Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[CrowCross]

I see a few problems....

Well, I won't deny 2 Thess, and by association Dan 9 are difficult passages, both for any iteration of preterism or futurism, but like any exegesis, you have to juxtapose the 'less known' with the 'absolutely known' in scripture. What is absolutely known is that Jesus is the Third Temple, and we know 'Tear down this Temple" (that He physically stood in) "and in 3 days I will rebuild it" (His Resurrection) is rock solid.

From what I understand Jesus was saying tear down "this temple"...his body which represented the temple of God and He would resurrect in 3 days.
When I speak of the third temple I speak of the future temple to be built.

Then you go from there and parse other things not by what IS questionable, but as to not contradict what is NOT questionable. 2 Thess can be a mire, but one thing I notice is in 2 Thess 2:3 much is made of "apostacy", but the word essentially means "revolt".. and what do ya know, preceding 70 AD was "The" revolt of all revolts. And when you move through the relevant passages, you find too much alignment with 70AD to be mere coincidence.

Well, not quite. The word apostasia may have a different meaning that you think....

For that day will not come, unless the DEPARTURE comes first,...this is how the Geneva Bible of 1587 put it prior to the word being changed to apostasy....or revolt as your translation used.

So, apostasy...just what does the word mean?

The meaning of the word refers to ... "to stand away" or "to depart." I copied that directly from Strongs 646. apostasia

The question is....does depart mean a spiritual departure or a physical spatial departure? Or can it refer to BOTH?

Concerning a physical departure the word apostasia is derived from the word aphistémi. Acts 12:10 uses this word as follows
"and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him." This departure wasn't a spiritual departure but rather a physical departure.

Considering the make up of the word can refer to both a spiritual or physical departure we need to look at the subject or text of 2 Thes 2.

But first, will you agree the word can refer to a spiritual departure or a physical spatial departure.

In other words one could easily conclude that the pre-trib rapture is this departure.

2 Thess 2 clearly aligns with Dan 9 and there are several events that are eerily symmetrical with the Siege, many cite Titus entering the Holy of Holies, but even before that Simon bar Giora had gone in and sacked it, eating the showbread and melting down sacred vessels (into what?), slaughtering priests.. causing the "oblation to cease". Rev 16:19 cites "And the great city was split into three parts.."

I don't think Jerusalem is Babylon.

and the 3 leaders of the Jewish revolts had split the city into 3 sections, and were infighting.. and I mean it goes on and on. Bottom line is for the futurist, ALL of the relevant scriptures are total 'mystery', left guessing that every news headline for 2K years is eschatological prophey being fulfilled.. just doesn't fly, whereas, with at the very least a partial preterist view causes a Huge amount of the relevant scripture to literally harmonize with both itself and history.

I see a problem with timing and order with trying to fit it into a preterist box.

So, that is why my position is a rejection of both full preterism and full futurism, because to my eye the reality seems to be in a more moderate position that allows for elements of the 2 views without one fully precluding the other.

Thanks for the explanation. Eschatology can be difficult.

 

[CrowCross]

So when I say, "It is not as idle speculation because I am looking at historic facts---both what happened in the NT era and what has happened ever since---(false teachers and false prophets standing in Christian pulpits, blasting away of social media and You Tube etc---presenting new and strange gospels) and what the Bible has to say about anti-Christs," that is how I find the temple, if it is the corporate body of Christ, being the temple of 2 Thess 2. That is what my conclusions, right or wrong, are based on. Not Idle speculation.

As I have said before....I don't see the anti-christ entering into the temple you present and declaring himself to be God...sorry, just don't see it.

 

[XrzrX]

I see a few problems....


From what I understand Jesus was saying tear down "this temple"...his body which represented the temple of God and He would resurrect in 3 days.
When I speak of the third temple I speak of the future temple to be built.

I get it, but I think that's grave error. The State of so called "Israel" has been there for almost 80 years, and they haven't even laid a single brick, very odd isn't it?

Well, not quite. The word apostasia may have a different meaning that you think....

For that day will not come, unless the DEPARTURE comes first,...this is how the Geneva Bible of 1587 put it prior to the word being changed to apostasy....or revolt as your translation used.

So, apostasy...just what does the word mean?

The meaning of the word refers to ... "to stand away" or "to depart." I copied that directly from Strongs 646. apostasia

The question is....does depart mean a spiritual departure or a physical spatial departure? Or can it refer to BOTH?

Concerning a physical departure the word apostasia is derived from the word aphistémi. Acts 12:10 uses this word as follows
"and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him." This departure wasn't a spiritual departure but rather a physical departure.

