Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

[Josheb]

an abomination event in the Jewish temple.", referring to...

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4,8-10 KJV
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; [4] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. [8] And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [9] Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, [10] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

So that passage is either untrue or maybe the Preterists have it right, i.e. it's all been fulfilled.

Nice try but the first century reader would have understood that as a reference to the temple that was still standing in Jerusalem (or the body of Christ), 2) multiple people entered that temple after that epistle was written and declared themselves gods, and 3) that verse does not state another temple will be built. There is absolutely no way the original readers would have thought that statement is about something that would happen two millennia later. You've just made the passage meaningless to its original readers.

I see nothing wrong with Vlach's statement

Nice dodge. You disputed the claim Dispensationalism teaches two peoples with two purposes, and I showed Vlach to prove the dissent incorrect. You then claimed Dispensationalism teaches the temple is an antichrist temple. I, again, quoted Vlach, to again prove your position incorrect. You, in turn, think it is rational to respond with "I see nothing wrong with Vlach's statement" when the point is you, not Vlach, were wrong. You claimed DPism teaches the future temple is an antichrist temple and the leading DP teacher Vlach explicitly states in his teaching the temple is a Jewish temple. The Jews are one of God's chosen people with special purpose and that purpose is partly fulfilled by their building another temple. That is Dispensational Premillennial teaching.


The plain, simple, undeniable, irrefutable facts are...

1. This op is about whether or not another temple will be built in our future.
2. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible explicitly stating another temple will be built in our future.
3. No one in this thread has provided any such verse (despite having more than a year and 20 pages of posts to do so).
4. Only Dispensational Premillennialism (and other similar modern eschatologies) thinks Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology.
5. Modern futurism's belief in a future temple is entirely inferential and entirely eisegetic.

The answer to the question asked in the title of this op is, "No, and if a third temple is built in Israel, then it will have absolutely nothing to do with end times prophecies of scripture." Christians need not be concerned about what the Jews do, and the matter of a stone temple has no place in Christian theology except as its significance as a foreshadowing of the true temple, Christ resurrected and his body, the Church.

 

[Arial]

Only 'cause I never made the claim.

If you hadn't made a claim, I would not have asked for a citation.

To be clear, when you asked me for a citation, it was not even clear what you wanted a citation for as I made two claims. One about MacArthurs branch of dispensationalism and one about that branch of dispensationalism.

Do you want a quote from MacArthur?

From his study notes on Ez 40: 38-47 "This section describes 'chambers' for the priests and raises the question of sacrifice in the millennial kingdom. They will exist as vv, 39-43 indicate, but will be no more efficacious then than they were in OT times. No sacrifice before or after Christ saved. They only point to Him as the one true lamb who takes away sin."

Does that even sound like anything but forcing a presupposition into the text? It presumes a literal millennial kingdom. Why would it be necessary to sacrifice animals and rebuild a temple, and reinstate the festival celebrations as a memorial of the Lamb that was Slain when he is right there? How does that honor him? How does repeating what pointed to Him honor him? If they are saved, they now realize the old pointed to the new. Why is a memorial needed? Does even that one small quote from MacArthur even sound biblical or logical for that matter?

The problem (one of many but the one out of the gate that forces all the other unbiblical interpretations) is by locking the one long, unbroken, always connected, historical account of redemption from Gen through Rev, into dispensations as a means of interpretation.

 

[prism]

From his study notes on Ez 40: 38-47 "This section describes 'chambers' for the priests and raises the question of sacrifice in the millennial kingdom. They will exist as vv, 39-43 indicate, but will be no more efficacious then than they were in OT times. No sacrifice before or after Christ saved. They only point to Him as the one true lamb who takes away sin."

Thanks for that. In #381 you said "Much of Dispensationalism (including the branch MacArthur promotes) also teaches the temple will be rebuilt and the old order of worship will be reinstated, including the animal sacrifices.

In the quoted passage of MacArthur, I do not see a temple being built I do see worship being reinstated, but not animal sacrifice, there will be animal sacrifice, but only memorial in nature.
How would you interpret Ezekiel 40-48 with its sacrifices, temple, priesthood etc., if not as a memorial?

