Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[CrowCross]

Dispensational Premillennialism is not what is written in scripture. It is an interpretation of scripture, not scripture. It is a very unique and very different interpretation of scripture and a very unique and different interpretation that proves difficult to discuss because its adherents will not discuss it honestly. Outsiders making the attempt must endure constant changes of topic, frequent digressions, derogatory personal commentary, and false equivalencies in which a theology is call scripture.

For now, all I am asking is that you discuss the exegetical and logically necessities of correctly perceiving a third temple would not be recognized by God. Can you do that?

I believe I already have....because you disagree doesn't make it as you say.

I have already shown your amount of animals needed to be sacrificed as fallacy and not a daily requirement for the Jews. It's to the point it's not really worth discussing that with you anymore.

All reading of the scriptures fall under the category of "interpretation". Some black and white and some gray. Chuckle...guys like you tend to think your misguided interpretation is the only and correct interpretation.

You to date have not shown what is mentioned in the bible about the temple, antichrist etc has been fulfilled nor has history shown your belief to be historical. All you have done is nay-say about the 3rd temple. Perhaps you don't believe it has been fulfilled and in that case never presented your view what the temple is about.

You failed to recognize post 5 in another thread of the same topic and what @Rella had to say about what is currently happening.

You asked for explicit wording that spoke directly of a temple being built in the future....as if that's the standard...yet pointed out to you that you can't find scripture that explicitly points out the trinity. As with the trinity the dots concerning the third temple are easily connected and you have been shown this numerous times...always demeaning the pre-tribulation theological argument as if you have refuted the truth of their scriptural view.

 

[Josheb]

I believe I already have....because you disagree doesn't make it as you say.

I have already shown your amount of animals needed to be sacrificed as fallacy and not a daily requirement for the Jews. It's to the point it's not really worth discussing that with you anymore.

I disagree but even if the numbers are low you did not address the correlation to the unrecognized temple.

All reading of the scriptures fall under the category of "interpretation".

Nope. Completely incorrect.

A verse that states, "Jesus wept," means exactly what it states. There is no need, nor any warrant for adding any interpretation.

Chuckle...guys like you....

Another attempt to make this personal that is fruitless and digressionary.


You believe God will not recognize a third temple. I agree. There are certain exegetical and logical necessities that follow that statement. Is that understood? Regardless of what those necessities may (or may not) be, do you acknowledge that viewpoint does not exist in a void without relevance to anything else in scripture?

 

[Josheb]

You to date have not shown what is mentioned in the bible about the temple, antichrist etc

Because....

1. I have yet to receive actual answers to the questions that underlie the premise of a third temple and
2. This op is not about the antichrist, the man of lawlessness or any other matter.

This op is about the temple, and the post easily demonstrate how difficult it is for futurists to stay on topic and not obfuscate the discussion with digressions like the antichrist and the mol. It took you multiple posts to finally acknowledge there isn't a single verse in the Bible that actually, specifically, explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. When 2 Thessalonians is broached by the futurist that proves to be a decoy because the text doesn't state another temple will be built and the discussion invariably turns into a debate about the MoL, not a third temple. I am not going to go oof topic. Because I am not going to go off topic all the complaints and accusations about not discussing the antichrist, the MoL, the color of Ms. McGonigal's hair last Thursday are a waste of time that demonstrates the failure of the futurist to stay on topic. What I have not said about other matters is no evidence regarding the temple at all.

You said you did not think God would recognize the third temple.

• Why build one if it's not going to be recognized?
• Why would God want one built if He's not going to recognize it?
• Why would God prophecy something he won't recognize will be instrumental in His bringing the Jews to salvation?

These (and others) are very relevant to the agreed upon belief God won't recognize the temple. Don't simply tell me the Jews are going to build the temple in disobedience because when it comes to eschatological prophecies those are all fulfilments of covenant promises. They are not like the Messianic prophecies describing the disobedience of Messiah-rejecters. Those sets of prophecies are not in the same category. You understand this, yes? Dispensationalism teaches God has two different peoples; one is the Jews of Israel, and the other is the Christians of the Church. Dispensationalism teaches God will bring the Jews of Israel to salvific faith in Christ through a set of future events, one of which is the building of another temple and Dispensationalism teaches that temple will be built sometime in our future. This is the teaching of Dispensationalism, not my opinion.

You believe a third temple will not be recognized by God and I agree!!! We may agree for different reasons, but we both believe the temple will not be recognized by God.

So why would God want the Jews to build an unrecognized third temple as an instrument of salvation? Do you not see the conflict inherent in that belief? Imagine, for example, a Messiah God did not recognize. The Jews raise up a messiah that God does not recognize but God is, nonetheless, going to use that unrecognized messiah to bring those propagating that messiah to salve them.

Underlying the premise of another temple is the presupposition God wants another temple built. No rebellion ever occurs without God allowing it. That's not the same thing as God dictating or directly causing the rebellion. I'm not conflating want and cause. Every rebellion God allows He uses for His purposes but not every rebellion is a rebellion He wants for a specific purpose of His. Dispensationalism implicitly teaches God wants an unrecognized temple built and built for salvific intent.

Why would God want something He's not going to recognize? The short answer might be, "Because He intends to use it to bring the Jews to salvation in Christ," but that answer leads to other problems more detrimental than the ne it hopes to solve. It has God wanting disobedience as the means of salvation.

Therefore, this idea God will not recognize the future temple is a belief that warrants discussion and that conversation is not happening.

 

[Arial]

Considering there currently isn't a temple....and considering scripture speaks of a temple in the future...I would say YES to your question. "Does Scripture say one will be built?"

