Third temple being build in Jerusalem right now

[Berean Tim]

Red heifers are not as uncommon as many presume. The Orthodox that believe the Temple will be rebuilt will need it, but that does not mean that they are actively building anything. The groups that are actively putting Temple implements together are really on the fringe of Judaism, even though Christianity likes to focus on them....and invest in their endeavors. It's the Christians that are financing this more than the Jewish community.

Some will, but most would not unless it was in the right place and a Halachic building. Otherwise it is just another "temple" and may as well be any other temple. It would not be kosher.

Christians should NOT be financing it, it's an AOD of itself. Again, both Jesus and Paul spoke of the AC in the holy place wherever it will be located, it will happen

 

[klutedavid]

Where do you get this info. "there will never be another temple". There certainly won't be one where God will dwell, is this what you mean ?

I mean a third temple will not be built in Israel. Theocratic Israel has been consigned to the pages of history. Modern Israel no longer needs to offer sacrifices.

 

[Jipsah]

The generation that sees the fig tree bring forth new leaves.
so either 1948, or 1967 depending on whether it's the state of Israel, or Jerusalem.

That generation is getting pretty long in the tooth, innit?

 

[Jipsah]

No, because he'd just withered the tree, and that was a symbol, of Israel being destroyed in the near future.
But Israel would be brought back into their nation, and the fig tree puts forth new leaves.
Hence, the parable of the fig tree.
Context gives that Jesus was explaining that parable, and for those who see the fig tree bring forth new leaves.. that generation will not pass.

With a generation being traditionally 40 years, that window is closing rapidly.

 

[Jipsah]

That He is speaking of a generation, and the generation He was speaking of was not the people directly in front of Him, but a generation that would begin to see prophecy fulfilled, one of which is, Israel being regathered from all the nations.

So what He was saying was meaningles to the people to whim he was speaking face to face. Hmmmm...

If the other prophecies don't follow, well then, not this time.
but the main thing Jesus was saying, is that when these events start happening, they will happen within 1 generation.

It apears that the length of a "generation" keeps getting extended to keep a doctrine alive.

 

[Jipsah]

The parable of the fig tree is how to know - the season when Jesus returns. And the generation who will experinece it happening.

Differently, Harold Camping based his predictions on the following (from Wikipedia)....

Camping's teachings regarding the timing of Christ's second coming were based on the cycles of:

• Jewish feast days in the Hebrew calendar, as described in the Old Testament,
• the lunar month calendar (1 synodic month = 29.53059 days), and
• a close approximation of the Gregorian calendar tropical year (365.24219 days, rounded to 365.2422).[44]

He projected these cycles into modern times and combined the results with other information in the Bible

And thus demonstrated the First Law of Computing - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

[Jipsah]

I do not have to define soon. I live it.

You live soon? If you can't define it, how can you be sure? "I need to pay the light bill in the next couple of thousand years" soon?

 

[Jipsah]

Then you believe that Jesus was lying

What a vile accusation to make. Shame

 

[Jipsah]

A lot more so than John Chrysostom, because I am living in the parable of the fig tree generation.

50+ years is a longish "generation", innit? I don't think anyone in our Lord's time would have thought that reasonable. It isn't reasonable now, for that matter.

So the fig tree is Jerusalem. And Jerusalem came back under Jewish control in 1967, which makes it possible for all the end times prophecies regarding Jerusalem to be fulfilled.

Except the ones that already have, like the sack or Jerusalem, the desceracion of the Temple, the cessation of sacrifice, the persecution of the saints, etc.

Israel became a nation again in 1948, which I was born in 1948, as well.

A secular state called Israel did, yeah.

God chooses us, we don't choose God.

Yeah, and?

John Chrysostom was chosen to live during a different era.

So did Harold Camping, and every date setter who ever guessed wrong (i.e., all of them). And?

 

[Jamdoc]

So what He was saying was meaningles to the people to whim he was speaking face to face. Hmmmm...

It apears that the length of a "generation" keeps getting extended to keep a doctrine alive.

They asked Him what were the signs of His coming, He answered, but they would not happen within their lifetimes, and to be fair, even Jesus didn't know the exact time. "Only the Father".
as for the length of a generation it's not that there wouldn't be new generations born after but rather that the generation that was born at the time would not all die out, it's a lifespan that is more the length of time rather than how long a "generation" is when it comes to time.

Psalm 90:10

10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

So about 70-80 years is what's understood.
Many people interpret it to be Israel 1948, I think the date it begins at is 1967 because that's when Jerusalem was recaptured, and it's Jerusalem where the Fig Tree was withered and is the center of all the prophecies, not Tel Aviv.