 

[prism]

The plain, simple, undeniable, irrefutable facts are...

1. This op is about whether or not another temple will be built in our future.
2. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible explicitly stating another temple will be built in our future.
3. No one in this thread has provided any such verse (despite having more than a year and 20 pages of posts to do so).
4. Only Dispensational Premillennialism (and other similar modern eschatologies) thinks Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology.
5. Modern futurism's belief in a future temple is entirely inferential and entirely eisegetic.

1. I believe 2Thess 2 confirms that a future temple will be built. You may happen to disagree.
2. There will be an antichrist temple (see pt #1). Daniel 12:11 KJV
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
It also appears that Ezekiel 40-48 reveals a temple built by God.
3. Again see #1 & #2
4. The age of an eschatology is not the issue, but rather, is it true or not? Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology unless you drop the old testament and all the prophecies concerning Christ. Even amillennialism and preterism were modern ideas at one time.
5. Does that make you a preterist, speaking disparagingly about futurists?

 

[Josheb]

1. I believe 2Thess 2 confirms that a future temple will be built. You may happen to disagree.
2. There will be an antichrist temple (see pt #1). Daniel 12:11 KJV
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
It also appears that Ezekiel 40-48 reveals a temple built by God.
3. Again see #1 & #2
4. The age of an eschatology is not the issue, but rather, is it true or not? Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology unless you drop the old testament and all the prophecies concerning Christ. Even amillennialism and preterism were modern ideas at one time.
5. Does that make you a preterist, speaking disparagingly about futurists?

What is the specified topic of this op?

 

[Arial]

In the quoted passage of MacArthur, I do not see a temple being built I do see worship being reinstated, but not animal sacrifice, there will be animal sacrifice, but only memorial in nature.

The temple being rebuilt is taken from what precedes and follows the Ez passage given. Animal sacrifices are animal sacrifices, regardless of whether they are called "memorial in nature" or not. Even in memorial they are representing the sacrifice of Christ, just as they foreshadowed his sacrifice in the OT.

How would you interpret Ezekiel 40-48 with its sacrifices, temple, priesthood etc., if not as a memorial?

You have just asked me to interpret a whole lot of passages. (Eight chapters!!!) Something you would never do yourself. Not only that, but to interpret them correctly they cannot be isolated from the rest of Scripture. Also, it would be pointless as long as one is locked into the dispensational way of interpreting. Your request is unreasonable IOW. I don't interpret them through a presuppositional lens of premillennial dispensationalism, therefore I do not come to them with the idea that God deals first with the church and then with Israel in a literal thousand years.

But here are a few things to consider. The heading in Chapt 40 1-5 is "The New City, and the New Jerusalem. The opening line is "In the twenty-fifth year of our captivity----". So Ezekiel was given this prophecy in exile, before the Jews returned to Israel and the temple was rebuilt (Ezra). There is that. In any case there is no reason to presuppose that a third temple will be built as no where in the NT (which interprets what was not clear in the OT as much had not yet been revealed until Christ came an died and was raised and ascended.)is any mention of a third temple being built. Not only that it clearly states that Christ IS the Temple.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The site where the Temple stood, is dominated by two structures which keep Jews from any chance to build or restore, which are the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, near the center of the temple mount, which is seem as one of the holiest Islamic structure in the world.

Actually recent evidence shows that it is south of this site. The wall that everyone sees is actually the wall of fortress antonia. it was the ONLY think standing after titus destroyed the temple and city.

They have found on top of the site is just a parking lot. They could start building tomorrow and no one would really have reason to stop them

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

But here are a few things to consider. The heading in Chapt 40 1-5 is "The New City, and the New Jerusalem. The opening line is "In the twenty-fifth year of our captivity----". So Ezekiel was given this prophecy in exile, before the Jews returned to Israel and the temple was rebuilt (Ezra). There is that. In any case there is no reason to presuppose that a third temple will be built as no where in the NT (which interprets what was not clear in the OT as much had not yet been revealed until Christ came an died and was raised and ascended.)is any mention of a third temple being built. Not only that it clearly states that Christ IS the Temple.

