Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

[EarlyActs]

There isn't a temple coming anyway. That idea comes from an abundance of misinterpretations.

Judaism might build one. But it has nothing to do with NT references to events in a temple —Mt 24A or Thess.

 

[Rella]

@Rella

Consider this possibility: The label "man of lawlessness" inherently implies a law is being disregarded (Gk: anomias = absent the law). This begs the question, "Which law?" So we must ask ourselves which to what law would God inspire Paul to reference in the prophecy God gave Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2? To what law would Paul be referring as he wrote the saints in Thessalonica? Would that be Roman Law? Greek law? Jewish law? I will suggest to you that the law in the man of lawlessness is a reference to the Law of Moses. Why? Because the only law Paul ever cites in his epistles is the laws of God, and the Law of Moses in particular. ALL the New Testament writers quote, cite, reference the Old Testament Law. None of them quote, cite, or reference any other law. Therefore, the lawless man of 2 Thessalonians 2 is a man who eschews the Law, not the law. This, in turn, begs the next set of questions: "Who is expected to obey the Law?" because expecting an inherently lawless person to consider the law is foolishness. We do not expect criminals to obey the laws of any nation. They are criminals. Criminals are, by definition, all lawless people. Paul is, therefore, NOT referring to a person who is criminal, and definitely not someone who is criminally and chronically criminal. He's referring to someone expected to obey the law, and the law he's expected to obey is the Law of Moses.

So, the MoL is probably a Jew.

The antichrist, on the other hand, could be Jewish or Gentile but he (or she) could also be the MoL only if the antichrist is Jewish. If the antichrist is Gentile, then he's not likely to be the lawless man because the law Paul refers to is the Mosaic code. No one expected Caesar or the Pope, or Rondald Reagan or Donald Trump to ever obey the Law of Moses. The minute Paul mention "law" that stipulated a context, a context by which the identity of the man in question could be recognized. And it had to be recognizable by the first century Thessalonians. Otherwise, Paul's words were meaningless.

Scripture is never meaningless. No interpretation of scripture can render it meaningless to any generation of people.

Therefore, whoever the MoL was/is, it has to be someone the original readers would have recognized, could have identified. That one fact is going to exclude a huge ginormous pile of speculation, including all the modernist speculations (like the Pope, Ronald Wilson Raygun, or the Al Aqsa Mosque). People, institutions, or systems that did not exist in the first century are out of the realm of possibility. This same kind of reasoning can be applied to the John's antichrist. Even if you disagree, this should help you anticipate criticisms of your next attempt to prove the MoL and AC are the same person.


See how italics, bold-face and formatting were used to highlight the specific relevant points to make them recognizable?

.

Your preferred format is fine ... I posted mine as I talk. ... not some copy and paste (I am not suggesting that is you at all) and you dont like my presentation. Fine.

I absolutely hate Italics.... that is great for the copy and pasters.... (I can name one or two who have been at the top of their game doing that, and they can always be found out..... ) and Ai.

You say " In the tiniest print I needed to enlarge for my old eyes are not as sharp as they used to be....
So, the MoL is probably a Jew.

The antichrist, on the other hand, could be Jewish or Gentile but he (or she) could also be the MoL only if the antichrist is Jewish. If the antichrist is Gentile, then he's not likely to be the lawless man because the law Paul refers to is the Mosaic code.

These are valid points you present. Though not scriptural.... And I cannot argue them because to do so would be to bring in other AC aspects that I am not equipped or willing to address.... such as the AC has been called "the man of sin," "the son of perdition," and "the beast." "the deceiver," "the false prophet," and even "the dragon" . And doing a search always shows they to be the AC as well... so when you say
"Scripture is never meaningless. No interpretation of scripture can render it meaningless to any generation of people." I wonder.

These surely are false also and every reference I check NOW ties these also to be one in the same with AC but as yet I have not found one that names the AC with another name in the same scripture, chapter or book.

And while you say Scripture is never misleading.... I disagree as you have proven to me just how misleading the bible can be when everyone says they are one.... when they likely are not.

Puts a new dimension on the importance faith now... doesn't it?

Be blessed.

 

[Rella]

There is something you can do to complete this study which tried to touch each reference, and that is to deal with Dan 8, because we don't know what ch 9 means without it.

