Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[Josheb]

I have no idea other then my own misapplied one time thoughts......

1Thes 2:4 nasb95
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.

When one reads that he takes a seat in the temple of God............ what other explanation could there be because everyone l know, knows the 1st Temple was destroyed.

YES!

BUT..... "everyone" also 1) neglects the fact the letter was written to first century Christians about their first century concerns and 2) incorrectly thinks the letter was written to them about events (potentially) occurring in their future. It's not logically possible to read that clause to imply a future temple of stone without 1 & 2 also happening.

And that, then, leads to a principle to embrace = always identify the original audience and any temporal markers in any text we read.

Everyone [surely] knows the 2nd Temple was destroyed in 70AD.... and for me I do not believe that this is an event that has already taken place.... ie... the 70AD destruction because he was already sitting there.

I'm not following that. You're not sure the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Ot you're not sure the MoL sat in the temple exalting himself?

So if there will be no future temple, the way the verse is written, would it not suggest it has already happened ?

No! That's the entire point of the dissent: it is absolutely NOT what is "suggested." Scripture rarely, if ever, infers what it doesn't somewhere state. First, the literal is what we're supposed to use to define and explain any figurative or ambiguous text and since there is no verse in the entire Bible explicitly, literally, stating another temple will be built in our future, there is not scriptural bases for suggesting scripture suggests another temple. It's speculation, not exegesis.

Does this mean with no future temple that some preterists are correct??????????????

Well, all Christians are preterist. If you mean does this mean there will be no future temple because ALL prophecies are ALL finished and there are no more prophecies left unfulfilled then that's not applicable here. I'm not full-pret, neither are you, and full preterism is a normative and statistical outlier. It's the exception to the rule, not the rule.

If you believe Jesus is the guy who fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies, then you are partially preterist. You would be a Christological preterist. This is what makes a Christian a Christian; the belief Jesus is the Messiah and there will be no others. What we're talking about is eschatological preterism and even within eschatology the overwhelming majority of Christians are partially preterist, even Dispensational Premillennialists. John MacArthur, for example, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation and in that book, he stated the seven letters written to the seven churches pertained to congregations that existed in the first century and the letters addressed concerns those congregations face at the time the letters were written. That makes John MacArthur a partial preterist. Syndicated radio preacher Gary Hamrick teaches the same position. Does either man call themselves partial-preterists? Nope. For them preterism is an all-or-nothing condition and the only preterists that exist are full prets. The truth is that all Christians are Christological preterists and most Christians, even many modern futurists, are partially preterist in their eschatology.

Go back and give the 2 Thessalonians 2 passage another read because the MoL is a conditioned event.

It was all done in 70AD?

It was if Paul was referring to the temple that was standing at the time he wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonian Christians.

Or is the Temple we here of that which is within the human spirit..... THIS I CAN ACCEPT. Not 70AD

Why not? What is the scriptural reason you cannot accept the premise Paul was referring to the temple that was standing when he originally wrote the Thessalonians. Think. Think before posting because any post hoc response will be fallacious. It's not logical to define the text by what is believed to have happened or not happened after the fact.

The truck had a dent in its front bumper.....

.....therefore it must have been a lawless man with a jack hammer who put the dent there.​

No, the existence of the dent itself is evidence only of a dent having occurred, not who did it, with what, when, or why. Without more evidence post hoc arguments fail. In the particular case of prophecy, the protests are usually negative post hoc arguments: "It never happened," or "Because it never happened your position is wrong." Just because the facts of history did not record some part of an event does not mean it did not happen.

After all Paul spoke of ...“You are God’s temple" , “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit”, “We are the temple of the living God, believers being built into a holy temple.... which I can be behind 100%

But dont answer this because it pulls away from the OP and I think that is more important......

Wellll... if Paul was referring to the body of Christ when he used the word "temple" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 then that would mean some guy within the Church was going to exalt himself as God. Why is that so hard to consider? History is filled with fools calling themselves God and many of them have come from within the Church.

Are you aware of the fact the Jews used the Greek word "ecclesia" in place of the Hebrew "qahal" when they translated the Old Testament (Tanakh) into Greek? The "assembly" of God's people was called the ecclesia, or those who were "called out." Paul's MoL could, therefore, be Jewish . A member of the assembly, or those called out by God, the ecclesia.

