WW III and the rebuilding of the temple

[Red Baker]

I do not agree that it has only to do with false prophets. "All these things" imo refers to the things of verses 4-9 which did happen in the generation of the disciples, including the destruction of the temple (which is one of the questions they asked regarding Jesus' proclamation in verses 1-2.

It seems in your post you were dealing with the abomination of desolation, rather that what "all these things" was applied to.

The temple of the Lord according to Peter, is the full invisible church. 2 Peter: 4-5 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

And Paul Eph 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you are also being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

As individuals we are a temple of the Lord for the Holy Spirit indwells us. I would not say it is our places of worship as buildings because they contain both believers and unbelievers. Although that is one of the significant places where the wolves in sheep's clothing pose as shepherds.

But God also has a temple in heaven. Rev 11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

That may have been the temple Jesus was referring to in Matt 24 and Paul in 2 Thess. I would have to study it more. But if that is the case it means that the man of lawlessness claims to be God, claiming God's throne and temple as his.

When Jesus quoted Daniel and said "let the reader understand" he did not mean understand him but understand Daniel.

Later...RB

 

[CrowCross]

Crow just knock it off with the insults and belittling. I ask what verse YOU were referring to!

I see it this way...you seem to be professing to be an expert on this issue...then you ask for the verse?
Are you saying you didn't know the verse i was going to post???

There was no insult...I was simply wondering about your motive.

2 Thess 2:3-4
3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[b] is revealed, the son of destruction,[c] 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

Regarding the assertion that this passage proves that a third temple will be built. It doesn't since it is nowhere mentioned in any of the other writings of the NT. Instead both Paul and Peter speak of a temple being built and that temple is the body of Christ, the church, in which God dwells by His Spirit. (Eph 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:5)

i don't disagree that the temple is the body of Christ.
Now, you also mentioned that the temple...But God also has a temple in heaven. Rev 11:19 is a reality. Is that temple also the body of Christ? I think not.

For the same reason the temple that the anti-christ claims to be God in isn't the body of Christ.

Other views:

Some see this as meaning the temple will be rebuilt, but Scripture does not support that.

As mentioned before...you're correct the temple is not mentioned as being rebuilt. Currently it isn't there. The Dome of the Rock stands where the temple was.
BUT...the temple is mentioned in the future tense so apparently it will be rebuilt.

Some see it as having already happened in the destruction of 70 a.d. and the Romans proclaimed themselves as the true rulers of Israel. There was a partial fulfillment in that but the text itself does not seem to support it as a full fullment. (Prophecy is often written with an application to the hearers and a distant future further fulfillment.) Paul was telling his readers that Christ had not returned yet as some had been saying, and that certain things had to happen first. The temple was still standing when the letter was written and so its destruction desecration by slaughter a pig within could be what Paul meant. That did have to happen first. Paul did not know when Christ would return or all that would happen between his day and the second advent.

We also know the Christ didn't return in 70 AD. There is absolutely no biblical support that said He did. But, there are some that say Christ did....I have no reason to believe He did.

And neither do we. But for us something must also happen other than the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70 because Christ has still not returned. In which case "exalts himself above all that is called God" and "sits as God in the temple of God" given what Peter and Paul have said about the temple being built and believers are that building, and the Bible's silence of the rebuilding of temple after a.d. 70, the passage might well be an intentionally exaggerated way of talking about the man of lawlessness' aspirations to heavenly power. He will boast himself as the possessor of God's heavenly throne.

What will you say when they start rebuilding the temple? That is if they start before the rapture/resurrection happens?

 

[CrowCross]

Hope this isn't an OT tangent: If that is the temple [as some think]* forever in Heaven, how did the man of lawlessness get there? But if it is the Heavenly Temple (Dwelling Place) described in Rev 21 (already but not yet) and that temple IS the Bride, (and not just "adorned as a bride"), it fits the perennial work of Satan to take ownership of the people God has chosen for HIS own.

We also know that the temple has some sort of dual meaning.
In Rv it is presented as a literal temple....while at the same time those in Christ are also called a temple.

 

[makesends]

We also know that the temple has some sort of dual meaning.
In Rv it is presented as a literal temple....while at the same time those in Christ are also called a temple.

Not to pursue the tangent too far off-topic, but in my thinking they are not two different things/meanings, except in our temporal frame of mind. The 'literal', (or so we want to think of it), become in the final end one and the same thing as the other —God with us. We are 'In Christ'.

 

[TMSO]

Some say the fig tree is Israel and that happened in 1948 while some say 1967. It doesn't really matter. The generation Jesus spoke of was a future generation....and appears to be this current generation.

