Absolutely. It matters not concerning the prophecy if the original temple is still standing or destroyed an a new temple is constructed.
Nope. That would be adding to the text things it does not state. That letter was written to the Christians in Thessalonica living in the first century, circa 52-53 AD
and it was written to those people to address concerns they were having at that time. The text itself states these things. The letter was not written to 21st century readers, nor was it written about 21st century matters. We're reading a letter written to others and the goal is to applies its contents and lessons to our lives.
No. The prophecy address a temple that will be standing when the future prophecy is fulfilled.
The text itself states otherwise.
Considering the prophecy is future...
Their future, not ours.
and no temple exist now, what is your solution?
I have already answered that question and, in point of fact, only Dispensational Premillennialism things a solution is needed. Only Dispensational Premillennialism teaches another temple must be built. Only Dispensational Premillennialism thinks Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. The eschatology to which you subscribe is the statistical and normative outlier. It's the newest theology oin Christian history and it is completely irreconcilable with historical, mainstream, orthodox Christendom in multiple ways.
Now you're being disingenuous and adding words to what I think.
No, your posts reflect what I posted, and I can quote you to support every word I posted, beginning with
Post #334 in which you plainly stated "
Nope," when asked, "
Do you see a problem with a Christian stating the existing conditions mean nothing?" According to
you, in your own words, you do not see a problem stating the existing circumstances mean nothing. Your words. They mean
nothing. There is an absence of meaning.
So, logically speaking, it is completely inconsistent to say existing conditions mean nothing...... and then cite existing conditions, which is what you did when citing the currently existing condition of Israel. I am perfectly willing for you to amend your own words but what was posted is demonstrably what was posted. I just pointed out the inconsistency.
You can believe..............
yadayadayadayada
A poster's
ability to believe is not the subject of this discussion. The question of whether or not there will be a third temple in Jerusalem is to overall topic and we're currently discussing the multitude of problems existing in the way modern futurists use 2 Thessalonians 2 to support the premise of a third temple. That text does not state a third temple will be built. Nowhere in the entire epistle does the word "
build/
built" exist, there was a temple standing at the time the epistles was written (which you think means nothing), the letter was expressly written to the first century Thessalonians to address concerns contemporary to them, and the Dispensational Premillennial interpretation is entirely inferential, it denies the facts of the text and ignores the conditions existing when the letter was written.
There are several prophecies in the OT that speak of a restored Israel.
Perhaps, but 1) this discussion is about the temple, 2) modern Israel is not covenant Israel restored, and 3) you're off topic.
I'm simply providing what the bible says...
No, you're not. You are posting what Dispensational Premillennialism says, not what scripture says. 2 Thes 2 does not state a third temple will be built. Nowhere in the entire epistle does the word "
build/
built" exist, there was a temple standing at the time the epistle was written
(which you think means nothing) the letter was expressly written to the first century Thessalonians to address concerns contemporary to them.
That is what the Bible says.
and today's current condition.
No, you're not. You think modern Israel is covenant Israel restored when it is not.
You seem to be ignoring what the bible says and today's current condition.
Anyone and everyone reading this thread can readily and objectively see that I have posted the text of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 and gone through it line by line, expounding on what is stated without adding a single interpretive comment. In contrast, every modern futurist in this thread, including you, have denied what the text specifically states, claimed the relevance of the existing temple is meaningless, and added things never stated by the text itself as a function of your Dispensationally premillennial inferences. Aside from the fact statements like that are never effective and always trolling,
you, of all the members in this entire forum, should never, ever, use the word "
ignore" when speaking to anyone else about who disregards what is in scripture.
The first century readers in Thessalonica were told some guy was going to sit in the temple, and they were told that specifically to address their worries they'd missed the day of the Lord. That's what the text states. What it does NOT state is there will be a third temple built.
It's you who are ignoring what the Bible says.
Modern Israel is not covenant Israel restored. You are invited to start a thread on this subject because it's not the topic of this thread but
if you choose to do that the conversation begins by citing the object of the promises of restoration made by God. The object and the subject of those promises was covenant Israel, not just any country that slapped the label "
Israel" on themselves. Even if modern Israel is the fledgling state of a future restored Israel, it has a very long way to go before it can correctly be called Israel
restored. All the criteria of all those promises will have to be met and modern Israel is nowhere close to that status. It's irrational (and unscriptural) to claim modern Israel is covenant Israel restored when all the promised measures of scripture do not exist. You start an op on that subject and I (and others) will gladly lay out that case for you.
Until then stick to the matter of a third temple.
2 Thessalonians never says another temple will be built. It says a lawless man is going to sit in the temple and exalt himself and that is one of the ways the first century Thessalonians can know they did not miss the day of the Lord. There was a temple of stone standing at the time the epistle was written
(which you think means nothing), nowhere in the entire epistle does the word "
build/
built" exist, and the letter was expressly written to the first century Thessalonians
(not us) to address concerns contemporary to them.
And I don't doubt you for a moment. 
Right 