Considering the make up of the word can refer to both a spiritual or physical departure we need to look at the subject or text of 2 Thes 2.

But first, will you agree the word can refer to a spiritual departure or a physical spatial departure.

In other words one could easily conclude that the pre-trib rapture is this departure.

Again, it's established the word can mean physical revolt, and it just happens to be a very strong "coincidence".. taken alone, no biggie.. along a striking number of other "coincidences", begins to look a bit too 'linear' to be nature.

I don't think Jerusalem is Babylon.

Again, I get it.. there are issues with that interpretation.. but also some compelling support. They were "Babylon" by every measure. From the spiritual prostitution, idolotry literally to the straight fact they brought their Babylonian, Talmudic religion" back with them. Which was the Very people Jesus was battling, and who murdered Him. You can try to make the claim that's not who those passages mean, but the fact is they were full blown Babylon.

I see a problem with timing and order with trying to fit it into a preterist box.

Well, the irony is yeah, there's glitches in the preterist "timing".. but in the futurist view, there is No "timing"... nothing to defend because it's all "mystery".. and, defies so many clear verses of imminency that if it doesn't raise red flags for you, you aren't looking.

Thanks for the explanation. Eschatology can be difficult.

Especially if you're looking for things that already happened. Israel kinda had that problem...

 

[Arial]

As I have said before....I don't see the anti-christ entering into the temple you present and declaring himself to be God...sorry, just don't see it.

What you see and don't see is an irrelevant response.

 

[CrowCross]

I get it, but I think that's grave error. The State of so called "Israel" has been there for almost 80 years, and they haven't even laid a single brick, very odd isn't it?

No. It's not time. Did you know they have the plans drawn up? Do you know they have the furniture and garments? Do you know several days ago they practiced sacrificing the red heifer? So, no, I don't think after 80 years it's odd.

Again, it's established the word can mean physical revolt, and it just happens to be a very strong "coincidence".. taken alone, no biggie.. along a striking number of other "coincidences", begins to look a bit too 'linear' to be nature.

I'm glad you used the word "can" because it "can" also mean departutre.
It's no coincidence the preceding verse speaks of the gathering....

Again, I get it.. there are issues with that interpretation.. but also some compelling support. They were "Babylon" by every measure. From the spiritual prostitution, idolotry literally to the straight fact they brought their Babylonian, Talmudic religion" back with them. Which was the Very people Jesus was battling, and who murdered Him. You can try to make the claim that's not who those passages mean, but the fact is they were full blown Babylon.

That's fine...Babylon is a broad term...but Jerusalem doesn't fit with the rest of the content presented about Jerusalem. Maybe you see it, but I don't. I have my opinion about who Babylon is but I can't be dogmatic.

Well, the irony is yeah, there's glitches in the preterist "timing".. but in the futurist view, there is No "timing"... nothing to defend because it's all "mystery".. and, defies so many clear verses of imminency that if it doesn't raise red flags for you, you aren't looking.

I've asked before on this forum...where in history has Rev 8 happened?

Especially if you're looking for things that already happened. Israel kinda had that problem...

Through out Israels history israel has had many problems....Thing is, prophecy look into the future. Though I don't say there has never been a pre-fulfillment or type.

 

[CrowCross]

What you see and don't see is an irrelevant response.

One thing I haven't seen is you show us on this forum how the anti-christ enters all the christians (the temple of the Holy Spirit0 and declares himself to be God.

 

[Arial]

One thing I haven't seen is you show us on this forum how the anti-christ enters all the christians (the temple of the Holy Spirit0 and declares himself to be God.

Well, I never said that, Do you know what corporate means?

 

[EarlyActs]

I get it, but I think that's grave error. The State of so called "Israel" has been there for almost 80 years, and they haven't even laid a single brick, very odd isn't it?


Again, it's established the word can mean physical revolt, and it just happens to be a very strong "coincidence".. taken alone, no biggie.. along a striking number of other "coincidences", begins to look a bit too 'linear' to be nature.

Again, I get it.. there are issues with that interpretation.. but also some compelling support. They were "Babylon" by every measure. From the spiritual prostitution, idolotry literally to the straight fact they brought their Babylonian, Talmudic religion" back with them. Which was the Very people Jesus was battling, and who murdered Him. You can try to make the claim that's not who those passages mean, but the fact is they were full blown Babylon.

Well, the irony is yeah, there's glitches in the preterist "timing".. but in the futurist view, there is No "timing"... nothing to defend because it's all "mystery".. and, defies so many clear verses of imminency that if it doesn't raise red flags for you, you aren't looking.

