• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

Then explain to us who the man of lawlessness is?

What I know is this...we don't know his name. One thing we do know from studying the bible is that by possessing and controlling the Antichrist, Satan is worshiped in the temple where the God of the Jews will be worshiped.
"We" don't know any such thing. Don't start with an "I" and then change it to a "we". What you say is what dispensational premillennialists say. That does not mean it is automatically what the Bible says.

The Bible does not say that Satan possesses and controls the Antichrist. It does not even say that the man of lawlessness is the Antichrist. (Capitalized here to distinguish your view from what the Bible says.) There is nothing in Scripture that speaks of a future time when "the God of the Jews" will be worshiped. (The God of the Jews is the one true and living God) it is Christ who they reject/ rejected as to his atoning, saving work. And most D/P who purport a third temple do believe it is Jesus as God who stands in that temple while animal sacrifices are being offered. So I presume you are trying to separate yourself from that belief while still hanging on to the third temple. But neither your take on it or theirs, holds an ounce of verifiable substance. Or you are making it up as you go along because you realize that something you were taught and always believed, is antithetical to Christ.

Let's look at what the Bible does say specifically when it uses the term antichrist.

1 John 2:18

NAS Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.




ESV Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.


Why do you deny how Scripture identifies antichrist? Why do you jump to a conclusion that the beast of revelation is the man of lawlessness mentioned if 2 Thess 2?

Why do your ignore the scriptures that do speak of a temple being built, even now, and that identify the Temple.

1 Peter 2:4-6 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, your yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

1 Cor 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.


Are you ready yet, to rethink a couple of things?
 
Are you ready yet, to rethink a couple of things?
No. You didn't show m anything worth rethinking.
The Bible does not say that Satan possesses and controls the Antichrist. It does not even say that the man of lawlessness is the Antichrist.
Well we all know it can't be Satan possessing the man....as you claim we're already in the millennial and Satan is in the pit.

I find it useless to argue agains this false mindset.
 
No. You didn't show m anything worth rethinking.
So the scriptures I gave aren't important? They have no bearing on the anitchrist even though that is what they are talking about.

Here's a challenge (which I know you won't rise to. Give an exegesis and commentary on those scriptures in post#221. Which is what an actual conversation and debate required. You only responded to my last sentence. Why is it that you never address any scriptures but the few you want to address. That leaves out 99.9% of the Bible.

But then, of course, your definition, or should I say the D/P's, definition of all things scriptural, is more important than the Scripture itself.
Well we all know it can't be Satan possessing the man....as you claim we're already in the millennial and Satan is in the pit.
What does one thing have to do with the other in that sentence? And who is "we"?

What does this Scripture say?

Rev 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit. and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

Don't skin it as though only certain words in it are important and others are not---the way you read other people's posts.
 
So the scriptures I gave aren't important? They have no bearing on the anitchrist even though that is what they are talking about.

Here's a challenge (which I know you won't rise to. Give an exegesis and commentary on those scriptures in post#221. Which is what an actual conversation and debate required. You only responded to my last sentence. Why is it that you never address any scriptures but the few you want to address. That leaves out 99.9% of the Bible.

But then, of course, your definition, or should I say the D/P's, definition of all things scriptural, is more important than the Scripture itself.

What does one thing have to do with the other in that sentence? And who is "we"?

What does this Scripture say?

Rev 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit. and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

Don't skin it as though only certain words in it are important and others are not---the way you read other people's posts.
I find it hard to debate a person who honestly thinks Satan is currently locked up....and interprets theology through those rosy lenses.

Sheeze, the bible tells us Satan is running around like a roaring lion....not locked up.
 
Then explain to us who the man of lawlessness is?

What I know is this...we don't know his name. One thing we do know from studying the bible is that by possessing and controlling the Antichrist, Satan is worshiped in the temple where the God of the Jews will be worshiped.

As for a temple being rebuilt...no need for me to continue with that debate as you have not demonstrated that a temple will not be rebuilt.