What it is saying is that when the 4th occupying power comes (Rome) there will be a rebellion that desolates the country. This line in v13 sets up so much about ch 9, because it is telling us to distinguish between the ruler to come (Rome ) and Christ and an evil desolating figure or an opposite of Christ.

Later in ch 8 we hear that he is quite evil, and I don't know how we can miss that this is the person Paul meant. The 70 weeks were concluding. There was a massive rebellion. There was the rebellion in the theological sense in that Judaism did not become the missionaries which God wanted, like Paul. This created a climate that was ripe for rebellion, because it kept encouraging Judaism's youth to try to do something that would break Rome's control in the way of the Maccabbeans, but not the way of the Christians. The only direction Israel could go was into rebellion, and Paul (through Luke) makes numerous warnings about this direction.

With that in mind, you can now go read Dan 9 and the Thess material and you will find timely 1st century warnings to that generation about what was going to happen.

Btw, the expression is "one and the same."

Nope... I have been exhaustively taught all about Daniel by a preterist friend and I will not study that any longer. It was over years....

Also... you say.... Btw, the expression is "one and the same."

IDC

 

[EarlyActs]

Nope... I have been exhaustively taught all about Daniel by a preterist friend and I will not study that any longer. It was over years....

Also... you say.... Btw, the expression is "one and the same."

IDC

I’m a historian. Preterism is a cult that defies logic about history. : )

What is your justification for splicing the 490 years?

 

[Rella]

There is something you can do to complete this study which tried to touch each reference, and that is to deal with Dan 8, because we don't know what ch 9 means without it.

What it is saying is that when the 4th occupying power comes (Rome) there will be a rebellion that desolates the country. This line in v13 sets up so much about ch 9, because it is telling us to distinguish between the ruler to come (Rome ) and Christ and an evil desolating figure or an opposite of Christ.

Later in ch 8 we hear that he is quite evil, and I don't know how we can miss that this is the person Paul meant. The 70 weeks were concluding. There was a massive rebellion. There was the rebellion in the theological sense in that Judaism did not become the missionaries which God wanted, like Paul. This created a climate that was ripe for rebellion, because it kept encouraging Judaism's youth to try to do something that would break Rome's control in the way of the Maccabbeans, but not the way of the Christians. The only direction Israel could go was into rebellion, and Paul (through Luke) makes numerous warnings about this direction.

With that in mind, you can now go read Dan 9 and the Thess material and you will find timely 1st century warnings to that generation about what was going to happen.

Btw, the expression is "one and the same."

I am not clear on what it is that you are asking me.

I have reread and from notes in my files on 8 and 9 and tell me if this is what you want. Or if you are just tying Daniel 8 and 9 into 2 Thess 2: 1-12.

In Daniel 8 Daniel is shown successive empires culminating in the Greek World. It is in his vision which includes the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire followed by the Greek Empire, specifically highlighting the conquests of Alexander the Great and the subsequent division of his empire into four parts. This vision emphasizes the transition from one empire to another, culminating in the Greek world.

Following this Greek world is a rebellious figure that arises in a period of imperial domination.

Be aware of The key phrase is “the transgression that makes desolate” (8:13). This desolation is caused not merely by foreign power, but by covenant rebellion reaching its full measure (8:23). This rebellion corrupts worship, opposes God’s truth, and brings a decreed, limited judgment that ends by divine intervention, not human power. IOW, this sin against God's covenant has accumulated to a point where it warrants judgment.

Daniel 9 then takes that framework and times it. Daniel’s prayer focuses entirely on Israel’s sin and rebellion, not pagan aggression. The seventy weeks are decreed “for your people and your holy city” to finish transgression, make atonement, and bring covenantal righteousness (9:24). Within this period, an Anointed One appears and is “cut off,” clearly distinguished from the later destruction.


After Messiah’s death, “the people of the prince to come” destroy the city and sanctuary (9:26). The prince is not Messiah; he belongs to the imperial power, and his activity culminates in abomination and desolation, echoing Daniel 8’s “transgression that desolates.” The stopping of sacrifice reflects theological collapse before physical destruction.

Thus, Daniel 8 defines the nature of the rebellion and desolator; Daniel 9 locates it within Israel’s covenant history, distinguishes it from Messiah, and shows its climax in Jerusalem’s destruction. The prophecy warns of judgment coming upon a rebellious generation, not the end of the world.

