Mount is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem. Once the site of two successive Temples in Jerusalem,

AND

Jerusalem is often described as being surrounded by seven hills, but the Temple Mount itself is not located on a hill; it is a raised platform within the city.

Yet while Jerusalem is often described as being situated on hills, it is specifically built on two main hills: the eastern hill and the western hill. The Temple Mount, which is a significant religious site, is located on the western hill.

The Seven Hills Concept​

While Jerusalem is not traditionally referred to as the "City of Seven Hills," it is surrounded by several peaks. The concept of seven hills is more commonly associated with Rome. However, some references suggest that Jerusalem can be viewed as being surrounded by seven notable peaks, which include:

1. Mount Scopus
2. Mount of Olives
3. Mount Corruption
4. Mount Ophel
5. Temple Mount (Mount Moriah)
6. New Mount Zion
7. The peak of the Roman Antonia Fortress

​

So due to the lack of specifics regarding the location that the Antichrist will sit.......

It seems that there could be considered two possibilities for this and one would need to have a rebuilt temple.

​

 

[Josheb]

Okey dokey,

I admit to not having read every reply here but one thing I do not recall seeing in this debate of will there or wont
there be a 3rd temple is where "The AntiChrist".... The bad endtimes one will sit.....

Please provide the verse that states the antichrist will sit in the third temple.

There has been a lot of suggestion that he will sit in Rome because Rome is on 7 hills.... But there has more recently been more discussion of
him sitting in the 3rd temple........

Are you aware that Jerusalem is also built on seven hills?

 

[Rella]

Please provide the verse that states the antichrist will sit in the third temple.

I am not saying the antichrist will sit in the third temple.....

What I said was ~"
I admit to not having read every reply here but one thing I do not recall seeing in this debate of will there or wont
there be a 3rd temple is where "The AntiChrist".... The bad endtimes one will sit...

I am suggesting that is the antichriust will sit where 7 hills are involved.

I personally want it to be Rome.... No discussions...

But as you say and I reply below... there is another candidate if it in fact happens.

Are you aware that Jerusalem is also built on seven hills?

Yes,,,,, I posted this above.. and each has a name.

Jerusalem is often described as being surrounded by seven hills, but the Temple Mount itself is not located on a hill; it is a raised platform within the city.

Yet while Jerusalem is often described as being situated on hills, it is specifically built on two main hills: the eastern hill and the western hill. The Temple Mount, which is a significant religious site, is located on the western hill.

While Jerusalem is not traditionally referred to as the "City of Seven Hills," it is surrounded by several peaks. The concept of seven hills is more commonly associated with Rome. However, some references suggest that Jerusalem can be viewed as being surrounded by seven notable peaks, which include:

1. Mount Scopus
2. Mount of Olives
3. Mount Corruption
4. Mount Ophel
5. Temple Mount (Mount Moriah)
6. New Mount Zion
7. The peak of the Roman Antonia Fortress

 

[Josheb]

I am not saying the antichrist will sit in the third temple.....

What I said was ~"
I admit to not having read every reply here but one thing I do not recall seeing in this debate of will there or wont
there be a 3rd temple is where "The AntiChrist".... The bad endtimes one will sit...

Yes. I understood all that. As a consequence of all of that I asked for the verse stating the antichrist sits in the third temple.

I am suggesting that is the antichriust will sit where 7 hills are involved.

Got scripture for that?

I personally want it to be Rome.... No discussions...

????? There will be no discussion of your "want" on this matter???

But as you say and I reply below... there is another candidate if it in fact happens.

Well..... There is no candidate at all if there is no verse stating the antichrist will sit wherever the [city of] seven hills is located.

Yes,,,,, I posted this above.. and each has a name.

Jerusalem is often described as being surrounded by seven hills, but the Temple Mount itself is not located on a hill; it is a raised platform within the city.

Yet while Jerusalem is often described as being situated on hills, it is specifically built on two main hills: the eastern hill and the western hill. The Temple Mount, which is a significant religious site, is located on the western hill.

While Jerusalem is not traditionally referred to as the "City of Seven Hills," it is surrounded by several peaks. The concept of seven hills is more commonly associated with Rome. However, some references suggest that Jerusalem can be viewed as being surrounded by seven notable peaks, which include:

1. Mount Scopus
2. Mount of Olives
3. Mount Corruption
4. Mount Ophel
5. Temple Mount (Mount Moriah)
6. New Mount Zion
7. The peak of the Roman Antonia Fortress

Which means the verse is not clear and there exists two possibilities, Jerusalem and Rome. Jerusalem was referred to as the city of seven hills. That label goes all the way back to the 8th century BC, about the time Rome was founded (possibly before then), and Rome wasn't given that label until its defenses were solidified (using the seven hills) around the 4th century BC. Therefore, if tradition is the measure, then Jerusalem gets the nod, not Rome .