Anyway....connect the dot with biblical verses that explain who the man of lawlessness is and his role as presented in the bible.
Nope. I will not be diverted away from the subject specified in the op. I will not be baited into violating rule 4.2 of the tos. Neither will I be diverted from getting an answer to the specific question asked. I will not be diverted from the attempt to some degree of accountability of Post #8's assertions because until some supporting evidence is provided your entire existence in the eschatology board is that of baseless assertions and wanton disregard of the tos. Others may join in that mess and collaborate with it, but I will not. When I am provided a correct answer to the question asked (either a scripture that actually states what was claimed or an acknowledgment Post #8's claim is incorrect) I will consider discussing other matters with you, but not until then.


Where in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 does the word "built" occur?

What scripture mentions another temple will be built in our future?



It is NOT 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Nor is it Revelation 12:4.
 
Nope. I will not be diverted away from the subject specified in the op. I will not be baited into violating rule 4.2 of the tos. Neither will I be diverted from getting an answer to the specific question asked. I will not be diverted from the attempt to some degree of accountability of Post #8's assertions because until some supporting evidence is provided your entire existence in the eschatology board is that of baseless assertions and wanton disregard of the tos. Others may join in that mess and collaborate with it, but I will not. When I am provided a correct answer to the question asked (either a scripture that actually states what was claimed or an acknowledgment Post #8's claim is incorrect) I will consider discussing other matters with you, but not until then.


Where in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 does the word "built" occur?

What scripture mentions another temple will be built in our future?



It is NOT 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Nor is it Revelation 12:4.
Didn't you read where I said the word "built" doesn't need to be in the text?

You do know the temple spoken of there doesn't mean a human body? Or can you show me where the word HUMAN body is in the verse?
 
Didn't you read where I said the word "built" doesn't need to be in the text?
I did read that. Did you not read where I stated the word "built" DID need to be in some verse if it is going to be claimed scripture mentions another temple will be built in our future? You claimed another temple will be built in our future, but you are not providing a single verse that actually mentions the word "built." You not providing a single verse that mentions the word s "another temple." You're not providing a single verse that mentions our future.

I also know the temple will be rebuilt...why? The Bible mentions a future temple.
You forget the bible says the temple will be rebuilt.
there will be a temple that the Jews will built to worship in.
When I speak of the third temple I speak of the future temple to be built.
You can call it whatever you want....the bible mentions a temple that the antichrist enters into and declares himself as God.
The bible tells us the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction (perdition) will enter into the rebuilt temple and declare himself to be God. (2nd Thes 2:3) [But that is not what 2 Thes. 3 actually states]
...........if there is a temple mentioned in the future like in 2 Thes 2:4....and there is no temple now...ONE MUST BE BUILT. Pretty much a no brainer Josheb.

You are posting Dispensationalism, not scripture.
You do know the temple spoken of there doesn't mean a human body?
I know it does and I would be happy to discuss that with you once you provide me with some scripture somewhere that mentions another temple will be built in our future.
Or can you show me where the word HUMAN body is in the verse?
I can provide an exegetical explanation for how and why that verse should be understood to refer to a temple that was still standing at the time the verse was written and how and why the Church is a viable understanding of that verse but I am not going to have that conversation with you until you prove yourself capable of having that conversation, starting with you providing me with some scripture somewhere that mentions another temple will be built in our future.


Show me where the word "built" occurs in 2 Thes. 2:4 because you've asserted that version mentions another temple will be built in our future. Show me scripture that actually mention another temple will be built in our future. Don't post Dispensationalism. Post scripture. Post the scripture that actually mentions another temple will be built in our future. That is what you claimed.

Show me. Show me where the Bible mentions another temple will be built in our future.
.
 
I did read that. Did you not read where I stated the word "built" DID need to be in some verse if it is going to be claimed scripture mentions another temple will be built in our future? You claimed another temple will be built in our future, but you are not providing a single verse that actually mentions the word "built." You not providing a single verse that mentions the word s "another temple." You're not providing a single verse that mentions our future.

You are posting Dispensationalism, not scripture.

I know it does and I would be happy to discuss that with you once you provide me with some scripture somewhere that mentions another temple will be built in our future.

I can provide an exegetical explanation for how and why that verse should be understood to refer to a temple that was still standing at the time the verse was written and how and why the Church is a viable understanding of that verse but I am not going to have that conversation with you until you prove yourself capable of having that conversation, starting with you providing me with some scripture somewhere that mentions another temple will be built in our future.