Especially if you're looking for things that already happened. Israel kinda had that problem...

Timing schemes will always have problems. NT eschatology is about a contingency and there is no glitch.

 

[CrowCross]

Well, I never said that, Do you know what corporate means?

Then explain it using your definition of corporate.

 

[CrowCross]

Timing schemes will always have problems. NT eschatology is about a contingency and there is no glitch.

Do you think Rev is linear,,chapter 6 happen, then7, then 8 and so on...or some of it is parallel...or in one chapter you may be given a glimpse of what happens beyond the chapter your reading?

 

[Arial]

Then explain it using your definition of corporate.

Christ's Church. The assembly of the called out ones.

 

[Josheb]

I also know the temple will be rebuilt...why? The Bible mentions a future temple.

Where does the Bible "mention" a future temple?

Where does the Bible mention a future temple built by human hands out of stone in our future?

 

[Josheb]

WHY would any Christian have the desire to contribute to a temple building that will specifically promote the false worship of a false god??????

That is a great question for which there is no scripturally rational answer.

 

[XrzrX]

No. It's not time. Did you know they have the plans drawn up? Do you know they have the furniture and garments? Do you know several days ago they practiced sacrificing the red heifer? So, no, I don't think after 80 years it's odd.

I'm glad you used the word "can" because it "can" also mean departutre.
It's no coincidence the preceding verse speaks of the gathering....

That's fine...Babylon is a broad term...but Jerusalem doesn't fit with the rest of the content presented about Jerusalem. Maybe you see it, but I don't. I have my opinion about who Babylon is but I can't be dogmatic.


I've asked before on this forum...where in history has Rev 8 happened?

Through out Israels history israel has had many problems....Thing is, prophecy look into the future. Though I don't say there has never been a pre-fulfillment or type.

I won't belabor the point of how the language is apocalyptic, it's not even debatable that it mirrors exactly OT prophesies using the same symbology. And, the use of dual prophesy, I'll give an example.. Isaiah 7, the prophesy of the virgin birth.. is part of a larger prophesy that WAS fulfilled in their contemporary time. You see this with many prophesies, PART is a foreshadow, PART will be imminently fulfilled. The eschatological prophesy would almost certainly follow the same formula, and much was fulfilled in 70 AD. To not delineate, muddies the prophesy that DOES remain, and that's where I do see see many things that do appear to align with "futurist" interpretations.. but.... completely different than the mainstream "Christian Zionist/Dispensationalist" 'version', which to my eye, is literally 180 degrees reversed. You see the State of so called "Israel" as legit, and this is where I hate to wade into this mire, but, it's too evident to not see.. this 'nation' are the descendants of Turkic Huns (Gog Magog) (converts to Talmudism, Babylonian idolatry) that descended from the North.. and by deceit and war displaced Christians, the FIRST Christians in the land. And we have a 'great deception' in the Church that has caused believers to literally "Support", ACTIVELY support, a 'nation' that enshrines a literally antichrist institution. You cannot become a citizen of their 'nation' without denying Christ, it's illegal to evangelize the Gospel.. and as said, they have presided over (being the chief cause) of %90 of the indigenous Christians (descendants of the FIRST Christians) to flee their homeland. So, I could go on and on, but suffice to say.. there is certainly a Beast, and its "System".. and they have the biggest stick on the block as their backup, us. So yeah, I see alot of prophesy alignment for End Days, but it's waaaay different than what has become the 'mainstream' of our Western Church has embraced over the last century.

 

[Josheb]

I also know the temple will be rebuilt...why? The Bible mentions a future temple.

When you use the word "mention," do you mean the Bible...

1. explicitly states a temple of stone will be built by humans sometime during or after the 21st century,
2. exegetically infers a temple of stone will be built by humans sometime during or after the 21st century,
3. is read to through a hermeneutic that infers a temple of stone will be built by humans sometime during or after the 21st century?

Which is it?

 

[Josheb]

From what I understand Jesus was saying tear down "this temple"...his body which represented the temple of God and He would resurrect in 3 days.

The temple of stone represented the body of Christ, not the other way around. God does not dwell in temples built by human hands. He never did. The temple of stone was always an abomination because God had told His people, first through Abraham, that any altar they built was not to be made with hewn stones and no tool was ever to be applied to such stones. When Solomon built his temple he followed the second rule, but not the first. He had the stones hewn and hewn so finely they fit together without mortar. Every single stone in that temple was a work of sinful flesh, a temple made by (sinful) human hands. Every single stone in that temple was an act of disobedience. That temple was never the temple God commanded...... and God never commanded a stone templeever be built!

