Bertone Verifies that Pope Benedict Actually Retired in 2012

Of course, Tom Horn and I have been saying this for over a year and we predicted it a full year before it actually happened in our bestseller Petrus Romanus the Final pope is Here. Because of the uncanny accuracy of that prediction I feel like we should be vigilant to pay attention to the rest of the book’s ideas. I am still partial to the theory that Pope Francis will step into the role of the biblical false prophet. His planned trip to Israel this spring could very well verify that hypothesis. Here is a bit of the article and a link.

Former Vatican Secretary of State: Benedict decided to resign evil-pope(1)in 2012

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the former Vatican Secretary of State, has revealed that Pope Benedict XVI decided to resign in 2012, several months before he made that decision public.

In an interview with the Italian daily Il Giornale on the anniversary of the resignation, Cardinal Bertone said that Pope Benedict had made up his mind to step down by the middle of 2012, and had originally planned to announce his plans before Christmas that year. Cardinal Bertone said that he tried to persuade the Pontiff to delay his decision, but was successful only in convincing him to wait until February 11, 2013.

read more: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20454

Get a signed copy of Petrus Romanus from me personally for $15.00 plus shipping (domestic only).

petrus_STL Corrected





About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.

Comments

  1. Bernie says:

    Cris,

    I read P.R. and Exo and found them both great reads. Your comments; “we should pay attention to the rest of the book’s ideas” and Pope Francis possibly being the biblical false prophet, makes we wonder what specific things we might be looking for. Are there any particular things from the book that you’re personally looking for?

    Thanks,

    Bernie
    Denver, CO

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Pope Francis has been preaching to itching ears saying things like “who am I to judge gay priests” and “atheists go to heaven by obeying their conscience” — so he seems to meet the criteria of false prophet; it remains to be seen if he is THE false prophet.

      • Charles says:

        The subjects of astrobiology and possible extraterrestrial life, seem to be just around the corner. God Bless… Father Son Holy Spirit…

  2. Bob B says:

    2 Thessalonians 2:3 “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, 4 who 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. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He] is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

    The Pope is the one Paul said would sit in the temple of God. Paul was referring to the church as the temple of God. To sit in the temple of God is to take the authority that belongs only to God. The Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ on earth or one who sits in His place on earth. That is blasphemy. The Holy Spirit was sent to be in the place of Christ on the earth. All the reformers taught that the Pope was the anti-Christ.

    “The working of Satan with all power, signs and lying wonders” will deceive the whole world who do not know Jesus as Savior and the Spirit of Christ. The strong delusion could very well be Satan and fallen angels manifesting as aliens who will align with the Pope to cause the whole world to follow the Pope. That would make him the False Prophet prophesied in Revelation 13. We are at the end of the age. Jesus will soon return. Let us watch and pray and be ready to love not our lives unto the death. Are you prepared to die?

    • Chuckles says:

      Bob B said:

      “The Pope is the one Paul said would sit in the temple of God. Paul was referring to the church as the temple of God.”

      Um… well… there’s a number of problems with that idea.

      First off, there is nothing in the context of 2nd Thessalonians to indicate such an interpretation. The Jewish temple was still standing when Paul wrote 2nd Thessalonians, so there is no reason to suppose Paul was referring to the Church when he mentioned the “temple of God”. Paul’s 1st century readers would certainly have understood Paul to be referring to the literal Jewish temple since, in context, Paul was writing clearly about a physical building, not the mystical Body of Christ known as the Church.

      Secondly, the true Church cannot be the temple seen in the above passage, because the antichrist cannot inhabit the Church.

      Read the passage you quoted closely. It says “the son of perdition, who 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“. It does not say that he “tries” to sit in the temple, or that he regards himself as sitting there, but that he actually does sit there. He, the son of perdition (aka: the Beast, “the antichrist”) actually does sit in the temple. If, by “the temple”, Paul meant “the church as the temple of God”, then the antichrist would actually sit there, but he can’t actually sit in the Church–the Body of Christ–because the Holy Spirit will not allow it. Believers–indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Who is a person, btw)–are the true Church, and the Holy Spirit will not share His dwelling with the antichrist.

      Thirdly, as to the Pope being the antichrist, the Bible depicts the antichrist as a political leader, not a religious one. The Pope is a religious leader, but the antichrist presents himself as the object of worship, not the leader of it. So I don’t see it as likely that the antichrist will be a pope.

