Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[EarlyActs]

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.


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

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.




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

It is hiding with the verse that proves the Trinity.

It could be Rome if you mean the 1st century like the 1st page of the Rev says. The harlot is then the fact that many Jews were influential in Roman cities in a way that harmed Christian believers, and sometimes that clandestinely helped Israel’s revolution. Notice , for ex, that when Rome decides to act in 66 , they seize temple tax money, which they believed was actually going to secure weapons. The zealots took this to be the time to attack.

 

[Rella]

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?

I am saying that without specific biblical scripture that says X, Y or Z.... they guess.

Translations can be different. Most are... and they tend then to direct those readers in directions different from their brothers and sisters reading something else.

It is why there are so many debates on forums like this and nary a change in mind or understanding because someone can argue and explanation based on say KJV and lets say if you are a NWT follower.... you are never going to believe that the Word (John 1:1) was anything other then a god.

Show 40 translations that say otherwise, they still are firm in what they read.

It is that way for every subject from the meaning of Let US in Gen to predestination V Free Will or preterism to the apocalypse.

And for me... that is alright. It is alright because I believe our differences are by design from the heavenly Father that could hail back to Babel.

You are going to say I am nuts.... LOL, IDC

 

[Rella]

It could be Rome if you mean the 1st century like the 1st page of the Rev says. The harlot is then the fact that many Jews were influential in Roman cities in a way that harmed Christian believers, and sometimes that clandestinely helped Israel’s revolution. Notice , for ex, that when Rome decides to act in 66 , they seize temple tax money, which they believed was actually going to secure weapons. The zealots took this to be the time to attack.

I believe it to be Rome, for a lot of reasons... not necessarily scripture.

It has only been for a nano second in time I have given passing thought to hte New Temple.... IF it is built... because of the according to biblical prophecy, the Antichrist is expected to sit in the temple of God and proclaim himself as God, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

For my entire cognitive life of near 70 years now I had always heard the location would be on 7 hills. It simply never dawned on me to challenge that because people always refer back to Rev.and until a scant 10 years ago I had not been much into Rev so has no reason to doubt... but
The Bible indicates that the temple of God will be rebuilt before the return of Jesus, particularly in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, which states that the Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, proclaiming himself as God. This suggests that the temple must be constructed prior to the end times events described in scripture.

And learning that there are 7 hills? surrounding Jerusalem... I started to think.

But the Bible does not tell us.

If 2 Thes is correct... and there is reason it well could be right there... then that works too.

search assist: In Revelation 17, the seven heads of the beast are interpreted as both seven mountains and seven kings, with the woman representing a corrupt religious system. This imagery is often associated with the Antichrist, who is believed to rise from this system of power and influence.

I have no idea how some confused Revelation 17:9, This calls for a mind with wisdom. "The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits."

Sheeesh... Here we have the woman.... sitting.... A female antichrist?

I just do not think we will know until it happens.... unless we come across some other dead sea scroll, or gnostic gospel that explains further.

 

[Josheb]

I am saying that without specific biblical scripture that says X, Y or Z.... they guess.

Is there a specific verse in the Bible that states a third temple will be built? No. So they guess. I've been kind when I couch modern futurism as an inference-based theology but if what you're saying is correct then it's really a guess-based theology.

You are going to say I am nuts.... LOL, IDC

Well..... I'm a retired psychologist. We don't generally use the word "crazy" . I might say the rationale is irrational, but I'd never call you crazy (unless you tell me you're crazy and mean it).

But the Bible does not tell us.

The Bible does tell us.

If 2 Thes is correct... and there is reason it well could be right there... then that works too.

2 Thessalonians is correct, but the Dispensationalist and interpretation of 2 Thessalonians is not correct. Those are very important distinctions.


There were two temples standing when 2 Thessalonians was written. They modern futurists here have either denied that fact or denied its relevance. Therefore, the problem is not one of what "biblical scripture that says X, Y, or Z," but what the text of 2 Thes is made to say amidst the active refusal to consider what is stated. If there are no temples then then one has to be built, right? So, modern futurists guess and invent a third temple when none is stated in biblical scripture. There must be another temple coming because we have to have a temple for our guesses to be correct .

