Does The Third Temple...

[10s3r]

And why wouldn't that be sometime in the future? There is not a temple in place for it to happen, yet.

Jesus in Matthew 24, indicated that the Abomination of Desolation was a future event, after the gospel has been preached unto all the world, all nation. Antiochus lived at least 167 years earlier to Jesus's statement.

Anitiochus's action typified what the end times Abomination of Desolation will be. Which requires a temple, right?

I don't believe that Antiochus had anything to do with the abomination. It's a complete future event. I do want to mention that the Dome of the Rock religious complex is sufficient to fulfill all of bible prophecy. I don't believe a temple has to be rebuilt.

 

[ebedmelech]

And why wouldn't that be sometime in the future? There is not a temple in place for it to happen, yet.

Jesus in Matthew 24, indicated that the Abomination of Desolation was a future event, after the gospel has been preached unto all the world, all nation. Antiochus lived at least 167 years earlier to Jesus's statement.

Anitiochus's action typified what the end times Abomination of Desolation will be. Which requires a temple, right?

Matthew 24 is stated prior to 70 AD..so it was future to them...not us.

The A of D occurred at the hands of the Rome, when they destroyed the Jews temple, and God used Rome to do it. That temple was left by God when Jesus gave up His spirit and the veil was ripped in half. No more was it needed because Jesus became the high priest making atonement for sin "once and for all!

So, the temple destruction was Gods judgment of the Jews, the "days of vengeance which Luke speaks of. This vengeance was towards Israel/Jerusalem.

That is the missed message of what happened in 70 AD. That was God's judgment! He ceased to dwell in that temple or honor their offerings. Israel became apostate and persecuted the church with Rome and they received the Lord's judgment on them!

I say again, I don't see another temple happening. I don't think God will do that because when He does pour His Spirit on the Jews, after the fullness of the Gentiles...what need is a temple? They, just as all Christians will be "living stones"!!!

 

[Shocker]

Matthew 24 is stated prior to 70 AD..so it was future to them...not us.

The A of D occurred at the hands of the Rome, when they destroyed the Jews temple, and God used Rome to do it. That temple was left by God when Jesus gave up His spirit and the veil was ripped in half. No more was it needed because Jesus became the high priest making atonement for sin "once and for all!

So, the temple destruction was Gods judgment of the Jews, the "days of vengeance which Luke speaks of. This vengeance was towards Israel/Jerusalem.

That is the missed message of what happened in 70 AD. That was God's judgment! He ceased to dwell in that temple or honor their offerings. Israel became apostate and persecuted the church with Rome and they received the Lord's judgment on them!

I say again, I don't see another temple happening. I don't think God will do that because when He does pour His Spirit on the Jews, after the fullness of the Gentiles...what need is a temple? They, just as all Christians will be "living stones"!!!

Would your understanding change if the Jews built a 3rd temple?

Prophetically of course, we know the Temple would have no significance to God.

 

[Bible2]

ebedmelech said in post 129:

The temple is the church and...I don't care how hard you try, neither Jesus nor the apostles EVER said a word of a third temple.

While the church as a whole is a figurative temple building (Ephesians 2:21), it isn't the only temple of God. For it coexists with the literal temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19), and with the temple of Jesus' individual human body (John 2:21), and with the temple of every Christian's individual human body (1 Corinthians 6:19). And if the church-as-a-whole temple can currently coexist with all these other temples of God, it will be able to coexist with the future, 3rd-earthly-literal temple building which Revelation 11:1-2, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 show will exist in Jerusalem during the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. This 3rd temple building will be accepted by God as a valid temple, just as the 2nd temple building was accepted by God as a valid temple, even at the time of Jesus' first coming (Matthew 23:21), and even at the time of the early church (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17).

