Paul on the Temple

I understand the sentiment of those who say Paul wouldn't call the temple which God planned to destroy the Temple of God. 

But the holy Temple didn't cease to be God's Temple just because something abominable later happened there.

Jesus wept over the thought of what was going to happen to it.

He did everything He could to avoid it. Many times He wished to gather them like a hen gathers her chicks, but they weren't interested.

God once before allowed His holy Temple to be destroyed.

Why couldn't it happen again?

It's precisely because it was God's Temple that the abomination set up in it was so abominable.

Had it been anyone else's house, it might not have mattered so much. But this had been God's House.

If Paul wasn't talking about the same event and the same Temple that Jesus and Daniel discussed, then where did Paul get his information from.

Paul's habit was to state his source. For example he would say, "The Spirit speaketh expressly that in the last days..."

Or if he addressed a topic which Jesus hadn't already dealt with specifically, he would say, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord" - but he would also add "and I think also that I have the Spirit of the Lord".

But in the case of the man of lawlessness sitting in the Temple of God, Paul just mentioned it as if it's a standard part of the Gospel.

In fact he reminded the Thessalonians that he'd told them about these things when he'd first preached the Gospel to them. 

Paul's forecast about a man of lawlessness sitting in the Temple was apparently standard Gospel.

Its source therefore was the Gospels. And the Gospel-source cited Daniel.

Therefore Paul was likely talking about the same event and the same Temple which Jesus and Daniel had talked about.

Paul's intent was to give his best reason why the believers at Thessalonica should know that the resurrection hadn't happened yet.

Wouldn't you think then that he would cite the most obvious, most widely-sourced event which at that time still had to happen?

Seeing both Jesus and Daniel had spoken of a major event relative to the Temple which had to precede the coming of the Lord, wouldn't you think Paul would mention that?

Why would he instead ignore it and instead mention some other event which they never mentioned, some other  temple which they didn't mention, an event which apparently only he had the revelation about!

No. It's more likely Paul, Jesus and Daniel were talking about the same event and the same Temple.

And if so, then its fulfilment is now already past.

The problem with placing it in the future is that it means Jesus didn't really answer the question which He'd been asked about that Temple.

Instead it would first necessitate a rebuilt Temple, reinstated sacrifices and a reinstated Levitical priesthood. Then these would all have to be destroyed again. Then the Jews would have to be deported all around the world again. Then the Gospel would have to be preached to all nations again.

The futurist view creates more anomalies than it imagined needed solving!

The theme of the destruction of the Temple and all things Levitical was an important component of the Gospel message, because:

It demonstrated how the Gospel fulfilled prophesied outcomes.

It helped established the truth that the Kingdom of God wasn't required to revolve around the Temple and the Levitical order.

It illustrated the value that the Kingdom was in you. That only the born-again would see it when it later comes openly.

It showed that salvation was not through the Law but through grace.