The woman sitting on the seven hills in Revelation 17 is said to be clothed in purple and scarlet. Those were the colors of the Levitical priesthood (Roman Catholicism, with its priesthood, did not exist when Revelation was written). See Exodus 28 & 39. The harlot is also said to be drunk on the blood of the saints and the witnesses of Jesus. At the time Revelation was written it was Jerusalem that was the murder of the saints and witnesses of Jesus. James and Stephen had been killed in Acts. Saul of Tarsus was persecuting followers of The Way and many of them had been arrested and killed. Paul had suffered multiple beatings and on one occasion had been stoned. Acts 14 states Paul had been stoned, dragged outside of the city and left for dead by Jews, not Rome. Jesus had already declared the Pharisees guilty for killing God's prophets, stated God would send more and they'd be killed by the Pharisees.

So why pick Jerusalem when scripture provides a pile of evidence the city in question is more likely Jerusalem?

Well, Rome gets the nod because there'd been ten Caesars, or kings, leading up to and/or involved in the destruction of Jerusalem; five of which had died prior to Revelation being written. Rome suffered an egregious loss at its "head" when three more Caesars were killed within the same year, and Vespasian left the siege of Jerusalem to take control and restore order. Four of the Caesars were deified (declared Gods), five if Titus is counted. The latter two did enter the temple, as had Pompey (who had also been deified, and who had entered the Holy of Holies). It was Rome that assembled a mercenary army from ten nations to lay siege to Jerusalem, and it was Rome, not Jerusalem that ruled over the kings of the earth at that time. Jerusalem was an occupied territory (no longer and actual nation). It's king paid fealty to Rome.




So where's that verse about the antichrist sitting where the seven hills are involved?

 

[EarlyActs]

I am not saying the antichrist will sit in the third temple.....

What I said was ~"
I admit to not having read every reply here but one thing I do not recall seeing in this debate of will there or wont
there be a 3rd temple is where "The AntiChrist".... The bad endtimes one will sit...

I am suggesting that is the antichriust will sit where 7 hills are involved.

I personally want it to be Rome.... No discussions...

But as you say and I reply below... there is another candidate if it in fact happens.


Yes,,,,, I posted this above.. and each has a name.

Jerusalem is often described as being surrounded by seven hills, but the Temple Mount itself is not located on a hill; it is a raised platform within the city.

Yet while Jerusalem is often described as being situated on hills, it is specifically built on two main hills: the eastern hill and the western hill. The Temple Mount, which is a significant religious site, is located on the western hill.

While Jerusalem is not traditionally referred to as the "City of Seven Hills," it is surrounded by several peaks. The concept of seven hills is more commonly associated with Rome. However, some references suggest that Jerusalem can be viewed as being surrounded by seven notable peaks, which include:

1. Mount Scopus
2. Mount of Olives
3. Mount Corruption
4. Mount Ophel
5. Temple Mount (Mount Moriah)
6. New Mount Zion
7. The peak of the Roman Antonia Fortress

The latter fact would be consistent with the 1st page of the Rev, which says twice that the things in it were to happen shortly. Cp. the expression in the Rev about 'the city where their Lord was crucified.' The near view, with declarations of judgement echoed all through the NT, is that this is meant for that generation.

It is best not to resolve these things by handling the symbolic passages. There are more direct, ordinary declarations. Luke is sprinkled with them and it is mostly transcription of Paul. Paul speaks very direct in the Thess passages, because there was a strong belief that the world would end right after Jerusalem was destroyed, cp Rom 2 about wrath. 2 Peter 3 is about as ordinary as you can get as well, dipping only once or twice into established figures of speech. Mt 24A stays very current 1st-century, direct, vital, Judean-based. (A = before the time change at v29).

After you have a solid basis in the ordinary declarations you can tangle with the symbolic. But they are nowhere close in clarity.

 

[CrowCross]

The Seven Hills Concept​

While Jerusalem is not traditionally referred to as the "City of Seven Hills," it is surrounded by several peaks. The concept of seven hills is more commonly associated with Rome. However, some references suggest that Jerusalem can be viewed as being surrounded by seven notable peaks, which include:

1. Mount Scopus
2. Mount of Olives
3. Mount Corruption
4. Mount Ophel
5. Temple Mount (Mount Moriah)
6. New Mount Zion
7. The peak of the Roman Antonia Fortress

​

So due to the lack of specifics regarding the location that the Antichrist will sit.......