IOW.... Daniel 8 tells us what kind of rebellion causes desolation then in Daniel 9 tells us when it happens and makes clear it is not Messiah who destroys, but covenant rebellion under imperial rule.

Now... if you are saying this ties to the "Man of Lawlessness"... I think that is a given. Even with the extreme gap from Daniel to 2 Thessalonians

As I said... not sure of what you want .

 

[EarlyActs]

I am not clear on what it is that you are asking me.

I have reread and from notes in my files on 8 and 9 and tell me if this is what you want. Or if you are just tying Daniel 8 and 9 into 2 Thess 2: 1-12.

In Daniel 8 Daniel is shown successive empires culminating in the Greek World. It is in his vision which includes the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire followed by the Greek Empire, specifically highlighting the conquests of Alexander the Great and the subsequent division of his empire into four parts. This vision emphasizes the transition from one empire to another, culminating in the Greek world.

Following this Greek world is a rebellious figure that arises in a period of imperial domination.

Be aware of The key phrase is “the transgression that makes desolate” (8:13). This desolation is caused not merely by foreign power, but by covenant rebellion reaching its full measure (8:23). This rebellion corrupts worship, opposes God’s truth, and brings a decreed, limited judgment that ends by divine intervention, not human power. IOW, this sin against God's covenant has accumulated to a point where it warrants judgment.

Daniel 9 then takes that framework and times it. Daniel’s prayer focuses entirely on Israel’s sin and rebellion, not pagan aggression. The seventy weeks are decreed “for your people and your holy city” to finish transgression, make atonement, and bring covenantal righteousness (9:24). Within this period, an Anointed One appears and is “cut off,” clearly distinguished from the later destruction.


After Messiah’s death, “the people of the prince to come” destroy the city and sanctuary (9:26). The prince is not Messiah; he belongs to the imperial power, and his activity culminates in abomination and desolation, echoing Daniel 8’s “transgression that desolates.” The stopping of sacrifice reflects theological collapse before physical destruction.

Thus, Daniel 8 defines the nature of the rebellion and desolator; Daniel 9 locates it within Israel’s covenant history, distinguishes it from Messiah, and shows its climax in Jerusalem’s destruction. The prophecy warns of judgment coming upon a rebellious generation, not the end of the world.

IOW.... Daniel 8 tells us what kind of rebellion causes desolation then in Daniel 9 tells us when it happens and makes clear it is not Messiah who destroys, but covenant rebellion under imperial rule.

Now... if you are saying this ties to the "Man of Lawlessness"... I think that is a given. Even with the extreme gap from Daniel to 2 Thessalonians

As I said... not sure of what you want .

I think that is very close to what the text means. I don't think the prince who comes is the desolator but that ch 9 was reaching back to a rebellious person in Israel.

Both Caiaphas and Josephus (both priests) knew that such a person was coming. Caiaphas thought it was Christ, and somehow not Barrabas (which may be an important political statement right there!), and that he (Caiaphas) could circumvent the decreed destruction of Israel by offing Christ. This is quite an remarkable view, really, because it turns everything the apostles said on its head, misaccusing at each point along the way!

For Josephus, also a military captain, it presents itself differently. To him it meant that there would be a sabotage of the mainstream plan to break from Rome. They would do this by being hotheads, but also by violating Moses' law in the process. The mainstream plan was to secretly accumulate money at the temple through a temple tax to buy weapons from neighbors for the awaited day. This attempt would take place at Jotapata in Galilee where they could break the supply train to the Antonio Fortress attached to the temple, and isolate Roman control.

The 'money-changing' issue belongs here, and Luke was making a statement, with Paul, about this, because he called the people doing it 'leistes' which is not street pickpockets. Instead they are mercenary insurrectionists. The coin they required was stamped 'The redemption of Jerusalem'--you could only contribute to this fund by using that coin--and that is the same expression used properly (about Christ's kingdom) in Luke 1, by contrast with the revolt.

The procurator Florus discovered this was going on in early 66. He very soon seized that money, sparking a national revolt.

For Josephus it also may have persuaded him to desert, as he did. Evidently he did not see the crushing verdict in Dan 9 about Israel (its utter destruction) until he was in the events. He even went from Jerusalem to Jotapata to fight for Israel from a fort there, before deserting; it was no easy decision.

It's interesting that you used the term 'covenant revolt.' You should look up book titles about that. In the post-Maccabbean period, it would mean those who based their revolt against the occupying powers on the covenant.

