A Third Temple Is A Slap Across Christ's Face.....

[Almighty's humble servant]

yes, he is part of Christian Zionism... in fact, he is the leading spokesperson behind Christian Zionism here in San Antonio, some thing i dont follow, and will never follow

He does have SOME backwards theories, but when he is alive with the Holy Spirit, he is ALIVE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

 

[JohnRabbit]

JohnRabbit, thanks for taking the time to explain your view and supporting it with scripture. However, you've failed to convince me that I'm reading it wrong.

You say that those described in Rev 20:4 are those resurrected at His coming. This is where we disagree. I believe it is the second resurrection that takes place at His coming, not the first.

Ironically, the scriptures you quote prove my point.

1 Corinthians 15:23-27 ( NKJV ) 23But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.


According to this passage, when Jesus comes we are resurrected. I think we agree on that part. But notice that then it says he delivers the kingdom to God the Father.

If he is delivering the Kingdom to God the Father then this signals the end of his reign, wouldn't you agree? And knowing that the martyrs reign with Christ during the millennium, we know that his reign does not end at the start of the millennium, but at the end.

So if his reign ends when Jesus comes back for us, how then can he come back for us at the start of the millennium?

you don't disagree with me. you disagree with the bible!

when He delivers the kingdom to the Father, it says that He must reign (1cor 15:25), so how did you come up with it 'signaling the end' of His reign?

we know that the Christ returns in rev 19 and in chap 20:

Revelation 20:4-6 ( NKJV ) 4And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

see? the bible calls it the first resurrection, and these that have part in the first resurrection will reign with Christ at His second coming.

notice verse 5, the rest of the dead did not live again until the 1000 years were finished!

and "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

it don't get any plainer than that!

 

[LastSeven]

I know that those in the first resurrection reign with Him a thousand years.

I know that the first resurrection is at the start of the millennium and the second resurrection is after the millennium.

I also know that there is a resurrection at Christ's second coming.

So, let's not rehash those points that we already agree on. I want to focus on Jesus delivering the kingdom to God the father.

Let's look at this passage again.

1 Corinthians 15:23-27 ( NKJV ) 23But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

This is talking about Jesus handing over the kingdom to God the father. He does so after He has put all things under his feet. Jesus puts all things under his feet, (except God the father himself of course) and then he hands all this over to God the father.

Do we agree on this? If so, let me ask you the next question. How can handing over the kingdom be considered the start of anyone's reign? Doesn't a king's reign start when he receives the kingdom, rather than gives it away?

If you were a king and gave your kingdom to me, wouldn't that act signal the end of your reign?

 

[JohnRabbit]

I know that those in the first resurrection reign with Him a thousand years.

I know that the first resurrection is at the start of the millennium and the second resurrection is after the millennium.

I also know that there is a resurrection at Christ's second coming.

So, let's not rehash those points that we already agree on. I want to focus on Jesus delivering the kingdom to God the father.

Let's look at this passage again.

1 Corinthians 15:23-27 ( NKJV ) 23But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

This is talking about Jesus handing over the kingdom to God the father. He does so after He has put all things under his feet. Jesus puts all things under his feet, (except God the father himself of course) and then he hands all this over to God the father.

Do we agree on this? If so, let me ask you the next question. How can handing over the kingdom be considered the start of anyone's reign? Doesn't a king's reign start when he receives the kingdom, rather than gives it away?

If you were a king and gave your kingdom to me, wouldn't that act signal the end of your reign?

you said:Let's look at this passage again.

let's do that.

1 Corinthians 15:23-27 ( NKJV ) 23But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.



in verse 23 paul is still talking about the resurrection of the saints at Christ's second coming, even notes that there's order to the resurrection.

verse 24 says then comes the end...? the "end" of what?

cannot be Christ's kingdom, He's going to set that up (2:44)! the "end" has to refer to the end of this age (matt 24:3, 13-14).

which goes to
"the times of the gentiles are fulfilled (lk 21:24)", (dan 2, rev 13, 17, rev 11:15-19).

so, it seems that the Christ is dismantling man's governments and hands it over to God (rev 11:15-18)! ("when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power" - same verse).

next verse 25:

For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

the bible says He must reign, and we know it for and during the 1000 years (rev 20:6)!

verse 26 simply says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. now we know when death is going to be vanquished, (rev 20:14), this of course takes place after the 1000 years.

and verse 27 sort of speaks for itself.

 

[LastSeven]

verse 24 says then comes the end...? the "end" of what?

cannot be Christ's kingdom, He's going to set that up (2:44)! the "end" has to refer to the end of this age (matt 24:3, 13-14).

See, that's interesting. Verse 24 clearly tells you "the end of what", but you are not allowing yourself to see it and if I could explain how that happens, then I could explain why there is so much disagreement among Christians who all read the same Bible.