      Having said that, I do think the false prophet could quite likely turn out to be a Roman Catholic pope. Each succeeding pope demonstrates the qualifications for false prophet-hood more blatantly in attempts to unite all religions. Can you say “ecumenical”?

      • Bob B says:

        As to your first point, certainly Paul was already referring to believers in Christ as ‘the Temple of God’. He wrote, “You are the temple of the living God.” – 2 Cor. 6:16.

        Also Eph. 2:19-22 is clear: “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” The warning was that someone like Judas would enter in, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing to deceive. That is what the Pope did and continues to do.

        To your second point, there was no provision for a Priest to ‘sit’ in the temple of the Jews. Once he entered, he could only stand. So we cannot take ‘sitting in the temple of the Jews’ literally. It must refer to a positional ‘sitting’. The only one ‘sitting’ in the Temple of God right now is Jesus who is seated at God’s right hand. Paul is warning that there is coming a man who will sit in the place of Christ. Indeed, the Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ sitting in the place of Christ. This is antichrist. All the reformers taught this. God was dwelling in believers not the Jewish temple. How could believers ever be deceived by any man sitting in a literal temple of the Jews sitting in the place that belonged to God?

        See Jaz’s point about Judas. God warned about wolves in sheep’s clothing. 2 Peter 2:1 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.” “For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.” -2 Corinthians 11:13

        To your third point.
        The beast in Revelation 13 was the imperial pagan Roman empire. The Holy Roman Empire was an ‘image to the beast’.
        The Pope was both a political and a religious leader, and a true ‘antichrist’. The Popes and the Holy Roman Empire followed the Caesars and the Roman Empire after its demise in 476. The Popes ruled for a thousand years until the Protestant Reformation rose up and wounded the beast with the sword of the Word of God and the gospel. The reformers all taught this. I am a protestant and continue to teach this.
        The False Prophet “… was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.” He was granted political power during the HRE and we think Satan will once again use the Pope to be both a religious and a political antichrist.

        God bless

        • Chuckles says:

          Bob B. said:

          As to your first point, certainly Paul was already referring to believers in Christ as ‘the Temple of God’. He wrote, “You are the temple of the living God.” – 2 Cor. 6:16.

          Certainly, Paul did teach that the true Church is God’s temple. But that in no way proves that Paul was referring to the Church every single time he mentions the temple. Paul was not dealing with the “mystery” of the Spirit-indwelt Church in 2nd Thessalonians. In 2nd T. Paul was speaking of the Day of the Lord and the end-times events that indicate its arrival. These end-times events necessarily involve the Jewish temple, and it’s natural that Paul would speak of that temple in 2nd T.

          To your second point, there was no provision for a Priest to ‘sit’ in the temple of the Jews. Once he entered, he could only stand. So we cannot take ‘sitting in the temple of the Jews’ literally. It must refer to a positional ‘sitting’.

          I agree! The word “sitteth” (“kathizo” in Gk.) doesn’t necessarily mean plopping one’s posterior down onto a chair. According to Strong’s Greek dictionary, it is sometimes used for “hover”, “appoint”, “settle”, “tarry”, and other words not related to furniture. So the antichrist doesn’t need a chair to “sitteth” on. We agree on that. The point is that the antichrist physically enters the physical Jewish temple, giving the Jews in Judea an overt physical sign. The fact that there is no provision for a Priest to ‘sit’ in the temple is therefore made irrelevant by your own reasoning.

          And there’s something else: The antichrist doesn’t enter the temple as a priest anyway, but “displaying himself as being God“. Therefore, the fact that there is no provision for a priest to ‘sit’ in the temple is even more irrelevant.

          The only one ‘sitting’ in the Temple of God right now is Jesus who is seated at God’s right hand.

          Earlier you quoted Scripture referring to the Church as the temple of God. The Church is not in heaven (yet). Jesus is at the throne of God, yes, interceding for the Church, but the Church is still on earth. The Holy Spirit is the One Who is “sitting” in–indwelling–the Church.

          Paul is warning that there is coming a man who will sit in the place of Christ.

          No, Paul is warning that there is coming a man who will sit in the Jewish temple, per “the abomination of desolation”, (Matt. 24:15,16,17) which will be an overt, literal, physical sign to the Jews to flee Judea for their lives. The Inquisitions aside, the Jews were never told by Jesus to flee Judea because of any pope who claimed to be “in the place of Christ”. Since Pentecost, persecution of the Jews has come from all directions, not just the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

          the Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ sitting in the place of Christ.

