Why the Third Temple will not be built.

[Josheb]

Please expand on your two-temple theory which is not considered by all. Where did you read of a 2nd temple?

I have already answered that question. Have all my posts in this thread been read?

All OT inferences to a future temple should be understood as John 2:21 and 1 Corinthians 3:16.

Jesus explicitly stated he would raise up this temple again in three days.

John 2:19
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

The Jews did not comprehend what he meant so John explained it in his gospel!

John 20-22
The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. So when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Jesus was speaking of the temple of his body. Paul later expounds upon this when he states,

1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Jesus, and his body (the ecclesia) are the temple of God. Furthermore, we KNOW a building made of stone is not a place in which God dwells. This is explicitly stated at least twice in the New Testament (see Acts 7:48 and Acts 17:24). We also KNOW God's Law prohibited an altar being made from hewn stone (this is stated at least three other times in scripture) and, while no tools were applied to the stones used in Solomon's temple, both Solomon's and Herod's temples had altars made of hewn stone. IF we go back to the day God first discussed the building of a temple, we discover God told David three men would build His temple: 1) God, 2) a son of God, and 3) a son of David. David did not understand what God was saying and so he disregarded everything God said and provided materials for his son, Jedediah, to build the temple. It was only in the New Testament that God's meaning was explained. God doesn't live in buildings made by human hands and the temple God built was His resurrected Son and his body of believers.

Notice I did not make one single inference. I provided explicit statements from scripture, and I did not add one word of interpretation to any of them. Neither have I referenced a single eschatological point of view. Just scripture, and scripture alone.

This leaves us with the fact there were TWO temples standing when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians. One made of stone (which was already an abomination to God because it contained a defiled altar) and one made of humans. The question this begs is "To which temple is Paul referring in 2 Thessalonians 2?" Is Paul saying someone will enter the temple of stone, or the temple of Christ's body (the Church)?

I'll put a pin in this conversation for now because I JUST ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION FOR THE SECOND TIME and I elaborated on the answer so as to move the discussion forward. So how about getting out your Bible and looking up all those verses to verify what I just posted AND THEN EXPLICITLY STATE an agreement with scripture or some specific point of disagreement. But please whatever else you do, do not ask me questions I have already answered. It's rude and disrespectful.

A temple will exist....

Scripture never explicitly states any such thing and the only way to arrive at that position is to ignore what scripture..... explicitly states.

So can you, are you able, to start with what is explicitly stated? Can you discuss the silence of scripture in relationship to what is stated?



One more thing. I was a Dispensational Premillennialist for more than 20 years and I have read most of what every DP theologian has written over the last 190 years, as well as all the ECFs and the arguments contemporary DPists make to support the claim Dispensationalism has been around before Darby. I am telling you this BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THING YOU CAN TELL ME ABOUT THAT PREMILLENNIALISM I DO NOT ALREADY KNOW. Don't waste your time telling me what Dispensational Premillennialists believe. This discussion is about ONE single matter = "Why the third temple will NOT be built." My explanation happens to differ from this op's author. My explanation is built on what scripture explicitly states, and not what some post scriptural eschatology tells me.

All I am asking anyone here to do is start with what scripture explicitly states and NOT the inferences taught by modern futurism. So go look at the many verses I just cited and contemplate them in light of what the New Testament states about the Old Testament temple prophecies. Start with scripture. Start with scripture read exactly as written. Start with scripture read exactly as written without any eschatology doctrines' embellishments.


There were two temples standing when Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. One was made of stone and the other made of Spirit-filled humans. One was built by sinful men, and the other was built by God.

 

[CrowCross]

What I know is that 1) 2 Thessalonians 2 does not explicitly state another temple will be built in our future,

You do know the bible doen't explicity state there is a trinity.

 

[CrowCross]

I can link everyone in this thread to multiple occasions when you have been asked this question and refused to answer it.

 

[Paul]

I have already answered that question. Have all my posts in this thread been read?

​

Jesus explicitly stated he would raise up this temple again in three days.




John 2:19
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

The Jews did not comprehend what he meant so John explained it in his gospel!