This is one single sentence: "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power." If the second part of the sentence doesn't explain the first part, then why is it there?

"when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father" describes "the end". But you don't like that part so you say "it can't possibly mean what it says". Even though it does.

 

[Gideon]

I was watching some religious program on television today that spent at least an hour or more going on and on about how wonderful it will be when "the Jews" finally build their Third Temple.

This is the main point. You are quite right to raise the matter. I personally think that something will be built, but it will be an abomination! It is not only what is done inside of it, but it is, and of itself, an abomination!

Your point Tim; why are Christians happy about this thing? Worse, why are they encouraging Jewish people to get behind it? Shocking! Absolutely shocking, and I thoroughly agree with your concerns.

 

[BABerean2]

Your point Tim; why are Christians happy about this thing? Worse, why are they encouraging Jewish people to get behind it? Shocking! Absolutely shocking, and I thoroughly agree with your concerns.

Many Dispensationalists see this as necessary to fulfill prophecy.
They have converted a covenant confirmed by Christ in Daniel 9, to a treaty broken by the antichrist in a rebuilt temple by adding a manmade "gap", not mentioned by the angel Gabriel.

During one of John Ankerberg's shows, Jimmy DeYoung was in Israel interviewing one of the men already selected as a temple priest. His temple garment is already hanging in his closet.
Jimmy had a smile on his face as he was asking the man questions.
Jimmy should have been concerned about the abomination this man is committed to produce, by sacrificing an animal in a rebuilt temple.

It will be another rejection of the true Messiah and will place them in the exact same spiritual condition that occurred between the time of the Cross and 70 AD.

The Old Covenant is finished. If we really love the descendants of Jacob, they need to hear the truth.

 

[Straightshot]

My comment


There will be no temple of the Lord's built on the mount by Israel either before or during the coming tribulation .... even though some of the orthodox of Judaism desire this [Revelation 11:2]

His next temple will be built for His coming millennial kingdom after the tribulation [Ezekiel 40]

There are pied pipers of certain professing church movements who use sensationalism to make merchandise out of those who follow them .... and the same do not understand the prophetic scriptures in the first place

The temple that the little horn of Daniel's visions will grandstand in is already on the mount as we speak .... it has been there for centuries and waiting for the little horn to rise and commit the abomination of desolation that the Lord hates .... the temple of his "god" who is Satan

And the Lord's two witnesses [only two] will stand in this beast's face when he and his followers occupy Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple mount .... and these two prophets will call down judgments upon his kingdom of followers]

These two prophets will walk the streets of Jerusalem unharmed during their mission .... then the beast will be allowed to kill both of them

.... only a temporary victory for the devil

The Lord will raise both for all to see .... the Lord always trumps Satan's game

Some say that multitudes of believers of Christianity composed of both "Jew" and Gentile are described as the two witnesses .... however, Jerusalem is simply not large enough to contain the same

If some one claims this for their religious movement today, ask them when they will be relocating to Jerusalem for the drama

And the two prophets are mortals who will be killed by the beast and subsequently resurrected so they will bear supernatural protection by the Lord for their protection until the beast is allowed to kill them

The idea that that the two witnesses will be immortals of the OT and NT has been around for a long time .... this is the teaching of the SDA church and there is no truth in the dogma

The two witnesses will be mortal Israelite prophets located in Jerusalem at the time of the beast's occupation

 

[parousia70]

h
However, His temple will be built for His coming millennial kingdom on the earth after the tribulation and He will require "symbolic" sacrifice as a reminder of His own and His offering of salvation during the 1000 year kingdom [Ezekiel 40-48]

Where does scripture teach that these sacrifices are "symbolic"?

Lets look at them:
Ezekiel 40:39
In the porch of the gate were two tables on each side, on which to slaughter the burnt offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering.

Ezekiel 42:13
the priests who are near to the LORD shall eat the most holy things. There they shall lay the most holy things, the grain offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering;

Ezekiel 43:20
'You shall take some of its blood and put it on its four horns and on the four corners of the ledge and on the border round about; thus you shall cleanse it and make atonement for it.

Ezekiel 43:21
'You shall also take the bull for the sin offering

Ezekiel 43:22
'On the second day you shall offer a male goat without blemish for a sin offering

Ezekiel 43:27
'When they have completed the days, it shall be that on the eighth day and onward, the priests shall offer your burnt offerings on the altar, and your peace offerings; AND I WILL ACCEPT YOU

Ezekiel 44:10
"But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house and ministering in the house; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people

Ezekiel 44:23
"Moreover, they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.


