Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[Josheb]

Yes, and you still get it wrong. there currently is no temple and that verse is future....

Are you denying there are Christians in Jerusalem?

You do know what that means?

It means you do not have a clue what you're talking about, and you know it and that's why I can't direct and immediate answers to questions when they are asked.

 

[EarlyActs]

What land is God's land and what people are his people?

...and how can people be Christians but not live in geographic Israel, in that case?

 

[CrowCross]

Non answers don't count as answers.

You should, especially in this instance. We can look back (20/20 hindsight) and see the temple destroyed...and know as a fact there is no temple now.
We know the anti-christ declares himself to be God in a temple....that means a temple will be built in the future.

Now, if you were to continue reading the verse you would see that the restrainer hasn't been removed which means the antichrist hasn't entered into the temple yet and declared himself to be God In fact the antichrist can't enter into the temple into it is rebuilt. Then again you already knew that.

 

[CrowCross]

We might be able to go along with that if Paul had explicitly stated that he was not talking about he temple that was standing. And that that one would be destroyed. If he had said that he was talking about a third temple that would be built and that is the one that would be desecrated by the man of lawlessness, at which time, the believers who were alive when that happened would be raptured out of the earth while God dealt with Israel and after seven years of the greatest tribulation ever, as all the living faced his wrath in judgement (but many still lived through it) Jesus himself would reign in that third temple.

But, he never so much as intimated any of that so----- now what?

Why would Paul have to speak specifically about the third temple? Paul mentioned a temple. Jesus hasn't returned yet...and the temple was destroyed. Perhaps you believe Jesus has returned. I don't.
There is also the restrainer which has to be removed first....and that hasn't happened yet.

But, as we all know there is no temple now. That logically means if the antichrist is going to enter into a temple it has to be rebuilt. Especially when you understand the antichrist didn't enter into the 2nd temple before it was destroyed.

It's a simple concept.

 

[CrowCross]

Still not an answer to the question asked.



Let's try this a more direct way. You cited 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Here is what that verse states:

...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.

That is the NAS rendering. The Greek transliteration reads as follows,

the one opposing and exalting himself above every so-called god or object of worship--so as for him to sit down in the temple of God, setting forth he himself that is God.

Please point out to me, @Arial, and everyone else participating in this thread where the word "built" is found because it's not anywhere in that verse that I can see. There's no "mention" of anything being built. There's no mention of another temple being built. I looked at more than three dozen translations of that verse and the word "built" does not exist in any of them.

After you get done showing @Arial and me where the word "built" is in that sentence, then please show me where the word "future" is found because, again, I do not see it anywhere in that verse at all.



Or save us all some time and be forthcoming enough to say, "Those two words do not occur in that verse, they are things I infer. I read those things into the verse." Put it in your own words, if you like but please do not post another post that does not answer the question asked.

The word "rebuilt" don't need to be in the verse.
When you realize that the antichrist didn't enter into the 2nd temple...the one standing at that time...and it was destroyed...and if the antichrist is to enter into the temple a temple has to be built.

It's not science.

Oh, there is also the removal of the restrainer tht hasn't happened yet....nor did Jesus return in 70 AD.

Perhaps you would like to show all of us that the restrainer has been removed, the antichrist did declare himself to be God in the temple and Jesus returned...in 70 AD.

 

[CrowCross]

Are you denying there are Christians in Jerusalem?

No???? Why would Ido that???

It means you do not have a clue what you're talking about, and you know it and that's why I can't direct and immediate answers to questions when they are asked.

Your questions have been answered numerous times. You simply can't connect the dots and cling to your orthodox amillenial views.

 

[Arial]

Why would Paul have to speak specifically about the third temple? Paul mentioned a temple. Jesus hasn't returned yet...and the temple was destroyed.

You are ignoring the basics of hermeneutics in order to arrive at your conclusions which were presupposed, and the interpretation you give, fed to you. Unfortunately that makes it next to impossible to see it any other way. And I speak from experience. I too was fed the same information even before I became a Christian, by Christians, and by books I was given to read. New Christians tend to believe that they would not be told something that wasn't true by those who have been Christians far longer than them. Especially when scriptures, isolated though they may be from the whole counsel of God, are used. They do not yet have the tools to discern these things. You do have the tools by now. Use them.