Show me where the word "built" occurs in 2 Thes. 2:4 because you've asserted that version mentions another temple will be built in our future. Show me scripture that actually mention another temple will be built in our future. Don't post Dispensationalism. Post scripture. Post the scripture that actually mentions another temple will be built in our future. That is what you claimed.

Show me. Show me where the Bible mentions another temple will be built in our future.
.
I'm getting tired of asking you this question.....IS THERE A TEMPLE THERE NOW?
 
I find it hard to debate a person who honestly thinks Satan is currently locked up....and interprets theology through those rosy lenses.

Sheeze, the bible tells us Satan is running around like a roaring lion....not locked up.
I have addressed this with you before, but as usual it goes ignored as though it had never been said. And I asked you to tell me what Rev 21:1-3 says. This is what I get instead so I presume you noticed that phrase "from deceiving the nations" and have no clue what to do with it. You can't make it fit anywhere in your opinionated view. So, eyes closed, blinders on----the phrase isn't there. Just like everything the Bible actually says about the antichrist, and everything it actually says about the Temple, isn't in the Bible. You won't touch those scriptures either.
 
I'm getting tired of asking you this question.....IS THERE A TEMPLE THERE NOW?
Then stop asking it. It has been answered several times.

So far you have done nothing I have asked you to do and you have done nothing @Josheb ask you to do, so you have a lot of nerve lamenting anyone who doesn't do what you ask them to. It is especially egregious to do that when every question you have asked, and every scripture you have presented has been thoroughly attended to.

If we don't come up with the same interpretation as you do, then in your "mind" we didn't answer. I hope that you can see, even if you will never admit it, or back down an inch, that you are NOT addressing the scriptures we give, or answering our questions, but throw in diversions, deflections, and red herrings at us instead.
 
You do know the temple spoken of there doesn't mean a human body? Or can you show me where the word HUMAN body is in the verse?
No body said it was a human body so your question is-----. I even clarified that for you and if isn't enough for you there are the two scriptures you refuse to acknowledge exist in the Bible. Or at least you act like the don't.
Here they are again.
Why do your ignore the scriptures that do speak of a temple being built, even now, and that identify the Temple.

1 Peter 2:4-6 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, your yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

1 Cor 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.
 
I'm getting tired of asking you this question.....IS THERE A TEMPLE THERE NOW?
And I am getting tired of you pretending the question has not already been answered twice while my questions are hypocritically ignored. Yes, there is a temple there now. It is not the temple you imagine will one day be there, but it is the temple of God.

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

The body of Christ is the temple of God. It exists all over the world, including in Jerusalem right now. That is the temple of God that God built. You asked how the 2 Thes. 2:4 can be human. The passage explicitly ties the MoL's action to apostacy, which implies a human temple, not a stone temple. Rocks cannot apostatize. Humans do that. So, yes, the verse could be specifically about a lawless man within the Church declaring himself God. It has, in fact, happened many times in human history. Every time it happens it is an apostacy. The apostacy of the passage is the MoL declaring himself God, not an event separate from the actions of the MoL. Just as desolation is an abomination to God, anyone in the Church declaring himself God is an apostacy.

Dispensational Premillennialism really mucks it up bad.

Even if the temple in 2 Thes. 2 is not the Church, there were at least three individuals who entered the stone temple that was still standing when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians. All three of them entered the temple after 2 Thessalonians was written (c. 63AD). Those men are Titus, Eleazar ben Simon, and John of Goshala. Beginning in 71 AD Roman coins bore Titus' visage and declared him Chief Priest. He entered the temple and placed Roman banners in the temple declaring the temple his, which in Roman culture was the equivalent of declaring himself God. However, because the individual in question is called a lawless man that reference begs the question, "What law?" So the moniker "lawless man" is most likely a reference to a Jew, not a Roman, especially since it was the Jewish temple being referenced. Jews abided the Law of Moses, not Romans. Non-Jews were not permitted in the temple. Letting a non-Jew into the temple would be an apostacy, but it would not be as bad an apostacy as a Jew entering the temple, declaring himself High Priest, and then sacrificing the priests on the altar as part of a purge of Judaism in which so many people were murdered in a blasphemous use of the altar that the blood splashed thigh-high on the temple walls and the blood covering the floor was so thick that it congealed in the heat, pulling the sandals off the feet of those who tried to traverse its floor. The person who sits in the temple, placing himself as judge of other men is assuming the role of God. That is an apostacy, and an apostacy of lawlessness. Did you think these things are going to come with flashing neon signs announcing themselves when scripture clearly veils these events in symbolic language like "man of lawlessness"?