For the ultra-Orthodox Jews will build the 3rd temple, and they will offer animal sacrifices in front of it, under the auspices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which remains holy before God (Romans 7:12). That's why God still keeps an ark of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in his temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19), and why it was possible for the apostle Paul one time to involve himself with the 2nd temple's Old Covenant Mosaic law practices without him committing sin (Acts 21:20-26; 1 Corinthians 9:20). This isn't to say the Jesus-denying motives of the ultra-Orthodox Jews will be holy before God, but that the Old-Covenant-Mosaic-law 3rd temple in itself and its animal sacrifices in themselves will be holy before God because the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself remains holy before God (Romans 7:12), even though its letter is no longer meant to be practiced by people (Romans 7:6), because the New Covenant has been inaugurated by Jesus and his once-for-all-time sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Hebrews 10:1-23, Matthew 26:28).

 

[Bible2]

Douggg said in post 140:

Anitiochus's action typified what the end times Abomination of Desolation will be. Which requires a temple, right?

Right.

Regarding the "abomination of desolation", Daniel 11:31 was typically fulfilled by the abomination of desolation in 1 Maccabees 1:54, which occurred in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the 2nd Jewish temple in Jerusalem in the time of Antiochus IV. But per Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:15, the church will see the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11:31 fulfilled (antitypically) in the future, when the church will see the abomination of desolation "stand" "in" the holy place (of a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem). This future abomination of desolation could be a standing, android image of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:15) which his followers ("they") will put in the holy place of the temple (Daniel 11:31) to be worshipped (Revelation 13:15), after they have stopped the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices which the ultra-Orthodox Jews will have restarted in front of the temple (Daniel 11:31). This image will "pollute" the holy place of the temple (Daniel 11:31).

The Antichrist will then fulfill Daniel 11:36 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 by sitting himself (at least one time) in the temple and proclaiming himself God. By the power of Satan (the dragon, Revelation 12:9), the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") will then rule and be worshipped by all the nations of the earth for 3.5 literal years (Revelation 13:4-18), and will physically overcome Biblical Christians in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

Also, from the day on which (antitypically) "the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1,335 days" (Daniel 12:11-12, Revelation 16:15). Also, because the Antichrist will fulfill Daniel 11:31 antitypically (Matthew 24:15) and will fulfill Daniel 11:36 for the first (and only) time, then he will also fulfill all of Daniel 11:21-45 (the first part of it antitypically, and the rest for the first and only time) when he arises on the world stage, for that passage refers to the career of the same man. And since the Antichrist will fulfill all of Daniel 11:21-45 when he arises on the world stage, then just preceding his arising on the world stage, Daniel 11:13-19 could be fulfilled antitypically by an Iraqi Baathist General completely defeating and occupying Israel and Egypt with a huge Iraqi Army (Daniel 11:15-17; in verse 17 the original Hebrew word translated as "daughter" is "bath").

 

[Bible2]

10s3r said in post 141:

I don't believe a temple has to be rebuilt.

Note that Revelation 11:1-2, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 require there will be a 3rd Jewish temple in the earthly Jerusalem during the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. This 3rd temple will coexist with the church like the 2nd temple did (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17) and like the temple building in heaven does (Revelation 11:19). The 3rd temple could be built on Jerusalem's Temple Mount by the ultra-Orthodox Jews after they (or great earthquakes) clear the site by destroying the Muslim Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. Shortly after they build the temple, the Antichrist could attack and defeat them and a false Messiah leading them (Daniel 11:22).

Then the Antichrist could "cut" a peace treaty with them and their false "Messiah" (Daniel 9:26a, Daniel 11:23a), permitting them to keep the temple, and to continue to perform the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices in front of it, for at least 7 more years (Daniel 9:27a), so long as they give up the outer court of the temple (Revelation 11:2a) to the Muslims, so the Muslims can rebuild the Al Aqsa Mosque on the southern end of the Temple Mount and resume worship there. The ultra-Orthodox Jews could grudgingly agree to this, if the only other option is for them to lose the temple entirely. They could then build a high wall between the temple and the mosque, in order to keep the temple from being "defiled".

