Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[CrowCross]

This really is a root to much of your belief, but you won't address the things I've mentioned. Do you see any precedence in the Bible of believers being called to "support" in any way, much less Actively support wickedness? We aren't "jihadists", we aren't called to violate biblical integrity in service of some 'greater good'. God uses the wicked that way.. is that who you believe we are?

Joseph said....As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. Gen 50:20.

I don't believe I have gone against biblical integrity.

It doesn't 'infer it', the OT states verbatim that Yahweh will be the Messiah.. so the converse isn't an inference, it's a fact that Jesus would be Yahweh.

I agree. Isaiah 53 is an example.

 

[CrowCross]

So you say, but that is only true if Dan 7 is interpreted from the presuppositional lens you use. Despite what you think, it is not the only way. There is another way that doesn't interpret the covenant maker as being the anit-Christ. A very serious misinterpretation.

Dan 9:27

"He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week."
He is Christ, not the antichrist.

1/2 way through the 7 year treaty/covenant....Abraham accord (?) when adopted by the antichrist....he will break that treaty.
Why would Jesus break His covenant?

The strong covenant is the New Covenant established by Christ in
His death and resurrection.
With many refers to the elect, the believing remnant of Israel and the
Gentiles who come to faith.
"For half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering"
The middle of the 70th week correspond to Christ's crucifixion,
which made all OC sacrifices obsolete.
Ending of sacrifice is a theological even not a political or military
one (HEB 10:1-14).
"On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes
desolate"
Abominations and desolation refer to judgement, particularly the
destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 a.d. by the Romans.
An echo of Matt 24:15 ("the abomination of desolation spoken of by
the Prophet Daniel") fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem.
"Until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator"
The desolator (Rome, or any anti-Christian force) will not succeed
forever. Their end is determined by God. This is the already/ not yet
tension. The kingdom has been inaugurated by Christ but awaits final
judgement.

In a nt shell...

When the "math" is calculated (Daniel 9)...we understand from the time of the decree until Jesus is cut off there is one more week left.
That clock has been stopped and will restart when the antichrist covenent is confirmed.

 

[Arial]

Call it what you. want. The pre-trib rapture can be seen in the bible.

No it can't. It can only be inserted into the Bible.

At that time there was a false letter circulating that told them they were in the tribulation and the rapture had happened and they mssed it and the antichrist himself was here.....Paul was telling them, not yet.

Wow. Where is the shame in blatantly making things up and claiming they are in the Bible.

Now, are you going to answer the question of what the Thessalonians thought Paul was referring to when he spoke of the Temple? Ir is hard at this point, I know, to acknowledge what they would have considered Paul to mean. But give it a brave and courageous try.

 

[Arial]

1/2 way through the 7 year treaty/covenant....Abraham accord (?) when adopted by the antichrist....he will break that treaty.
Why would Jesus break His covenant?

An Amillennial view: Dan 9:24-26

"Seventy weeks" (literally seventy sevens=symbolic of a complete,
divinely appoints period that culminates in Christ's redemptive work.

The following purposes are allf fulfilled in Christ:
"Finish the transgression; the end of covenant-breaking through\
Christ's obedience.
"Put an end to sin"; His atoning death breaks the power of sin.
"Atone for iniquity"; a reference to Christ's atonement on the cross.
"Bring everlasting righteousness; Christ's righteousness imputed to
believers.
"Seal vision and prophet"; fulfillment of prophecy in Christ (Matt 5:17).
"Anoint a most holy place/one"; cold be referring to "holy one"who
would be Messiah as in Hebrew "Qodesh Qadashim" can refer to a holy
place, thing or person, depending on context.

"From the decree to rebuild"; likely refers to Artaxerxes decree (457 B.C.)
Seven weeks + sixty-two weeks=59 weeks; symbolic 483 years, leading
to Christ's first advent. The temple that is rebuilt by the retgurning
Babylonian captives is the historiical context into which He enters. The
annointed one is Jesus, not a future political ruler.