I asked you about the antichrist. Twice. I asked because 2 Thessalonians never mentions any antichrist. John is the only person who ever uses the word "antichrist." It is a guess (using your label) to conflate the man of lawlessness (MoL) with the antichrist. 2 Thessalonians never states the antichrist is in any temple. What it does state is the MoL seats himself in the temple. AND what the texts states is the original readers of the epistle in Thessalonica knew what was holding him back. They knew what was holding back the male human. Modern futurists interpret that to say the Thessalonians knew what was preventing him from being born. They guess. Their knowing what was restraining the human male in question, the man, from sitting in the temple and being revealed necessarily means he was already living at the time 2 Thessalonians was written. The text states the mystery of lawlessness was already at work during the time when Paul wrote the epistle. There is a bunch of stuff scripture says in 2 Thessalonians.

I am saying that without specific biblical scripture that says X, Y or Z.... they guess.

There is specific biblical scripture that says X. Y, or Z. There is no biblical scripture that states a third temple will be built, so the modern futurist guesses and makes scripture say things it does not state.

 

[CrowCross]

2 Thessalonians is correct, but the Dispensationalist and interpretation of 2 Thessalonians is not correct. Those are very important distinctions.

The above is just your opinion and should be stated as such.

There were two temples standing when 2 Thessalonians was written.

2nd Thessalonians was written around 51–52 AD...prior to the destruction of the Temple located in Jerusalem. In prophecy Jesus spoke of the destruction of this temple. In 70AD the Temple in question was destroyed.

They modern futurists here have either denied that fact or denied its relevance.

This is also more personal opinion and the misinformation should have been presented as such.

Therefore, the problem is not one of what "biblical scripture that says X, Y, or Z," but what the text of 2 Thes is made to say amidst the active refusal to consider what is stated. If there are no temples then then one has to be built, right?

Currently in Israel there are plans in action to rebuild the destroyed Temple. I can state that as fact rather than opinion.

So, modern futurists guess and invent a third temple when none is stated in biblical scripture.

A temple is mentioned in 2 Thes 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. To state there is no Temple mentioned in 2 Thes is an error.

There must be another temple coming because we have to have a temple for our guesses to be correct .

Considering Paul was referring to what I and others believe to be the Temple in Jerusalem....(as it wasn't destroyed yet)....and there is no longer a Temple present in that location it becomes more than a "guess" that for the inspired Paul to be correct there must be a rebuilt Temple of some sort.

 

[CrowCross]

I asked you about the antichrist. Twice. I asked because 2 Thessalonians never mentions any antichrist. John is the only person who ever uses the word "antichrist." It is a guess (using your label) to conflate the man of lawlessness (MoL) with the antichrist. 2 Thessalonians never states the antichrist is in any temple. What it does state is the MoL seats himself in the temple.

AND what the texts states is the original readers of the epistle in Thessalonica knew what was holding him back. They knew what was holding back the male human. Modern futurists interpret that to say the Thessalonians knew what was preventing him from being born. They guess.

Once again you present your speculation as truthful.
I have never heard of any modern futurist interpreting Thessalonians who said they knew what was keeping the MoL from being born.

Their knowing what was restraining the human male in question, the man, from sitting in the temple and being revealed necessarily means he was already living at the time 2 Thessalonians was written.

Once again you seem to be speculating and presenting opinion as to who Paul was writing about.

The text states the mystery of lawlessness was already at work during the time when Paul wrote the epistle. There is a bunch of stuff scripture says in 2 Thessalonians.

I agree the "mystery of lawlessness was already at work during the time when Paul wrote the epistle."
Even John mentions the spirit of the ant-christ (which theologians believe is the MoL) is here and the THE ACTUAL person of the antichrist is still to come in the future.
It is my belief that the restrainer is the Church and the restrainer will be removed when verse 1 occurs....2 Thes 2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him....this event, the rapture event, is also mentioned in 2 Thes 2:3 when the christians have 'departed" and are gathered together to Jesus as per 1 Thes 4:17. It is after the rapture that I believe the antichrist (MoL) will be revealed.

