New Info on Numbers 1260, 1290, 1335 and 42

[keras]

The verse that springs to mind is Matt. 16:18, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Obviously; Jesus was talking there, about His Spiritual Church; Christians from every tribe, race, nation and language.

A new Temple constructed in Jerusalem, is well prophesied and will be an important part of the end times events. Zechariah 8:9

 

[Christian Gedge]

But F.o.t.Gentiles began this conversation in the context of his Church being the temple.

"(Jesus) spake of the temple of his body." (John 2:21)​

You seem to have two holy temples on the go in the end times! What does your Pastor say about that?

 

[keras]

But F.o.t.Gentiles began this conversation in the context of his Church being the temple.

"(Jesus) spake of the temple of his body." (John 2:21)

They are right, at this stage of the Church age.

You seem to have two holy temples on the go in the end times! What does your Pastor say about that?

My pastor has no interest whatsoever in Bible Prophecy.
Why should there not be a new Temple? The Lord will soon clear and cleanse the holy Land. Deuteronomy 32:34-43, Jeremiah 4:26-28

Great day for fishing off the Coromandel.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Great day for fishing off the Coromandel.

Now you're talking!

 

[jeffweedaman]

My pastor has no interest whatsoever in Bible Prophecy.
Why should there not be a new Temple?

If he had an interest , then he would know why it is not necessary .

 

[claninja]

a) John 2:19-22 and Daniel 9:27 are linked; and

Interestingly enough, the LXX of Daniel 9:27 uses “Hieron” in regards to the abomination of desolation. So it would seem more likely that the abomination of desolation is in regards to the destruction of the earthly temple building, which is consistent with Jesus’ prophecy of the complete and utter destruction of the entire temple complex: “not one stone upon another”.

if (IF) it's pointing to a Temple at the close of the Age, then it's pointing to the New Testament Temple (which Paul later mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:4)?

I wonder if it’s possible that Paul is simply referring to a “false Christ” in regards to the phrase “sit in the temple declaring he is God”?

In other words, Jesus is the temple (naos) of God (John 2:19-22), and when one claims to be Christ and leading many astray, they are effectively “sitting in the temple (naos) of God claiming to be God”.

Such would be consistent with the false Christs of the olivet discourse, who were doing exactly what Paul claimed the man of sin would do: deceiving the elect with signs and wonders, claiming the day of the Lord had already occurred, working through lawlessness:

Matthew 24:4-5 4Jesus answered, “See to it that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.

Matthew 24:12 12Because of the multiplication of lawlessness , the love of most will grow cold.

Matthew 24:23-24 At that time, if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There He is!’ do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible

luke 21:8 8Jesus answered, “See to it that you are not deceived. For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them.

 

[Timtofly]

give this a go, but don’t shoot me if I’m wrong. Linking these verses are quite a challenge.
Jesus is speaking of his temple the church; Daniel is speaking of Israel’s temple which would be destroyed after the 70 weeks were complete; Paul is speaking of a future (abominable) temple.

Daniel did not say after the 70 weeks. If Daniel was talking about the physical Temple it was in the middle of a week, not at the end. Daniel 9:27 is not the 70th week. Daniel 9:27 is the sounding of the 7th Trumpet, Revelation 10:7.

Gabriel defines the 70th week. It is the work on earth of Christ the Prince. 3.5 years as Christ. 3.5 years as Prince. Except those days as Prince is the time cut short, because those days will be unprecedented tribulation and cut short. But that time of GT, will end at the 7th Trumpet. If Daniel 9:27 is fulfilled it will split the week of the 7th Trumpet, an actual week of days. The last 3.5 days are mentioned in Revelation 11:9.

The time of desolation will be fulfilled by the 42 months given to Satan, the FP, and the beast.

The 70th week has not been split by desolation even if the Temple was made desolate at the Cross. Yes Messiah was cut off, but for the sake of all mankind both Gentile and Israel. The last 1991 years has not been desolate but full of the light from the Gospel. The time of desolation will be when Satan is in control for 42 months. That is when Satan sits on the throne in the Second Coming Temple. The one in Matthew 25:31.

 

[keras]

The time of desolation will be fulfilled by the 42 months given to Satan, the FP, and the beast.

The 70th week has not been split by desolation even if the Temple was made desolate at the Cross. Yes Messiah was cut off, but for the sake of all mankind both Gentile and Israel. The last 1991 years has not been desolate but full of the light from the Gospel. The time of desolation will be when Satan is in control for 42 months. That is when Satan sits on the throne in the Second Coming Temple. The one in Matthew 25:31.

This is correct, scripturally and historically.

There will be a new Temple built in Jerusalem. To deny it, is to deny many scriptures.
We are now on the edge of tremendous change, of earth shaking events which the Prophets describe in great detail. To not know about what God has planned for our future, is our own fault, as we have been told.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Why should there not be a new Temple?

In terms of thinking there will be a new physical temple based on Ezekiel 40-48, the reason why there shouldn't be is because that passage talks about animal sacrifices and sin offerings being performed there for the atonement of sins (Ezekiel 45:15-17). Why would that be necessary in light of Christ's "once for all" sacrifice? So, a better question is why should there be a new temple when we already have the temple of God, which is the church?