But then, only some 3.5 years after making the peace treaty, the Antichrist will break the treaty, attack the temple, stop the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices, place the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing android image of the Antichrist) in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the temple (Daniel 9:27b, Daniel 11:31, Matthew 24:15), and then sit himself in the temple and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). Thus could begin the Antichrist's literal 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:9).

At the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, the Antichrist (Daniel 11:45) and the world's armies will pillage Jerusalem right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21). And at the 2nd coming there will be tremendous earth changes in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4-5). These events could result in all of Jerusalem's structures, including the 3rd temple and the Wailing Wall (also called the Western Wall), being broken down so that not one stone will be left on another (Luke 19:44, Matthew 24:2). Then the returned Jesus (Zechariah 14:4, Acts 1:11-12) will rebuild Jerusalem and make it the capital of the world (Zechariah 14:8-19, Micah 4:1-4). He will also build a 4th temple there (Zechariah 14:20-21, Zechariah 6:12-13). It will serve a similar function for the church during the future millennium (of Revelation 20:4-6) as the 2nd temple served for the church in the first century AD (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17) and as the temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19) serves for those in heaven (Revelation 7:15).

--

One reason the 3rd Jewish temple hasn't been built yet is the Israeli government is protecting the Muslim Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque (the 3rd-holiest buildings in Islam, right after those in Mecca and Medina), knowing that if the ultra-Orthodox Jews were to destroy these buildings in order to clear the Temple Mount for a 3rd Jewish temple, this could mean the end of the state of Israel. For enraged Muslim armies and militias could attack Israel en masse in an all-out jihad and defeat it completely. While the ultra-Orthodox Jews are no doubt aware of this danger, they believe the 3rd temple must nonetheless be built exactly where the prior temples stood: right over the Rock of Sacrifice (the Rock of the Dome of the Rock) on which Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac. And the ultra-Orthodox Jews could be brought to the point where they will even desire to see the end of the current, secular state of Israel, believing that only in its demise will God make it possible for them to establish a new, perfectly ultra-Orthodox, theocratic state of Israel.

Something that could bring the ultra-Orthodox Jews to this point would be them getting squeezed out of their settlements in Samaria and Judaea (also called the West Bank), and in East Jerusalem, as part of a peace deal handing these areas over to a Palestinian state. For the ultra-Orthodox Jews (rightly) see Samaria, Judaea, and Jerusalem as the historically most important and holy parts of the land promised by God to Israel since the time of Abraham (Exodus 32:13). So when they start to get squeezed out of these areas, in a rage they could suddenly mass in their tens of thousands, armed with machine guns (which they're allowed to have for self-defense against the Palestinians). And led by 3 huge bulldozers, they could march as a great army to the Old City of Jerusalem, and go up onto the Temple Mount and destroy the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. (Or they could clear away their rubble if earthquakes have destroyed them by that time.)

Besides getting squeezed out of their settlements, something else that could tip the scales toward the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel becoming violent would be the rising up of a miracle-working, ultra-Orthodox Jewish false "Messiah" (cf. Matthew 24:24), who could tell the ultra-Orthodox Jews something like:

"God says that now is the time for us to take back religious control of the Holy Temple Mount, and rid it of all the detestable shrines which the Muslims have placed upon it. We are to sanctify it in the name of our God, so that we might rebuild His Holy Temple there. Listen, my brethren, fear not the Muslims' reaction when we retake religious control of the Holy Temple Mount. For God Himself is with us. He will protect us perfectly. Have I not shown you His mighty Power working through Me? Fear not any men, but fear only our Mighty God, who now commands us to rebuild His Holy Temple at the place He determined from the time of our Father Abraham. Our God gave us back the Holy Temple Mount way back in 1967 C.E. But what have we done with it over all the time since then? Nothing! How can this be? How can we have allowed some merely-secular, so-called 'Israeli' government invented by sinful men to keep us, God's holy people, from even setting foot back on the Temple Mount? Let us rise up, my brethren! Let us all rise up, in the name of our God, and let us do mighty exploits to the Glory of His Holy Name!"

