Should Christians support Rebuilding of Jerusalem Third Temple.

[miknik5]

As for your comment regarding Amos

If you are claiming that Amos is talking to believers clearly says thi

True, but the part of the guideline prayer that Yeshua taught His disciples, is calling for the Lord's kingdom to come. That is praying for that day when the Lord would set up His kingdom on the earth as elaborated by the prophets.

My post that mentioned this was in specific response to your Amos reference. You stated "woe to those who hasten the day". From what I can tell from Yeshua, Paul, and John is that it is one of our responsibilities to call for Yeshua's return to establish His kingdom on the earth, which by implication, would be "hastening" that day.

I was not even focusing on any third temple scenario, just the simple comment you made about hastening that day. None of us are going to have any say on if another temple is built in Israel in the near future, no matter how much we think it is necessary or not. If it occurs, it will be done by the religious leadership in Israel, along with approval by the Israeli government.

Exactly. It will happen It will occur. (Just as His kingdom will come)

But the topic of this thread is should we support the building of the third temple and we shouldn’t
If we claim to belong to Jesus and understand the Gospel, though we know that the temple will be built, we should still preach the Gospel and warn the ignorant unbelievers that this temple is temporal and not the house of GOD; that
Jesus alone is THE HOUSE as the Son over His Fathers House

 

[Copperhead]

As for your comment regarding Amos

If you are claiming that Amos is talking to believers clearly says thi

Exactly. It will happen It will occur. (Just as His kingdom will come)

But the topic of this thread is should we support the building of the third temple and we shouldn’t
If we claim to belong to Jesus and understand the Gospel, though we know that the temple will be built, we should still preach the Gospel and warn the ignorant unbelievers that this temple is temporal and not the house of GOD; that
Jesus alone is THE HOUSE as the Son over His Fathers House

But it does remain... whether we support it or not, there will be some form of temple in place for the tribulation period. Else, there is no temple to desecrate per Yeshua and Daniel. And there will be a literal temple during the Messianic Kingdom era, as per Ezekiel, after Israel is restored to the Land in full after the wars of the tribulation period.

I stated earlier that I did not vote in the poll, as the option I choose was not on the list. I don't have any dog in this hunt. I am not concentrating any of my time on seeing that a temple is built, but I am very confident it will be. I don't support it nor do I make any effort to negate it. I am just an observer. It is akin to worrying about who the Antichrist is. I don't give one minute of my time speculating who it is unlike some who like to play numbers and claim that Putin is the Antichrist or Obama is. I just know that character will be part of the scenario that plays out, and when he shows up, there will be no confusion on who he is.

 

[Inkfingers]

there will be some form of temple in place for the tribulation period. Else, there is no temple to desecrate per Yeshua and Daniel.

The temple that will be desecrated is the body of Christ desecrated by apostasy. The "falling away" which reveals "the son of destruction" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

I don't give one minute of my time speculating who it is unlike some who like to play numbers and claim that Putin is the Antichrist or Obama is. I just know that character will be part of the scenario that plays out, and when he shows up, there will be no confusion on who he is.

Actually there will be a great deal of confusion. Many will think he is the Messiah...

 

[Copperhead]

The temple that will be desecrated is the body of Christ desecrated by apostasy. The "falling away" which reveals "the son of destruction" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

That "falling away" was translated by the Latin Vulgate, 8 English translations prior to the KJV, and has been elaborated on by many scholars as meaning simply "departure". And given the context of the passage, it very well could be the gathering of the righteous. Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Andy Woods, and many other Greek experts elaborate extensively on that assertion. Paul sets the stage and context in verse 1......

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (NKJV) Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,

Apostasy is a English word that is a transliteration, not translation, of Apostasia. The meanings are not equivalent. And the Latin Vulgate (late 4th Century) uses "discesio" in the passage which means departure, not falling away. The only way (with all due respect to James Strong), according to many other Greek scholars, to use apostosia to mean "falling away" is to show what is being fallen away from. The only other use of the word is Acts 21:21 where Paul is being accused of teaching a departure from Moses (the Torah). In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, there is nothing to state what is being departed from, so the word has to stand on its own as simply "departure". And the context of verse 1 suggests that the departure, or gathering, of the righteous is in view. Not a departure from the faith.

It is legitimate to think of the passage as actually the Lord gathering the righteous to Himself as opposed to being desecrated.

 

[Inkfingers]

That "falling away" was translated by the Latin Vulgate, 8 English translations prior to the KJV, and has been elaborated on by many scholars as meaning simply "departure".

The word translated is ἀποστασία, apostasia. So you'd have to be wearing a blindfold to think that means anything but apostasy. Coming from a root word meaning divorce: Genesis 1:1 (KJV) < despite what this says the link is going to, its actually linking to a page showing the Greek root of apostasy on Blue Letter Bible.

It is legitimate to think of the passage as actually the Lord gathering the righteous to Himself as opposed to being desecrated.

Those gathered to the lord are not divorcing anyone. They are being wed.

So your claim here is rubbish. It reveals the son of perdition not the son of God.

 

[Copperhead]

So your claim here is rubbish. It reveals the son of perdition not the son of God.

When so-called "brothers and sisters" respond in this fashion, I know that I am probably on the right track and struck gold, since this issue being discussed is not one of condition of salvation. I never once condemned any other view, I just offered a reasoned interpretation from some respected true believers. I never said it was the absolute only way to look at this issue. I said it is a legitimate way to look at the passage, without criticizing any other view.