 

[keras]

In terms of thinking there will be a new physical temple based on Ezekiel 40-48, the reason why there shouldn't be is because that passage talks about animal sacrifices and sin offerings being performed there for the atonement of sins (Ezekiel 45:15-17). Why would that be necessary in light of Christ's "once for all" sacrifice? So, a better question is why should there be a new temple when we already have the temple of God, which is the church?

Bible prophecy clearly informs us that there will be a new Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus will Return to it and reign from it. Zechariah 14:16-21

Many of those Prophesies say there will be sacrifices and offerings made in it. Isaiah 56:6-7, Jeremiah 33:14-18, Ezekiel 20:40-41 and Ezekiel 45:20 says they will be made to atone for mistakes and ignorance.
Something that all those who have denied the truths of God's Word will have to do.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Bible prophecy clearly informs us that there will be a new Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus will Return to it and reign from it. Zechariah 14:16-21

That's what you think, but for some reason you have no concern that your interpretation blatantly contradicts scripture like Hebrews 8-10.

Many of those Prophesies say there will be sacrifices and offerings made in it. Isaiah 56:6-7, Jeremiah 33:14-18, Ezekiel 20:40-41 and Ezekiel 45:20 says they will be made to atone for mistakes and ignorance.
Something that all those who have denied the truths of God's Word will have to do.

Christ's blood isn't enough? They will need the blood of animals, too? If only you knew how insulting your beliefs are to the finished work of Christ on the cross. But, you are oblivious to that.

 

[Timtofly]

In terms of thinking there will be a new physical temple based on Ezekiel 40-48, the reason why there shouldn't be is because that passage talks about animal sacrifices and sin offerings being performed there for the atonement of sins (Ezekiel 45:15-17). Why would that be necessary in light of Christ's "once for all" sacrifice? So, a better question is why should there be a new temple when we already have the temple of God, which is the church?

Why have a temple in eternity?

Are you saying this prophecy was fulfilled between the Babylonian captivity and the birth of Christ?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Why have a temple in eternity?

A physical temple? No. Why did you ask me that?

Revelation 21:22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

Are you saying this prophecy was fulfilled between the Babylonian captivity and the birth of Christ?

No, not at all. Where are you getting that from? I believe it's a conditional prophecy and the conditions were not met (see Ezekiel 43:10-11).

 

[keras]

That's what you think, but for some reason you have no concern that your interpretation blatantly contradicts scripture like Hebrews 8-10.

Christ's blood isn't enough? They will need the blood of animals, too? If only you knew how insulting your beliefs are to the finished work of Christ on the cross. But, you are oblivious to that.

It is your 'interpretation' which causes a Bible anomaly.
We are told to not make sacrifices during this Church age.

But Zechariah 14:16-21, perfectly clearly says; people will again sacrifice animals to God during the Millennium.
If you insist on denying plainly stated scripture like this, then what are you?

 

[Timtofly]

A physical temple? No. Why did you ask me that?

Revelation 21:22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

No, not at all. Where are you getting that from? I believe it's a conditional prophecy and the conditions were not met (see Ezekiel 43:10-11).

You claim this is eternity:

"Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat."

What is the need for this temple, if you claim temples are not necessary?

 

[jgr]

It is your 'interpretation' which causes a Bible anomaly.
We are told to not make sacrifices during this Church age.

But Zechariah 14:16-21, perfectly clearly says; people will again sacrifice animals to God during the Millennium.
If you insist on denying plainly stated scripture like this, then what are you?

If you insist on disbelieving the Holy Spirit's unequivocal declarations, then what are you?

Hebrews 10
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Whom to believe?

1. Keras who says "again".
or
2. The Holy Spirit who says "once for all".

Real easy. Real simple.

 

[keras]

If you insist on disbelieving the Holy Spirit's unequivocal declarations, then what are you?

Hebrews 10
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Whom to believe?

1. Keras who says "again".
or
2. The Holy Spirit who says "once for all".

Real easy. Real simple.

Hebrews 10 doesn't say that God will never again require His people to offer sacrifices.
We do not know the Mind of God. God tells us thru His prophets; that our offerings will again be acceptable to Him. Isaiah 56:8-7, Ezekiel 20:40-41, and Daniel 9:27 says how the Anti-Christ will stop them.

Why must you attack me jgr? Your dispute is with the Bible prophets, it is them who contradict your beliefs.
Of course; it is easier to shoot the messenger, than to refute his message.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It is your 'interpretation' which causes a Bible anomaly.
We are told to not make sacrifices during this Church age.

But Zechariah 14:16-21, perfectly clearly says; people will again sacrifice animals to God during the Millennium.
If you insist on denying plainly stated scripture like this, then what are you?

If you insist on contradicting plainly stated scripture in Hebrews 10 that says animal sacrifices only had the purpose of foreshadowing Christ's sacrifice and plainly stated scripture that says God takes no pleasure in animal sacrifices and has no desire for them, then what are you?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hebrews 10 doesn't say that God will never again require His people to offer sacrifices.

It says that He takes no pleasure in them and has no desire for them. What is there about that fact that makes you think He would ever want to reinstate animal sacrifices? The Ezekiel prophecy talks about sacrifices being done for the atonement of sins. Why in the world would that happen in light of Christ's "once for all" sacrifice made long ago? You're not even thinking here and you're showing your utter lack of spiritual discernment.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You claim this is eternity:

"Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat."

What is the need for this temple, if you claim temples are not necessary?

What are you talking about? You never make any sense.