Daniel says after many years after the city is destroyed. a future prince will confirm a covenant with many for 7 years

In the middle of that week, he will commit an abomination of desolation.

Jesus speaks of this same event in MATT 24. to be followed by a great tribulation such as the world has never seen before or after. so severe. If Jesus did nto stop it. no flesh would survive.

No temple means no Abomination of desolation.

 

[Arial]

Daniel says after many years after the city is destroyed. a future prince will confirm a covenant with many for 7 years

In the middle of that week, he will commit an abomination of desolation.

Jesus speaks of this same event in MATT 24. to be followed by a great tribulation such as the world has never seen before or after. so severe. If Jesus did nto stop it. no flesh would survive.

No temple means no Abomination of desolation.

Maybe you are misinterpreting the seven years in Daniel. That prophecy was also given while Judah was in captivity and prophecy in the Bible has its own set of rules for interpretation. These are things we all should study, and the different views, at least if we are going to talk about it and state things as facts. It is very complicated and requires very many, many words and scripture as support, beyond the scope of simply answering a question in a forum format. The work has to be done by individuals. People have written many whole books on the matter. However, if a person only looks at one side, or one view, they are not likely to ever move off of it.

If you want to see the Amillennial view contrasted with the Dispensational premillennial view in the most concise and yet comprehensive way read A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. It is an easy and fascinating read.

 

[prism]

You have just asked me to interpret a whole lot of passages. (Eight chapters!!!) Something you would never do yourself. Not only that, but to interpret them correctly they cannot be isolated from the rest of Scripture. Also, it would be pointless as long as one is locked into the dispensational way of interpreting. Your request is unreasonable IOW. I don't interpret them through a presuppositional lens of premillennial dispensationalism, therefore I do not come to them with the idea that God deals first with the church and then with Israel in a literal thousand years.

I would at least give a one-paragraph synopsis of my understanding of the nine chapters. I'm not here to debate, I just never heard a Reformed person speak of those or even a dispensationalist speak on those chapters.

But here are a few things to consider. The heading in Chapt 40 1-5 is "The New City, and the New Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 40:2 KJV
In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.
So Ezekiel was given this prophecy in exile, before the Jews returned to Israel and the temple was rebuilt (Ezra). There is that. In any case there is no reason to presuppose that a third temple will be built as no where in the NT (which interprets what was not clear in the OT as much had not yet been revealed until Christ came an died and was raised and ascended.)is any mention of a third temple being built. Not only that it clearly states that Christ IS the Temple.

In verse two it also goes on to say:
Ezekiel 40:2 KJV
In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.
So was this in heaven or did this happen in Israel?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Maybe you are misinterpreting the seven years in Daniel. That prophecy was also given while Judah was in captivity and prophecy in the Bible has its own set of rules for interpretation. These are things we all should study, and the different views, at least if we are going to talk about it and state things as facts. It is very complicated and requires very many, many words and scripture as support, beyond the scope of simply answering a question in a forum format. The work has to be done by individuals. People have written many whole books on the matter. However, if a person only looks at one side, or one view, they are not likely to ever move off of it.

All prophecy should be interpreted literally.

We know that every aspect of that prophecy was fulfilled to the date when Jesus entered Jerusalem as the prophet said he would

so to me if the 1st 69 weeks are literally fulfilled. the last one should be also (and everything in between, which again, 70 AD happened just like the prophet said almost 4 decades after messiah was cut off)

If you want to see the Amillennial view contrasted with the Dispensational premillennial view in the most concise and yet comprehensive way read A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. It is an easy and fascinating read.

This is one of my favorite subjects. I have not read this one yet.

from what I see. the major difference between the Amillennial view and the Premillenial view is how one interprets prophecy.

while one uses a more symbolic or interprets prophecy as a parable.

the other takes prophecy literal.. case in point the 70 week prophecy

I will look this book up though. I love reading others views.

 

[Mr GLee]

All prophecy should be interpreted literally.