John 20-22
The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. So when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Jesus was speaking of the temple of his body. Paul later expounds upon this when he states,

1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Jesus, and his body (the ecclesia) are the temple of God. Furthermore, we KNOW a building made of stone is not a place in which God dwells. This is explicitly stated at least twice in the New Testament (see Acts 7:48 and Acts 17:24). We also KNOW God's Law prohibited an altar being made from hewn stone (this is stated at least three other times in scripture) and, while no tools were applied to the stones used in Solomon's temple, both Solomon's and Herod's temples had altars made of hewn stone. IF we go back to the day God first discussed the building of a temple, we discover God told David three men would build His temple: 1) God, 2) a son of God, and 3) a son of David. David did not understand what God was saying and so he disregarded everything God said and provided materials for his son, Jedediah, to build the temple. It was only in the New Testament that God's meaning was explained. God doesn't live in buildings made by human hands and the temple God built was His resurrected Son and his body of believers.

Notice I did not make one single inference. I provided explicit statements from scripture, and I did not add one word of interpretation to any of them. Neither have I referenced a single eschatological point of view. Just scripture, and scripture alone.

This leaves us with the fact there were TWO temples standing when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians. One made of stone (which was already an abomination to God because it contained a defiled altar) and one made of humans. The question this begs is "To which temple is Paul referring in 2 Thessalonians 2?" Is Paul saying someone will enter the temple of stone, or the temple of Christ's body (the Church)?

I'll put a pin in this conversation for now because I JUST ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION FOR THE SECOND TIME and I elaborated on the answer so as to move the discussion forward. So how about getting out your Bible and looking up all those verses to verify what I just posted AND THEN EXPLICITLY STATE an agreement with scripture or some specific point of disagreement. But please whatever else you do, do not ask me questions I have already answered. It's rude and disrespectful.

Scripture never explicitly states any such thing and the only way to arrive at that position is to ignore what scripture..... explicitly states.

So can you, are you able, to start with what is explicitly stated? Can you discuss the silence of scripture in relationship to what is stated?



One more thing. I was a Dispensational Premillennialist for more than 20 years and I have read most of what every DP theologian has written over the last 190 years, as well as all the ECFs and the arguments contemporary DPists make to support the claim Dispensationalism has been around before Darby. I am telling you this BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THING YOU CAN TELL ME ABOUT THAT PREMILLENNIALISM I DO NOT ALREADY KNOW. Don't waste your time telling me what Dispensational Premillennialists believe. This discussion is about ONE single matter = "Why the third temple will NOT be built." My explanation happens to differ from this op's author. My explanation is built on what scripture explicitly states, and not what some post scriptural eschatology tells me.

All I am asking anyone here to do is start with what scripture explicitly states and NOT the inferences taught by modern futurism. So go look at the many verses I just cited and contemplate them in light of what the New Testament states about the Old Testament temple prophecies. Start with scripture. Start with scripture read exactly as written. Start with scripture read exactly as written without any eschatology doctrines' embellishments.


There were two temples standing when Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. One was made of stone and the other made of Spirit-filled humans. One was built by sinful men, and the other was built by God.

So your entire defence depends on Jesus's body is a temple? Thankyou for your opinion. Your premise is rejected.

 

[Josheb]

So your entire defence depends on Jesus's body is a temple?

Never said any such thing. Please do not misrepresent my posts, and you're changing the subject.

Thankyou for your opinion. Your premise is rejected.

It's not an opinion. It is the facts of scripture read exactly as written.


I was asked to "Please expand on your two-temple theory which is not considered by all," and I did so. I provided the scriptures that reported there were two temples standing at the time 2 Thessalonians was written. I answered the request, and I answered with scripture read exactly as written. Will you now acknowledge the fact scripture tells us there were two, not one, temples standing then, or not?

 

[EarlyActs]

The beast as in daniel and rev has a declared reign of 42 months. So any revealing is at the time of the end and its noted as him sitiing in the temple declaring himself God. A sign to the whole world as is Rev 11.
The beast kills the two witnesses as spoken of in rev 11. A future event to us. A temple is measured.
The bowl judgments are the the judgments that plunge the beasts kingdom into darkness. A future event to us.
As noted in 2thess2 and rev 16:15 -for the great battle of God the beast is defeated by a coming of the Lord not man. Not a possible 1st century event.