Of course, the modern futurist trained to read scripture by Dispensationalists will either ignore all of the above or deny its veracity..... even though it all comes from scripture alone, and not extra-biblical doctrine.


Before responding, go back and re-read 2 Thessalonians 2. Make note of the "unless" at the beginning of the chapter (vs. 3). Tell me what you think about that "unless."

Then tell me why you CANNOT accept the logical necessities of the text itself as written when it comes to the position Paul was referring to the first century temple and the MoL did, in fact, sit therein and exalt himself (whether history recorded the event or not)?

 

[Rella]

YES!

BUT..... "everyone" also 1) neglects the fact the letter was written to first century Christians about their first century concerns and 2) incorrectly thinks the letter was written to them about events (potentially) occurring in their future. It's not logically possible to read that clause to imply a future temple of stone without 1 & 2 also happening.

And that, then, leads to a principle to embrace = always identify the original audience and any temporal markers in any text we read.

I'm not following that. You're not sure the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Ot you're not sure the MoL sat in the temple exalting himself?

I know the temple was destroyed... I am not sure that the MoL sat in it at that time.

But then... why not. That is not a difficult question to answer anymore then those who believe Jesus returned back then.... (But that is not this discussion so I will drop it.

No! That's the entire point of the dissent: it is absolutely NOT what is "suggested." Scripture rarely, if ever, infers what it doesn't somewhere state. First, the literal is what we're supposed to use to define and explain any figurative or ambiguous text and since there is no verse in the entire Bible explicitly, literally, stating another temple will be built in our future, there is not scriptural bases for suggesting scripture suggests another temple. It's speculation, not exegesis.

Alright. I see that.

Well, all Christians are preterist. If you mean does this mean there will be no future temple because ALL prophecies are ALL finished and there are no more prophecies left unfulfilled then that's not applicable here. I'm not full-pret, neither are you, and full preterism is a normative and statistical outlier. It's the exception to the rule, not the rule.

If you believe Jesus is the guy who fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies, then you are partially preterist. You would be a Christological preterist. This is what makes a Christian a Christian; the belief Jesus is the Messiah and there will be no others. What we're talking about is eschatological preterism and even within eschatology the overwhelming majority of Christians are partially preterist, even Dispensational Premillennialists. John MacArthur, for example, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation and in that book, he stated the seven letters written to the seven churches pertained to congregations that existed in the first century and the letters addressed concerns those congregations face at the time the letters were written. That makes John MacArthur a partial preterist. Syndicated radio preacher Gary Hamrick teaches the same position. Does either man call themselves partial-preterists? Nope. For them preterism is an all-or-nothing condition and the only preterists that exist are full prets. The truth is that all Christians are Christological preterists and most Christians, even many modern futurists, are partially preterist in their eschatology.

You have me somewhat lost here. I sure am glad salvation does not hinge on knowing or believing this stuff.... OR DOES IT?

Go back and give the 2 Thessalonians 2 passage another read because the MoL is a conditioned event.

Not sure what you mean by conditioned event.

Are you meaning that the appearance of the MoL and also by extension, the full onset of the day of the Lord is conditional or conditioned on prior events? That it is not imminent or unpredictable in timing but that it would depend on specific preconditions being fulfilled first like the restrainer must be removed which would naturally lead to the MoL identity?

It was if Paul was referring to the temple that was standing at the time he wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonian Christians.

Why not? What is the scriptural reason you cannot accept the premise Paul was referring to the temple that was standing when he originally wrote the Thessalonians.

Before I think..... My reasoning had always been because I had for assorted and sundry reasons only ever considered that there would be a 3rd temple. And with all the talk that goes on about these being the end of the end times and we sent those 5 (I think) Red Heifers(see link)
https://israelinsightmagazine.com/2...turn-to-israel-whats-the-significance/....The arrival of a possible tenth perfect red heifer as just happened signifies hope for the Messiah's imminent arrival, and the Temple's rebuilding.

This was in 2022... and now I wonder why they did this? Cows from Texas USA... Looks like John Hagee preaches a lot more convincingly then
most of them.

Think. Think before posting because any post hoc response will be fallacious. It's not logical to define the text by what is believed to have happened or not happened after the fact.

The truck had a dent in its front bumper.....

.....therefore it must have been a lawless man with a jack hammer who put the dent there.​

No, the existence of the dent itself is evidence only of a dent having occurred, not who did it, with what, when, or why. Without more evidence post hoc arguments fail.