Nothing about these being SYMBOLIC Here...
All these offerings are the propitiatory offerings of the Mosaic Law. The teaching of a reinstitution of this blood sacrificial system is a rebuke against the blood of Jesus Christ, and a cause for anathema according to the apostles. A return to this system is a falling away from salvation, according to the apostles. A falling from the grace of Jesus Christ.

And what of this:
Ezekiel 44:9
'Thus says the Lord GOD, "No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary.


Do you say in the future, Jesus is going to REQUIRE Human beings to be physically Circumcized to "symbolize" that He took that requirement away forever..?

Really?

 

[Straightshot]

Where does scripture teach that these sacrifices are "symbolic"?


They must be .... to remind the mortals of the period that they need His offered salvation just as mortal humans do today, otherwise His gospel of salvation would be in contradiction .... here is a view of His coming millennial rule upon the earth with His a portion of His requirements for the mortals who will inhabit the earth [Zechariah 14:8-21]

Decide for yourself

 

[Gideon]

to remind the mortals of the period that they need His offered salvation

We have the bread and wine to remind us. Why do we have to go back to animal sacrifice to do the same thing?

 

[Jipsah]

However, His temple will be built for His coming millennial kingdom on the earth after the tribulation and He will require "symbolic" sacrifice as a reminder of His own and His offering of salvation during the 1000 year kingdom [Ezekiel 40-48]

What abominable, blasphemous, ghastly nonsense! The idea of reinstituting temple sacrifice should be appalling to any Christian!

But sadly, dispensational futurists, who tend to make Israel and not Christ the center of their cosmos, believe that the Church is merely a parenthesis, to be replaced by Temple Judaism. I have even been told, in this forum, that the letter to the Hebrews only applies to this "dispensation", and will be set aside in The Millennium. They have embraced a new religion, which views the sacrifice of our Lord Christ as of only temporary efficacy, to be set aside in favor of the sacrificial slaughter of livestock.

In many cases, these futurist devotees of the New Religion have ceased to believe in the Incarnation and, de facto, embraced one or the other ancient heresies that hold that our Lord was something other than "very God of very God". They can envision Him as Messiah, as King, as the Son of God, Savior and Redeemer, and a great many things, but they stick at seeing Him as God Himself, Who spoke the universe into being. He is no longer central to their faith, that place being occupied by a reconstituted physical nation of Israel.

 

[Jipsah]

The temple depicted in Ezekiel has never been built and the account is too detailed to not be literal. This temple will be built and God will inhabit it. Since there is no temple in the New Jerusalem then this temple will be built prior to it.

And Temple sacrifice will resume, with sin offerings and trespass offerings and peace offerings and all the stuff of Temple Judaism. It's all right there in Ezekiel, read it for yourself.
Some Christians are sanguine about that idea, and explain that Christ's sacrifice was only for this dispensation, and that Christ will be High Priest in the New Temple. Abominable!

 

[Jipsah]

Where does scripture teach that these sacrifices are "symbolic"?They must be

That isn't what it says in Ezekiel, though, is it?

Decide for yourself

Easy decision - dispensational futurism is blasphemous nonsense.

 

[Straightshot]

You might as well find something else to do jip .......... all you have is a boring excuse

 

[BABerean2]

You might as well find something else to do jip .......... all you have is a boring excuse

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger...
.

 

[Straightshot]

"If you don't like the message, attack the messenger..."


There you go Jip .... BAB will entertain you ... and this one never "attacks the messanger"

.... so you need not to worry .... and you can entertain each other with no fear

He does yell at other posters, but just cover your ears with your hands

 

[parousia70]

Where does scripture teach that these sacrifices are "symbolic"?


They must be .... to remind the mortals of the period that they need His offered salvation just as mortal humans do today,

Do you need to sacrifice animals today, to be reminded that you need Christ?

Decide for yourself

I have, but your position is wrought with conflict.

I noticed you didn't come down on either side of the circumcision question.... Like your position on sacrifices, is it your position that Christ will require that Mortals be circumcised "to remind them" that Christ took away the requirement to be circumcised?

 

[Straightshot]

I will remind you that you need to dump your preterism against the Lord's more sure word of prophecy

.... and if the Lord wants to give the mortals of the millennium symbolic reference on this issue which He is going to do .... who are you tell anything different

In a risky business you are .... do not second guess Him [Ezekiel 40-48]

.... what you spout does not matter

 

[parousia70]

I will remind you that you need to dump your preterism against the Lord's more sure word of prophecy

.... and if the Lord wants to give the mortals of the millennium symbolic reference on this issue which He is going to do .... who are you tell anything different

In a risky business you are .... do not second guess Him [Ezekiel 40-48]

.... what you spout does not matter

And I'll remind you that your position on future sacrifices and circumcision is predicated purely on your previously held futurist bias, and not on rightly dividing the sure word of scripture, and is a falling away from salvation according to the apostles.