Jesus is speaking of the time of the end. The great tribulation.

When these events take place the generation that witnesses them will not end before the 2nd coming.

Its clear to me a temple that does not exist now will exist at the time of the end and will be built by man. Its not worth 100 replies going back and forth with disagreement. People will have to choose for themselves what they see.

You are not reading Mt24A in its normal sense. It’s got the one place Dan 8-9 is interpreted by the NT and it is in Christ’s generation.

 

[Paul]

Never said any such thing. Please do not misrepresent my posts, and you're changing the subject.

It's not an opinion. It is the facts of scripture read exactly as written.

Yes and I have done that. The man of lawlessness that will be destroyed by a coming of the Lord will reveal Himself to the world by sitting in the temple of God claiming to be God. In Rev 11 a temple was measured that has outer courts. It will be taken over for 42 months which is the exact reign of the beast. Hello?

I was asked to "Please expand on your two-temple theory which is not considered by all," and I did so. I provided the scriptures that reported there were two temples standing at the time 2 Thessalonians was written. I answered the request, and I answered with scripture read exactly as written. Will you now acknowledge the fact scripture tells us there were two, not one, temples standing then, or not?

You have been given the facts according to scripture in that a temple exists at the time of the end that does not exist now. Jesus's body has no bearing on that truth. Its possible I am still having trouble knowing your message but not the scriptures. Denial by stating there are two temples makes no sense. and certainly, is not shared by all and is opinion. We do not need to figure out the how. If God shows a temple, it will be there.

A gave you what Dr Daniel Wallace concludes and made no mention of 2 temples. Why is that if a highly educated theologian doesn't even consider you a thing which means what you state is subject to debate and is not a fact but opinion. A future temple that exists at the time of the end shown in scripture is very clear to all.

 

[Paul]

You are not reading Mt24A in its normal sense. It’s got the one place Dan 8-9 is interpreted by the NT and it is in Christ’s generation.

I'm reading Jesus speaking if the great tribulation which is the time of the end and temple desecration, He states at that time is cohesive with Paul's 2 Thess 2 and Rev 11:2

If that generation does not pass before those events are fulfilled, then I reason Jesus means the generation that exists when that happens not the generation He's speaking to. God will gather all nations to attack Jerusalem then show Himself Holy by destroying them even making a way of escape into the desert for the people by splitting the mount of olives in two. Rev 11:2-given over for 42 months. That beast in Rev is also destroyed by a coming of the Lord. REV 16:15

A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. 3Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. 4On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5;You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

 

[Josheb]

You have been given the facts according to scripture in that a temple exists at the time of the end that does not exist now.

No, I have not. What I have been "given" is inferential speculation, not facts. What I have been "given" is a pile of obfuscation that avoids answering the one single, solitary, sole question asked and digresses into doctrinal biases, not the facts of scripture explicitly stated.


Let's see if this matter (the prospect of a third temple relevant to 2 Thes. 2) can be addressed one step at a time.

Was there a temple standing when Paul wrote his second epistle to the Church in Thessalonica? Yes or no?

 

[Josheb]

A gave you what Dr Daniel Wallace concludes and made no mention of 2 temples. Why is that if a highly educated theologian doesn't even consider you a thing which means what you state is subject to debate and is not a fact but opinion.

Dr. Wallace is a doctrinally biased source and the attempted use of his opinion is a logically fallacious appeal to authority. There is no consensus on the matter of a third temple and the position asserting there will be a third temple is both a normative and statistical minority. For every theologian you could quote teaching another temple will be built I can post three saying the exact opposite. Every single one of them an educated theologian with letters after his (or her) name. All we'd have is a pile of competing theologians.

The question is, "What does scripture teach?" NOT "What do theologians teach?"

 

[Paul]

No, I have not. What I have been "given" is inferential speculation, not facts. What I have been "given" is a pile of obfuscation that avoids answering the one single, solitary, sole question asked and digresses into doctrinal biases, not the facts of scripture explicitly stated.


Let's see if this matter (the prospect of a third temple relevant to 2 Thes. 2) can be addressed one step at a time.

Was there a temple standing when Paul wrote his second epistle to the Church in Thessalonica? Yes or no?