We know that every aspect of that prophecy was fulfilled to the date when Jesus entered Jerusalem as the prophet said he would

so to me if the 1st 69 weeks are literally fulfilled. the last one should be also (and everything in between, which again, 70 AD happened just like the prophet said almost 4 decades after messiah was cut off)

This is one of my favorite subjects. I have not read this one yet.

from what I see. the major difference between the Amillennial view and the Premillenial view is how one interprets prophecy.

while one uses a more symbolic or interprets prophecy as a parable.

the other takes prophecy literal.. case in point the 70 week prophecy

I will look this book up though. I love reading others views.

Without parables comparing the temporal dying seen to the unseen eternal.

Without parables Christ working in us with us. . he speaks not.

The literal (literature) or called the letter of the law (death) must be mixed with the invisible things of Christ. No mixing no gospel rest.

Parables the signified hidden understanding called hidden manna in Revelation 2:17our daily bread .

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Without parables comparing the temporal dying seen to the unseen eternal.

Without parables Christ working in us with us. . he speaks not.

The literal (literature) or called the letter of the law (death) must be mixed with the invisible things of Christ. No mixing no gospel rest.

Parables the signified hidden understanding called hidden manna in Revelation 2:17our daily bread .

You do not apply this to prophesy.

Prophesy is a specific language used by God to prove he is the one true God. who states things will happen hundreds sometimes thousands of years into the future. and those living at the time, take these signs and glorify God in their faith as it helps them to see God for who he is.

A parable is a symbolic things we know to explain a spiritual truth

A prophecy is God telling us A B C And D is going to happen. so when it happens. we know God is the one who told us. and we praise God.

sadly Israel in Jesus day did not see the literal prophecies Jesus fulfilled.. they rejected them.

If not. they would have been saved because they would have believed him

 

[Arial]

All prophecy should be interpreted literally.

Prophecy that is given using symbolic language should not be interpreted literally. It announces itself as not being literal, but rather, representative of things not seen or revealed. It is revealing hidden things by means of symbols, representatives, figures of speech. What is being revealed is literal, (real) but the symbols themselves are representative.

When we speak of literal interpretation, what is meant is the clear meaning of the words, unless the type of genre is using symbolism or figures of speech. We do not make up what these things mean in our interpretation, but seek as best we can to find the meaning of their usage in other places in the Bible, particularly in the structure of the OT.

We know that every aspect of that prophecy was fulfilled to the date when Jesus entered Jerusalem as the prophet said he would

so to me if the 1st 69 weeks are literally fulfilled. the last one should be also (and everything in between, which again, 70 AD happened just like the prophet said almost 4 decades after messiah was cut off)

Not all prophecy is symbolic. As to the 69 weeks and the dispensational interpretation of these passages in Daniel as opposed to a covenant view that is amillennial rather than premillennial, (just addressing this one aspect of those millennial views and means of interpretation, as there are many) I have delved into that before, some time ago. I would need to do a thorough review. It is complicated and long winded and I do not wish to go there.

This is one of my favorite subjects. I have not read this one yet.

from what I see. the major difference between the Amillennial view and the Premillenial view is how one interprets prophecy.

while one uses a more symbolic or interprets prophecy as a parable.

the other takes prophecy literal.. case in point the 70 week prophecy

I will look this book up though. I love reading others views.

I think you will find it informational and profitable. I like that the author supports everything he says with scriptural exposition, instead of just "proof" texts.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Prophecy that is given using symbolic language should not be interpreted literally.

again, I already used an example

Daniel was given a symbol of a grand statue with a head of God. that head was a symbol, but it represented a literal kingdom.

where we get off the mark is if we use a symbol used to denote a literal person place or event, and make it not represent a literal thing, but a spiritual truth.

It announces itself as not being literal, but rather, representative of things not seen or revealed. It is revealing hidden things by means of symbols, representatives, figures of speech. What is being revealed is literal, (real) but the symbols themselves are representative.

Prophecy is not hidden, We were told when God would arrive, where and how all those things happened. they were not hidden.