Strange though, isn't it, that in all the pages of the NT including Matt 24, the building of a third temple is never mentioned. Wouldn't that be very, very, important a thing to mention? And considering that Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it u in three days?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21).

And considering 1 Cor 3:16-17; 1 Pet 2:5; Eph 2:20-22 there are other options much more likely than a physical stone temple in interpreting the passage you refer to. Is it possible for you to acknowledge that it is an option?

I agree, no Jew will be saved by sacrificing animals. Then again that won't last long as the anti-christ ends it when he sets up shop in the temple calling himself God.

That is not the teaching of premil/dis. So again I ask, if you have hodge-podged together your own private premil/dis view, you need to define it and do so succinctly. Otherwise it makes for a non-conversation. Also, I think you have said the above without even bothering to check if it fits with any scripture even one misinterpreted. It does not timeline track even with your own view that you have put forth---or so it seems to me.

As to the rest of your paragraph???? Quite strange and sound somewhat ad-hoc.

It isn't ad hoc because it is not introducing it in order to rescue anything I have said from refutation or criticism. The ad hoc is actually on your side by calling my post ad hoc. You introduced that because you do not want to address the teaching of dis/amil concerning the temple and the animal sacrifices. Just like you would not deal with it the first two times I asked you to. It is you who is saying the Jews are going to build the third temple and institute the sacrifices. And now you have said it is the anti-Christ who is going to bring them to a stop. You who claims God is not going to accept it. And you who claims to be dis/amil. What I posted that you won't deal with is the dis/amil view.

I've stated it numerous times...We are currently in the Matt 24 birth pangs. I don't know how long that will last or how deep into it we will go.
Then the 1 Thes 4:16 resurrection/rapture event happens. The antichrist is revealed. Some sort of peace treaty signed which opens the way to build a temple.
Eventually (as much happens such as Rev 8) those that remain on earth and survive till Rev 13 will see the completion of the beast system that is being built right now at this moment. (assuming the time line of Rev is linear.) At the end of the 7 years Jesus returns to earth on the depicted white horse. The physical seconds coming. Would you like more explanation or will you continue with your fallacy?

What is my fallacy?

Where does the Bible say he will have two second comings? I know what you are interpreting as the first partial coming. I am not asking for something you interpret as a partial second coming. I am asking where the Bible actually says there will be a partial second coming and another full second coming?

When doe this 1000 year reign of Christ start? What happens during those thousand years? Is the proposed third temple standing during that time?

 

[CrowCross]

I disagree but even if the numbers are low you did not address the correlation to the unrecognized temple.

Nope. Completely incorrect.

A verse that states, "Jesus wept," means exactly what it states. There is no need, nor any warrant for adding any interpretation.

What I said was...and I quote...."All reading of the scriptures fall under the category of "interpretation". Some black and white and some gray. " It seems as if you intended to be deceptive.

Another attempt to make this personal that is fruitless and digressionary.


You believe God will not recognize a third temple. I agree. There are certain exegetical and logical necessities that follow that statement. Is that understood? Regardless of what those necessities may (or may not) be, do you acknowledge that viewpoint does not exist in a void without relevance to anything else in scripture?

You have a rather strange approach to things. In the bible we read of people "resurrecting" when Jesus died. One sentance then silence.

Scripture mentions a temple in the future that the ant-christ identifies himself as God in...in Revelations we see a measurement of a future temple.
Just as we accept the resurrection of people from the tomb we can also understand there will be a 3rd temple as the bible mentions it.

 

[CrowCross]

So why would God want the Jews to build an unrecognized third temple as an instrument of salvation?

I thought this and both came to the same conclusion that the temple would not be a means of salvation.
Mod Edit: Violation of rules 2.1 and 2.2

 

[CrowCross]

Where does the Bible say he will have two second comings? I know what you are interpreting as the first partial coming. I am not asking for something you interpret as a partial second coming. I am asking where the Bible actually says there will be a partial second coming and another full second coming?

Mod Edit: Content deleted for disrespect and off topic rules violation

How does Acts 1 say Jesus will return? My bible speaks of the same way in which Jesus left and we see something very similiar to the way Jesus left in 1 Thes 4.

When Jesus returns physically we see mention of a white horse.....do you remember talking about this?
I don't know if you noticed but Jesus didn't leave on a white horse.

Mod Edit: Content deleted for disrespect and off topic rules violation
you'll see two returns.

 

[prism]

A return to a practicing temple on earth , in spite of what Hebrews, Eph 2-3, Jn 2, 4 say is a delusion.

‘A time is coming and NOW IS when the true worshippers…’

Actually Paul laments that the temple keeps seeking the hope of Israel by operating all the temple practices in his time instead of realizing the resurrection was the fulfilled enthronement of David’s vision, Acts 2:30,31

You said 'people'. Hopefully, true worshippers are people, too

 

[Arial]

Once again you post in a deceptive manner.

I highly recommend you stop doing that.

Responding to you seems to be a waste of my time.

James 3:1-12. Taming the Tongue.

One would think by now, the bit would be hurting.

 

[Josheb]

What I said was...and I quote...."All reading of the scriptures fall under the category of "interpretation".

And I disagreed. Reading scripture as written (where exegetically appropriate) is not interpretive and it does not require interpretation.

Some black and white and some gray. " It seems as if you intended to be deceptive. You have a rather strange approach to things.

Nice ad hominem.


Bye

 

[EarlyActs]

You said 'people'. Hopefully, true worshippers are people, too

Of course, Eph 3.