Something else that could help tip the scales toward the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel becoming violent is their finding out the location of the Ark of the Covenant, which could be buried under an ancient ruined fort in the desert east of Jerusalem. The Copper Scroll could contain the clues as to where the Ark is buried in the fort (e.g. "under the third step"). The Ark could have been located there already with ground-penetrating radar by some non-religious treasure hunters, but the Israeli government could be holding up a digging permit to retrieve the Ark because the government is afraid the ultra-Orthodox Jews could see the discovery of the Ark as (in their words) "An unmistakable sign from God that now is the time for us to rebuild His Holy Temple". So the Israeli government has a motive to keep the location of the buried Ark top secret.

 

[Douggg]

Matthew 24 is stated prior to 70 AD..so it was future to them...not us.

The A of D occurred at the hands of the Rome, when they destroyed the Jews temple, and God used Rome to do it. That temple was left by God when Jesus gave up His spirit and the veil was ripped in half. No more was it needed because Jesus became the high priest making atonement for sin "once and for all!

Other than the Romans did not put a image of Zeus (or Nero) in the temple, like Antiochus, which typed the AOD act, and it was not the time of the end because the gospel had not been preached to the world, all nations - how can you say the Jersualem is not the fig tree parable of the things Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 - since you are tying the AOD to destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem by the Romans?

So, the temple destruction was Gods judgment of the Jews, the "days of vengeance which Luke speaks of. This vengeance was towards Israel/Jerusalem.

Oh, you mean they withered up like the fig tree Jesus cursed as he entered the city, to be rejected ?

That is the missed message of what happened in 70 AD. That was God's judgment! He ceased to dwell in that temple or honor their offerings. Israel became apostate and persecuted the church with Rome and they received the Lord's judgment on them!

HOw about that the Jews in Jerusalem, lead by the pharisess and sadducess, rejected Jesus as king - and had him crucified? Which the church did not exist at the time of

Matthew 23:
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

I say again, I don't see another temple happening. I don't think God will do that because when He does pour His Spirit on the Jews, after the fullness of the Gentiles...what need is a temple? They, just as all Christians will be "living stones"!!!

It's a literal physical temple, not Christians, because the animals sacrifices that will be taking place in that physical temple, which animal sacrifices have never taken place within Christians, will be animal sacrifices stopped, and the temple desecrated. None of which fits Christians.

A temple will be built in the future for the animal sacrifices, starting again to mark the start of the count of the 2300 days, which in the middle of 7 years, will be stopped by the king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8, who will fight against the Prince of Princes - Jesus. Which in Daniel 8 will be at the time of the end.

Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

The Romans in 70 AD were not at the latter time of their kingdom, but the zenith of it. It was about another 300 or 400 years later that the Roman Empire was in decay.

Plus, you can not explain or identify the ten kings, which the little horn, which in Daniel 7 says will emerge out from amongst, as his beginnings - to 70 AD.

What the problem is, eb, is that the preterist point of view doesn't fit all the prophecies, of the little horn, the ten kings, the king of fierce countenance, the beast, the man of sin, the prince who shall come, the 7 sequential kings, the ten kings that ally with the beast, the wilful king of Daniel 11:36, that each of those prophecies, end with Jesus's return. All of those prophecies have to fit together so that they end with Jesus's return.

The little horn, the king of fierce countenance, the prince who shall come, the man of sin, the wilful king, the beast - all fit together as each of those are talking about one person, the Antichrist, who will be cast in to the lake of fire at Jesus's return.

 

[shturt678s]

Lets get to the root first so I can better understand you.


What is your definition of sanctuary?

Sanctuary (naos in the N.T.) means the bulding in the center of the temple (ieron) composed of the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place.

Thank you again,

Old Jack,

 

[Shocker]

Sanctuary (naos in the N.T.) means the bulding in the center of the temple (ieron) composed of the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place.

Thank you again,

Old Jack,

No, thank you..

Where is that definition found if I may?

Or is this your personal rendition?

 

[shturt678s]

No, thank you..