 

[Josheb]

The above is just your opinion and should be stated as such.

No, it is a fact that can be verified by both the teachings of leading Dispensationalists, the posts of Dispensationalists in this thread (none of whom have accepted the relevance of either of the two temples that were standing at the time the epistle was written, and the exposition on 2 Thessalonians I provided in my posts.

 

[Josheb]

2nd Thessalonians was written around 51–52 AD...prior to the destruction of the Temple located in Jerusalem. In prophecy Jesus spoke of the destruction of this temple. In 70AD the Temple in question was destroyed.

Which means there was a temple standing when 2 Thessalonians was written and therefore absolutely no need whatsoever to infer some other temple would be built millennia later. Such a speculation violates the first two rules in basic exegesis:

1. Read the text exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless there is something in the surrounding text to provide a reason for doing otherwise.
2. Understand the text as the original author and his original readers would have understood it.

Modern futurist interpretations say 2 Thes. 2's temple is not the temple that was standing at the time the letter was written. @ Thes 2's temple is an inferred temple that will be bult in sometime in the 21st century (or later). None of the words of 2 Thessalonians 2 mean "in the 21st century" if they are read as written. There's no way in heaven and earth the original readers would have ever understood those words to mean "in the 21st century." 2 Thes 2 was written to allay the worries of the Thessalonians they had missed Christ's coming, a coming they expected in their lifetime. The text explicitly states the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first. In other words, Christ's expected coming - the coming they were looking forward to seeing - was a contingency. It was a possibility, not an inevitability. If the apostasy occurred, then Christ would come. If the apostasy did not occur, then the day of the Lord they were anticipating would not happen.

Modern futurism makes a mess of that passage.

You say it is my opinion, but the fact is every modernist in this thread pointed to 2 Thes 2 when it came to discuss the third temple in Jerusalem (the subject of this op). Every single one of you did so. You all use 2 Thes 2 as justification for the belief in a uture third temple but there isn't a single sentence in that entire chapter that states another temple will be built in our future.

This is also more personal opinion and the misinformation should have been presented as such.

The post prove otherwise.

Currently in Israel there are plans in action to rebuild the destroyed Temple. I can state that as fact rather than opinion.

So what? Plans are not a temple. The existence of a temple is not in itself proof of prophecy and the simple fact remains there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built. Jews and Judaizing Christians are the only ones looking for another temple.

A temple is mentioned in 2 Thes 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. To state there is no Temple mentioned in 2 Thes is an error.

Yes, and there was a temple standing when that was written. The original readers would have understood what they were reading as a reference to the existing temple, NOT one speculated to exist sometime in the 21st century.

Considering Paul was referring to what I and others believe....

Paul was not referring to what you believe. With a normal meaning of the text understanding the words in their ordinary usage Paul was referring to the temple that was standing at the time he wrote those words.

 

[Rella]

The above is just your opinion and should be stated as such.


2nd Thessalonians was written around 51–52 AD...prior to the destruction of the Temple located in Jerusalem. In prophecy Jesus spoke of the destruction of this temple. In 70AD the Temple in question was destroyed.

This is also more personal opinion and the misinformation should have been presented as such.

Currently in Israel there are plans in action to rebuild the destroyed Temple. I can state that as fact rather than opinion.

A temple is mentioned in 2 Thes 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. To state there is no Temple mentioned in 2 Thes is an error.

Considering Paul was referring to what I and others believe to be the Temple in Jerusalem....(as it wasn't destroyed yet)....and there is no longer a Temple present in that location it becomes more than a "guess" that for the inspired Paul to be correct there must be a rebuilt Temple of some sort.

Thank you for your critique on the matter.

Where you said it was my opinion... and I should have stated it..... it actually was not mine... It was Grok's

I was testing the new Grok that is somewhat different and you gave enough feed back that I will not go there again.