Having been at one time involved in journalism, I describe these basic hermeneutics as:
Who
What
Where
When
Why

The five W's of reporting. They are an accurate description when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

I will leave it at that since we have been over the content of your post---and that includes the entire thread and all posters, plus a half a dozen other threads, ad nauseam.

ad nauseam /ăd nô′zē-əm/

adverb​

1. To a disgusting or ridiculous degree; to the point of nausea.
2. To a nauseating or sickening degree.
3. To a sickening extent

 

[Arial]

You should, especially in this instance. We can look back (20/20 hindsight) and see the temple destroyed...and know as a fact there is no temple now.
We know the anti-christ declares himself to be God in a temple....that means a temple will be built in the future.

Now, if you were to continue reading the verse you would see that the restrainer hasn't been removed which means the antichrist hasn't entered into the temple yet and declared himself to be God In fact the antichrist can't enter into the temple into it is rebuilt. Then again you already knew that.

That does not change the fact that it is a letter, written to specific people, for a specific reason, during a specific period of time, and was intended to make perfect since to them and accomplish the intent with which it was written to them.

It should accomplish the same purpose to readers of all generations. Not a new one that would have been nonsensical to them but make perfect sense in 2025. And it would not serve one purpose when it was written and in 2025 serve an entirely different purpose of being a sign of an imminent rapture from the earth of believers, a seven year period of judgement, followed by another 1000 years of more of the same unredeemed earth full of both redeemed and unredeemed people.

So there is that.

 

[CrowCross]

You are ignoring the basics of hermeneutics in order to arrive at your conclusions which were presupposed, and the interpretation you give, fed to you.

Edit

What you have done is failed to apply your own rules.
As we know there was no restrainer removed at that time. As we know There was no "gathering" as seen in the previous verses. As we now there was no return of Jesus. As we know there was no antichrist in the temple claiming to be God.....AND...there was no departure via the rapture of the church.

Hermenuitic conclusion....this event is future.

 

[CrowCross]

That does not change the fact that it is a letter, written to specific people, for a specific reason, during a specific period of time, and was intended to make perfect since to them and accomplish the intent with which it was written to them.

Yup, that portion of the letter was about a fake letter going around. All the commentaries talk about it.
It was about Paul saying..were not in the tribulation as the "following" hadn't happen yet....

It should accomplish the same purpose to readers of all generations. Not a new one that would have been nonsensical to them but make perfect sense in 2025.

It made sense....the tribulation didn't begin yet. That's part of what Paul was telling them.

And it would not serve one purpose when it was written and in 2025 serve an entirely different purpose of being a sign of an imminent rapture from the earth of believers, a seven year period of judgement, followed by another 1000 years of more of the same unredeemed earth full of both redeemed and unredeemed people.

Edit for violation of rules 2.1 and 2.2. Warning issued.

So there is that.

 

[Arial]

Yup, that portion of the letter was about a fake letter going around. All the commentaries talk about it.
It was about Paul saying..were not in the tribulation as the "following" hadn't happen yet....

I don't see any mention of a rapture in those passages no matter what ALL the commentaries talk about. That should be your first red flag.

It made sense....the tribulation didn't begin yet. That's part of what Paul was telling them.

I don't see any mention of THE TRIBULATION in those passages. Another red flag. Are you using your interpretation of what Revelation is to you, to interpret this passage? Revelation wasn't even written yet so those receiving this letter did not have it and couldn't do what you are doing. Therefore, they could not glean from Paul's words what you do. So there would have been no point in Paul saying it. There is a great need for us to stop looking for ourselves and our day in everything we read in the Bible, and actually pay attention to the message being given.

 

[CrowCross]

I don't see any mention of a rapture in those passages no matter what ALL the commentaries talk about. That should be your first red flag.

So, what you do is employ tour own personal commentary?

Why do a lot of biblical scholars and theologians see a rapture in those verses?

I don't see any mention of THE TRIBULATION in those passages.

You don't connect the dots...Just like the Jews back in Jesus time and also today haven't connected the dots concerning Jesus and Isaiah 53.

Another red flag. Are you using your interpretation of what Revelation is to you, to interpret this passage?

Comparing the bible to the bible would be proper hermeneutics.