I believe it is simply a parable, a lesson. In the same way that you can look at a fig tree and see that summer is near, so you can look at the signs of the times and see that Jesus second coming is near. The season of His return. I believe the generation He speaks of is that which sees ALL the signs (not some), who will then see everything Jesus said take place to include His second coming. So yes, a future generation.

 

[Arial]

I see it this way...you seem to be professing to be an expert on this issue...then you ask for the verse?
Are you saying you didn't know the verse i was going to post???

There was no insult...I was simply wondering about your motive.

Stick to the subject at hand and stop talking about me. I never professed to be an expert on this issue. In fact I posted an entire post saying no one is, there are a number of different views and I couch my remarks in imo, it seems to me, the way I see it, and such. Disagreeing with you and pointing out what I see as being unscriptural about it, and supporting what I say, is not claiming to be an expert. Unlike those who do post everything they have to say about it as though it was as authoritative as the Bible itself is. So get over yourself.

Again---and pay attention this time. I ask for Scripture that you are using to say a third temple will be built. I could guess. Try and read your mind. Or you could have just told me. Why would I know where it said a third temple will be built if I don't even believe the Bible says a third temple will be built? And the one you finally gave, does not say a third temple will be built. That is nothing more than you interpretation.

And it was an insult, and you intended it to be an insult. Why is it Dispenasationalists get so defensive and angry when others disagree with them? It happens without fail!

 

[Arial]

Now, you also mentioned that the temple...But God also has a temple in heaven. Rev 11:19 is a reality. Is that temple also the body of Christ? I think not.

When a statement is made such as the temple being the body of Christ and then there is a "But also" preceding the next statement, in this case God's temple in heaven, that means they are not the same thing. So what is your point?

For the same reason the temple that the anti-christ claims to be God in isn't the body of Christ.

Already dealt with in the post you are responding to.

As mentioned before...you're correct the temple is not mentioned as being rebuilt. Currently it isn't there. The Dome of the Rock stands where the temple was.
BUT...the temple is mentioned in the future tense so apparently it will be rebuilt.

Future from the day Paul wrote the letter. He and Peter, and James, and Jude wrote letters that we have in our Bible, many by Paul. No where in them do we find a discussion concerning the building of a third temple. Not even in Revelation. Jesus never said a peep about it. Do you not think it would have been a very relevant thing for them to discuss, especially with their Jewish audience? Even if it is rebuilt, which is highly unlikely as there is a Islamic mosque there now if I'm not mistaken, it would have nothing to do with being a sign that Jesus is around the corner. I would think it would more likely bring judgement on the Jews all over again for rejecting him yet again. A person needs to use a little common sense here even if they can't break down every aspect of eschatology.

We also know the Christ didn't return in 70 AD. There is absolutely no biblical support that said He did. But, there are some that say Christ did....I have no reason to believe He did.

Well, I didn't say he has returned so why throw that remark into our conversation.

What will you say when they start rebuilding the temple? That is if they start before the rapture/resurrection happens?

In what way is that addressing the quote it is responding to? If they start rebuilding the temple I'll say "Good luck with that." It would mark them with the mark of the beast beyond repentance. And yet according to the main branch of dispensationalism the rebuilding of the temple is a good thing, along with the sacrificial and earthly priest system of worship. The kingdom of Israel in all its apostasy restored.

 

[Red Baker]

I believe it is simply a parable, a lesson. In the same way that you can look at a fig tree and see that summer is near, so you can look at the signs of the times and see that Jesus second coming is near.

Agreed.

I believe the generation He speaks of is that which sees ALL the signs (not some), who will then see everything Jesus said take place to include His second coming. So yes, a future generation.

There a major problem with holding to that view, one that I held to for a very short period of my Christian journey back in the seventies.

Two problems: First, we must prove the scriptural meaning of "this generation" has reference to. The context will prove this for us.

Secondly, The many signs given to us, takes place over a period of time, during John's little season, which season so far lasted for around 150 to two hundred years, (far more time than what would be considered a generation as understood in its common meaning) which we have spoken of already somewhere on this forum, but can do it again if needed.

Remember, God's word is its own dictionary, and He will explain the meaning of words used in His word, that Webster 1828 edition might, but most dictionary's would not even come close. The word generation is one of them.

 

[Smidge]

I believe it is simply a parable, a lesson. In the same way that you can look at a fig tree and see that summer is near, so you can look at the signs of the times and see that Jesus second coming is near. The season of His return. I believe the generation He speaks of is that which sees ALL the signs (not some), who will then see everything Jesus said take place to include His second coming. So yes, a future generation.