          Yes, as an EX-Catholic, I know that all too well. But as a “substitute” for Christ on earth, the Pope doesn’t claim to be God Almighty. He only claims to speak for God Almighty.

          Yeah, I know, that’s bad enough. But again, the antichrist is going for GOD-hood, not vicar-hood.

          And, there’s this: The Pope does not, never did, and never will be a leader of the true Church, not in any sense. It is a false church over which the Pope is head. That one fact alone completely disproves the notion that Paul was talking about the true Church–let alone the Papacy–when he mentioned the temple in 2nd Thessalonians.

          All the reformers taught this.

          Which proves nothing except that the Reformers could be wrong. They were wrong, at times. They were certainly right about abandoning RCC dogma and turning to to the written Word of God. Trouble is, they didn’t always practice that virtue. They sometimes resorted to “the teachings of men” over Scripture as much as anyone. For instance, while they rejected Rome’s corrupt soteriology in order to embrace the biblical teaching of salvation by grace alone (through faith alone), the Reformers turned right around and adopted Augustine’s ideas for their eschatology. Augustine was a major architect of RCC eschatology. Ironic, no?

          The Reformers went in the right direction–moving from the RCC toward the Bible–but for all their bravery their journey was way too short, and incomplete. The Church of Sardis in Rev. 3:1 is a good picture of the Reformed movement, especially as the greater bulk of “protestantism” exists today.

          God was dwelling in believers not the Jewish temple.

          At the time Paul was writing–and throughout the Church Age, yes–which has nothing to do with the subject of 2nd Thessalonians. Paul was speaking of what would happen in the future. AND Paul was speaking of the antichrist–where he would “sit”–not where God “sits”.

          How could believers ever be deceived by any man sitting in a literal temple of the Jews sitting in the place that belonged to God?

          Paul wasn’t warning the Thessalonians about being deceived by the antichrist or by the Abomination of Desolation, he was warning them about being deceived by the false teaching that they were already in the day of the Lord, which Paul says they weren’t. Context is key.

          See Jaz’s point about Judas.

          Already did. I’ll get to it directly at Jaz’s post.

          The beast in Revelation 13 was the imperial pagan Roman empire. The Holy Roman Empire was an ‘image to the beast’.

          The idea that “The Holy Roman Empire was an ‘image to the beast’” is based on conjecture, not biblical proof, or even biblical implication.

          Indeed, the beast is related to the Roman empire, but he is also related to the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek empires if the types in Revelation (and Daniel) are followed consistently. In Rev.13, he is also depicted as a man, with personal traits, as he is in Daniel and Zechariah. The passage is describing the one we traditionally call “THE antichrist”. He is a man, not an empire, though he does lead the final world empire, which is descended from the four empires mentioned in Daniel. These empires are described in Scripture from God’s point of view as wild animals, and do have human leaders apparently backed by demonic enablers. Therefore, it isn’t valid to assume that the term “beast” is not also representative of the man who will be the one known as the antichrist.

          The Pope was both a political and a religious leader…

          He was, yes, and the fact that he no longer is or has been a political leader for some time now suggests that his office is being groomed for a role more akin to the false prophet–a religious leader. That the antichrist is not a religious leader is implied strongly by the fact that he needs the false prophet to direct worship his way. He wants to be God not a religious leader. That’s one of the problems with supposing that a pope–as political ruler and religious leader–is the antichrist; it conflates the separate roles of antichrist and false prophet.

          With the final world government there will be Satan himself, the antichrist, and the false prophet: the satanic trinity. It seems to me that “pope as false prophet” fits the biblical last days scenario far better than “pope as antichrist”.

          The Popes ruled for a thousand years until the Protestant Reformation rose up and wounded the beast with the sword of the Word of God and the gospel.

          Another conjecture, fostered by a flawed eschatology descended from Augustine.

          The reformers all taught this. I am a protestant and continue to teach this.

          Are you saying that you teach these ideas because the Reformers taught them? Wasn’t the overarching tenet of the Reformers that they looked to Scripture for their beliefs, not to the teachings of men? At times, they actually did that; looked to Scripture first that is. If you wish to emulate the Reformers, why not do what they did, in their best moments: Go to the Bible, not to men!

          • Bob B says:

            Certainly, Paul did teach that the true Church is God’s temple. But that in no way proves that Paul was referring to the Church every single time he mentions the temple. Paul was not dealing with the “mystery” of the Spirit-indwelt Church in 2nd Thessalonians.