When God first broached the matter of a temple with David it was because David was already preparing to build a temple for God, and the reason David wanted to build such a temple is because all the other pagan cultures had temples and David wanted to make sure the God of Israel had one, too, and David wanted the temple he planned to build to outmatch all others. God stopped him. God told David three men would build God's temple.

2 Samuel 7:1-17
Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the LORD had given him rest on every side from all his enemies, that the king said to Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains." Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in your mind, for the LORD is with you." But in the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying "Go and say to My servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD, are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle. Wherever I have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”’

"Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.”’" In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.​

Three people would build the temple of God that God wanted built: 1) God Himself, 2) a descendant of David's, and 3) a son of God.

David, being a Jew who lacked the later revelation couldn't have understood what God was saying and at this point in David's life he was hell bent on building a temple for God (pun intended). He was so fixated on the matter that he named his next-born son "Peace" (Solomon means peace), despite the fact God told David to name the boy Jedidiah. This temple matter occurs within the context of God already having told the Israelites he did not want them to have a king and he took their request for a king to be a rejection of him as their king. This temple matter occurred at a time when David was beginning to slip in his faithfulness to God. Soon after this conversation David would abdicate his role as leader of his armies and soon afterwards commit adultery and then conspire to the woman's husband, a man who was faithful to David, murdered. When David was dying, he recounted what God had told him to Solomon but if the two passages are compared it is self-evident David changed what God said, he lied to Solomon.

God never wanted a temple made of stone built by sinful human hands.

God does not want covenant breakers building him another temple of stone.

There is no verse that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. That belief is an invention of men, not what scripture teaches.

God built the temple God always intended to build and the three men God mentioned: God, a son of God, and a descendant of David turned out to be the same guy = Jesus. Jesus is the temple of God that God built.



But modern futurism mucks every single bit of this up and reads into scripture a bunch of nonsense the scriptures never actually state. No one believed in any of that nonsense prior to the 19th century. It's a pile of eisegetic inference that has become very popular in modernity but it is wholly irreconcilable with scripture read as written.

What I just posted does not come with flashing neon signs announcing its connections. God expects the readers of His word to reason through the scriptures beginning with what is explicitly stated. Any implication must be inferred first based on what is explicitly stated, not what a man-made hermeneutic dictates.

 

[CrowCross]

Christ's Church. The assembly of the called out ones.

What you are telling me is that there will be a time..or perhaps we're at it now, when the antichrist will enter into the temple of the humans that make up Christ church and declare himself to be God.

 

[CrowCross]

When you use the word "mention," do you mean the Bible...

1. explicitly states a temple of stone will be built by humans sometime during or after the 21st century,
2. exegetically infers a temple of stone will be built by humans sometime during or after the 21st century,
3. is read to through a hermeneutic that infers a temple of stone will be built by humans sometime during or after the 21st century?

Which is it?

You can call it whatever you want....the bible mentions a temple that the antichrist enters into and declares himself as God.

This event is AFTER the rapture.

 

[XrzrX]

The temple of stone represented the body of Christ, not the other way around. God does not dwell in temples built by human hands. He never did. The temple of stone was always an abomination because God had told His people, first through Abraham, that any altar they built was not to be made with hewn stones and no tool was ever to be applied to such stones. When Solomon built his temple he followed the second rule, but not the first. He had the stones hewn and hewn so finely they fit together without mortar. Every single stone in that temple was a work of sinful flesh, a temple made by (sinful) human hands. Every single stone in that temple was an act of disobedience. That temple was never the temple God commanded...... and God never commanded a stone templeever be built!

When God first broached the matter of a temple with David it was because David was already preparing to build a temple for God, and the reason David wanted to build such a temple is because all the other pagan cultures had temples and David wanted to make sure the God of Israel had one, too, and David wanted the temple he planned to build to outmatch all others. God stopped him. God told David three men would build God's temple.

2 Samuel 7:1-17​

Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the LORD had given him rest on every side from all his enemies, that the king said to Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains." Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in your mind, for the LORD is with you." But in the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying "Go and say to My servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD, are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle. Wherever I have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”’ ​

​

"Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.”’" In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.​

Three people would build the temple of God that God wanted built: 1) God Himself, 2) a descendant of David's, and 3) a son of God.