 

[Jamdoc]

What a vile accusation to make. Shame

If Jesus was referring to AD70 and He didn't come back then, that's what it'd be, a lie.
So Jesus could NOT have been referring to AD70.

 

[klutedavid]

If Jesus was referring to AD70 and He didn't come back then, that's what it'd be, a lie.
So Jesus could NOT have been referring to AD70.

Did Jesus say He would come back in 70AD? Or did Jesus state that the temple would be destroyed in the current generation?

 

[Hammster]

If Jesus was referring to AD70 and He didn't come back then, that's what it'd be, a lie.
So Jesus could NOT have been referring to AD70.

But if He wasn’t referring to His second advent, then He wasn’t lying.

 

[Jamdoc]

But if He wasn’t referring to His second advent, then He wasn’t lying.

The whole discourse is about His second coming.
This is what I meant by not dividing it.
Jesus was not saying stuff about the destruction of the AD70 temple and then changing gears to thousands of years later and completely disconnecting it from the other events.
That is what immediately after the tribulations of those days means. Not destruction of the temple in AD 70 then thousands of years pass before His second coming.
immediately after
So if your claim is that Jesus was referring to 70AD you have to deal with the immediately after
You can claim he changed gears at verse 34, but, verses 29-31 are about His second coming, and is not a "changing gears" because of the immediately after statement. The parable of the fig tree gives you the clue that it all happens within 1 generation, once the things happen they happen quickly.
When Jesus says He comes quickly it did not mean "soon" it meant the events leading up to it would happen in quick succession, it meant suddenly.

 

[Jamdoc]

Did Jesus say He would come back in 70AD? Or did Jesus state that the temple would be destroyed in the current generation?

All the events from verse 4 to 31 are connected.
Separating them to fit a preterist narrative is false teaching.
again. immediately after the tribulations of those days
That is not "changing gears" that is giving context for His return. The context being all the things He had just talked about.
Not AD70.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The whole discourse is about His second coming.

That's not true at all. The context of the Olivet Discourse is Jesus statement that the Temple would be destroyed. Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed, then His disciples asked when that would happen, and they also add to this the question of the end of the age and His return.

Why do they bring up the end of the age and the second coming? The implication being that they thought Jesus' words about the Temple had to mean the very conclusion of history. They could not conceive the Temple being destroyed and it not being, in effect, the end of the world.

So Jesus' response in the Discourse is make certain things clear:

1) His followers should not be trying to figure out when the end is, to that end He tells them that wars, rumors of wars, disease and natural disasters, etc are not signs of the end, but merely the labor pains of a suffering world. It's also why He warns against false messiahs and false prophets, telling them that if anyone claims something to not listen to them. Anyone who says "it is the end" or "this means it is the end" or "He is over here" etc should not be listened to.

2) He tells them what would happen to them in the years to come, they would be persecuted and despised by men, imprisoned, etc. He then tells them to pay attention to signs, but not to signs about the end of the world, but signs concerning the destruction of the Temple. That is why He says they will know it is at the gates, literally telling them about the Roman armies that would breaking down the gates of Jerusalem.

3) He tells them that His coming will be plain and obvious, no one will have to tell them when it will happen. Even more, no one knows when this will happen, no one except God the Father. He compares His coming to the flood of Noah's time.

He answers their question, but He makes it clear that the destruction of the Temple is NOT the Eschaton. These are completely different things.

This is what I meant by not dividing it.
Jesus was not saying stuff about the destruction of the AD70 temple and then changing gears to thousands of years later and completely disconnecting it from the other events.
That is what immediately after the tribulations of those days means. Not destruction of the temple in AD 70 then thousands of years pass before His second coming.
immediately after
So if your claim is that Jesus was referring to 70AD you have to deal with the immediately after
You can claim he changed gears at verse 34, but, verses 29-31 are about His second coming, and is not a "changing gears" because of the immediately after statement. The parable of the fig tree gives you the clue that it all happens within 1 generation, once the things happen they happen quickly.
When Jesus says He comes quickly it did not mean "soon" it meant the events leading up to it would happen in quick succession, it meant suddenly.

Perhaps, but it's not like there isn't precedent for this kind of language.

At the end of Matthew chapter two Jesus is a small child, but then here is the first verse of the third chapter,

"In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,"

What does the Evangelist mean "in those days"? Is he saying that when Jesus was still a child? Or rather does he mean 30 years later? He means 30 years later.

Now the Lord says εὐθέως, "directly" "straightaway" "immediately"; so that is arguably different. However, we shouldn't discount this either. The language of immediacy is found elsewhere, consider Revelation 22:20, "Surely, I come soon." Soon, quickly, speedily and without delay. Yet there lay nearly two full millennia between we and when these words were penned.