            Since you admit Paul uses ‘temple’ to refer to the church then why couldn’t he be referring to the church in 2Thess. 2? It is possible right? And even likely since NAOS is used.
            What was it that caused John in Revelation 17 such wonderment and amazement? It was the harlot sitting on a scarlet beast. I believed he was amazed that the church had become corrupt and adulterous and was in union with the world’s government. How did it get like that? And wouldn’t God warn His people of such a deceiver? I say yes.
            Again, Paul is warning about deception. How could a secular man with ‘political power only’ deceive God’s people? Remember Paul was writing to Christian believers, not unbelieving Jews. He also said that ‘this mystery’ was already at work in the church.

            The point is that the antichrist physically enters the physical Jewish temple, giving the Jews in Judea an overt physical sign. The fact that there is no provision for a Priest to ‘sit’ in the temple is therefore made irrelevant by your own reasoning.

            You are assuming that another temple will be built. Your whole thesis is based on the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the pre-trib doctrine that is a false interpretation for me. The only building of the temple in the NT is the people of God as stones and pillars on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets and Jesus according to Eph. 2:20ff.

            Therefore, the fact that there is no provision for a priest to ‘sit’ in the temple is even more irrelevant.

            My point is this. Look at how the Pope enters the Cathedral when he is elected. He is “seated” in the ‘chair’ of Peter. They actually carry him sitting in a chair into St. Peter’s. What a fulfillment of prophecy. The Pope goes into the Cathedral (the church) to rule over the church sitting as “God” on earth. And he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ infallibly. He believes his authority is equal to the Bible, God’s Word. That alone tells us that he believes he is God on earth and wants everyone to bow to his authority.

            Read Coffman’s commentary here at studylight.org on 2Thess. 2. Here is a quote:

            (“sitteth”) “This is a most peculiar verb to be used in such a context; and this writer, who has seen the Pope borne into the Basilica of St. Peter, hoisted above the people and elevated above the high altar upon the shoulders of those who carry him (literally “sitting”) into the sanctuary cannot escape the deep. impression that a prophecy of that very spectacle is imbedded in this remarkable verb. Who else, ever, in the history of humanity, always entered the church house “sitting,” and even taking the Lord’s Supper “sitting”? Luther was outraged by this, and said, “Let the Pope stand up to take the Lord’s Supper, like any other stinking sinner.” http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?bk=52&ch=2

            Earlier you quoted Scripture referring to the Church as the temple of God. The Church is not in heaven (yet). Jesus is at the throne of God, yes, interceding for the Church, but the Church is still on earth. The Holy Spirit is the One Who is “sitting” in–indwelling–the Church.

            Yes, the Holy Spirit is in the church and in me and you. But His assignment is to help us let Christ abide in us and us in Him. It is Jesus Who stands at the door and knocks and wants to come to sup with us. Jesus is LORD and the Holy Spirit is serving Him… convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment. But only Jesus is said to be our King and HE is the Good Shepherd who lives in our hearts by faith. We are told to believe He is Lord in our hearts and confess Him as Lord with our lips. -Romans 10.

            Paul wrote, “The Jerusalem is above is our mother.” Also the book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus is on His throne NOW ruling and reigning over the church and yes the world:
            8:1 “Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.
            12:22 “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.”
            Peter agrees: “Jesus has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.” -1Peter 3:22

            No, Paul is warning that there is coming a man who will sit in the Jewish temple, per “the abomination of desolation”, (Matt. 24:15,16,17) which will be an overt, literal, physical sign to the Jews to flee Judea for their lives. The Inquisitions aside, the Jews were never told by Jesus to flee Judea because of any pope who claimed to be “in the place of Christ”. Since Pentecost, persecution of the Jews has come from all directions, not just the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

            You are confusing two different passages. The abomination in Matthew 24 refers to the Roman armies. Luke clearly interprets this and makes it clear in his gospel that the abomination that will desolate the city and the temple is the Roman army. –Luke 21:20 ““But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” Note the use of the word ‘desolation’ clearly teaching us how to understand the ‘abomination that desolates’. This occurred in 70 A.D.

            As a “substitute” for Christ on earth, the Pope doesn’t claim to be God Almighty. He only claims to speak for God Almighty.

            He isn’t just speaking “for” God. He speaks “as” God. The RCC teaches his authority is equal to the Apostles and the Bible. No other servant of God on earth would ever claim that authority. And congrats for leaving the Catholic church. So did I.

