NT support for a third temple

[Spiritual Jew]

Asking questions is not as rude as you put it. It is a way to get people into a certain point of thought.

It's rude to not answer my questions while expecting me to answer yours. If you can't understand that then you have even less discernment than I thought.

You on the other hand refuse to think, as all you see is me being rude. I have answered your questions, and when I did, you never even addressed the answers.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked in the post your responded to with your own questions. Are you expecting me to answer your questions when you didn't answer any of mine? If so, keep dreaming.

I am going by your words. Do you not go by your words?

You're going by a misinterpretation of my words. You misinterpret my words more often than you interpret them correctly.

What do you mean, won't even be possible for them to refuse?

The Millennium is not some sort of mind control where all are robots. Nor will be a place where sin or sin nature can exist. It is like but not exactly the NHNE.

This is nonsense. You're definitely not getting this from scripture, so it's coming from your own imagination. If you think Zechariah 14 is talking about that time period, then sin would occur whenever anyone refused to go to up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord. Is this too hard of a concept for you to understand? You don't even know what sin is?

If you cannot comprehend life before sin, how can I explain it to you?

I don't need you to explain anything to me.

It is right there in Matthew 25. Most people are so dead set in their eschatology, they will never see it.

Where is there any mention of a temple in Matthew 25?

 

[keras]

But the New Testament does refer to a new Temple:
2 Thessalonians 2:4, Revelation 11:1-3, Acts of the Apostles 15:16-17, All are in an end times context.
Many other prophesies about future events cannot happen without a new Temple in Jerusalem.

First reference is the temple that was around when Paul wrote this (which we’ve gone over before). 2nd reference was the existing temple. The third reference was a tabernacle. There was no temple in David’s lifetime.

!/ Paul was talking about the coming Return of Jesus, which hasn't happened yet. So Paul was prophesying about a new, end times Temple.

2/ Revelation 11 does not and cannot be referring to the Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD, because the Gentiles have trampled it for nearly 2000 years; not just 42 months.

3/ David commissioned Solomon to build the Temple.
I will rebuild on its ruins....... Proof that it will be a new Temple.

The insistence of people to deny a new Temple , is really quite puzzling. Why should God not have a place where His people, the faithful Christians, will be able to worship Him?
Denial of the Biblical truth of a new Temple in Jerusalem, is part of a whole doctrine of error, one far removed from what God has planned for our future. Error which is seriously compounded by teaching and promoting it.

 

[Hammster]

!/ Paul was talking about the coming Return of Jesus, which hasn't happened yet. So Paul was prophesying about a new, end times Temple.

2/ Revelation 11 does not and cannot be referring to the Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD, because the Gentiles have trampled it for nearly 2000 years; not just 42 months.

3/ David commissioned Solomon to build the Temple.
I will rebuild on its ruins....... Proof that it will be a new Temple.

The insistence of people to deny a new Temple , is really quite puzzling. Why should God not have a place where His people, the faithful Christians, will be able to worship Him?
Denial of the Biblical truth of a new Temple in Jerusalem, is part of a whole doctrine of error, one far removed from what God has planned for our future. Error which is seriously compounded by teaching and promoting it.

One, Paul was referring to the end of the age, which indeed happened.

Two, you can’t trample on something for 2000 years that doesn’t exist.

Three…what?!

 

[ShineyDays2]

One, Paul was referring to the end of the age, which indeed happened.

Could you clarify what "end of the age that happened" you are referring to and what verse you used please? Thanks!

 

[parousia70]

Could you clarify what "end of the age that happened" you are referring to and what verse you used please? Thanks!

The historic end of the age of Temple Judaism under the Mosaic Law indeed occurred at AD 70, marking the full historic end of the Old Testament age. Essentially, a 1500-year dynasty came to its divinely intended end and the New Covenant of the Christ was all that remained standing in history. This age-changing historic event was the direct result of God's visitation to them, as Luke says: "When [Jesus] was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying...the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." (Lk 19:41-44).

Q: In what age was Jesus born?

A: The Old Testament Law Age:
"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law [of Moses]" (Gal 4:4)

Q: At what point in that Old Testament age did Jesus appear, suffer, and die on the Cross?

A: "In these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Hebrews 1:2). "But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb 9:26). "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you" (1 Peter 1:20).

Q: What age were the apostles in at the time they asked Jesus, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

A: as demonstrated above, They were in the Old Testament Age. Therefore their statement logically spoke of the signs accompanying the end of that Age.

Q: At what point in the Age did the Apostle Paul understand himself to be?

A: The end
"These things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (1 Cor 10:11)

It is evident that the apostles and Jesus were born in the Old Testament Age. This age was marked by the Temple/tabernacle, the blood animal sacrifices, circumcision, the tribal system, and the priesthood of Aaron -- all of which vanished at AD 70 when Jesus' prophecy took place:

He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation." (Luke 19:41-44)

Some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:5-7)

 

[Hammster]

Could you clarify what "end of the age that happened" you are referring to and what verse you used please? Thanks!

For simplicity’s sake, we can start here.


When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
— Hebrews 8:13

 

[keras]

One, Paul was referring to the end of the age, which indeed happened.

Two, you can’t trample on something for 2000 years that doesn’t exist.