It seems that there could be considered two possibilities for this and one would need to have a rebuilt temple.

The seven hills is an interesting concept.
For example Washington has seven hills:

1. Capitol Hill
2. Meridian Hill
3. Floral Hills
4. Forest Hills
5. Hillbrook
6. Hillcrest
7. Knox Hill

What's interesting is before Washington DC was named "Washington DC"....It was called Rome Maryland.

Will the 3rd temple be built there? I doubt it. Will it be built in Rome Italy? I doubt it. Personally I think it will be built at or near the Islamic Dome of the Rock.

In a previous post you presented what is currently occurring concerning rebuilding of the Temple...The Jews are ready to build.
It didn't get much traction as the non-literalist don't seem to have answers to current events and how they fit into the bible like a glove.

Whether this building of the 3rd temple occurs prior to the resurrection/rapture event or after the resurrection rapture event is unknown.

The bible does tell us the lawless one (Antichrist) will literally sit in that temple and declare himself to be God. (2 Thes 2:4)
Some here will disagree but I consider them as misinformed. I try to go by what the bible literally says and not what I need it to say.

In post 312 you mentioned the views of the early Protestant Church who were at a disadvantage to what we currently know.
They at that time couldn't see Israel as becoming a nation and didn't account for the fulfillment of that prophecy which occurred in 1948.
I'm not sure if the thought of a temple in Jerusalem ever entered into their minds. I see many today trapped in that line of thought and "foo pah" the reality of the current dispensation.

The “temple of God” = the Church, not a building

That is very true. Thing is the Jews don't understand this or won't accept this and according to the bible will build a temple and call it or give it meaning to be the "Church of God".

I don't accept the meaning of the temple presented in 2 Thes 2:4 as being the Church as I don't see the lawless one (antichrist) as entering into the believers and claiming to be God.

 

[Rella]

Yes. I understood all that. As a consequence of all of that I asked for the verse stating the antichrist sits in the third temple.

Got scripture for that?

Of course not... IT IS PURELY MANS GUESSWORK

The specific idea that “the Antichrist will sit on seven hills” is therefore a synthesis of:

1. Revelation 17:9 describing the great harlot city as seated on seven hills/mountains.
2. The universal ancient identification of that city as Rome.
3. Centuries of Christian (especially Protestant) interpretation that either the Pope (historicist view) or a future political/religious leader in Rome (futurist view) is the Antichrist, thus placing his “seat” in the city on seven hills.

So the concept is not a direct biblical statement (“the Antichrist will sit on seven hills”) but a widespread interpretive tradition that has been in continuous use for almost 2,000 years.

????? There will be no discussion of your "want" on this matter???

I am not laying it out for ridicule or censuring. Not this point. I am taking a wait and see approach.

Well..... There is no candidate at all if there is no verse stating the antichrist will sit wherever the [city of] seven hills is located.

The closest would be............

The idea that the Antichrist will sit on (or rule from) “seven hills” comes primarily from a long-standing Christian interpretation of Revelation 17:9 in the New Testament, combined with the historic identification of Rome as the “City on Seven Hills.”

Key biblical text (Revelation 17:3–9, 18 )“And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast… The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet… and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.’ … The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated… And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.”
In this vision:

The “woman” is explicitly called “the great city” (v. 18).

She sits on a beast with “seven heads,” which are explained as “seven mountains/hills” (Greek: ὄρη ἑπτά – orē hepta, the same word used for hills/mountains).

She also sits on “many waters” (interpreted as peoples/nations) and exercises worldwide influence and persecution of the saints.

Historic Christian Interpretation

From the earliest centuries, most Christian commentators identified this “woman”/“great city on seven hills” with Rome:

Rome was universally known in antiquity as the “City on Seven Hills” (Septimontium or Urbs Septicollis).

Early Church Fathers who applied Rev 17 to Rome include Tertullian (c. 200), Hippolytus (c. 200), Victorinus of Pettau (c. 280), and later Jerome, Augustine, etc.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, many medieval and Reformation-era writers continued to identify the woman either with papal Rome (Protestant view) or with a revived Roman system in the future (Catholic and later evangelical view).