When we speak of literal interpretation, what is meant is the clear meaning of the words, unless the type of genre is using symbolism or figures of speech. We do not make up what these things mean in our interpretation, but seek as best we can to find the meaning of their usage in other places in the Bible, particularly in the structure of the OT.

again, The head of god was a symbol. it was not a hidden truth, Daniel told Nebechadnezar. you are that head of God.

the 5 parts of the statue as symbols represented 5 gentile kingdoms. 4 of which have been totally fulfilled

the four beasts of Dan 7 represent these same kingdoms. one of which has not been totally fulfilled yet.

Not all prophecy is symbolic. As to the 69 weeks and the dispensational interpretation of these passages in Daniel as opposed to a covenant view that is amillennial rather than premillennial, (just addressing this one aspect of those millennial views and means of interpretation, as there are many) I have delved into that before, some time ago. I would need to do a thorough review. It is complicated and long winded and I do not wish to go there.

I believe the amill view is the 69 weeks actually came true. the 70th week either is a symbol and will not be literally fulfilled. or it was fulfilled already in the 1st century AD.

I think you will find it informational and profitable. I like that the author supports everything he says with scriptural exposition, instead of just "proof" texts.

this helps. Another book I read was things to come. He did the same, while I do not agree with some of what the book said. He also changed my view and a few things..

 

[Arial]

where we get off the mark is if we use a symbol used to denote a literal person place or event, and make it not represent a literal thing, but a spiritual truth.

Where we get off the mark is when one says that amillenial views are doing that. When it is obviously referring to earthly kingdoms or men, we take the historical and consider what was future in the time it was given but has come to pass in our time placement, and what refers to a future (to us) event. And these things are ascertained from the whole of scripture, much of it from the NT itself as it interprets them for us, and also the post canon history, as to possible applications. Eschatalogical prophecy often spans all of those things within the same prophecy. Unlike the dispensational premillennial view, Idealist or eclectic amillenalism interpretation, interprets according to what it IS. Instead of a one size fits all approach.

Prophecy is not hidden,

Not what I said. I said (apocalyptic) prophecy reveals things that were previously hidden----out of our view. All prophecy is equal in value, but not all prophecy is equal in presentation.

again, The head of god was a symbol. it was not a hidden truth, Daniel told Nebechadnezar. you are that head of God.

Was Nebechadnezar literally the head of God? If not, what did that mean?

the 5 parts of the statue as symbols represented 5 gentile kingdoms.

Right. Symbols that represented. The kingdoms are literal. The symbols are not. (I am not going to debate your interpretations of these things. I have no desire to do that. I am pointing out your own inconsistency and trying to illustrate a proper usage of the terms "literal" and "spiritual". To undo the false assessment that in amillennialism everything is spiritualized and nothing is literal.)

I believe the amill view is the 69 weeks actually came true. the 70th week either is a symbol and will not be literally fulfilled. or it was fulfilled already in the 1st century AD.

See parenthetical above.

this helps. Another book I read was things to come. He did the same, while I do not agree with some of what the book said. He also changed my view and a few things..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Where we get off the mark is when one says that amillenial views are doing that.

[/QUOTE]
Hey brother, I have seen many an amill believer do this very thing

When it is obviously referring to earthly kingdoms or men, we take the historical and consider what was future in the time it was given but has come to pass in our time placement, and what refers to a future (to us) event. And these things are ascertained from the whole of scripture, much of it from the NT itself as it interprets them for us, and also the post canon history, as to possible applications. Eschatalogical prophecy often spans all of those things within the same prophecy. Unlike the dispensational premillennial view, Idealist or eclectic amillenalism interpretation, interprets according to what it IS. Instead of a one size fits all approach.

I am not sure what you mean here.

If the prophet said A will happen, then B will happen, then C will happen.

but we look in history in the word and all of history. and we see evidence that events A and B happened literally. and we can see how everything took place exactly as the prophet said.

but se no evidence whatsoever that event C has even happened.

what do we do about event C?

I can answer for a premil, we would say since A and B happened. we should use this to determine, if A and B both were fulfilled. then using that precedence, C should be fulfilled also. If we see no evidence it has, it must be a future event.

again, using the example of the prophet Daniel. when he was given the prophecy, The head of God was the only thing that had been or was being fulfilled. everything else was a future event.

