I have no problem with dissenting views and rather than walk away, I am trying to open your eyes to new ways of looking at the prophecy. This is the second time you've said "I'm not cut out for debate", but the question is, are you?
Sure I am. I've done it for over 20 years on both moderated and unmoderated sites. I've sometimes had to conform to the mods even when I thought they were a bit "hasty" in their judgment. Sometimes I'm dead wrong, and receive the appropriate correction. I've lived this way for years, but I do sound pretty dogmatic when actually I'm very flexible. All my life I've made changes, when necessary, but they often come slowly and gradually.
I only said you may not be cut out for this because you keep showing that you're exasperated and ready to quit our particular line of reasoning. I actually am happy to have you here, because I've benefited from your statements at times.
Prophecy sees what exists in the future, it makes no difference whether the structure spoken about is standing or not at the time of the prophecy. The vision/prophecy is not about what happens in between (in this case whether the temple is destroyed or not), but what will happen at the appointed time. There is no basis to insist that Paul ought to have mentioned a third temple in relation to his pronouncement of the Antichrist sitting in the temple in the future. It is possible that Paul might not have known that the temple would be destroyed as he wasn't privy to the Olivet Discourse.
I don't think that's a reasonable proposition. Paul not know about Jesus' Olivet Discourse? Not likely at all! Paul devoured religious material, whether in the Law or in the accounts of Jesus' sayings. He was close friends with Luke and Mark, and he knew both Peter and John. And I think he had a working relationship with James, the brother of Jesus.
In fact we see in Paul's writings about the "Rapture" evidence that he knew about the Olivet Discourse. So although what you say is possible, I don't think it's likely enough to base any argument on it.
And I do think it's valid to ask why a prophecy about the temple does not contain material that was used, in OT Scriptures, for temple or tabernacle under the Law. They were sanctioned by the word of God, either giving explicit instructions or producing the event building them with pomp and great regalia. To just mention the temple, as is, in Rev 11 is very curious from the get go.
No one can say for sure how much of the rather dismal revelations from the Olivet discourse the disciples shared with the wider community of believers and Apostles, after the death and resurrection of Christ. It is conceivable that they might have withheld some bits, (e.g. the destruction of the temple - something that was inconceivable at the time) so as not to cause panic and dismay the brethren at a time they were under immense persecution.
The destruction of the temple was huge because it signaled the end of a long, long era under the Law of Moses. It signaled the beginning of a New Covenant era, in which Christ was followed, and not the Law.
Since the author of Hebrews, whether Paul, Apollos, or Barnabas, mentioned that the temple was purely a symbol of the real temple in heaven, I think that for Paul the "temple" really referred to "God's house," in a sense. When Antichrist situates himself thus, in God's place, he is declaring himself to be God. I'm not saying I'm sure or right, but how can this at least not be a reasonable argument? It's the very reason I hold tentatively to this position!
But whether Paul knew the temple would be destroyed or not has no bearing on what he said would happen in the end times. Your insistence that since Paul did not talk about a 3rd temple, invalidates the argument for a 3rd temple is akin to saying the Jews would not return from Babylon because they were not taken captive by Cyrus who wasn't in the picture when they were expelled from Judah. In that instance, Prophet Jeremiah prophecied their return after 70 years and it came to pass. When a prophecy is given, history and circumstances must work it out according to the will of God. The fact that Babylon had to capitulate to the Medo-Persians before the Jews returned was immaterial - what was relative was that they would return after 70 years and they did - what happened in between (the fall of Babylon) couldn't have had a negative impact on the prophesied outcome. In the same way, to turn a prophesied literal event into a metaphor because you can't see the structure that is at the heart of the prophecy standing is a poor way of interpreting prophecy.
Well yes, prophecy does not include every detail in advance. An argument from silence can, however, suffice to render a position more or less "likely" in its interpretation. If nothing is said about the building of a 3rd temple, then it is not likely to ever be built. It may be built, but it isn't likely in view of the fact God often tells His servants, the prophets, what He intends to do.
You apparently think there is in fact material about building the 3rd temple in Eze 40-48 and in Rev 11. Well, that's the whole question, isn't it? These prophecies are either saying this or they aren't!
Bear with me, I mean no harm - it's not necessary to ask me "to shake the dust off my feet." I'd rather you said, "Here is my position" and stick with it than say you're not dogmatic and then act to the opposite. If one is dogmatic, then they're malleable. But you haven't been malleable on this topic, have you? I think you're letting me get under your skin - I'd have sworn you had a thicker skin or was I mistaken? You're the one coming across as irritable now and you shouldn't be. Whether we agree with each other or not, let's have fun debating this topic, shall we?
Depends on the day or the week, brother. We all have good and bad days. I generally have thick skin. But I do bleed!
Thanks for your perseverance. Most "teacher types" like myself speak as if they know everything, the end with the beginning. But it's just a style of arguing something.
I'm being honest when I say I don't know anything for certain about this subject. But I'm arguing, rhetorically, for the position I've temporarily chosen until it is legitimately disproven. It has *not,* in my view, been disproven. And that's why I show no "flexibility"--nor should I if I'm not convicted to do so.