Irrelevant -Because the prophecy concerns the time of the end not the 1st century which Paul understood as this lawless one is detroyed by a coming of the Lord. He understood as well that there would be no gathering to the Lord before this revealing of the AC.

Paul maybe even thought the Lord would return in His lifetime which is also irrelevant as it will take place at Gods appointed time which we know now was not the 1st century.

Then "we" which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Rev 11 is in the future and as is a sign that can not be mistaken 1260 days as I read.

 

[Paul]

Jesus spoke of this and its the time of the end.

He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

13 “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.”

Again Matt 24 -The abomination that causes desolation and The time of unequaled distress in the world never to be equaled again. Days that God cuts short for the sake of the elect.

“Immediately after the distress of those days

“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

 

[Paul]

Dr. Wallace is a doctrinally biased source and the attempted use of his opinion is a logically fallacious appeal to authority. There is no consensus on the matter of a third temple and the position asserting there will be a third temple is both a normative and statistical minority. For every theologian you could quote teaching another temple will be built I can post three saying the exact opposite. Every single one of them an educated theologian with letters after his (or her) name. All we'd have is a pile of competing theologians.

The question is, "What does scripture teach?" NOT "What do theologians teach?"

It shows He didn't even consider what you consider. I don't follow Him. I don't need to find a reason for a 3rd temple. I read there will be a temple as shown by scripture at the time of the end. We know as fact that wasn't in the first century. And what you believe is opinion. Why can'y you believe what God has shown instead trying to find a alternate meaning?Examine yourself what spirit is driving you?

 

[Josheb]

It shows He didn't even consider what you consider.

Which makes him a flawed source, someone who should be viewed circumspectly at best, if not wholly discarded because of his failure to consider the facts of scripture already in evidence.

• There was a temple standing when the letter was written.
• There were, in fact, two temples standing at that time.
• The temples (both Solomon's and Herod's) contained defiled altars.
• Any temple made with hewn stones will also contain a defiled altar
• Nowhere does the text of 2 Thes. 2 mention another temple and nowhere does the text actually state another temple will be built.
• Nowhere in the entire Bible is there a verse explicitly stating another temple will be built in our future.
• The only way to conclude the Bible teaches another temple will be built in our future is to infer scripture implies (not state) another temple and neglect both what is states and where it is silent.

Those are the facts of scripture. A lot more could be brought to bear on Wallace's interpretation because the premise of the lawless man is predicated on a contingency, NOT and inevitability, and if he missed that then his commentary is not something to consider efficacious or veracious.

I don't follow Him.

Good! Do not cite him, either.

I don't need to find a reason for a 3rd temple.

ROTFLMBO!!!!

Do you often believe things for no reason?

I read there will be a temple as shown by scripture at the time of the end.

You read it in a post-biblical biased source. It was not read in scripture. That is the entire point. We have hundreds of thousands of Christians who believe extra-biblical sources instead of scripture itself. This is objectively observable when any of them are asked to provide just one verse that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. There is no such verse and the only way to hold that point of view is to infer scripture implies something it never states. Scripture must be read to imply inferences that contradict multiple facts of other scripture (only a few of which I have listed). The problem of believing biased sources over scripture also becomes apparent when a modern futurist is asked to look at the text for themselves and answer very, very basic questions like,


Was there a temple standing when Paul wrote his second epistle to the Church in Thessalonica? Yes or no?

Irrelevant -Because the prophecy concerns the time of the end not the 1st century which Paul understood as this lawless one is detroyed by a coming of the Lord. He understood as well that there would be no gathering to the Lord before this revealing of the AC.

Paul maybe even thought the Lord would return in His lifetime which is also irrelevant as it will take place at Gods appointed time which we know now was not the 1st century.

Then "we" which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Rev 11 is in the future and as is a sign that can not be mistaken 1260 days as I read.

The question is not irrelevant. And you did not answer it.

Irrelevant -Because the prophecy concerns the time of the end not the 1st century

Then I am guessing you may not have ever red Paul's first letter to the Corinthians because in that letter he explicitly states,

1 Corinthians 10:1-12 (excerpted for the sake of space)
1For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; 2and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3and they all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased; for their dead bodies were spread out in the wilderness. 6Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they indeed craved them................ 11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12Therefore let the one who thinks he stands watch out that he does not fall.