Btw, the 4th power that occupies is Rome, not Greece. Maccabbean independence was between the Greek and Roman occupations.

 

[Josheb]

These are valid points you present. Though not scriptural....

That is self-contradictory. Anything that is unscriptural is not valid.

And everything I posted is scriptural. They are the logically necessary questions and answers given what the text states.

And I cannot argue them because to do so would be to bring in other AC aspects that I am not equipped or willing to address....

Ummm.... if there's a lack of equipping then maybe that's because there is not argument against what was posted.

.....so when you say
"Scripture is never meaningless. No interpretation of scripture can render it meaningless to any generation of people." I wonder.

These surely are false also and every reference I check NOW ties these also to be one in the same with AC....

Yo mean every extra-biblical source you check. I give you scripture, you give me Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z. Misters X, Y, and Z are not scripture. What Misters X, Y, and Z provide is either their own personal opinions on the matter or some appeal to the tradition of a doctrinal bias. I gave you scripture and a series of logically appropriate, exegetically appropriate questions and answers that are dependent solely on thw stipulations of the text and decidedly NOT reliant on extra-biblical sources like Misters X, Y, and Z.


And the irony is that most of what those guys say makes the text meaningless to the original readers. It is not logically possible to support the principle of original understand and support those positions that make the text meaningless to the original readers. It is not logically possible to protest the principle of original understanding and meaning and then apply that very principle to 21st century readers of the Bible.

 

[Josheb]

And while you say Scripture is never misleading....

I do not believe I ever said any such thing. I just checked the last five pages of posts and cannot find a single example of my saying scripture is never misleading. I suspect I have been confused with another poster (and probably misunderstood their post because I couldn't find any post in which it was stated scripture is misleading. Two posters asserted specific translations were misleading, but not scripture). I said scripture is never meaningless and, most importantly, it was never meaningless to the original readers. This is especially true of the epistolary and especially true of the original readers of the epistles. Those revealed matters pertinent to those readers (as is stated in the 2 Thes 2 text) and that revealing revelation was intended for their understanding (as is, again, stated in the 2 Thes 2 text).

I disagree as you have proven to me just how misleading the bible can be when everyone says they are one.... when they likely are not.

Never happened. I did no such thing.

Puts a new dimension on the importance faith now... doesn't it?

Be blessed.

Well, no. What it does is put a new example of digression and avoidance on display. You're supposed to be proving the MoL and the AC are the same person. The first attempt was to suggest common attributes prove common identity but that's a false-cause argument. You and I share common beliefs and practices, but we are not the same people.

• (normally) All cats have eyeballs.
• All cats have fur.
• All cats have four legs.
• All dogs have eyeballs.
• All dogs have fur.
• All dogs have four legs
• Therefore, all cats are dogs (and all dogs are cats).

Do you now see the problem of selective us of common characteristics to prove the same identity?

So....... either make another attempt at proving the MoL and the AC are the same person or acknowledge that cannot be done without appealing to extra-biblical sources who are doctrinally biased. I can work with either answer. The matter should be resolved before we continue discussing the likelihood of a third temple in Jerusalem (let's not forget the op and the reason the 2 Thes 2 text was broached in the first place).

 

[Rella]

That is self-contradictory. Anything that is unscriptural is not valid.

Which is why as you pointed out the Man of Lawlessness is not the AC....... nothing in scripture says it to be. That when biblical commentaries say such as the AC has been called "the man of sin," "the son of perdition," and "the beast." "the deceiver," "the false prophet," and even "the dragon" that is not scriptural because I have found no reference in the bible that ties the AC to any of them....

Now, I am backing out of this discussion for I said right up front I am not the smartest here and I have only learned that the AC likely will sit no where, and one cannot trust even biblical commentaries from the likes of even Mathew Henry or Billy Graham for that matter.

Have a nice life.

And everything I posted is scriptural. They are the logically necessary questions and answers given what the text states.

Ummm.... if there's a lack of equipping then maybe that's because there is not argument against what was posted.

Yo mean every extra-biblical source you check. I give you scripture, you give me Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z. Misters X, Y, and Z are not scripture. What Misters X, Y, and Z provide is either their own personal opinions on the matter or some appeal to the tradition of a doctrinal bias. I gave you scripture and a series of logically appropriate, exegetically appropriate questions and answers that are dependent solely on thw stipulations of the text and decidedly NOT reliant on extra-biblical sources like Misters X, Y, and Z.