Where is that definition found if I may?

Or is this your personal rendition?

Received my MA long ago with my G.I. Bill in the Biblical ancient languages and couldn't even convince my most esteemed professor thus will be almost impossible for you and others to make a required paradigm shift ergo you and I will have to agree to disagree like I do with another very credible poster on this thread regarding naos.

Old Jack

btw what is your Koine term for the structure containing the Holy Place and Most Holy Place adjacent to the courtyards? (Question I repeatedly asked decades ago)

Note the O.T. miqdashe "Sanctuary" & hekal "temple" + N.T. Weymouth Bible rendition renders Rev.11:1, "Sanctuary" which started me on this journey long ago.

 

[Shocker]

Received my MA long ago with my G.I. Bill in the Biblical ancient languages and couldn't even convince my most esteemed professor thus will be almost impossible for you and others to make a required paradigm shift ergo you and I will have to agree to disagree like I do with another very credible poster on this thread regarding naos.

Old Jack

btw what is your Koine term for the structure containing the Holy Place and Most Holy Place adjacent to the courtyards? (Question I repeatedly asked decades ago)

Note the O.T. miqdashe "Sanctuary" & hekal "temple" + N.T. Weymouth Bible rendition renders Rev.11:1, "Sanctuary" which started me on this journey long ago.

So in your understanding, the one of the two rooms in the Temple is what you refer to as the sanctuary?

If you couldn't convince your professors, forget convincing me, if you stand alone in your understanding, it perhaps may not be sound doctrine..

Regarding the Koine vernacular:

Most Holy

αγιος
hagios
hag'-ee-os
sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.


Its almost like you are referring to the temple itself as the sanctuary, but that's not really supported by my own studies..


Sounds like you are trying to remove the word Temple, and insert your own understanding, as if God gave us the word with Temple to confuse us..

Do you think God would confuse us?

Do you think the modern translations we have that unanimously interpret naos as temple are all wrong, and you somehow have negated their research?


Just seems a bit off to me..

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Would your understanding change if the Jews built a 3rd temple?

Prophetically of course, we know the Temple would have no significance to God.

I think the temple always has significance to God, though. It is He who commands a temple to be built when they come into their land, and though the Glory which departed the temple in Ezekiel 10, which had entered into the Holy of Holies when Solomon dedicated the temple, never returned for the temple the Jews built when they returned from the first dispersion [cause that temple and priesthood were defiled] yet, the Messiah who is the Glory who will enter the millennial temple and plant His flesh feet there as that Glory, regarded the defiled 2nd temple as "holy" and was zealous for it:
QUOTE] [Ezekiel 43:
43 Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the gate that looketh toward the east:
2 And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.
3 And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face.
4 And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
5 So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house.
6 And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.
[/QUOTE]

 

[ebedmelech]

Would your understanding change if the Jews built a 3rd temple?

Prophetically of course, we know the Temple would have no significance to God.

No it wouldn't...because a third temple has no significance, it would not bea "temple of God"...just a temple. The scripture calls it a "temple of God"...which is the church.

 

[ebedmelech]

While the church as a whole is a figurative temple building (Ephesians 2:21), it isn't the only temple of God. For it coexists with the literal temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19), and with the temple of Jesus' individual human body (John 2:21), and with the temple of every Christian's individual human body (1 Corinthians 6:19). And if the church-as-a-whole temple can currently coexist with all these other temples of God, it will be able to coexist with the future, 3rd-earthly-literal temple building which Revelation 11:1-2, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 show will exist in Jerusalem during the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. This 3rd temple building will be accepted by God as a valid temple, just as the 2nd temple building was accepted by God as a valid temple, even at the time of Jesus' first coming (Matthew 23:21), and even at the time of the early church (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17).

Been over this before with you Bible2...and my response is the same..."Nope".