            And, there’s this: The Pope does not, never did, and never will be a leader of the true Church, not in any sense. It is a false church over which the Pope is head. That one fact alone completely disproves the notion that Paul was talking about the true Church–let alone the Papacy–when he mentioned the temple in 2nd Thessalonians.

            That’s true but there was only one church universal in the middle ages and many many Christians were deceived by him and the priests because they did not have the Word of God. He usurped the place of God and Jesus in the church and kept the Word of God from the people to keep from being found out. Only men like Wycliffe and Hus who had the Word of God ….and then the Reformers stood up to him and paid with their lives. So the Pope was the leader of the church and turned it into the false church and took many with him. That is exactly what Paul was warning about in 2Thess. 2 and John warned about in Revelation 17.

            Are you familiar with the Dominican Priest who left the RCC and is exposing them? His name is Richard Bennett. As a former Catholic I plead with you to read his testimony and articles especially on the Pope. http://www.bereanbeacon.org/en/

            At the time Paul was writing–and throughout the Church Age, yes–which has nothing to do with the subject of 2nd Thessalonians. Paul was speaking of what would happen in the future. AND Paul was speaking of the antichrist–where he would “sit”–not where God “sits”.

            The problem is that the pre-tribbers see the church age ending and then the Jewish temple being rebuilt. This position errs in separating the 70th week from the other 69. And THAT is the cause of our disagreement. Paul is talking about the future but was warning that the mystery of iniquity was already at work as false apostles and wolves were already bringing in their destructive heresies.

            Please see this excellent study arguing for the continuation of the 70 weeks and that the covenant is the New Covenant: http://www.historicism.com/Mauro/mauroI-7.htm

            Paul wasn’t warning the Thessalonians about being deceived by the antichrist or by the Abomination of Desolation, he was warning them about being deceived by the false teaching that they were already in the day of the Lord, which Paul says they weren’t. Context is key.

            True. All he is saying is that the falling away has to happen first and the man of sin would arise before the Day of the Lord. Isn’t that what happened after Rome fell and the Bishop of Rome became the political/spiritual leader of THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE for the next 1000 years?!?

            The idea that “The Holy Roman Empire was an ‘image to the beast’” is based on conjecture, not biblical proof, or even biblical implication.

            Well, the image arises in the presence of the first beast. It HAD to happen at that time when the first beast was still around. And wasn’t the HRE the exact spittin image of the Roman Empire? Yep. The Popes simply replaced the Caesars but now claiming to be sitting in the church in the place of Christ.

            With the final world government there will be Satan himself, the antichrist, and the false prophet: the satanic trinity. It seems to me that “pope as false prophet” fits the biblical last days scenario far better than “pope as antichrist”.

            I agree with you. But we’re trying to identify the one who sits in the temple.

            Are you saying that you teach these ideas because the Reformers taught them? Wasn’t the overarching tenet of the Reformers that they looked to Scripture for their beliefs, not to the teachings of men? At times, they actually did that; looked to Scripture first that is. If you wish to emulate the Reformers, why not do what they did, in their best moments: Go to the Bible, not to men!

            NO! I disagree with the reformers on infant baptism, communion and other things. I DO agree with their teaching on the Pope. That is all I meant. Sorry I stated it the way I did.

            Really, our differences involve two complete different schemas on prophecy. You are pre-trib, I’m not. I encourage you to read those brothers who debunk the pre-trib position. It helped me. God bless you.

          • Joseph D'Hippolito says:

            Bob B., the Pope certainly was both a political and a religious leader in the centuries between the fall of the Roman Empire and Napoleon’s conquest of Rome. Yes, the Pope is a political leader in the sense that he is the head of a sovereign state (the Vatican City State) and attempts to influence international geopolitics; just look at Pope John Paul II’s stance concerning the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

            Nevertheless, let’s look at how much power the Pope really has. First, the only “military” he leads is his personal bodyguard; that’s not likely to change. Second, and this is the important point, many, if not most, people in the Catholic Church don’t bother listening to him! Since Pope Paul VI promulgated the encyclical “Humane Vitae” in 1968, Catholics have ignored lots of papal teachings. Moreover, the vast majority of Catholic bishops in the West are extremely lax in catechesis.

            If my understanding of the Book of Revelation is correct, then the Antichrist would have immense, pervasive political power — something far beyond what any Pope has had since the early 19th century.