Revelation wasn't even written yet so those receiving this letter did not have it and couldn't do what you are doing. Therefore, they could not glean from Paul's words what you do.

Perhaps they walked away with a bunch of question marks????

But today we have an advantage...we have Revelations.

So there would have been no point in Paul saying it. There is a great need for us to stop looking for ourselves and our day in everything we read in the Bible, and actually pay attention to the message being given.

No point???? Paul was explaining away the false letter.

 

[Arial]

@CrowCross

This is to hopefully clarify a point of hermeneutics, which you seem to think is a place to personally insult me without dealing with the text; and bring the thread to a place it should have gone from the beginning, but never has. Something other than a repetition of unproven, and unexamined declaration of presumptive opinion stated as irrefutable fact. As though hermeneutics has nothing to do with finding the correct meaning of a passage.

I likened it to the five w's of journalism that are designed to correctly and thoroughly report events.
1. Who: identifies the people or groups involved.
2. What: describes the event or action that took place.
3. Where: Location
4. When: the time or date
5. Why: Reason, causes, or motivations.

There are minor adjustments in direction in Bible hermeneutics because it is not always reporting an actual event, though sometimes it is. But the principle does not change. All of the above must be identified so that other passages are not misapplied to the one being interpreted, among other things.

So lets take the principle directly into 2 Thess 2. The full chapter.

1. Who: Author Paul. Recipients: The church in Thessalonica, a mostly Gentile congregation. Key figures: The man of lawlessness; the one who restrains; Satan; those who are perishing and do not love truth; Christ.

2. What: Paul is correcting false teachings or rumors that the Day of the Lord had already come.
He explains certain events must precede Christ's return, including
A great rebellion
The revealing of the man of lawlessness, who will exalt himself as
God.
A restraining force/person that is currently holding him back.
Insight into God's judgement on those who reject truth.
What kind of text: Epistle (didactic/letter) so it is theological
instruction, not allegory or prophecy per se.

3. Where:
Geographically likely from Corinth, to believers in Thessalonica.
Theologically: After Christ's resurrection and ascension, but before
his second coming.

4. When:
Written around 51-52 a.d.---one of Paul's earliest letters.
In redemptive history:
During the early growth of the Church
Under Roman occupation.
Awaiting his second advent.

Why:
Written to comfort and correct believers who were confused or
fearful about the timing of Christ's return.
To clarify that certiain things must happen first, so they should not be
shaken or deceived.
To warn against lawlessness and rebellion.
To reassure the faithful that they are not destined for wrath.

So what you have done is inserted what you believe Paul is talking about (a pre-trib rapture, 7 year tribulation, a rebuilt temple) when none of those things are mentioned. And that reasoning comes in part by the assertion it must mean that because there is no temple in 2025 and hasn't been since 70 a.d. But on its face, that illogical reasoning, used as it is, to arrive at a doctrinal/theological teaching that a third temple will be built. What Paul gave as signs for the Thessalonians assurance that Christ had not returned, you have turned into a sign that the time is near, and that is based not on biblical information, but worldly information. What you are looking for is a rapture out of tribulation, when that letter clearly indicates that Christians will be on the earth when those things happen---"when you see"---and possibly, if Paul is referring to the temple then standing, some of them would see those things happen, but that does not mean that was the day of the Lord's return. The message was, it had not happened yet. That, and that alone, is what they were concerned about. (And please, I have told you any number of times that I do not believe he has already returned, even if Paul was referring to the temple that was standing when he wrote that letter. So please don't imply or suggest that I do, ever again.)

But also, you cannot give a place anywhere in Scripture that says a third temple will be built, and ignore specific references to Christ being the Temple, and his Church being a temple (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Rev 21:22). In doing so, you leave out all possible and legit interpretations of Thess 2:2.

 

[Arial]

So, what you do is employ tour own personal commentary?

Commentary is made by persons, therefore is personal. I said I did not see any mention of a rapture in those passages. Deal with that instead of saying something inane like you did.

Why do a lot of biblical scholars and theologians see a rapture in those verses?

Why do a lot of "intelligent" people think everything in existence came from some big bang? Just pointing out the nonsense of your support system.