Three…what?!

1/ Paul was referring to the end of the Christian age. Amos 9, the OT basis for Pauls comment, does not fit with your interpretation.

2/ The gentiles have trampled over Jerusalem and especially the Temple Mount, since 70 AD.

3/ Acts 15:16 is about a stone Temple, not a tent Tabernacle. It will be built exactly where the original Temple was.

The insistence of people to deny a new Temple , is really quite puzzling. Why should God not have a place where His people, the faithful Christians, will be able to worship Him?
Denial of the Biblical truth of a new Temple in Jerusalem, is part of a whole doctrine of error, one far removed from what God has planned for our future. Error which is seriously compounded by teaching and promoting it.

 

[keras]

"These things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (1 Cor 10:11)

So obviously wrong!
We are living proof that the end of the ages has NOT yet come.
And it will not come until after the GWT Judgment and Eternity comes.

What is more, is the Jews are back and living in a small part of the holy Land. They face the terrible Day of the Lord's fiery wrath and only a remnant will survive.
THEN the Lord's faithful Christian peoples will migrate to and occupy all of the holy Land and will build the new Temple. Ezekiel 40 to 48, +

 

[Hammster]

1/ Paul was referring to the end of the Christian age. Amos 9, the OT basis for Pauls comment, does not fit with your interpretation.

2/ The gentiles have trampled over Jerusalem and especially the Temple Mount, since 70 AD.

3/ Acts 15:16 is about a stone Temple, not a tent Tabernacle. It will be built exactly where the original Temple was.

Now you’re just making things up. Just the fact that there is no temple to trample on is indicative of your desperation to find a third temple in the NT.

 

[keras]

Now you’re just making things up. Just the fact that there is no temple to trample on is indicative of your desperation to find a third temple in the NT.

The presence of the Muslim Dome of the Rock on the site of the ancient Temples, fulfills the 'trampling' prophecy.

People can see the desperation in your replies. You fail to make any proper rebuttal and accusations are your main recourse.

 

[eclipsenow]

There are absolutely no requirements for a 3rd temple, as Jesus was the temple that was torn down and built again in 3 days, and any references to 'temple' in the NT after that theological point are about Jesus, heaven, or the church as God's 'temple' that he is building. After all, we're gospel believing Christians right? What have we got to do with temples?

 

[Hammster]

The presence of the Muslim Dome of the Rock on the site of the ancient Temples, fulfills the 'trampling' prophecy.

People can see the desperation in your replies. You fail to make any proper rebuttal and accusations are your main recourse.

There’s NO temple. It’s been trampled and is GONE.

 

[Aldebaran]

There’s NO temple. It’s been trampled and is GONE.

After 233 posts, here's what I gather about what you believe: There will be no more temples built, and the passage in Daniel chapter 9:27 has already happened:

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Also spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house.

From what I remember (correct me if I'm wrong), you believe we're now in the Millennium. So what's next?

 

[Hammster]

After 233 posts, here's what I gather about what you believe: There will be no more temples built, and the passage in Daniel chapter 9:27 has already happened:

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Also spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house.

From what I remember (correct me if I'm wrong), you believe we're now in the Millennium. So what's next?

The growth of the kingdom and His triumphant return.

 

[keras]

The growth of the kingdom and His triumphant return.

Any evidence that the Lord's Kingdom is growing faster now?
The Bible prophets say there will be a falling away, not growth.

Jesus will Return in power and glory, to a world dominated by the Anti-Christ. He destroys the AC's armies at Armageddon and then chains Satan up.

There’s NO temple. It’s been trampled and is GONE.

Yes; the second Temple was destroyed and then the Temple Mount was left to heathens, even the Crusaders, who used it as a rubbish tip.
The current buildings on the Temple Mount, will be gone when the Lord sends His fiery wrath. Isaiah 10:23, +

Denial of the plainly stated scriptures about a new Temple, is serious error and soon to be proved wrong.

 

[Hammster]

Any evidence that the Lord's Kingdom is growing faster now?

Faster? Where did that come from?

 

[jgr]

What is more, is the Jews are back and living in a small part of the holy Land.

I thought that you understood that genetically we're all Jews, keras.

Apparently not.

 

[keras]

I thought that you understood that genetically we're all Jews, keras.

Apparently not.

My bad. I meant those who call themselves Jews are currently in a small part of the holy Land.

Faster? Where did that come from?

It is very difficult to have a discussion with someone who constantly avoids the crux of the matter, by making irrelevant and diversionary comments.

Faster: increased momentum. Of people becoming Christians. OK?

 

[Hammster]

Faster: increased momentum. Of people becoming Christians. OK?

Why is faster an issue. In two examples, we have a tiny seed turning into a tree, and yeast working itself through dough. Neither of these are fast processes. But both are thorough.

 

[keras]

Why is faster an issue. In two examples, we have a tiny seed turning into a tree, and yeast working itself through dough. Neither of these are fast processes. But both are thorough.

So; where is your proof that Christianity is thoroughly accepted by more people today than ever before. And I mean; proportional to population increases.

The error ridden AMill belief cannot show that Satan is bound beyond what God has always allowed him to deceive. That is: those who let him lead them astray.
No difference from when Adam and Eve were deceived.