I am not arguing at this point..... You have proven my arguments fail. You asked why... and the only recent evidence other then the collections of contributions world wide for the advancement is all I can go on...... But since it is wrong.... I am sure glad I did not send any money.... I only bought a tree over there in the late 1960s.

In the particular case of prophecy, the protests are usually negative post hoc arguments: "It never happened," or "Because it never happened your position is wrong." Just because the facts of history did not record some part of an event does not mean it did not happen.

We know the 70AD temple came down. But there is little reporting on that other then some of the ancient historians and no talk that I ever read of the MoL.

Wellll... if Paul was referring to the body of Christ when he used the word "temple" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 then that would mean some guy within the Church was going to exalt himself as God. Why is that so hard to consider? History is filled with fools calling themselves God and many of them have come from within the Church.

Are you aware of the fact the Jews used the Greek word "ecclesia" in place of the Hebrew "qahal" when they translated the Old Testament (Tanakh) into Greek? The "assembly" of God's people was called the ecclesia, or those who were "called out." Paul's MoL could, therefore, be Jewish . A member of the assembly, or those called out by God, the ecclesia.

Of course, the modern futurist trained to read scripture by Dispensationalists will either ignore all of the above or deny its veracity..... even though it all comes from scripture alone, and not extra-biblical doctrine.


Before responding, go back and re-read 2 Thessalonians 2. Make note of the "unless" at the beginning of the chapter (vs. 3). Tell me what you think about that "unless."

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.

I think the unless is indicating that Paul is talking of a future event that had not happened yet in his lifetime.

Then tell me why you CANNOT accept the logical necessities of the text itself as written when it comes to the position Paul was referring to the first century temple and the MoL did, in fact, sit therein and exalt himself (whether history recorded the event or not)?

The problem lies in whether or not history recorded the MoL sitting there and if Jesus did in fact come back where I have not read anything solid on that either.... Not even in the Preterists claim that Josephus proved it.... that is not so. Because while Josephus provides valuable historical context for the events of A.D. 70 that preterists link to certain prophecies, he did not "reveal" or support the idea of Christ's return at that time. The claim originates from preterist interpretations of Scripture and history, not from Josephus directly.

You can check out his writings in Antiquities 20.200 which has him mention Jesus and also Antiquities 18.63-64

Neither passage, nor anything else in Josephus's extensive writings, references a second coming, Parousia, or return of Jesus in A.D. 70

And Josephus was the most informative writer.....

If John wrote Rev. in AD95 or so i would have thought his Revelation would have revealed the MoL within the text.... either pre or future definitively.

If John wrote Rev. earlier, before 70AD, I would have thought his "visions" would have pinpointed who would be sitting in the temple when it came down.... but it does not....

So while I understand what the Holy Book says, It in itself is lacking specificity on this so I am not able, at this time to accept the logical necessities of the text itself and as such... while I do see that nothing indicates a future Temple.... I am willing to keep right on waiting for that
gotcha moment where it is all crystal clear.

 

[Josheb]

I know the temple was destroyed... I am not sure that the MoL sat in it at that time.

This is the crux of the issue.

If Paul was referring to the temple that was standing at the time when he wrote that letter, then the MoL came and went. We do not need a special note in the record of history telling us that event happened because we can infer the event happened because Paul was referring to the existing temple. Whatever was predicted to happen in the then-standing temple happened prior to its destruction, that includes the MoL and any other relevant events. It's not particularly difficult if we stick to the text and what it states. We reason from what is stated, not from what is thought to be implied. In other words, we make exegetical inferences, not inferential inferences. We base our inferences on what is stated. We don't base our inferences on other inferences.

Dispensational Premillennialism is an inference-only theology when it comes to its teachings on the temple. There are no statements pertaining to another temple being built in our future upon which their inferential teaching can be built.

Not sure what you mean by conditioned event.

Are you meaning that the appearance of the MoL and also by extension, the full onset of the day of the Lord is conditional or conditioned on prior events? That it is not imminent or unpredictable in timing but that it would depend on specific preconditions being fulfilled first like the restrainer must be removed which would naturally lead to the MoL identity?

Was the text re-read?