    • jaz says:

      Hi Bob; I agree with your view The word temple in 2Thes 2 is Naos in the Greek The temple that soot in the days of Jesus was Heiron in the Greek the visible temple in its entirety whilst Naos = inner sanctum/sanctuary. Two different words with two different meanings..
      Judas was also referred as the Son of perdition and resided within the inner sanctum with the disciples, so does Apostle Paul call this exalted one The Son of perdition and likewise is also an apostate within the inner sanctum/ the Naos of God..

      • Chuckles says:

        jaz said:

        The word temple in 2Thes 2 is Naos in the Greek The temple that soot in the days of Jesus was Heiron in the Greek the visible temple in its entirety whilst Naos = inner sanctum/sanctuary. Two different words with two different meanings.

        Of course the words “naos” and “heiron” have different meanings. In no way does that even suggest–let alone prove–that Paul was speaking of the Church in 2nd Thessalonians simply because he used the word “naos” instead of “heiron”. “Naos” is not a technical word referring to the Church, as a temple or otherwise. Did the Jewish “heiron” have no “naos”? That makes no sense. The 2nd temple standing in the time of Jesus had an inner sanctuary just as much as Solomon’s temple did (and the 3rd temple must). The inner sanctuary is an essential feature of Levitical temple design.

        Paul used “naos” instead of “heiron” because the antichrist–when he makes his move–goes into the inner sanctuary of the Jewish temple, the temple proper, into the Holy Place (maybe even the Holy of Holies itself), not just into the inner court. That’s what “the abomination of desolation” involves; the ultimate blasphemy as far as the Jews are concerned.

        Judas was also referred as the Son of perdition and resided within the inner sanctum with the disciples

        Though he was called “the son of perdition”, and was possessed by Satan when he betrayed the Lord, Judas never claimed to be almighty God. He was pointed to as a type of the son of perdition in a limited way. But he was never “in the Church” in any way. The Holy Spirit did not indwell the apostles at that time, nor had the Church been born yet. Even in the Church age, Satan himself simply moving among believers in a given fellowship has nothing to do with Satan indwelling any believers themselves, let alone the Church as a body.

        No, The Holy Spirit will never let Satan or his antichrist sit in the Holy Spirit’s place; indwelling the Church. Therefore Paul cannot be referring to the Church as “the temple of God” in 2nd T.

        • jaz says:

          You say; (No, The Holy Spirit will never let Satan or his antichrist sit in the Holy Spirit’s place; indwelling the Church. Therefore Paul cannot be referring to the Church as “the temple of God” in 2nd T.)
          It is not about replacing the Holy Spirit, It is about Apostasy and counterfeiting The Holy Spirit with the Spirit of antichrist!

          You base your argument on the premise of a Third temple to be built, and that this temple is the temple of God.
          If there was to be such a temple built, It certainly would not be the temple of God.
          God has moved on in the redemption process of his people. The rendering of the veil revealing the Holy of Holies/inner sanctum at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion is evident that God has finished with earthly temples and sacrifices.

          Any temple built by the Jews would be an affront to God and a blasphemous act in further denial of the cross of christ by them in rejection of Messiah and His finished work, and in rejection of Christ’s High-Priestly ministry.

          The dispensational heretical belief that God is going to renew the OT with the modern state of Israel is forming your interpretation of 2Thes2.
          You completely ignore the fact that the son of perdition is revealed within the context of the Apostasy.
          Apostasy defined is ‘a falling away from the Faith’
          I would go so far as saying that the precepts of Judaism has infiltrated many theological establishments and that is why It can no longer be seen by many that the work of the ‘temple institute’ is a blasphemous work of the “dogs of the circumcision’ Phil3:2 to undermine the Gospel of God’s grace in these last-days.

          So; if a temple was to be built in Jerusalem, It would not be God’s temple, unless one is willing to reject the redemptive work of God by the completed Messianic ministry of Jesus christ, which the Jews Do!

          • Adrian says:

            Hey Jaz.