For the ultra-Orthodox Jews will build the 3rd temple, and they will offer animal sacrifices in front of it, under the auspices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which remains holy before God (Romans 7:12). That's why God still keeps an ark of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in his temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19), and why it was possible for the apostle Paul one time to involve himself with the 2nd temple's Old Covenant Mosaic law practices without him committing sin (Acts 21:20-26; 1 Corinthians 9:20). This isn't to say the Jesus-denying motives of the ultra-Orthodox Jews will be holy before God, but that the Old-Covenant-Mosaic-law 3rd temple in itself and its animal sacrifices in themselves will be holy before God because the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself remains holy before God (Romans 7:12), even though its letter is no longer meant to be practiced by people (Romans 7:6), because the New Covenant has been inaugurated by Jesus and his once-for-all-time sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Hebrews 10:1-23, Matthew 26:28).

No. You're just wrong on this. God will not revert back to sacrifices and Hebrews makes that very clear.

 

[Shocker]

No it wouldn't...because a third temple has no significance, it would not bea "temple of God"...just a temple. The scripture calls it a "temple of God"...which is the church.

Ok, so lets say the Jews build a temple to the God they worship, the same God we worship.

How do you get around this verse?

2Th_2:4 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.

If the Church is the temple of God in this verse, are you telling me that the he will stand in the body of Christ?

I just don't see the fit here.

 

[Shocker]

Also, God destroyed the 2nd temple for the same reasons the Jews want a 3rd temple.

God didn't revere the 2nd temple, but it still fulfilled a prophecy.

 

[ebedmelech]

Other than the Romans did not put a image of Zeus (or Nero) in the temple, like Antiochus, which typed the AOD act, and it was not the time of the end because the gospel had not been preached to the world, all nations - how can you say the Jersualem is not the fig tree parable of the things Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 - since you are tying the AOD to destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem by the Romans?

Understand that Antiochus defiled the temple upon entering it. He was a Gentile. Only the high priest and Levites were permitted in the temple...everything else was an aggravating factor which made his sin more abominable.

So the Romans, not being Levites defiled the temple as far as the Jewish mind is concerned...they were "unclean"...

Oh, you mean they withered up like the fig tree Jesus cursed as he entered the city, to be rejected ?

No...that's what you mean. When Jesus cursed the fig tree, He did so knowing he was going to the cross rejected by His own (the Jews), Israel was already unfruitful.

HOw about that the Jews in Jerusalem, lead by the pharisess and sadducess, rejected Jesus as king - and had him crucified? Which the church did not exist at the time of

Matthew 23:
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

It's a literal physical temple, not Christians, because the animals sacrifices that will be taking place in that physical temple, which animal sacrifices have never taken place within Christians, will be animal sacrifices stopped, and the temple desecrated. None of which fits Christians.

A temple will be built in the future for the animal sacrifices, starting again to mark the start of the count of the 2300 days, which in the middle of 7 years, will be stopped by the king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8, who will fight against the Prince of Princes - Jesus. Which in Daniel 8 will be at the time of the end.

Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

The Romans in 70 AD were not at the latter time of their kingdom, but the zenith of it. It was about another 300 or 400 years later that the Roman Empire was in decay.

Plus, you can not explain or identify the ten kings, which the little horn, which in Daniel 7 says will emerge out from amongst, as his beginnings - to 70 AD.

What the problem is, eb, is that the preterist point of view doesn't fit all the prophecies, of the little horn, the ten kings, the king of fierce countenance, the beast, the man of sin, the prince who shall come, the 7 sequential kings, the ten kings that ally with the beast, the wilful king of Daniel 11:36, that each of those prophecies, end with Jesus's return. All of those prophecies have to fit together so that they end with Jesus's return.

The little horn, the king of fierce countenance, the prince who shall come, the man of sin, the wilful king, the beast - all fit together as each of those are talking about one person, the Antichrist, who will be cast in to the lake of fire at Jesus's return.

The problem is you force this to fit your eschatology, Instead of letting scripture tell you...you're telling scripture.

Every point you attempt to make is based on you approaching this as future, when it is not. These things occurred during the 400 silent years. Have you never read 1 & 2 Maccabees?..or even much secular history on the matter?