"Anointed one cut off" = crucifixion of Christ; He was cut off from the
land of the living (Isa.53:8).
"Shall have nothing"; He is forsaken, stripped of an earthly kingdom and
this is how He accomplishes atonement by paying the sin debt of being
in Adam and the sins of believers.
"People of the prince" = the Roman armies, not Antichrist) who destroy
Jerusalem and the temple in 70 a.d.
The prince may be Titus or Rome more broadly.
It is also referred to as the abomination of desolation by Jesus in Matt
24.

That brings us to verse 27 which was discussed in post #96. The prophecy is Christ centered, as is the whole Bible. It was fulfilled in His first coming not awaiting a future Antichrist or rebuilt temple.

 

[Arial]

When the "math" is calculated (Daniel 9)...we understand from the time of the decree until Jesus is cut off there is one more week left.
That clock has been stopped and will restart when the antichrist covenent is confirmed.

A stopped clock is imaginary in order to explain what dispensationalism, through its distorted view of the Bible and especially the purpose of Israel, by chopping redemptive interpretation into periods of time instead of one continuous covenant, can't explain; an imaginary seven year tribulation because it does not know how to interpret Scripture according to it genre; and a need to escape what it sees as God's judgement taking place over that seven years; so they find scriptures that speak of our going to meet Christ as he returns in final victory and using them for the escape hatch. In order to do all that, they must put the central actor in redemption and the Bible, as geo/political Israel and her importance and power, instead of Christ.

 

[CrowCross]

No it can't. It can only be inserted into the Bible.

2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

Wow. Where is the shame in blatantly making things up and claiming they are in the Bible.

Now, are you going to answer the question of what the Thessalonians thought Paul was referring to when he spoke of the Temple? Ir is hard at this point, I know, to acknowledge what they would have considered Paul to mean. But give it a brave and courageous try.

Already have.

NEXT

 

[CrowCross]

A stopped clock is imaginary in order to explain what dispensationalism, through its distorted view of the Bible and especially the purpose of Israel, by chopping redemptive interpretation into periods of time instead of one continuous covenant, can't explain; an imaginary seven year tribulation because it does not know how to interpret Scripture according to it genre; and a need to escape what it sees as God's judgement taking place over that seven years; so they find scriptures that speak of our going to meet Christ as he returns in final victory and using them for the escape hatch. In order to do all that, they must put the central actor in redemption and the Bible, as geo/political Israel and her importance and power, instead of Christ.

Daniel 9:24–27 reveals the purpose and time of the tribulation. This passage speaks of 70 weeks that have been declared against “your people.” Daniel’s people are the Jews, the nation of Israel, and Daniel 9:24 speaks of a period of time in which God’s purpose is “to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.” God declares that “seventy sevens” will fulfill all these things. The “sevens” are groups of years, so 70 sevens is 490 years. (Some translations refer to 70 “weeks” of years.)

In Daniel 9:25 and 26, the Messiah will be cut off after “seven sevens and sixty-two sevens” (69 total sevens), beginning with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. In other words, 69 sevens (483 years) after the decree to rebuild is issued, the Messiah will die. Biblical historians confirm that 483 years passed from the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the time when Jesus was crucified. Most Christian scholars, regardless of their view of eschatology, have the above understanding of Daniel’s 70 sevens.

God said that 70 weeks had been determined (490 years), but, with the death of the Messiah, we only have 69 weeks accounted for (483 years). This leaves one seven-year period to be fulfilled “to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy” (Daniel 9:24). This final seven-year period is what we call the tribulation—the time when God finishes judging Israel and brings them back to Himself. ref

 

[Tambora]

Joseph said....As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. Gen 50:20.

I don't believe I have gone against biblical integrity.

What the brothers of Joseph did was wicked whether God could bring good out of it or not.
Christians giving support for a temple building that will specifically promote the false worship of a false god is wicked whether God will bring good out of it or not.

We are told not to do wickedness for God to bring good from it.

Romans 3
(8) And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

 

[CrowCross]

What the brothers of Joseph did was wicked whether God could bring good out of it or not.

OK....But, God used it for good.

Christians giving support for a temple building that will specifically promote the false worship of a false god is wicked whether God will bring good out of it or not.

I don't think the general population of Christians even know what it's all about. Some are told to support Israel no matter what.

We are told not to do wickedness for God to bring good from it.

OK

Romans 3
(8) And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

 

[Arial]

2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

Already have.