And the irony is that most of what those guys say makes the text meaningless to the original readers. It is not logically possible to support the principle of original understand and support those positions that make the text meaningless to the original readers. It is not logically possible to protest the principle of original understanding and meaning and then apply that very principle to 21st century readers of the Bible.

 

[EarlyActs]

Do history first, then theology, even when reading Biblical material. Acts, John, Luke (esp) have many clues.

 

[Josheb]

Which is why as you pointed out the Man of Lawlessness is not the AC....... nothing in scripture says it to be.

So why do you say the two labels refer to the exact same person.

There is no such scripture stating the two are the same person (we both agree on that) and selected shared attributes are not sufficient to prove common identity (I hope we also agree on that, even though I do not believe I have read an acknowledgment to that effect).

That when biblical commentaries say such as the AC has been called "the man of sin," "the son of perdition," and "the beast." "the deceiver," "the false prophet," and even "the dragon" that is not scriptural because I have found no reference in the bible that ties the AC to any of them....

Yes, many well-educated and experience teachers with letters after their name commit the mistake of thinking selected shared attributes proves common identity. It's an error in logic, not a bias due to doctrinal affiliation. It's like the ad hominem or the straw man - very commonly occurring fallacious arguments.

Now, I am backing out of this discussion for I said right up front I am not the smartest here and I have only learned that the AC likely will sit no where, and one cannot trust even biblical commentaries from the likes of even Mathew Henry or Billy Graham for that matter.

Have a nice life.

Well done. This is why discussion boards exist: so we can examine our own beliefs and not just those of others. Don't hold me in contempt because I asked you to do that . Think about all the many times you've been in a Christian discussion board and read someone saying the MoL and AC are the same person. You now know that cannot be proven and its likely to be based on either the fallacy of shared attributes or an allegiance to post-biblical doctrine.

 

[Rella]

So why do you say the two labels refer to the exact same person.

There is no such scripture stating the two are the same person (we both agree on that) and selected shared attributes are not sufficient to prove common identity (I hope we also agree on that, even though I do not believe I have read an acknowledgment to that effect).

Yes, many well-educated and experience teachers with letters after their name commit the mistake of thinking selected shared attributes proves common identity. It's an error in logic, not a bias due to doctrinal affiliation. It's like the ad hominem or the straw man - very commonly occurring fallacious arguments.

Well done. This is why discussion boards exist: so we can examine our own beliefs and not just those of others. Don't hold me in contempt because I asked you to do that . Think about all the many times you've been in a Christian discussion board and read someone saying the MoL and AC are the same person. You now know that cannot be proven and its likely to be based on either the fallacy of shared attributes or an allegiance to post-biblical doctrine.

"Think about all the many times you've been in a Christian discussion board and read someone saying the MoL and AC are the same person"

Honestly Never have I been on a discussion board that I can remember anyone blending the two together.... However... I have followed two televangelists who did great studies supposedly on this subject .... and great explanation of the 7 hills or mountains... and only the mention of AC came into their mix.... One is now dead.... Jack Van Impe, and the other is overly involved for a long time with Israel... John Hagee.

I never followed too much and televangelist beause they are as divided on most everything as the members of discussion boards like this one.

So I did learn something with this exercise. Not to listen to anyone. Period. If you do not understand, just ignore it.

 

[Josheb]

So I did learn something with this exercise. Not to listen to anyone. Period. If you do not understand, just ignore it.

Well... that's not true. You learned to listen to my request. You learned to listen circumspectly to those on all sides of a topic. You learned you can do great things when you investigate scripture for yourself. You definitely learned to handle yourself better than the (other) modern futurists in this thread . Presumably, you learned I am not the godless troll some here wrongly imagine me to be and, occasionally, its worth giving my questions some credence . You learned it is actually, factually possible to have goodwill and agreement with Josh (and others) when well-rendered scripture alone (as opposed to extra-biblical doctrine) is the measure. And, if I may take such a liberty, you learned to set an example for the lurkers and I, personally value that greatly.


There's no actual proof in scripture the MoL and the AC are the same person and there is reason, based on the specifics of Paul's and John's content to readily say the labels refer to two completely different people. That completely changes the conversation. It gets us to another example of something I've been trying to highlight since this op began.