Paul, the very same man who wrote the Thessalonian epistles, explicitly stated the ends of the ages had come in the first century. The ends, not the beginnings. Peter also stated the last times had come during the first century.

1 Peter 1:17-21
17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; 18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Jesus had been revealed in those last times. The things that were recorded in the Old Testament were written for the sake of those living at the ends of the ages and Jesus was revealed in those last times. That is what scripture states, not my personal, doctrinally-biased interpretation or opinion. If Dr. Wallace did not consider these facts then his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2 is inadequate at best, incompetent and misleading at worst.

The fact there was a temple standing when the epistle was written is not irrelevant and if thinking it is irrelevant was learned from Wallace then you are following him whether you realize it or not. .

We know as fact that wasn't in the first century.

Scripture states otherwise. What you think you "know" is nothing more than a biased opinion based on a doctrinally biased eisegetic interpretation of the text that ignores the facts.


That is what we know.

And what you believe is opinion.

Scripture proves otherwise. You may continue to argue ad nauseam that my posts are nothing more than personal opinion but the facts in evidence are that I have posted scripture after scripture. stood firmly on what is stated therein and not once appealed to ANY eschatological doctrine r the interpretations such an eschatology might assert.

Why can'y you believe what God has shown instead trying to find a alternate meaning? Examine yourself what spirit is driving you?

Because it is not what God has "shown." It is a scripture twisting teaching of doctrinally-biased teachers who eisegetically interpret scripture according to the teachings of their eschatology. Why can you not see that? Why have you not examined yourself? Why do you feel the need to change the topic, make this personal, and insinuate an utterly fallacious ad hominem? Why can't you settle down, breath, relax and walk with me through the specified text in good faith and goodwill?

Because that is what modern futurism teaches its adherents to do.


Was there a temple standing when Paul wrote the epistles to Thessalonica? Yes or no?

 

[Paul]

Which makes him a flawed source, someone who should be viewed circumspectly at best, if not wholly discarded because of his failure to consider the facts of scripture already in evidence.

There was a temple standing when the letter was written.
There were, in fact, two temples standing at that time.
The temples (both Solomon's and Herod's) contained defiled altars.
Nowhere does the text of 2 Thes. 2 mention another temple and nowhere does the text actually state another temple will be built.

Those are the facts of scripture. A lot more could be brought to bear on Wallace's interpretation because the premise of the lawless man is predicated on a contingency, NOT and inevitability, and if he missed that then his commentary is not something to consider efficacious or veracious.

Good! Do not cite him, either.

ROTFLMBO!!!!

Do you often believe things for no reason?

You read it in a post-biblical biased source. It was not read in scripture. That is the entire point. We have hundreds of thousands of Christians who believe extra-biblical sources instead of scripture itself. This is objectively observable when any of them are asked to provide just one verse that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. There is no such verse and the only way to hold that point of view is to infer scripture implies something it never states. Scripture must be read to imply inferences that contradict multiple facts of other scripture (only a few of which I have listed). The problem of believing biased sources over scripture also becomes apparent when a modern futurist is asked to look at the text for themselves and answer very, very basic questions like,


Was there a temple standing when Paul wrote his second epistle to the Church in Thessalonica? Yes or no?

The question is not irrelevant. And you did not answer it.

Then I am guessing you may not have ever red Paul's first letter to the Corinthians because in that letter he explicitly states,

1 Corinthians 10:1-12 (excerpted for the sake of space)
1For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; 2and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3and they all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased; for their dead bodies were spread out in the wilderness. 6Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they indeed craved them................ 11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12Therefore let the one who thinks he stands watch out that he does not fall.

Paul, the very same man who wrote the Thessalonian epistles, explicitly stated the ends of the ages had come in the first century. The ends, not the beginnings. Peter also stated the last times had come during the first century.

1 Peter 1:17-21
17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; 18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Jesus had been revealed in those last times. The things that were recorded in the Old Testament were written for the sake of those living at the ends of the ages and Jesus was revealed in those last times. That is what scripture states, not my personal, doctrinally-biased interpretation or opinion. If Dr. Wallace did not consider these facts then his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2 is inadequate at best, incompetent and misleading at worst.