Dispensationalism makes a mess of the text. It imagines another temple will be built in the 20th century, I mean the 21st century since all those predictions made in the 20th century abjectly failed (all those men were false teachers), or maybe the 2nd or 23rd century, or sometime maybe in the next two millennia (because the Dispensationalists do not actually know when), while the ignore the contingent nature of the passage and teach the event as an inevitability and they conflate the AoD, Mol and antichrist. They ignore the fact Paul explicitly states the first century Christians know what is holding the MoL back whiel the mystery of his lawlessness was already at work when Paul wrote the epistle.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7
And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work...


They knew what was restraining him. They knew what was restraining the lawless man. He was a man, a man being restrained at the time Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. When you show me a man who is about 2000 years old still living today, I will reconsider my position but the fact that scripture explicitly states it is a man and the folks living in 63 AD knew what was restraining him dictates the Dispensational reading to be wrong.

Dispensational Premillennialism makes a mess of the text.

And I would be happy to discuss all these options with you were it not for the simple fact you cannot, or will not, provide a single verse from the Bible that actually mentions another temple will be built in our future, and were it not for the fact you have gone on record stating you're not interested in any answers that are not Dispensational. The moment you posted that it means every time you ask a question you're being disingenuous. Why ask question to which you do not want the answer? Why ask questions for which there is no interest in any answer that's not consistent with your already existing biases? 👹👺 At least act like you have some integrity and just answer the questions asked. Move the conversation forward.



Show me where 2 Thessalonians 2:4 mentions the word "built".

Show me where the Bible mentions another temple will be built in our future.
 
Last edited:
No body said it was a human body so your question is-----. I even clarified that for you and if isn't enough for you there are the two scriptures you refuse to acknowledge exist in the Bible. Or at least you act like the don't.
Here they are again.

And it is a substantial topic in Eph 2. In Rom 12, the reader is supposed to carry the term 'mercies' forward from ch 11 and see that live Christian fellowship is the living temple, too, doing the 'sacrifices' of fellowship that include both Jew and gentile.

Prob the most radical thing Peter said in regard to all this is in Acts 4 when he identified who the Cornerstone was. In 1948, a rabbi was sorting through the rubble of the King David Hotel explosion and believed he found a fragment of THE cornerstone. There's not really any other directions this can go. We either follow the NT or there's just Judaism again.
 
I have addressed this with you before, but as usual it goes ignored as though it had never been said. And I asked you to tell me what Rev 21:1-3 says. This is what I get instead so I presume you noticed that phrase "from deceiving the nations" and have no clue what to do with it. You can't make it fit anywhere in your opinionated view. So, eyes closed, blinders on----the phrase isn't there. Just like everything the Bible actually says about the antichrist, and everything it actually says about the Temple, isn't in the Bible. You won't touch those scriptures either.
When you deny that Satan can't affect us because he's in a pit....that's border line heretical. Because we know Satan is still present on earth we can know we are not in the 1,000 yer reign of Christ.

One of Satans greatest ploys is telling us he doesn't exist....in your case he's locked up and powerless.
 
And I am getting tired of you pretending the question has not already been answered twice while my questions are hypocritically ignored. Yes, there is a temple there now. It is not the temple you imagine will one day be there, but it is the temple of God.
You too border on being heretical.,..You present the body of christ as "the" temple...rather than one of the temples mentioned in the bible...in which the man of lawlessness will enter into and declare himself to be God. When did the man of lawlessness enter into your own personal "temple"?
 
When you deny that Satan can't affect us because he's in a pit....that's border line heretical. Because we know SNowatan is still present on earth we can know we are not in the 1,000 yer reign of Christ.

One of Satans greatest ploys is telling us he doesn't exist....in your case he's locked up and powerless.
You either blatantly misrepresent what I have said about the current binding of Satan to you, or you never absorbed it, or you ignore it on purpose, or you simply forgot what I said. Certainly you never did respond to it except possibly with a snide remark.

The key words in that passage in Rev 20 that dispensationalists pass right over, is the qualifier. The binding was "from deceiving the nations". What it was not, was binding him from all activity on the earth. Do you think that qualifier is serving no purpose in the statement made in Rev?