The problem of inferential reading!

Why do otherwise well-intentioned and devoted Christian men and women read scripture inferentially in opposition to what is stated?

Why is 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 read inferentially to say another temple will be built in our future (not the first century Thessalonians' future)? Why is 2 Thes 2:3-4 read to imply such a thing when it definitely does not state such a thing? Why don't modern futurists acknowledge they read implications into the text? Why isn't the inferential nature of their reading not acknowledged? Why does it require someone like me asking the same question multiple times before an actual and correct answer is provided? Why is it nearly impossible to discuss inferences with a Dispensational Premillennialist?

You commendably set an example for what to do, instead of what not to do. Well done. Much appreciated.

There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states another temple will be bult and there most definitely is no verse in the Bible explicitly stating another temple will be built in our future. There were two temples standing at the time Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. One of them was Herod's temple (which was destroyed in 70 AD), and the other is Christ and his body. Either one of those temples is an exegetically better option for understanding 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 than delusionally imagining another temple will be built in the 21st century to fulfill the MoL prophecy. However, it proves impossible to have that conversation with a Dispensational Premillennialist. The relevance of the two existing temples is denied (the posts here demonstrate that fact). The original understanding of the original author and his original readers is not considered (or denied if considered). The fact Paul was explicitly writing to address very specific concerns of the first century Thessalonians, and the context that provides, is ignored in favor of inferential reading and that inferential reading is completely eisegetic; driven by an eschatology that teaches inferences even as it says scripture should be read literally.


There is literally no scripture explicitly stating another temple will be built in our future .

 

[EarlyActs]

The most important eschatological passages are Ps 2 and 110.

 

[Josheb]

The most important eschatological passages are Ps 2 and 110.

Psalm 110 I get. Care to expound on Psalm 2's saliency?

 

[Rella]

There is literally no scripture explicitly stating another temple will be built in our future .

I was looking into some things today from the LXX.... Specifically Daniel 9:27 and ran a check on ChatGPT about the wording there in that translation.

Thought I should share this with you and all.

There is no biblical text that requires a Third Temple ​

No verse explicitly predicts a third temple.

Ezekiel 40–48 never says it will be built.

Revelation’s “temple” imagery functions symbolically and covenantally.

Daniel never mentions more than the restoration and later desolation of the temple.

The idea of a third temple is an inference, not a declaration.

But I also was checking on Rev 17:9 because a great many of those who say he will sit on 7 hills somehow manage
to get this tied in... And here is where those 7 hills come into play.

See... people do not know what they read.

You may disagree but in my meanderings of scripture searches today on this on ChatGPT said

" The woman of Revelation 17 is Rome-centered apostate world religion that initially empowers the Antichrist, but is ultimately destroyed by him when he demands exclusive worship.

 

[Josheb]

I was looking into some things today from the LXX.... Specifically Daniel 9:27 and ran a check on ChatGPT about the wording there in that translation.

Thought I should share this with you and all.

There is no biblical text that requires a Third Temple ​

No verse explicitly predicts a third temple.

That's correct.

Ezekiel 40–48 never says it will be built.

Not only does Ezekiel not say it will be built but if the dimensions of Ezekiel's temple are used to build a temple, then that temple will be bigger than the entire city of Jerusalem and it will hang off the mountain top in all directions. It's a ginormous temple. That temple is not a literal temple made of stones.

Revelation’s “temple” imagery functions symbolically and covenantally.

Yep. It's not a literal temple of stone.

Daniel never mentions more than the restoration and later desolation of the temple.

Which we can say (in good conscience) happened in 70 AD. Jesus stated the temple (the house of the Pharisees) was left desolate in Matthew 23. That part of Daniel was fulfilled in Matthew 23.

The idea of a third temple is an inference, not a declaration.

To clarify: The idea another temple of stone will be built in our future is an inference made by the futurist reader, not something explicitly declared by scripture.

But I also was checking on Rev 17:9 because a great many of those who say he will sit on 7 hills somehow manage to get this tied in... And here is where those 7 hills come into play.

Yes, but for now let's focus on this op. This op is about whether or not another temple will be built in Jerusalem. @Hobie is focusing on the "in Jerusalem" part because there's no requirement the next temple has to be built in Jerusalem (it could be built in Zimbabwe as far as scripture is concerned) but, presuppositionally speaking, there's no sense in looking forward to another temple of stone if scripture never predicts one will be built (in the first century, the 21st, or any other century).