A lot of theologians just agree with what they have been taught; what appeals to them the most; don't do the hard work of making sure it actually tracks with the biblical consistency; for profit'; herd mentality. You name it.

You don't connect the dots...Just like the Jews back in Jesus time and also today haven't connected the dots concerning Jesus and Isaiah 53.

It is not about connecting the dots. The dots first have to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be the right dots. Otherwise it is just the blind leading the blind. Following in the footsteps of blind belief or an obsessive fascination observing what is happening in the world in order to draw a line between those dots to the presuppositional dots in apocalyptic literature that has been interpreted as a historical narrative of the future.

Not going to bite on the diversion to the Jews and Is 53.

Comparing the bible to the bible would be proper hermeneutics.

Interpreting Scripture by scripure is the correct hermeneutic. Not comparing Bible to Bible. You are letting your interpretation of one scripture, interpret another scripture.

Perhaps they walked away with a bunch of question marks????

Then it was written TO us? Rather than to the people Paul wrote it to? Hmmmm.

No point???? Paul was explaining away the false letter.

You don't even actually KNOW if was a false letter. Could have just been a rumor. No such letter has been found. Paul simply stated if any word comes to you by any means and claims to be from Paul, and yet says that Christ has already come---it is not from Paul. And I did not say that there was no point in Paul writing that letter. I said if what you say is true, there would have been no point. Which you kind of prove is how you consider the Thessalonians to not be of any relevance in the letter, beyond "Christ had not come yet", but only US--those who also have access to Revelation.

 

[Josheb]

The word "rebuilt" don't need to be in the verse.

I did not say "rebuilt." I said, "built." You said "built." You said scripture mentions another temple will be built.

When you realize.................

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not taking the bait. That's just you trying to avoid answering the question asked.

Where does the verse mention the word "built"?

No???? Why would Ido that???

I do not have a clue why you would do that but if the existence of Christians in Jerusalem is denied then so, too, is the temple in Jerusalem. The temple of God that God built is ginormous and it covers the world, not just Jerusalem.! Is there a temple still standing? Yes! Is there a temple still standing in Jerusalem? Yes!

Oh, but Josh, that is not the temple to which 2 Thes. 2:4 is referring? Well, how do you know? Your exegetical skills have proven severely lacking and the report is there's no interest in learning anything that isn't modern futurism.

Your questions have been answered numerous times.

The posts prove otherwise. Neither Rev. 12:4 nor 2 Thes. 2:4 mention any temple being built , much less any temple being built in our future. The word "built" is nowhere to be found in that verse. Neither is there any mention of the 21st century. When asked where the word "built" occurs the response is an attempt to change the question, denial of its relevance, and no answer! The correct answer to the question asked is, "The word 'built' does not occur in the verse," and then, after a correct answer has been established, we discuss what that means.

But it proves nearly impossible to have a give and take with you because every question has to be asked multiple time before an answer is provided.

You simply can't connect the dots and cling to your orthodox amillenial views.

It also proves impossible to have a give and take without off topic, unsupported, irrelevant personal comments.


Please point out to me, @Arial, and everyone else participating in this thread where the word "built" is found because it's not anywhere in that verse that I can see. There's no "mention" of anything being built. There's no mention of another temple being built. I looked at more than three dozen translations of that verse and the word "built" does not exist in any of them.

Just show me where the word "built" occurs in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

 

[CrowCross]

I did not say "rebuilt." I said, "built." You said "built." You said scripture mentions another temple will be built.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not taking the bait. That's just you trying to avoid answering the question asked.

Where does the verse mention the word "built"?

I do not have a clue why you would do that but if the existence of Christians in Jerusalem is denied then so, too, is the temple in Jerusalem. The temple of God that God built is ginormous and it covers the world, not just Jerusalem.! Is there a temple still standing? Yes! Is there a temple still standing in Jerusalem? Yes!

Oh, but Josh, that is not the temple to which 2 Thes. 2:4 is referring? Well, how do you know? Your exegetical skills have proven severely lacking and the report is there's no interest in learning anything that isn't modern futurism.

The posts prove otherwise. Neither Rev. 12:4 nor 2 Thes. 2:4 mention any temple being built , much less any temple being built in our future. The word "built" is nowhere to be found in that verse. Neither is there any mention of the 21st century. When asked where the word "built" occurs the response is an attempt to change the question, denial of its relevance, and no answer! The correct answer to the question asked is, "The word 'built' does not occur in the verse," and then, after a correct answer has been established, we discuss what that means.