Surely if soon can mean over two thousand years, then immediately can likewise. Otherwise we might forget the words of St. Peter who said that our God is not slow in keeping His promises, and that the timing of God is not the timing of man. For a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. He is not slow, He is not lax, He is faithful to His word.

Christ will come.
Maranatha.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jamdoc]

That's not true at all. The context of the Olivet Discourse is Jesus statement that the Temple would be destroyed. Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed, then His disciples asked when that would happen, and they also add to this the question of the end of the age and His return.

Why do they bring up the end of the age and the second coming? The implication being that they thought Jesus' words about the Temple had to mean the very conclusion of history. They could not conceive the Temple being destroyed and it not being, in effect, the end of the world.

So Jesus' response in the Discourse is make certain things clear:

1) His followers should not be trying to figure out when the end is, to that end He tells them that wars, rumors of wars, disease and natural disasters, etc are not signs of the end, but merely the labor pains of a suffering world. It's also why He warns against false messiahs and false prophets, telling them that if anyone claims something to not listen to them. Anyone who says "it is the end" or "this means it is the end" or "He is over here" etc should not be listened to.

2) He tells them what would happen to them in the years to come, they would be persecuted and despised by men, imprisoned, etc. He then tells them to pay attention to signs, but not to signs about the end of the world, but signs concerning the destruction of the Temple. That is why He says they will know it is at the gates, literally telling them about the Roman armies that would breaking down the gates of Jerusalem.

3) He tells them that His coming will be plain and obvious, no one will have to tell them when it will happen. Even more, no one knows when this will happen, no one except God the Father. He compares His coming to the flood of Noah's time.

He answers their question, but He makes it clear that the destruction of the Temple is NOT the Eschaton. These are completely different things.



Perhaps, but it's not like there isn't precedent for this kind of language.

At the end of Matthew chapter two Jesus is a small child, but then here is the first verse of the third chapter,

"In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,"

What does the Evangelist mean "in those days"? Is he saying that when Jesus was still a child? Or rather does he mean 30 years later? He means 30 years later.

Now the Lord says εὐθέως, "directly" "straightaway" "immediately"; so that is arguably different. However, we shouldn't discount this either. The language of immediacy is found elsewhere, consider Revelation 22:20, "Surely, I come soon." Soon, quickly, speedily and without delay. Yet there lay nearly two full millennia between we and when these words were penned.

Surely if soon can mean over two thousand years, then immediately can likewise. Otherwise we might forget the words of St. Peter who said that our God is not slow in keeping His promises, and that the timing of God is not the timing of man. For a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. He is not slow, He is not lax, He is faithful to His word.

Christ will come.
Maranatha.

-CryptoLutheran

Jesus gives immediately after, so if the first part is supposed to be about the destruction of the temple, then Jesus is saying He'd come immediately after the destruction of the temple. he didn't.
Therefore He was not talking about the temple.

I don't know how many times I have to stress immediately after but the 3 of you continually toss it out to cling to a preterist/historicist doctrine. You've made a division where none exists. The immediately after links together all of the previous events to His second coming.

On Revelation 22:20, this is where the King James shines over many other translations, translations that have it as "soon" rather than "quickly" lead one to think along historicist or preterist times because of how long it has been. But the truth is, it's quickly, that means suddenly, not necessarily soon.

 

[Hammster]

The whole discourse is about His second coming.

No, it is not.

 

[Timtofly]

With a generation being traditionally 40 years, that window is closing rapidly.

A generation is 20 years. Where do you get 40?

A generation does not pass until the last one dies. That could be over 110 years in today's lifestyle. 40 years, 20 years is not relative.

If you are basing your data on the 40 years in the wilderness that was the death of two generations. Those 20 and up. Those 20 year olds were the children of many who could still fight in their 40's. It was the children of the 20 year olds, and the 20 year old's grand children 40 years later who conquered the promised land. The life span back then was still 120 as 70 was during the times of king David. Depending on the lifestyle and diet, not many lived to that age, except Moses. Moses lived 120 years as being an example of obedience to God, yet Moses disobeyed in one single act and was not allowed to enter the promised physical land.

Also God sent plagues to make sure all were dead among the Israelites in the wilderness, so 40 is not a sure sign of a generation, but mercy that God did not punish them longer than 40 years.

 

[Timtofly]

You live soon? If you can't define it, how can you be sure? "I need to pay the light bill in the next couple of thousand years" soon?

Why do you need to define it?

Do you deny God's Word as it applies to your own life?