I really don't think a fig tree ever implies Israel anyway. And in my view - you are correct. Jesus is talking TO the people in front of him about the people who will SEE these things pass. Not ONCE does the passage suggest Jesus is deviating from talking about "the end" or any other generation other than the one that sees and endures what Jesus said about it.

 

[CrowCross]

I believe it is simply a parable, a lesson. In the same way that you can look at a fig tree and see that summer is near, so you can look at the signs of the times and see that Jesus second coming is near.

Israel is the fig tree.
The fig tree is sometimes used as a representation of Israel along with the implication that Israel should be bearing fruit. CARM

The "fig tree" is a significant symbol in Jewish culture and Scripture, often representing Israel.

Hosea 9:10
I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness. I saw your fathers as the firstfruits of the fig tree in its first season.

Joel 1:7 It has laid waste My grapevine and splintered My fig tree. It has stripped off the bark and thrown it away; the branches have turned white.

The season of His return. I believe the generation He speaks of is that which sees ALL the signs (not some), who will then see everything Jesus said take place to include His second coming. So yes, a future generation.

 

[CrowCross]

When a statement is made such as the temple being the body of Christ and then there is a "But also" preceding the next statement, in this case God's temple in heaven, that means they are not the same thing. So what is your point?

There is literal temples made of stone....and temples made of flesh and blood.

Already dealt with in the post you are responding to.

Future from the day Paul wrote the letter. He and Peter, and James, and Jude wrote letters that we have in our Bible, many by Paul. No where in them do we find a discussion concerning the building of a third temple.

As I have said twice previously...I KNOW. BUT, BUT, BUT....the bible mentions a temple in the future. THEREFORE it must be rebuilt.

Not even in Revelation. Jesus never said a peep about it. Do you not think it would have been a very relevant thing for them to discuss, especially with their Jewish audience? Even if it is rebuilt, which is highly unlikely as there is a Islamic mosque there now if I'm not mistaken, it would have nothing to do with being a sign that Jesus is around the corner. I would think it would more likely bring judgement on the Jews all over again for rejecting him yet again. A person needs to use a little common sense here even if they can't break down every aspect of eschatology.

Well, I didn't say he has returned so why throw that remark into our conversation.

In what way is that addressing the quote it is responding to? If they start rebuilding the temple I'll say "Good luck with that." It would mark them with the mark of the beast beyond repentance. And yet according to the main branch of dispensationalism the rebuilding of the temple is a good thing, along with the sacrificial and earthly priest system of worship. The kingdom of Israel in all its apostasy restored.

The the rebuilding of the temple would be a good thing....because the rapture is near. Do you fear the rapture?

 

[CrowCross]

Why is it Dispenasationalists get so defensive and angry when others disagree with them? It happens without fail!

I've never seen one pre-tribber get mad at your belief.

Now, I may get annoyed at you when you present something as "truth" and when asked to support it you can't....but claim you have.

You seem to get hung up on. the bible not saying the temple will be rebuilt...you make a big deal out of it.....and I have agreed with you several times that the bible doesn't mention the temple being rebuilt...BUT...I have shown you where the temple is mentioned which clearly indicates it is a future happening.

Will you ask the question again?

 

[Carbon]

The the rebuilding of the temple would be a good thing....because the rapture is near. Do you fear the rapture?

The rapture is at the Second Coming. This is when Christ returns for judgement, we will go and meet the Lord in the air. Why would a believer be afraid of that?

 

[Carbon]

Why is it Dispenasationalists get so defensive and angry when others disagree with them? It happens without fail!

Mainly because they get backed into a corner by church history and scripture.

 

[CrowCross]

The rapture is at the Second Coming. This is when Christ returns for judgement, we will go and meet the Lord in the air. Why would a believer be afraid of that?

No, as shown to you several times...Jesus comes back twice. Do I need to list the reasons again?
Shall we start with Jesus didn't leave on a white horse?
Shall we talk about the "days of Noah"?
Shall we discuss we are not destined for the tribulation wrath?

Tell me...who's backed into a corner?

Do you honestly think christians will make it through the tribulation alive? Sure, some may, but not many. Believe me, you want a pre-trib rapture.

 

[Carbon]

No, as shown to you several times...Jesus comes back twice. Do I need to list the reasons again?
Shall we start with Jesus didn't leave on a white horse?
Shall we talk about the "days of Noah"?
Shall we discuss we are not destined for the tribulation wrath?

Tell me...who's backed into a corner?