To put it into its proper context ----that of the historical account of redemption (not simply the historical account of national Israel)----what is it that has been taking place since the ascension and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of all those given to Christ through faith, that involves all nations?

Matt 28:16-20 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always to the end of the age."

What do we see happening in Acts and the epistles, and still see happening today? The gospel being preached to all nations. What is that doing? It is gathering the sheep into one flock from all nations---wherever they are. What happens when they are all gathered? The end of the age and Christ's return. How long is Satan bound from deceiving the nations? A thousand years. What happens then? He is released and allowed to deceive the nations for a little while. This could very well be an intensified world wide persecution of the Church and Christians that is enforced by world governments, followed by the final judgment and the destruction of Satan---then the new heaven and the new earth.

So what would that make the 1000 years of the limiting of Satan's activity to not being able to stop the gospel being preached to the nations? What would that make the end of the age?

I ask the questions and present my view of the binding of Satan to undo your complete misrepresentation of how I interpret that passage. Not because I expect you to answer them, or deal with my actual words in any way. You have proven that you are incapable of doing so, and so you don't. You have fooled no one.
 
You too border on being heretical.,..You present the body of christ as "the" temple...rather than one of the temples mentioned in the bible...in which the man of lawlessness will enter into and declare himself to be God. When did the man of lawlessness enter into your own personal "temple"?
Again, you respond to a post as though nothing was ever said about the body of Christ being the temple. If you would actually deal with what people say when they correct your misrepresentations, you would not be able to do that. Which I suppose, would be a motive for not dealing with them or even acknowledging them. It is the Church, the corporate body of Christ, that the man of lawlessness, enters, if that is what Paul is referring to. Not every individual Christian.

So what would that look like in the world? Have you not noticed the many antichrists that have already, and have always been, invading the Church, tearing down the doctrinal walls and foundation that are contained in the NT? The ones laid by the apostles? Maybe you are looking for the wrong signs that would be pointing to the wrong thing.
 
You too border on being heretical.,.
Ad hominem noted.
.You present the body of christ as "the" temple...
No, scripture does that. I posted the relevant verses.
rather than one of the temples mentioned in the bible...
Jesus and his body are one of the temples mentioned in the Bible.
in which the man of lawlessness will enter into and declare himself to be God
Nowhere does the verse say anything specifically about a stone temple. That's your assumption, not something scripture actually states.
. When did the man of lawlessness enter into your own personal "temple"?
Strawman noted. I did not say he entered my personal temple. I said he could be a person in the Church who, being apostate (which is what the verses mentions), declares himself God. Misrepresenting what was posted does not help your case.

Where is the verse mentioning another temple will be built in our future and where in 2 Thes. 2:4 does the word "built" occur?
 
Ad hominem noted.

No, scripture does that. I posted the relevant verses.

Jesus and his body are one of the temples mentioned in the Bible.

Nowhere does the verse say anything specifically about a stone temple. That's your assumption, not something scripture actually states.

Strawman noted. I did not say he entered my personal temple. I said he could be a person in the Church who, being apostate (which is what the verses mentions), declares himself God. Misrepresenting what was posted does not help your case.

Where is the verse mentioning another temple will be built in our future and where in 2 Thes. 2:4 does the word "built" occur?
The temple in 2 Thes 2:4 is either a biological body or a stone built temple.....which is it that the man of lawlessness takes a seat in?
 
The temple in 2 Thes 2:4 is either a biological body or a stone built temple.....which is it that the man of lawlessness takes a seat in?
Perhaps but I am not discussing any of those digressions you keep trying to employ until you either tell me where scripture actually mentions another temple will be built in our future or you post an acknowledge there is no verse that actually mentions another temple being built in our future. When you come clean and openly acknowledge that belief is solely an inferential belief taught by Dispensational Premillennialism and NOT something scripture itself explicitly teaches anywhere in its many pages we'll talk.

Until then every posted attempt to answer the question I have asked simply proves an inability to have an intelligent, scripturally informed, cogent conversation because they are alternatively filled with avoidant digressions, shifting onuses, strawmen and ad hominem. I do not collaborate with fallacy.





Show me where the Bible actually mentions another temple will be built in our future or acknowledge there isn't one and your belief is inferential.
 
Back
Top