Thank you for your expertise.

 

[CrowCross]

No, it is a fact that can be verified by both the teachings of leading Dispensationalists, the posts of Dispensationalists in this thread (none of whom have accepted the relevance of either of the two temples that were standing at the time the epistle was written, and the exposition on 2 Thessalonians I provided in my posts.

If you the expert says so.

NEXT

 

[CrowCross]

Which means there was a temple standing when 2 Thessalonians was written and therefore absolutely no need whatsoever to infer some other temple would be built millennia later. Such a speculation violates the first two rules in basic exegesis:

1. Read the text exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless there is something in the surrounding text to provide a reason for doing otherwise.
2. Understand the text as the original author and his original readers would have understood it.

Modern futurist interpretations say 2 Thes. 2's temple is not the temple that was standing at the time the letter was written. @ Thes 2's temple is an inferred temple that will be bult in sometime in the 21st century (or later). None of the words of 2 Thessalonians 2 mean "in the 21st century" if they are read as written. There's no way in heaven and earth the original readers would have ever understood those words to mean "in the 21st century." 2 Thes 2 was written to allay the worries of the Thessalonians they had missed Christ's coming, a coming they expected in their lifetime. The text explicitly states the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first. In other words, Christ's expected coming - the coming they were looking forward to seeing - was a contingency. It was a possibility, not an inevitability. If the apostasy occurred, then Christ would come. If the apostasy did not occur, then the day of the Lord they were anticipating would not happen.

Modern futurism makes a mess of that passage.

You say it is my opinion, but the fact is every modernist in this thread pointed to 2 Thes 2 when it came to discuss the third temple in Jerusalem (the subject of this op). Every single one of you did so. You all use 2 Thes 2 as justification for the belief in a uture third temple but there isn't a single sentence in that entire chapter that states another temple will be built in our future.

The post prove otherwise.

So what? Plans are not a temple. The existence of a temple is not in itself proof of prophecy and the simple fact remains there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built. Jews and Judaizing Christians are the only ones looking for another temple.

Yes, and there was a temple standing when that was written. The original readers would have understood what they were reading as a reference to the existing temple, NOT one speculated to exist sometime in the 21st century.

Paul was not referring to what you believe. With a normal meaning of the text understanding the words in their ordinary usage Paul was referring to the temple that was standing at the time he wrote those words.

Whether or not a temple was standing at the time Paul wrote it....means nothing.

As it turns out the temple was destroyed...will you argue with history? So, for this to be fulfilled there must be a new temple for the anti-christ to declare himself to be God in. It's not science.

 

[Josheb]

Whether or not a temple was standing at the time Paul wrote it....means nothing.

Do you see a problem with a Christian stating the existing conditions mean nothing?

 

[Josheb]

As it turns out the temple was destroyed...will you argue with history?

Irrelevant to the point.

So, for this to be fulfilled there must be a new temple for the anti-christ to declare himself to be God in.

That is true ONLY if the Dispensationalist interpretation is true. If there is no Dispensationalist interpretation added to the text, then there is no reason to imagine a third temple. You're on record stating the existence of the temple at the time of the epistle being written means nothing. The existence of the temple means nothing for a verse written about..... the temple!!!

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.


Not "a" temple, but "the" temple. For any Christian living in Thessalonica during the first century reading that sentence in that letter the only temple they know as the temple of God is the one standing in Jerusalem at the time when the epistle was written (or the body of Christ ala 1 Cor. 3:16).

It's notscience.

Thinking that sentence pertains to a temple that would not be built for two thousand years is not science at all. It is delusion.

 

[CrowCross]

Do you see a problem with a Christian stating the existing conditions mean nothing?

Nope.

It's pretty much like speaking of Israel existing. There was a time when it wasn't...then it was in 1948.

 

[CrowCross]

Irrelevant to the point.

That is true ONLY if the Dispensationalist interpretation is true. If there is no Dispensationalist interpretation added to the text, then there is no reason to imagine a third temple. You're on record stating the existence of the temple at the time of the epistle being written means nothing. The existence of the temple means nothing for a verse written about..... the temple!!!