NEXT

You get so angry.

That does not answer the question and no, you have done everything but answer the question. Here is the question again. When the Thessalonians who received Paul's letters, read/heard what he said about the Temple. what Temple would they think he was referring to?

A. A third Temple that was going to be built?
B. The Temple that was still standing?

Pick one, and you will have successfully given your direct answer to the question.

 

[CrowCross]

You get so angry.

That does not answer the question and no, you have done everything but answer the question. Here is the question again. When the Thessalonians who received Paul's letters, read/heard what he said about the Temple. what Temple would they think he was referring to?

A. A third Temple that was going to be built?
B. The Temple that was still standing?

Pick one, and you will have successfully given your direct answer to the question.

A.
Many commentaries agree with A. If that is the case which I believe it is, then Paul was referring to the rebuilt temple.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Is the Israel today really Gods plan and will?

It certainly is. Our God is sovereign over all of creation. However, it's likely not the will people think that it is ..

 

[XrzrX]

Joseph said....As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. Gen 50:20.

So, you admit we are the "you" here? Christians are literally paying money.. to the wicked. Paying for and supporting the weapons that are leveling our own churches. Supporting the "nation" that's doing it. You seriously don't see an issue there?

 

[Josheb]

There really isn't a whole lot to what you ave claimed In fact back in the day prior to Israel becomng a nation...Jews returning...preachers were asked, what's next...they said Israel has to become a nation again. They were laughed at much like you are laughing. Then it happened in 1948.

The modern geopolitical state of called "Israel" is NOT a restoration of covenant Israel. That someone - anyone - would think otherwise is just one more problem within DPism to be solved.

• Modern Israel is not a theocracy.
• Modern Israel is not a monarchy.
• Modern Israel does not follow the Mosaic Law.
• Modern Israel does not have all its divinely provided land.
• Modern Israel is not obedient to Tanakh.

There are many differences between covenant Israel and modern Israel. God did not promise to ship a bunch of (cultural) Jews back to that locale and call the place "Israel." There's no prophecy stating that. God promised to restore covenant Israel, the Israel with which He had/has a covenant. That prophecy has not been fulfilled. Teachers who teach modern Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy are false teachers and that is not a DP or RT matter. ANYONE can objectively measure modern Israel by the standards provided and scripture and objectively conclude modern Israel is not prophetically restored covenant Israel. It's not even close. Perhaps one day in the future modern Israel may become Israel restored but they are not that thing yet.

And the onus is on you, not me, to prove otherwise.

This is important because Christian doctrine was formed during the centuries when there was no Israel. This is one of the reasons why Christian theology nowhere thinks Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. That viewpoint changed in the 19th century - that means nineteen centuries after Jesus came and went - when a bunch of guys literally invented a new way of reading the Bible and a pile of new doctrines that are completely contradictory with and irreconcilable with two millennia of Christian thought, doctrine and practice. If DPism is correct, then nothing Christianity believed prior to DPism is correct. Christianity itself is a lie.

It's very clear you have not thought through the logical necessities of Dispensational Premillennialism.

John MacArthur just died a few days ago. Throughout most of his ministry he taught his belief Jesus would return sometime within his lifetime. As he got into the extremely elderly years, he refrained from making that comment. Every single teacher who teaches, "Jesus will return within my lifetime" (even if he teaches that as a personal belief) and then dies..... has instantly become a false teacher upon his death! David Jeremiah does the same thing. He sometimes preaches his belief Jesus will return within his lifetime, and he used to say that quite a lot when he was younger. The man is now 84 years old. If he lives to be 100 years old and then dies his teaching means Jesus will return within the next 16 years. That is the logically necessary conclusion of his teaching - every time he says, "I believe Jesus will return within my lifetime... the signs are all here," he is leading people astray. The falsity of his teaching is proven the day he dies if Jesus has not returned by then. Chuck Smith died, proving himself wrong about his belief Jesus would return by 1988. He had to adjust his predictions because God proved him wrong but he kep on teaching Jesus would return within his lifetime. And then he died. John Walvoord, president of DTS did the exact same thing.