            There are some items in your post above that are incorrect. First of all, a third Temple would certainly be a Temple of God. It was God who authorized the building of a Temple, and never did He give instructions to the Jews that His ultimate, eschatological purposes for a Temple (Ezekiel 40) were cancelled. Situate yourself in Paul’s position. When Paul wrote that, the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. That the Jerusalem Temple was what Paul had in mind is the most logical, Biblical harmonious, and reasonable understanding of this verse. Though the Temple will be desecrated by Antichrist, it is still, nevertheless, a real Temple of Jerusalem, and thus, “Temple of God” is not a problematic statement. Remember as well that the Jews have not yet received Christ as Messiah. As such, your point about a new Temple being a further act of denial regarding the cross – though accurate – is not well thought out. It is actually quite logical that a people who have yet to receive Jesus would construct something such as a Temple to carry out sacrifices. There is no contradiction there. As for your point that the “dispensational heretical belief” and the modern state of Israel as forming his interpretation of 2 Thes. 2, remember that many dispensational writers maintained the same position BEFORE MODERN ISRAEL EVEN EXISTED. It is not a dispensational heresy, but a plain sense reading of what Paul wrote. What else could Paul have meant by “Temple”? Could he have meant the church? If so, what does it mean for the Man of sin to sit in the Temple of God, declaring himself to be God? Which church does he sit in? How does that constitute a great sin? Men sit in churches today all over the world. Does that constitute some great sin? No! However, to sit in the sanctuary of the Temple – where God dwelt among His people Israel – would indeed constitute a great sin, and could constitute one declaring himself to be God. Surely Paul did not mean anything but the Temple he knew stood in Jerusalem. You chide the dispensationalist, but don’t realize that your interpretation represents a problematic departure from the plain sense reading of Scripture. One cannot ignore the prospects of the restoration of Israel as a national people, in a geographic homeland, without ripping out major sections of the Old Testament, and some in the New Testament.

          • Jaz says:

            There you go; defending that which by the Apostles refer a Antichrist ..
            What don’t you understand about Messiah having come in fulfilment of the prophets..

            The fact that the Jews rejected Him does not constitute what you say (Remember as well that the Jews have not yet received Christ as Messiah) He came to his own DID HE NOT!
            He came for Gentiles as well DID HE NOT!
            You don’t understand who the Olive Tree of Rom11 Represents……

            Some read scripture with the natural eye whilst others read with the eye of the Spirit

  3. Paul says:

    I too think we could be looking at the ψευδοπροφητης of Revelation. The Israel trip is also very interesting. Barry Chamish (who is not a Christian) has been banging on for years about a big conspiracy between Israel’s political élite (whom he classes as Sabbateans or Frankists; i.e. modern-day followers of the lawless mediaeval false Messiah Sabbatai Tzvi and his spiritual heir Yakov Frank — a “synagogue of Satan”, as it were) and the Vatican. Maybe he’s right…

  4. Tom Sinclair says:

    Hi Cris,

    I see that your good friend and occasional partner, Tom Horn, is now promoting The Four Boold Moon theory. I’ve made appeals to him and Gary Stearman directly to give consideration to dissenting opinion, so far without success. So I make my appeal now to you. There is a Four Blood Moons Debunked video on YouTube. Would you please take the time to view it and if you find reasonable doubt, to challenge Mr. Horn and Mr. Stearman, in the interest of The Truth.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Tom Sinclair

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Hi Tom,

      Chris White the maker of the blood moon debunked video is also a good friend of mine and I have seen it. I also sent it to Tom Horn months ago. There is nothing wrong with people putting their theories forth and others responding, its up to the individual to weigh the evidence and make up their own mind. I do not think anyone is being intentionally misleading. My opinion is the jury is still out, we will know more in April, but I think Chris made some strong points. I always advise holding these sorts of ideas loosely…

      • Tom says:

        Hi Cris,

        Thank you for your reply. My thoughts were the same, that Chris White made a very convincing argument. I am scratching my head wondering why you and I can see this, yet Mr. Horn and Mr. Stearman cannot recognize the speculative nature of the Four Blood Moons Theory. Rather than holding it loosely and giving fair play to both sides of the debate, they instead are shouting it from the house tops.

        Kind Regards,

        Tom

        • jaz says:

          Hi Tom, if you were to visit some Judaistic sites, you will hear the same being preached on the blood moons.
          I am of the opinion that the mediumship of that doctrine into the churches come from the Hebrew-Root people.
          Of course people Like ‘John Hagee’ with His pro-Israel dispensationalism propagate this stuff to the like- minded.
          i am glad to see some opposition to the charade.

      • Paul says:

        In defence of Tom Horn, I’ve just been listening to him on the Hagmann & Hagmann Report, and he gave Chris White’s video criticism of the Blood Moons a glowing endorsement! He recommended watching the video about the Blood Moons that he’s offering on his site in concert with Chris White’s video, and weighing the two arguments. …In fact, he sounded as though he was leaning towards agreeing with the latter. Interesting.