The fact there was a temple standing when the epistle was written is not irrelevant and if thinking it is irrelevant was learned from Wallace then you are following him whether you realize it or not. .

Scripture states otherwise. What you think you "know" is nothing more than a biased opinion based on a doctrinally biased eisegetic interpretation of the text that ignores the facts.


That is what we know.

Scripture proves otherwise. You may continue to argue ad nauseam that my posts are nothing more than personal opinion but the facts in evidence are that I have posted scripture after scripture. stood firmly on what is stated therein and not once appealed to ANY eschatological doctrine r the interpretations such an eschatology might assert.

Because it is not what God has "shown." It is a scripture twisting teaching of doctrinally-biased teachers who eisegetically interpret scripture according to the teachings of their eschatology. Why can you not see that? Why have you not examined yourself? Why do you feel the need to change the topic, make this personal, and insinuate an utterly fallacious ad hominem? Why can't you settle down, breath, relax and walk with me through the specified text in good faith and goodwill?

Because that is what modern futurism teaches its adherents to do.


Was there a temple standing when Paul wrote the epistles to Thessalonica? Yes or no?

You wasting my time and Paul is not a flawed source. You are.

In considering the prophecies in Daniel, Jesus words, Pauls words and Rev 11 it is in my view a temple that does not exist now will exist at the time of the end. You are of course free to disagree but my understanding will not change. Your words scipture proves otherwise are false as I can read. I'm far from alone in this.

 

[EarlyActs]

I'm reading Jesus speaking if the great tribulation which is the time of the end and temple desecration, He states at that time is cohesive with Paul's 2 Thess 2 and Rev 11:2

If that generation does not pass before those events are fulfilled, then I reason Jesus means the generation that exists when that happens not the generation He's speaking to. God will gather all nations to attack Jerusalem then show Himself Holy by destroying them even making a way of escape into the desert for the people by splitting the mount of olives in two. Rev 11:2-given over for 42 months. That beast in Rev is also destroyed by a coming of the Lord. REV 16:15

A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. 3Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. 4On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5;You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

I'm reading Jesus speaking if the great tribulation which is the time of the end and temple desecration, He states at that time is cohesive with Paul's 2 Thess 2 and Rev 11:2

Please know that is a big if. Do any of these passages sound like they are for people X000 years in the future? All instructions are current, local, vital, life or death.

The thing is that Mt24A (up to v29) is not like B. At B, you can see a world-wide event, but before that it is current, local, that generation. Just compare the language with Mt 10 where some of the same expressions are used, about the 70 preachers.

 

[Paul]

I'm reading Jesus speaking if the great tribulation which is the time of the end and temple desecration, He states at that time is cohesive with Paul's 2 Thess 2 and Rev 11:2

Please know that is a big if. Do any of these passages sound like they are for people X000 years in the future? All instructions are current, local, vital, life or death.

The thing is that Mt24A (up to v29) is not like B. At B, you can see a world-wide event, but before that it is current, local, that generation. Just compare the language with Mt 10 where some of the same expressions are used, about the 70 preachers.

I believe the NT was written for future generations. Daniel 12 was stated for the distant future and the time of the end.

From our God

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’

 

[Josheb]

.... in my view....

Those are the words of an opinion.


The Bible is not a book that is supposed to be read by 20 different people resulting in each individual closing the book to say, "In my view..." especially not when its truth is objective and universal, not a function of personal viewpoints. Eschatology does happen to be one of the most debated doctrines in Christendom but that debate exponentially worsened with the invention of modern futurism. Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism and even Idealism share have more in common with each other than they do apart. That is not true of the Dispensational premillennialisms. Dispensational Premillennialism teaches positions that are completely contrary to what is explicitly stated in scripture and completely irreconcilable with 2000 years of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. These conflicts are some irreconcilable that f what DPism teaches is true then 2000 years of Christianity is wrong.

And that would cut the foundation out from under modern futurism.

Can't have a Christian eschatology if Christianity is wrong.

Try stepping outside "your view" for just a moment and ignore ALL the eschatologies. Look first at what scripture states and stand on that so firmly that 1) anything anyone teaches differently is instantly recognized and 2) your eschatology is built on that and not extra-biblical sources.