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.


Not "a" temple, but "the" temple. For any Christian living in Thessalonica during the first century reading that sentence in that letter the only temple they know as the temple of God is the one standing in Jerusalem at the time when the epistle was written (or the body of Christ ala 1 Cor. 3:16).

Thinking that sentence pertains to a temple that would not be built for two thousand years is not science at all. It is delusion.

Then it was destroyed. Will you argue with history?

 

[EarlyActs]

I believe it to be Rome, for a lot of reasons... not necessarily scripture.

It has only been for a nano second in time I have given passing thought to hte New Temple.... IF it is built... because of the according to biblical prophecy, the Antichrist is expected to sit in the temple of God and proclaim himself as God, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

For my entire cognitive life of near 70 years now I had always heard the location would be on 7 hills. It simply never dawned on me to challenge that because people always refer back to Rev.and until a scant 10 years ago I had not been much into Rev so has no reason to doubt... but
The Bible indicates that the temple of God will be rebuilt before the return of Jesus, particularly in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, which states that the Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, proclaiming himself as God. This suggests that the temple must be constructed prior to the end times events described in scripture.

And learning that there are 7 hills? surrounding Jerusalem... I started to think.

But the Bible does not tell us.

If 2 Thes is correct... and there is reason it well could be right there... then that works too.

search assist: In Revelation 17, the seven heads of the beast are interpreted as both seven mountains and seven kings, with the woman representing a corrupt religious system. This imagery is often associated with the Antichrist, who is believed to rise from this system of power and influence.

I have no idea how some confused Revelation 17:9, This calls for a mind with wisdom. "The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits."

Sheeesh... Here we have the woman.... sitting.... A female antichrist?

I just do not think we will know until it happens.... unless we come across some other dead sea scroll, or gnostic gospel that explains further.

The Thess material was written about that generation, answering those people’s question about their dead or living friends in Christ or family.

There were events in the late 60s that satisfy the predictions, because they are actually the events of Dan 9:27.

 

[durg]

I believe it to be Rome, for a lot of reasons... not necessarily scripture.

It has only been for a nano second in time I have given passing thought to hte New Temple.... IF it is built... because of the according to biblical prophecy, the Antichrist is expected to sit in the temple of God and proclaim himself as God, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

For my entire cognitive life of near 70 years now I had always heard the location would be on 7 hills. It simply never dawned on me to challenge that because people always refer back to Rev.and until a scant 10 years ago I had not been much into Rev so has no reason to doubt... but
The Bible indicates that the temple of God will be rebuilt before the return of Jesus, particularly in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, which states that the Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, proclaiming himself as God. This suggests that the temple must be constructed prior to the end times events described in scripture.

And learning that there are 7 hills? surrounding Jerusalem... I started to think.

But the Bible does not tell us.

If 2 Thes is correct... and there is reason it well could be right there... then that works too.

search assist: In Revelation 17, the seven heads of the beast are interpreted as both seven mountains and seven kings, with the woman representing a corrupt religious system. This imagery is often associated with the Antichrist, who is believed to rise from this system of power and influence.

I have no idea how some confused Revelation 17:9, This calls for a mind with wisdom. "The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits."

Sheeesh... Here we have the woman.... sitting.... A female antichrist?

I just do not think we will know until it happens.... unless we come across some other dead sea scroll, or gnostic gospel that explains further.

Rome is not prophesied anywhere in the bible and Rome is NOT a city of seven MOUNTAINS.

This is about Islam occupying the Temple Mount, the only piece of ground on planet earth that God deemed as His own.

 

[durg]

It's an abomination to believe that the anti-Christ of the last days would come out of 'Christianity.

 

[Rella]

The Thess material was written about that generation, answering those people’s question about their dead or living friends in Christ or family.

There were events in the late 60s that satisfy the predictions, because they are actually the events of Dan 9:27.

You surly are not referencing preterist beliefs when you say late 60s ?