        I like Tom Horn. Leaving aside how fascinating he is and the fact that I find myself agreeing with him on almost everything, he’s got one of those voices: there’s a famous cartoon character who sounds like him, but I can’t figure out who. It’s one of Mel Blanc’s creations, I’m sure (maybe a deep-voiced Daffy Duck without the lisp)…

        By the way, John Hagee sounds just like Yosemite Sam. ;)

  5. Bob B says:

    Let’s not hurt business.

  6. Adrian says:

    Hi Chris

    This is respect to the possibility of the Vatican wanting to gain control of certain sites in Jerusalem. I found the Joel Bainerman piece in Chapter 16 of Petrus Romans, and the commentary yourself and Tom Horn provide on that topic, extremely fascinating! It also made me think of something (which may or may not be significant). I’ve heard it taught before, with respect to the two beasts of Revelation 13, that the “sea” represents the Gentile world and the “earth” (out of which the false prophet arises) represents the land of Israel. I used to think: “if the False Prophet turns out to be a Pope, how can he rise from out of Israel”? But now, this may actually make sense. If indeed the Vatican were to re-locate to Jerusalem, perhaps after the city of seven hills is destroyed, and if the False Prophet is to be a Pope, perhaps – just perhaps – what John saw was the False Prophet arising out of Israel after the relocation of the Pope to Jerusalem. What may support this is the fact that in Revelation 17, where Mystery Babylon is destroyed, the 10 kings are not yet reigning (v. 12). This may indicate that Rev 17 is, in terms of fulfillment, chronologically prior to Revelation 13. In Rev 13, the 10 kings have “crowns”, while in Rev 17, they apparently have no crowns, seemingly indicating that they are not reigning when Mystery Babylon is destroyed. If this reasoning and interpretation is correct, then perhaps the reason the False Prophet arises out of the earth is because he is a Pope who has relocated to Jerusalem. Just pondering here…Thoughts?

  7. Bob B says:

    @Joe
    I don’t disagree that there is a false trinity consisting of the beast, false prophet and Satan. Our discussion is about who the man of sin is who sits in the temple in 2Thess. 2. The UN/NWO is anti-Christ and anti-God and anti-Gospel. The False Prophet is false religion and it’s much bigger than the Pope. But I believe in 2Thess. 2 Paul is referring to the Pope. The discussion is about the accuracy of the pretrib positions on Israel and prophecy.
    We’re about to witness an acceleration that will lead to His return. Stay full of the Holy Spirit, His Word and Him.
    Let us watch and pray. We’re very close. God bless.

  8. Paul says:

    Hi Cris.

    …Just want to know what you make of the new Italian PM. He’s a leftist, but bucks the conventional leftist party line in a very interesting way: in the words of his opponent Berlusconi, “on Israel and Palestine, Renzi says things that are more right-wing than all the right-wing parties put together”. Strange things are afoot in Rome, it seems.

    Wonder how this’ll play into the End Time deception…

    God bless,

    Paul.

    • Paul says:

      …’Berlusconi’ in the previous comment should have been ‘Pierluigi Bersani’. Apologies for the lapsus calami.

  9. Paul says:

    I’ve just come across this.

    Granted, Copeland was always low-hanging fruit for the ecumenical movement (or any sort of flattery), and his followers will scarcely be any more lost than they were before these overtures, but the fact that il Papa ist now bothering to pick that fruit and gather it into his house is interesting.

    Interesting times…

  10. Charles says:

    I just saw on the Headlines at Steve Quayle’s website, the article – Is Alien Life Out There? Vatican Observatory Co-Hosts Science Conference in Arizona. I remember the scene where E.T. points up his finger and says “Phone” and Gertie (Drew Barrymore) says “E.T. phone home”. Well maybe the script should have read E.T. phone Rome. God Bless…

  11. Bob B. says:

    (Chris, two of my posts on this thread were never moderated.)

    Here is big news. Obama is to meet the Pope today. With war in the air, is there a move towards world peace and safety? http://news.yahoo.com/obama-meets-pope-francis-looks-catholic-boost-020914918.html

    • Cris Putnam says:

      I filter all posts with links because I get too much spam.

      • Bob B. says:

        Thanks Chris.

        This is a short youtube of Ken Copeland meeting with hundreds of pastors and leaders. He asked Tony Palmer to speak about unity between Catholics and Protestants. Palmer is close to the Pope and was speaking for the Pope and said that the Protestant reformation is over! Then Copeland had the Pope on overhead video addressing the conference of pastors and leaders. It was quite sobering to see the Pope calling for unity and then Copeland doing the same. Watch it here as Doug Batchelor comments on the proceedings:

Speak Your Mind