 

[Josheb]

Paul is not a flawed source.

That is correct. Paul is not a flawed source. He is wholly reliable and what he explicitly stated was the ends of the ages had come upon those to whom he was writing in the first century. What he did NOT ever state is a third temple will be built in our future. Your view AND my view are always wrong if and when we disagree with Paul.

And you disagree with Paul. You think the last times in which a temple will be built are today even though Paul never said any such thing. You seek to accuse me and blame me and not yourself even though I posted scripture exactly as written and you've added interpretation to every verse you've cited, and you've refused all overtures to look at individual texts for what is stated.


Which is exactly what I predicted way back in Post 14,

We should ALL be able to acknowledge 2 Thessalonians does not explicitly state another temple will be built in the 21st century or later. We should all be able to discuss how it is some infer another temple is implied by the 2 Thessalonians text, but the simple, observable fact is we can't have that discussion because the Dispensationalist will not collaborate. No obfuscation wanted, need, nor provided on my part.

The fact is 2 Thes. 2 does NOT state another temple will be built in our future. What it does state is some guy will exalt himself in the temple of God if the apostacy comes. and the lawless man revealed. Unless the apostacy occurs, there will be no guy exalting himself in the temple.

That is what the text states. No mention of a third temple.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 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.

Nothing Paul wrote about in that letter would happen unless the apostacy came first. The self-exaltation of the lawless man is a conditioned predicate!! It is not stated as an inevitability. How would any of Paul's original readers know the apostacy had occurred if it happened after they were all dead? Modern futurists let someone deceive them, and the result is an unwillingness to examine scripture for what is actually, factually states. The allegiance to modern futurism is greater than the allegiance to God's word. Not only is there no mention of a third temple and no mention of the 21st century..... there's also no mention the last times will last 2000 years, either. Paul stated the ends of the ages had come in the first century and Peter stated the last times were those in which Christ was revealed.

 

[Paul]

That is correct. Paul is not a flawed source. He is wholly reliable and what he explicitly stated was the ends of the ages had come upon those to whom he was writing in the first century. What he did NOT ever state is a third temple will be built in our future. Your view AND my view are always wrong if and when we disagree with Paul.

And you disagree with Paul. You think the last times in which a temple will be built are today even though Paul never said any such thing. You seek to accuse me and blame me and not yourself even though I posted scripture exactly as written and you've added interpretation to every verse you've cited, and you've refused all overtures to look at individual texts for what is stated.


Which is exactly what I predicted way back in Post 14,

The fact is 2 Thes. 2 does NOT state another temple will be built in our future. What it does state is some guy will exalt himself in the temple of God if the apostacy comes. and the lawless man revealed. Unless the apostacy occurs, there will be no guy exalting himself in the temple.

That is what the text states. No mention of a third temple.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 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.

Nothing Paul wrote about in that letter would happen unless the apostacy came first. The self-exaltation of the lawless man is a conditioned predicate!! It is not stated as an inevitability. How would any of Paul's original readers know the apostacy had occurred if it happened after they were all dead? Modern futurists let someone deceive them, and the result is an unwillingness to examine scripture for what is actually, factually states. The allegiance to modern futurism is greater than the allegiance to God's word. Not only is there no mention of a third temple and no mention of the 21st century..... there's also no mention the last times will last 2000 years, either. Paul stated the ends of the ages had come in the first century and Peter stated the last times were those in which Christ was revealed.

The facts support a temple exists at the time of the end that does not currently exist.

The Lord could not come before the man reveals himself in the temple because he is destroyed the very coming of the Lord as its the time of the end. So, any reports of His coming already were false and not from the apostles. Paul is telling the church's not to be alarmed but such false reports.

We know from prophecy the reign of this lawless one is 42 months. We know how he reveals himself to the world and it involves sitting in the temple claiming to be God. We know he is destroyed by the coming of the Lord. Its the timing of the end.

It's amazing you are roaring against the existence of a future temple.

Rev 11
What year was REV written? John was shown a future event. It's cohesive with Daniel and Paul and Jesus about a temple existing at that time of the end.
I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

Daniel 12
He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. 10Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

11From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days