See... people do not know what they read.

Well, they do know, but they take what they read, they take what they "know" and filter it through their already-existing eschatology.

You may disagree but in my meanderings of scripture searches today on this on ChatGPT said

" The woman of Revelation 17 is Rome-centered apostate world religion that initially empowers the Antichrist, but is ultimately destroyed by him when he demands exclusive worship.

Yes, because the prevailing viewpoint among Christians (premil, amil, and many postmils) is that the woman is she's representative of Rome BUT her identity is off topic. We're talking about the temple, not the antichrist. There's no mention of the antichrist by that name in Rev. 17, btw.


The idea another temple will be built in our future is a position that can be obtained only by an inferential reading of scripture.

So why do you think futurists read texts like 2 Thes 2:3-4 to imply another temple?

 

[EarlyActs]

I was looking into some things today from the LXX.... Specifically Daniel 9:27 and ran a check on ChatGPT about the wording there in that translation.

Thought I should share this with you and all.

There is no biblical text that requires a Third Temple ​

No verse explicitly predicts a third temple.

Ezekiel 40–48 never says it will be built.

Revelation’s “temple” imagery functions symbolically and covenantally.

Daniel never mentions more than the restoration and later desolation of the temple.

The idea of a third temple is an inference, not a declaration.

But I also was checking on Rev 17:9 because a great many of those who say he will sit on 7 hills somehow manage
to get this tied in... And here is where those 7 hills come into play.

See... people do not know what they read.

You may disagree but in my meanderings of scripture searches today on this on ChatGPT said

" The woman of Revelation 17 is Rome-centered apostate world religion that initially empowers the Antichrist, but is ultimately destroyed by him when he demandt exclusive worship.

So ChatGPT doesn't know that the term for the woman is a Levitical priest's wife, and that the Rev was describing how many Jews worked in the Roman admin and made things difficult for Christians?

 

[Rella]

That's correct.

Not only does Ezekiel not say it will be built but if the dimensions of Ezekiel's temple are used to build a temple, then that temple will be bigger than the entire city of Jerusalem and it will hang off the mountain top in all directions. It's a ginormous temple. That temple is not a literal temple made of stones.

Yep. It's not a literal temple of stone.

Which we can say (in good conscience) happened in 70 AD. Jesus stated the temple (the house of the Pharisees) was left desolate in Matthew 23. That part of Daniel was fulfilled in Matthew 23.

To clarify: The idea another temple of stone will be built in our future is an inference made by the futurist reader, not something explicitly declared by scripture.

Yes, but for now let's focus on this op. This op is about whether or not another temple will be built in Jerusalem. @Hobie is focusing on the "in Jerusalem" part because there's no requirement the next temple has to be built in Jerusalem (it could be built in Zimbabwe as far as scripture is concerned) but, presuppositionally speaking, there's no sense in looking forward to another temple of stone if scripture never predicts one will be built (in the first century, the 21st, or any other century).

Well, they do know, but they take what they read, they take what they "know" and filter it through their already-existing eschatology.

Yes, because the prevailing viewpoint among Christians (premil, amil, and many postmils) is that the woman is she's representative of Rome BUT her identity is off topic. We're talking about the temple, not the antichrist. There's no mention of the antichrist by that name in Rev. 17, btw.


The idea another temple will be built in our future is a position that can be obtained only by an inferential reading of scripture.

So why do you think futurists read texts like 2 Thes 2:3-4 to imply another temple?

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

1Thes 2:4 nasb95
who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

When one reads that he takes a seat in the temple of God............ what other explanation could there be because everyone l know, knows the 1st Temple was destroyed. Everyone surly knows the 2nd Temple was destroyed in 70AD.... and for me I do not believe that this is an event that has already taken place.... ie... the 70AD destruction because he was already sitting there.

So if there will be no future temple, the way the verse is written, would it not suggest it has already happened ? Does this mean with no future temple that some preterists are correct?????????????? It was all done in 70AD?

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

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

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

 

[Rella]

So ChatGPT doesn't know that the term for the woman is a Levitical priest's wife, and that the Rev was describing how many Jews worked in the Roman admin and made things difficult for Christians?

I dont know. If I think about it I will ask at some point