David, being a Jew who lacked the later revelation couldn't have understood what God was saying and at this point in David's life he was hell bent on building a temple for God (pun intended). He was so fixated on the matter that he named his next-born son "Peace" (Solomon means peace), despite the fact God told David to name the boy Jedidiah. This temple matter occurs within the context of God already having told the Israelites he did not want them to have a king and he took their request for a king to be a rejection of him as their king. This temple matter occurred at a time when David was beginning to slip in his faithfulness to God. Soon after this conversation David would abdicate his role as leader of his armies and soon afterwards commit adultery and then conspire to the woman's husband, a man who was faithful to David, murdered. When David was dying, he recounted what God had told him to Solomon but if the two passages are compared it is self-evident David changed what God said, he lied to Solomon.

God never wanted a temple made of stone built by sinful human hands.

God does not want covenant breakers building him another temple of stone.

There is no verse that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. That belief is an invention of men, not what scripture teaches.

God built the temple God always intended to build and the three men God mentioned: God, a son of God, and a descendant of David turned out to be the same guy = Jesus. Jesus is the temple of God that God built.



But modern futurism mucks every single bit of this up and reads into scripture a bunch of nonsense the scriptures never actually state. No one believed in any of that nonsense prior to the 19th century. It's a pile of eisegetic inference that has become very popular in modernity but it is wholly irreconcilable with scripture read as written.

What I just posted does not come with flashing neon signs announcing its connections. God expects the readers of His word to reason through the scriptures beginning with what is explicitly stated. Any implication must be inferred first based on what is explicitly stated, not what a man-made hermeneutic dictates.

Great response, and notice the conflation of both Solomon, and Jesus in the same prophey... but one fulfills a descendant that 'commits iniquity" which Solomon did, and Jesus didn't. Jesus even references it "The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here." Matt 12:42, He cites Sheba, who brought Solomon 666 talents of gold. It also speaks to the 'parallel' symmetry, of 2 different 'versions' of the same 'Milennial' prophesy, where it seems to indicate IF Israel had turned from wickedness they WOULD have had the different version of both Messiah, and Kingdom. The "Conquering" Messiah, in the way they expected.. that set up an earthly Kingdom. But, they didn't and this parallel is highlighted in the fact that Paul cites (in Rom 11:26)
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME "FROM" ZION,
HE WILL "REMOVE" UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
“AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I "TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

Which is the inverse of (Isa 59:20)
“The Redeemer will come "TO" Zion,
to those in Jacob who TURN FROM transgression,” declares the LORD."

It's a massive statement.
One a "Redeemer", that comes "to them".. to conquer for and establish them as a Kingdom. (rejected)
The other a "Deliverer", that "came out from them" and had to save them because they didn't turn from iniquity and therefore had to "remove it from them".

And this is where 'Millennialism' trips so many up.
They are reading prophecy that was Conditional and was rejected.. and became fulfilled in Jesus.

 

[CrowCross]

I won't belabor the point of how the language is apocalyptic, it's not even debatable that it mirrors exactly OT prophesies using the same symbology. And, the use of dual prophesy, I'll give an example.. Isaiah 7, the prophesy of the virgin birth.. is part of a larger prophesy that WAS fulfilled in their contemporary time. You see this with many prophesies, PART is a foreshadow, PART will be imminently fulfilled. The eschatological prophesy would almost certainly follow the same formula, and much was fulfilled in 70 AD. To not delineate, muddies the prophesy that DOES remain, and that's where I do see see many things that do appear to align with "futurist" interpretations.. but.... completely different than the mainstream "Christian Zionist/Dispensationalist" 'version', which to my eye, is literally 180 degrees reversed. You see the State of so called "Israel" as legit, and this is where I hate to wade into this mire, but, it's too evident to not see.. this 'nation' are the descendants of Turkic Huns (Gog Magog) (converts to Talmudism, Babylonian idolatry) that descended from the North.. and by deceit and war displaced Christians, the FIRST Christians in the land. And we have a 'great deception' in the Church that has caused believers to literally "Support", ACTIVELY support, a 'nation' that enshrines a literally antichrist institution. You cannot become a citizen of their 'nation' without denying Christ, it's illegal to evangelize the Gospel.. and as said, they have presided over (being the chief cause) of %90 of the indigenous Christians (descendants of the FIRST Christians) to flee their homeland. So, I could go on and on, but suffice to say.. there is certainly a Beast, and its "System".. and they have the biggest stick on the block as their backup, us. So yeah, I see alot of prophesy alignment for End Days, but it's waaaay different than what has become the 'mainstream' of our Western Church has embraced over the last century.

You can say whatever you need to say...but, Israel became a nation....again....in 1948. It happened.

Now, does that mean they will be a Godly nation? No. A christian nation? Once again no.

I see the beast system current being assembled...everything from quantum computers to Musks satellite grid to AI to digital currency and on and on.
The Jews could start building the temple tomorrow...

We are curently in the birth pangs.