Not what I said. I said (apocalyptic) prophecy reveals things that were previously hidden----out of our view. All prophecy is equal in value, but not all prophecy is equal in presentation.

All prophecy which has not yet happened is out of anyone's view.

The virgin birth was hidden until it happened. but it was not really hidden.

The prophet said he would be born of a Virgin.

Up until the time it happened. it was hidden, I am sure many tried to explain it away in some form/. But when it literally was fulfilled in Mary. we know it was fulfilled.

to me apocalyptic prophecy is no different. God said this will happen. I can be assured it will. I may not know how or when or other things. But when it happens. I can have no doubt.

Was Nebechadnezar literally the head of God? If not, what did that mean?

It was a symbol with represented a literal thing

the statue represented gentile kingdoms who would rule over Israel. The statue would be destroyed by the rock. and no visible evidence that they ever even existed will be left. and at that time, the rock will assume power.

everything but the feet and toes of iron and clay literally came true. The legs of iron was in power in 70 AD when Jerusalem was literally wiped off the map by that fourth empire (rome)

there is still unfulfilled prophecy concerning what happens next. what do we do with that prophecy?

Right. Symbols that represented. The kingdoms are literal. The symbols are not. (I am not going to debate your interpretations of these things. I have no desire to do that. I am pointing out your own inconsistency and trying to illustrate a proper usage of the terms "literal" and "spiritual". To undo the false assessment that in amillennialism everything is spiritualized and nothing is literal.)

I actually thought I explained this.

I never said the symbols were literal. i said they pointed to literal people, places or things or events which would happen in the future (some of these are now our past)

See parenthetical above.

 

[Arial]

All prophecy which has not yet happened is out of anyone's view.

Out of our view means that it is beyond what the finite can see---in the spiritual realm

You misrepresent the amil method of interpretation with you alphabet analogy. I don't see that changing no matter what is said, so there is no point in continuing. I am neither qualified to do the job that the author of the book I suggested is and did, and I do not want to. I do hope you get it. Even if it does not change your mind eschatoalogically or interpretively, it will at least clarify the method.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Out of our view means that it is beyond what the finite can see---in the spiritual realm

I am not sure I agree. what do you mean by spiritual realm?

Again, here is an example.

13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Here is a prophecy that up until the time of Christ. would be something beyond what anyone could see.. But to us it is past.. and it came true. How would you interpret this in the spiritual realm before Christ was conceived?

You misrepresent the premil method of interpretation with you alphabet analogy.

I misrepresent my own belief system? I am explaining to you in all my years as a premillennial dispensational believer (over 40 years now) , this is how I see things prophecy as given, and as either fulfilled, or not yet fulfilled.

so your really confusing me here.

I don't see that changing no matter what is said, so there is no point in continuing. I am neither qualified to do the job that the author of the book I suggested is and did, and I do not want to. I do hope you get it. Even if it does not change your mind eschatoalogically or interpretively, it will at least clarify the method.

Thank you. I am always willing to learn..

 

[Arial]

I am not sure I agree. what do you mean by spiritual realm?

The realm where invisible beings exist.

Again, here is an example.

13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Here is a prophecy that up until the time of Christ. would be something beyond what anyone could see.. But to us it is past.. and it came true. How would you interpret this in the spiritual realm before Christ was conceived?

Again. All prophecy is equal in value, but not all prophecy is equal in the way it is expressed.

It doesn't need to be interpreted in the spiritual realm. It is a statement of fact, even to the ones it was first given to. It was prophecy only because it had not happened yet historically. Much of Revelation, on the other hand, is being given to us from the perspective of the spiritual realm.

To equate the prophecy you give with say, just as an example, what we have in Rev 8:6-13, is incorrect. To relate all prophecy as being the same as the prophecy of the virgin birth is incorrect. (In fact, there is yet another element of prophecy. It is not always foretelling but quite often forth telling what God has already given us. It is actually the job preachers are to be doing.)

I misrepresent my own belief system?

I meant amil. I will correct it.

so your really confusing me here.

Given all the preceding conversation, it should have been easily recognized as an unintentional mistake and one not caught by proofreading.