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
1Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3Let 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, 4who 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. 5Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

Look at verse 3. Verse 3 states there will be no coming of the Lord unless the apostasy comes first. If the apostasy does not first occur, then Jesus won't be coming . That's not a post-biblical doctrinal point of view; it is what the text explicitly states.

So we can see Dispensational Premillennialism is not the only eschatology that mucks things up pertaining to the end times .

Does verse 3 mean there is no Second Coming? No, because 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is not the only verse in the Bible that mentions the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and there is a very specific context to 2 Thessalonians 2's commentary. I again remind you that Paul was specifically and explicitly addressing the contemporary concerns of the Christians in Thessalonica. He was not addressing 21st century matters. The first century Thessalonians were confused and distressed because there had been rumors, false teaching that Jesus had already come (and gone) and they'd been left out. Paul says Jesus hasn't come and they haven't been left out. One of the ways they can KNOW they have not been left out is because there will be an apostasy that occurs first. That apostasy involved some jerk sitting in the temple and displaying himself as God. Paul states the mystery of the associated lawlessness is already at work. In other words, that lawlessness was already existing in the first century (circa 52-53 AD). Paul states the first century Thessalonians knew what was holding back the man. The man of lawlessness is a man and that man was being held back in the first century! Paul explicitly stated the MoL would be slain by Christ's appearance.

Paul also stated Christ's coming would not occur if unless that apostasy first occurred.

In other words, everything in the entire passage is contemporary to the first century (not the 21st century).

Paul connects the coming of Christ to the "day of the Lord." There are two main points to be said about this: 1) There are many events that are called the "day of the Lord" in scripture, and 2) it is very clear from the passage that this particular day of the Lord was one both Paul and the first century Thessalonians were expecting to see in their lifetime. There would be absolutely no reason for their consternation if they were expecting the day of the Lord to occur in the 21st century. The logic there would be inane. If Paul thought the coming of Christ and the day of the Lord was going to come within his lifetime and/or the lifetime of the first century saints, then that is when the event occurred.

To say otherwise would be to make Paul a false teacher. Neither Paul nor any of the other NT writers can write with the urgency that is abundant in the text and then not be correct. They are all false teachers if their urgency is misguided. Why not? Because that urgency came from God. It was God who inspired their words, it was God who inspired the urgency with which they wrote.

Or they were all liars.

ALL of the first century Christians were expecting the temple of stone to be destroyed. Jesus had stated that fact in Matthew 24.

Matthew 24:2
And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

What Jesus said came true in 70 AD. Jesus told his disciples they would see it. He told them it would happen in "this generation." He'd already told the Pharisees all he'd predicted would come upon "this generation." The Thessalonians knew Jesus was coming....... specifically to destroy the temple. The Pharisee's house was left desolate. Jesus had cleaned it out but when he returned it was re-infested. The Law of Moses required a reinfested house to be destroyed (see Leviticus 14:33ff). The priests were to inspect an infested house, clean it out, and then destroy it if the infestation returned. It never occurred to the Jewish leaders to inspect their own house because of their self-righteousness. EVERYONE i n the body of Christ knew the temple was going to be destroyed.

That is the day of the Lord to which Paul was referring.

There would be other days of the Lord.

Jesus come many times in many ways for many purposes. He came to Paul on the Damascus road. He came to every sinner who has ever been converted from death to life. He came to destroy the temple, Jerusalem, geo-political nation-state Israel, and the Levitical order in the Jewish war (a day that lasted seven years). He will come again when he concludes this history and completes the restoration of the heavens and the earth. Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Idealism get it correct. No premillennialism does so (although Historic Premillennialism is much more compatible with this than the Dispensational alternative).

Paul was referring to the temple that was standing at the time he wrote to the first century Thessalonians about their consternation they had missed Christ's coming and the day of the Lord.

We know the 70AD temple came down.

And we, therefore, also know if Paul was referring to the temple that was standing at the time when he wrote that epistle and there is no other verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states another temple will ever be built in our future...... all the events predicted relevant to the temple happened prior to the temple's destruction, which history every recorded that event or not. If Paul was referring to Herod's temple then the event has come and gone. It happened prior to the temple's destruction.

Note that I did not once appeal to any extra-biblical man-made eschatology. I provided scripture and scripture alone. I worked from what is explicitly stated with every inference I posted. I did not invent stuff and then make inferences based on my inventions.


I've got to go but I'll address the other aspects of post #402 when I have a chance.