Nowadays we have younger men (and women) that come on Christian radio every day and make these same kinds of statements. Gary Hamrick, David Sexton, Michael Youssef, Robert Jeffries, Greg Laurie, and many other Dispensational Premillennialists/modern futurists have said in their professional role as Christian teachers (Eph. 4:11) Jesus is coming back in their lifetime and there are millions of people who believe them. The veracity of their teaching is proven the day they die. Or, more accurately, the veracity of their teaching is disproven by their death.

Your life will prove thusly, too, if and when you die and none of the prognostications you've posted come true before then. Jesus could come back tomorrow if we didn't have to wait on the Jews in Israel getting all their land back, building a temple, reconstituting the Levitical priesthood and reinstituting animal sacrifices. Once those guys get all that dross working then Jesus' return is..... imminent. Jesus could come back in ten minutes but in all likelihood you, @CrowCross are going to die, drawing you last breath knowing nothing you posted on eschatology happened when you said it would happen.

In other words, YOU will prove my first point true!

There really isn't a whole lot to what you ave claimed

Well, your death will prove one of us correct and one of us wrong. You will either be one more in a long, long, long list of Dispensational Premillennialists whose predictions never came true, or I will.

Modern Israel began in 1948. Can you name one Dispensational Premillennialist and their prediction that came true after 1948? I will gladly amend my comment from 200 years to 77 years but that does not buy you any credibility if you cannot point to anyone since 1948 who has made an accurate prediction. You made a comment about the belief DPers are false teachers, saying it was based on @Arial's opinion. It's not her opinion. It's a fact DP teachers constantly make prognostication that never happen.

 

[Josheb]

So you claim but have not demonstrated.

That's just hogwash. A half dozen threads contain the demonstrations. The fact is in this very thread. You were asked many posts ago to provide some scripture mentioning another temple will be built in our future and that question is still sitting in this thread, asked multiple time, still unanswered. Multiple posters have commented on the avoidant silence. No one believes you're going to be able to provide a verse explicitly stating a third temple will be built in our future because there is no such verse! No one believes you're going to post any verse because to do so would make obvious the inferential way you read scripture as a function of your Dispensational Premillennial education (and the accompaning refusal to consider any alternative. YOU proved me correct already!

Presuppositionally speaking, Dispensational Premillennialism teaches,

1. God has two peoples,
2. Each people group has a completely different purpose in God's will,
3. Each people group has a completely different destiny in God's will,
4. The Bible can and should be broken down into dispensations,
5. A dispensation is a means by which God relates to His people within a given period of time,
6. Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel.

These are just a few of the presuppositions at the foundation of Dispensational Premillennialism. This is what DPism teaches and because this is what DPism teaches this is the mindset with which DPists read scripture, this is the filter through which every single mention of a "temple" is understood. So if you are going to claim I have NEVER demonstrated the presuppositional foundation of DPism that is just hogwash.

And if you like, I will gladly quote, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, and many other leading Dispensational Premillennialist teaching those 6 beliefs.


So maybe you ought to retract what you just posted.

 

[Josheb]

Once again.....So you claim but have not demonstrated.

More hogwash.

The hermeneutic Dispensationalism teaches is....

1. Scripture must be read literally.
2. The New Testament does not reinterpret the Old Testament.
3. There are two peoples of God.
4. The Church and Israel are not identical.
5. The promises God made to Israel are unconditional and must be fulfilled by national Israel (not the Church).

That part about history being the outworking of God's purpose is something evry Christian believes so it's not unique to DPism. Those five points are not what Christianity taught for its first two millennia. Those five points are the invention of John Darby and the early Dispensational Premillennialists coming out of the 1800s. That is a fact of history. I just demonstrated my claim...... and I did it using noted Dispensational Premillennialist teachers in their own words. Everyone here has been linked to the proof - proof, not just evidence.



So maybe you should retract what you just posted.

 

[Josheb]

A literal approach should be taken unless the scripture presents it as "symbolic"

That is completely correct.


Therefore,

When Revelation 7:14 explicitly states the people wearing white have come through the great tribulation you should take that verse literally (or prove it is symbolic in a pre-tribulation rapturous way, and you do not do either. Since a literal approach should be taken unless the scripture presents it as symbolic you should be posting some scripture literally stating a third temple will be built in our future because otherwise you're not practicing what you preach.......