How This Became Linked to the Antichrist
Revelation 17 does not explicitly say the woman is the Antichrist; rather, she rides (controls or is allied with) the Beast/Antichrist figure. Over time, however, popular eschatology merged the two concepts:

In historicist and futurist interpretations (especially after the Reformation), many Protestants explicitly called the papacy “the Antichrist” and pointed to the Vatican (which sits on one of Rome’s seven hills—Vatican Hill) as the “seat” of the Antichrist.

Classic Protestant confessions (e.g., Westminster Confession 1646, Second London Baptist 1689) and writers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, the English Puritans, Wesley, Spurgeon, etc.) routinely identified the Pope as the Antichrist seated in Rome, the city on seven hills.

Even in modern dispensational and premillennial teaching (Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series, Jack Van Impe, etc.), a future Antichrist is frequently described as ruling from Rome or a revived Roman Empire, again tying back to the “seven hills” imagery.

​

The specific idea that “the Antichrist will sit on seven hills” is therefore a synthesis of:

1. Revelation 17:9 describing the great harlot city as seated on seven hills/mountains.
2. The universal ancient identification of that city as Rome.
3. Centuries of Christian (especially Protestant) interpretation that either the Pope (historicist view) or a future political/religious leader in Rome (futurist view) is the Antichrist, thus placing his “seat” in the city on seven hills.

So the concept is not a direct biblical statement (“the Antichrist will sit on seven hills”) but a widespread interpretive tradition that has been in continuous use for almost 2,000 years.

Which means the verse is not clear and there exists two possibilities, Jerusalem and Rome. Jerusalem was referred to as the city of seven hills. That label goes all the way back to the 8th century BC, about the time Rome was founded (possibly before then), and Rome wasn't given that label until its defenses were solidified (using the seven hills) around the 4th century BC. Therefore, if tradition is the measure, then Jerusalem gets the nod, not Rome .

The woman sitting on the seven hills in Revelation 17 is said to be clothed in purple and scarlet. Those were the colors of the Levitical priesthood (Roman Catholicism, with its priesthood, did not exist when Revelation was written). See Exodus 28 & 39. The harlot is also said to be drunk on the blood of the saints and the witnesses of Jesus. At the time Revelation was written it was Jerusalem that was the murder of the saints and witnesses of Jesus. James and Stephen had been killed in Acts. Saul of Tarsus was persecuting followers of The Way and many of them had been arrested and killed. Paul had suffered multiple beatings and on one occasion had been stoned. Acts 14 states Paul had been stoned, dragged outside of the city and left for dead by Jews, not Rome. Jesus had already declared the Pharisees guilty for killing God's prophets, stated God would send more and they'd be killed by the Pharisees.

So why pick Jerusalem when scripture provides a pile of evidence the city in question is more likely Jerusalem?

While Jerusalem is not traditionally referred to as the "City of Seven Hills," it is surrounded by several peaks. The concept of seven hills is more commonly associated with Rome. However, some references suggest that Jerusalem can be viewed as being surrounded by seven notable peaks, which include:

1. Mount Scopus
2. Mount of Olives
3. Mount Corruption
4. Mount Ophel
5. Temple Mount (Mount Moriah)
6. New Mount Zion
7. The peak of the Roman Antonia Fortress

Well, Rome gets the nod because there'd been ten Caesars, or kings, leading up to and/or involved in the destruction of Jerusalem; five of which had died prior to Revelation being written. Rome suffered an egregious loss at its "head" when three more Caesars were killed within the same year, and Vespasian left the siege of Jerusalem to take control and restore order. Four of the Caesars were deified (declared Gods), five if Titus is counted. The latter two did enter the temple, as had Pompey (who had also been deified, and who had entered the Holy of Holies). It was Rome that assembled a mercenary army from ten nations to lay siege to Jerusalem, and it was Rome, not Jerusalem that ruled over the kings of the earth at that time. Jerusalem was an occupied territory (no longer and actual nation). It's king paid fealty to Rome.




So where's that verse about the antichrist sitting where the seven hills are involved?

It is hiding with the verse that proves the Trinity.

 

[CrowCross]

Even in modern dispensational and premillennial teaching (Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series, Jack Van Impe, etc.), a future Antichrist is frequently described as ruling from Rome or a revived Roman Empire, again tying back to the “seven hills” imagery.

I would say....just because the ant-christ sits in the temple in Israel and declares himself to be God doesn't mean He will rule from the 3rd temple.

 

[Josheb]

Of course not... IT IS PURELY MANS GUESSWORK

Do you mean your posts are all guesswork, or the exegesis of apocalyptic prophecy is all guess work? If the latter, then.....



What if it's not guesswork?