But it proves nearly impossible to have a give and take with you because every question has to be asked multiple time before an answer is provided.

It also proves impossible to have a give and take without off topic, unsupported, irrelevant personal comments.


Please point out to me, @Arial, and everyone else participating in this thread where the word "built" is found because it's not anywhere in that verse that I can see. There's no "mention" of anything being built. There's no mention of another temple being built. I looked at more than three dozen translations of that verse and the word "built" does not exist in any of them.

Just show me where the word "built" occurs in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Let me ask you again for the umpth time.....is the temple currently there?

 

[Josheb]

Let me ask you again for the umpth time.....is the temple currently there?

Already answered. Yes, the temple is currently standing there. It stands everywhere there are Christians. God never wanted a temple made of stone, especially not one of hewn stones. The entire thing (both of them) was an abomination, a disobedient work of flesh. God built the temple God wanted to build. That temple still stands. Modern futurists assume all prophetic mentions of "temple" must refer to another temple of stone but that is solely a function of their futurism and not something scripture actually ever states. Futurists Judaize the prophetic mentions of "temple" when all such mentions should be read in the overarching contexts of the simple fact God does not dwell in house made by human hands, God was not the one who initiated the building of the stone temple, the stone temple was a work of sinful flesh, Jesus did explicitly state the existing temple would be torn down but never explicitly stated another would be built.

I just answered your question. You may not agree with my answer but I, at least, can point to scripture explicitly stating the body of Christ is God's temple. You cannot do that with the claim another temple will be built in our future. I've answered your question. You have not answered mine. You haven't answered any of my questions. You've tried but failed. 2 Thes. 2:4 does not say another temple will be built. The word "built" is nowhere to be found. I completely understand you read scripture mean another temple will be built in our future but I did not asl for your inferences. I asked for the verse(s) that mentions another temple will be built in our future and you have failed to provide that verse.

And you've failed to acknowledge there is no such verse.

I would gladly move on once a correct answer is provided but that can't happen because you won't answer the question asked.

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


.

 

[CrowCross]

Already answered. Yes, the temple is currently standing there. It stands everywhere there are Christians.

That isn't the temple being talked about...Then again maybe you have the antichrist in your body temple declaring himself to be God.

God never wanted a temple made of stone, especially not one of hewn stones. The entire thing (both of them) was an abomination, a disobedient work of flesh. God built the temple God wanted to build. That temple still stands. Modern futurists assume all prophetic mentions of "temple" must refer to another temple of stone but that is solely a function of their futurism and not something scripture actually ever states. Futurists Judaize the prophetic mentions of "temple" when all such mentions should be read in the overarching contexts of the simple fact God does not dwell in house made by human hands, God was not the one who initiated the building of the stone temple, the stone temple was a work of sinful flesh, Jesus did explicitly state the existing temple would be torn down but never explicitly stated another would be built.

Nobody said God would dwell in the 3rd temple.

i know i never made the claim....but you seem to be saying I did.

I just answered your question. You may not agree with my answer but I, at least, can point to scripture explicitly stating the body of Christ is God's temple.

So can I. But as we know 2 Thes 4 isn't talking about the human body temple.

You cannot do that with the claim another temple will be built in our future. I've answered your question. You have not answered mine.

I haven't answered you? Why are you now bearing false witness against me?

You haven't answered any of my questions. You've tried but failed. 2 Thes. 2:4 does not say another temple will be built. The word "built" is nowhere to be found. I completely understand you read scripture mean another temple will be built in our future but I did not asl for your inferences. I asked for the verse(s) that mentions another temple will be built in our future and you have failed to provide that verse.

The verse doesn't need to say a temple will be build. Considering the verse is future...as demonstrated numerous times...then a temple has to be built. Connect the dots.

And you've failed to acknowledge there is no such verse.

I would gladly move on once a correct answer is provided but that can't happen because you won't answer the question asked.

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


.

I don't need to have the word "built" in that verse.
As I have said...the temple currently isn't there....that means if the antichrist is going to go into the temple one MUST be built.