I guess not.

 

[shturt678s]

So in your understanding, the one of the two rooms in the Temple is what you refer to as the sanctuary?

Not trying to convince anyone, ie, just making sure you understand exactly where we agree to disagree in case the Living God is watching. Not the one of the two rooms in the Temple, however both of the two rooms (Holy Place and the Most Holy Place) in the Temple (ieron) = Sanctuary (naos). The "Sanctuary" (naos) is in the Temple (ieron), ie, not the other way around, or equal.

If you couldn't convince your professors, forget convincing me, if you stand alone in your understanding, it perhaps may not be sound doctrine..

Regarding the Koine vernacular:

Most Holy

αγιος
hagios
hag'-ee-os
sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.


Its almost like you are referring to the temple itself as the sanctuary, but that's not really supported by my own studies..

Sounds like you are trying to remove the word Temple, and insert your own understanding, as if God gave us the word with Temple to confuse us..

I didn't remove "temple" from Lk.21:51 or Matt.4:5 like I said before = ieron "temple".

Do you think God would confuse us?

Do you think the modern translations we have that unanimously interpret naos as temple are all wrong, and you somehow have negated their research?


Just seems a bit off to me..

Now we know exactly where we agree to disagree as value you as a poster, and thank you again.

Old Jack

 

[Shocker]

Not trying to convince anyone, ie, just making sure you understand exactly where we agree to disagree in case the Living God is watching. Not the one of the two rooms in the Temple, however both of the two rooms (Holy Place and the Most Holy Place) in the Temple (ieron) = Sanctuary (naos). The "Sanctuary" (naos) is in the Temple (ieron), ie, not the other way around, or equal.





I didn't remove "temple" from Lk.21:51 or Matt.4:5 like I said before = ieron "temple".



Now we know exactly where we agree to disagree as value you as a poster, and thank you again.

Old Jack

Ok, so the central temple, the structure with two rooms in your understanding should not be called a temple, and should be called a sanctuary..

Hey, whatever you wanna call it, so long as you know what it is..

 

[Douggg]

Understand that Antiochus defiled the temple upon entering it. He was a Gentile. Only the high priest and Levites were permitted in the temple...everything else was an aggravating factor which made his sin more abominable.

So the Romans, not being Levites defiled the temple as far as the Jewish mind is concerned...they were "unclean"...

Entering the temple was not something being "set up". Entering the temple was not the abomination of desolation. It has to be something "set up' like what Antiochus did. Didn't happen by the Romans.

Daniel 12:11 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.

No...that's what you mean. When Jesus cursed the fig tree, He did so knowing he was going to the cross rejected by His own (the Jews), Israel was already unfruitful.

Where was Jesus going into when he cursed the fig tree? And where was Jesus coming from when it had withered up

The problem is you force this to fit your eschatology, Instead of letting scripture tell you...you're telling scripture.

No, I am not spiritualizing the scriptures with things like Israel of God in order to not recognize that Israel in 1948 was the fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8 that Israel be a nation borne in a single day.

All of the prophecies regarding the little horn, king of fierce countenance, the prince who shall come, the another coming in his own name, the man of sin, son of perdition, the wilful king, the beast - I can solidly fit into a start to finish understanding of those how they all fit together. And in conjunction with all of the timeframes stated.

Preterists, on the other hand, fragment the prophecies, because the preterist view is unworkable when all of the prophecies are considered.

Every point you attempt to make is based on you approaching this as future, when it is not. These things occurred during the 400 silent years. Have you never read 1 & 2 Maccabees?..or even much secular history on the matter? I guess not.

My signature statement explains my objective. 1&2 Maccabees is not part of the bible.

eb, post a link to a timeline event flow chart by any preterist of all of the prophecies which futurists consider end times (our generation), but identified as non future by preterists.

Or open a thread and start compiling a list of all of the prophecies which futurist consider end times (our generation), but identified as non-future by preterists. And then try to tackle putting those together on a preterist event flow chart of those things having happened.