.....and that means what @Arial and I have said about false teachers is correct.


I asked you where scripture mentions another temple will be built in our future many, many posts ago and I am still waiting for an answer and that answer had better be something scripture literally mentions, not something you interpret to fit your eschatology. Otherwise, you're not practicing what you're preaching.

Did Jesus literally walk on water and literally rise from the dead?

No, don't change the subject. The question is does scripture literally state another temple will be built in our future?

I'll wait while you look for that verse and post it.

Could the events in Rev 8 be literally caused by the April 13th 2029 (Apophis) future event?

Maybe, but if not then you have become a false prognosticator and do not yet know it. Either the passing of April 13th, 2029, or your death will prove the matter. If the latter, then you'll stand before God asked to give an account for that false teaching.

Good thing you're covered by the blood of Christ .

 

[Josheb]

As for inferance...the trinity is mentioned in the bible but can easily be inferred.
The bible never has Jesus saying "I am God"...but the bible strongly with out doubt infers this.

Aside from the fact that is a false equivalence, and Christians should really learn not to make that fallacious argument when presented with scripture's silence, I can make the case for the Trinity doctrine but you cannot provide me with a single vrse "mentioning," another temple will be built in our future. You were asked many posts ago to do so and nothing has been provided. You've now gone on record stating scripture should be read literally unless scripture presents it symbolically.

That means the onus is on you to provide a literal verse literally reporting another literal temple will be literally built literally in our future.


I will wait while you search your Bible for that verse and post it.

 

[Josheb]

That can be true in certain cases...for both camps.

Perhaps but the subject of this op is the temple and you've gone on record in this thread claiming scripture mentions another temple will be built in our future, but it is YOU wo has not demonstrated that to be true. Tu quoque is a fallacious response. It is never rational to say, "Well others do it, too." You've just implicitly acknowledge the problem occurs in Dispensational Premillennialism.

Dispensational Premillennialists should stop doing it.

Your conclusions and conditions are nothng more than sheer speculation. This has been demonstrated to you to the point of ad-nauseam.

The posts prove otherwise but if you like I will gladly quote piles of leading Dispensational Premillennialists in their own words to prove every word I have posted. You seem to have forgotten I was Dispensationally premillennial for twenty years. I know DPism backwards and forwards. I've read all the leading Dispensational Premillennialists from Darby forward and most of the precursors, too. You like to post Ice. There's nothing you ever posted by Ice I haven't already read. I will hapily use Ice to prove what I have posted.



Just as soon as you show me where scripture mentions another temple will be built in our future.



.

 

[Arial]

A.
Many commentaries agree with A. If that is the case which I believe it is, then Paul was referring to the rebuilt temple.

Since there are many, give me two examples. Even one. The person and the quote. Are any of them presented from other than a dispensational premillinialist view? They will all say pretty much the same thing, because that is what they believe.

So how about using the Bible instead of biased interpretations from any side.

Why would the Thessalonians think Paul was referring to a third temple, and a rapture, and a seven year tribulation, when nothing had been said about such a thing? Those familiar with the OT would know about Solomon's temple and they would know about the one that was still standing in Jerusalem. The one built by the returning exiles from Babylon. They didn't have Darby's speculations to read into it. They didn't have MacArthur or LaHaye or Hal Lindsey. It is pure right fighting, and hole digging, to say they would have thought he was talking about a third temple. They did not even know of the destruction of the temple that was to come, unless some of them had heard Jesus warn about it (Matt 24) and so did flee Jerusalem.. And if any of them were, they no doubt would have connected those two dots---what Jesus said and what Paul was saying. If they knew about it, for sure they would have thought he was speaking of the same thing Jesus was speaking of and THAT temple, and what did occur in 70 a.d.

So you told me that many commentaries agree with A. And you tell me what you believe that Paul was referring to a rebuilt temple. But you fall short of telling me the Thessalonians would have thought he was speaking of a third temple. So, do you think that is what THEY would have thought Paul was talking about; a third temple to be rebuild the one that was still standing at that time? And would THEY have understood him to be speaking of a pre-trib rapture before a seven year tribulation in that entire set of passages?