Do you honestly think christians will make it through the tribulation alive? Sure, some may, but not many. Believe me, you want a pre-trib rapture.

You can do whatever you like, start where you like as well. But prove with the word there is more than one second coming.

 

[Carbon]

No, as shown to you several times...Jesus comes back twice. Do I need to list the reasons again?

Scripture.

Shall we start with Jesus didn't leave on a white horse?

hmmmm., who said he did?

Shall we talk about the "days of Noah"?

If you would like to, sure.

Shall we discuss we are not destined for the tribulation wrath?

Again, who said we believers are?

Shall we doiscus the dipsy belief that we will be going back to OT types and shadows?

Tell me...who's backed into a corner?

Well, I believe if you keep going, and debate with scripture, you will be.

Do you honestly think christians will make it through the tribulation alive?

Some yes, some no. You seem to be doing okay so far.

Sure, some may, but not many. Believe me, you want a pre-trib rapture.

Trust me, I am fine with what scripture teaches. And it's not dispesationalism.

 

[TMSO]

Agreed.

There a major problem with holding to that view, one that I held to for a very short period of my Christian journey back in the seventies.

Two problems: First, we must prove the scriptural meaning of "this generation" has reference to. The context will prove this for us.

If one wants to say generation as in usual usage, since the Great Tribulation is on eof the signs, and it has apparentlky not occurred yet, the definition must be different.

Secondly, The many signs given to us, takes place over a period of time, during John's little season, which season so far lasted for around 150 to two hundred years, (far more time than what would be considered a generation as understood in its common meaning) which we have spoken of already somewhere on this forum, but can do it again if needed.

Remember, God's word is its own dictionary, and He will explain the meaning of words used in His word, that Webster 1828 edition might, but most dictionary's would not even come close. The word generation is one of them.

Remember, Jesus second coming is immediately at the end of the Great Tribulation, according to Jesus.

 

[TMSO]

Israel is the fig tree.
The fig tree is sometimes used as a representation of Israel along with the implication that Israel should be bearing fruit. CARM

How does that at all fit in with this parable, which is simply stating that just as one can tell summer is near when a fig tree is in this condition, so you too will know that Jesus coming is nigh when you see the times in this condition. The signs of the times, and with the fig tree, the signs of the seasons. Jesus is using the fig tree for an object lesson to explain how it will be. Once you have seen these signs, just as with the fig tree it means summer is coming quickly. He isn't speaking about Israel. "Learn the parable of the fig tree." He was speaking to His disciples, so He explained what He was saying by linking it to the signs of the times, and Jesus second coming.

The "fig tree" is a significant symbol in Jewish culture and Scripture, often representing Israel.

It may be, but that isn't why Jesus brought it up. It was an easy object lesson. See signs in the fig tree, summer is at the door. See the signs of the times, Jesus is standing behind the door ready to slam Satan in the face. (But I digress...)

Hosea 9:10
I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness. I saw your fathers as the firstfruits of the fig tree in its first season.

Joel 1:7 It has laid waste My grapevine and splintered My fig tree. It has stripped off the bark and thrown it away; the branches have turned white.

As you can see, what Jesus was saying is not at all related to this.

 

[TMSO]

There is literal temples made of stone....and temples made of flesh and blood.

As I have said twice previously...I KNOW. BUT, BUT, BUT....the bible mentions a temple in the future. THEREFORE it must be rebuilt.

Common sense would dictate that since we have the perfect open world laboratory right now, where all the stars seem to be lining up, and all the pieces appear to be moving into place, shouldn't we be watching to see what happens? I mean, four years isn't that long, is it? (4 1/2) They keep saying there will be no temple, but everything seems to be moving faster and faster towards a rebuilt temple. Is it some fight or flight response to the possibility that they have been wrong? (POSSIBILITY.) Considering Jesus has not returned yet, I can afford to be wrong. Jesus coming is still in the future whether I am right or not. However, if these are actual signs of Jesus rapidly approaching second coming... If they are the Olivet Discourse playing out again towards the Great Tribulation in which Jesus returns immediately afterwards...

I have not pitched a tent anywhere yet, other then being a futurist premillennialist. I don't say this is how it is, or that is how it is, because... I don't know. Its eschatology. For the preterist its like, its in the past, and it didn't happen, so you are wrong. Too easy. They didn't even get it right in history. (full preterists)

One important signs Jesus gave is the Great Tribulation, such as has never been since the history of the world until now, and will ever be. That is a HUGE sign that if there has been a tribulation worse then the 1st century, then Jesus was obviously not talking about the 1st century.