So, thanks for your response. Yeshua was called the Son of Beelzebub (Satan), so for you to accuse me of being in the same camp is heartwarming. And your approach certainly exhibits some lack of the gifts of the Spirit, so you might want to reevaluate your situation before throwing stones at others. Me thinks ye doest protest too much.

 

[Inkfingers]

When so-called "brothers and sisters" respond in this fashion, I know that I am probably on the right track. Since this issue being discussed is not one of condition of salvation. I never once condemned any other view, I just offered a reasoned interpretation from some respected true believers. I never even said it was the absolute only way to look at this issue. I said it is a legitimate way to look at the passage, without criticizing any other view.

So, thanks for your response. Yeshua was called the Son of Beelzebub (Satan), so for you to accuse me of being in the same camp is heartwarming. And your approach certainly exhibits some lack of the gifts of the Spirit, so you might want to reevaluate your situation before throwing stones at others. Me thinks ye doest protest too much.

The "it" I was referring to was the apostasy in the passage, not yourself.

 

[Copperhead]

Nice dodge, but it won't work. The "it", if one uses basic grammatical sentence structure, refers to the "claim" of the previous sentence. And ideas don't make claims, people do. So it was pretty clear.... you felt that the message was wrong (which may or may not be true) and decided to condemn the messenger.

I have no problem when others disagree with anything I post. None of us have an exclusive on theological issues. I think your take on 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is faulty, but the thought of you or your idea being less than honorable never entered my mind. You, on the other hand, had to take an accusatorial approach intending to condemn, while not offering much of substance to show what I stated was wrong. It was intended to shut down thoughtful dialogue on the issue.

You used the same approach used by the heathen in our culture. For instance, if I disagree with homosexuality, they will accuse me of being a homophobe and bigot. None of which is the case. I just disagree with the activity as that is what the Lord has taught us. That in no way means I hate and despise the individual engaging in the activity.

Likewise, if I disagree with Islam, then I must be a Islamophobe and hateful of those who hold to Islamic ideas. Again, not true. And again, the accusation is designed to shut down meaningful discourse regarding the issue and condemn the one who disagrees.

It is sad when those who claim to be brothers in the Lord use the same tactics against the brethren as the heathen do.

 

[miknik5]

But it does remain... whether we support it or not, there will be some form of temple in place for the tribulation period. Else, there is no temple to desecrate per Yeshua and Daniel. And there will be a literal temple during the Messianic Kingdom era, as per Ezekiel, after Israel is restored to the Land in full after the wars of the tribulation period.

I stated earlier that I did not vote in the poll, as the option I choose was not on the list. I don't have any dog in this hunt. I am not concentrating any of my time on seeing that a temple is built, but I am very confident it will be. I don't support it nor do I make any effort to negate it. I am just an observer. It is akin to worrying about who the Antichrist is. I don't give one minute of my time speculating who it is unlike some who like to play numbers and claim that Putin is the Antichrist or Obama is. I just know that character will be part of the scenario that plays out, and when he shows up, there will be no confusion on who he is.

I know there will be s temple built. I never said it wouldn’t be built. And this thread is about whether Christians and or messianic jews should support it


Since they are those who know Christ and understand the gospel and the truth of what Christ did for us by entering into the true door unto heaven ( which isn’t made by human hands). They won’t and shouldn’t support the building of a temple

 

[miknik5]

That "falling away" was translated by the Latin Vulgate, 8 English translations prior to the KJV, and has been elaborated on by many scholars as meaning simply "departure". And given the context of the passage, it very well could be the gathering of the righteous. Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Andy Woods, and many other Greek experts elaborate extensively on that assertion. Paul sets the stage and context in verse 1......

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (NKJV) Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,

Apostasy is a English word that is a transliteration, not translation, of Apostasia. The meanings are not equivalent. And the Latin Vulgate (late 4th Century) uses "discesio" in the passage which means departure, not falling away. The only way (with all due respect to James Strong), according to many other Greek scholars, to use apostosia to mean "falling away" is to show what is being fallen away from. The only other use of the word is Acts 21:21 where Paul is being accused of teaching a departure from Moses (the Torah). In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, there is nothing to state what is being departed from, so the word has to stand on its own as simply "departure". And the context of verse 1 suggests that the departure, or gathering, of the righteous is in view. Not a departure from the faith.

It is legitimate to think of the passage as actually the Lord gathering the righteous to Himself as opposed to being desecrated.

It is a departure from the faith of and in CHRIST JESUS

It is not the departure as being synonymous to the rapture

Otherwise Paul would not have been speaking to the church telling them to wait and that the lords coming will not occur until after the falling away has first occurred

The falling away is NEVER symbolic to the rapture sir

So to use falling away and departure together as being synonymous and meaning the rapture of the saints incorrect

 

[miknik5]

Nice dodge, but it won't work. The "it", if one uses basic grammatical sentence structure, refers to the "claim" of the previous sentence. And ideas don't make claims, people do. So it was pretty clear.... you felt that the message was wrong (which may or may not be true) and decided to condemn the messenger.

I have no problem when others disagree with anything I post. None of us have an exclusive on theological issues. I think your take on 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is faulty, but the thought of you or your idea being less than honorable never entered my mind. You, on the other hand, had to take an accusatorial approach intending to condemn, while not offering much of substance to show what I stated was wrong. It was intended to shut down thoughtful dialogue on the issue.

You used the same approach used by the heathen in our culture. For instance, if I disagree with homosexuality, they will accuse me of being a homophobe and bigot. None of which is the case. I just disagree with the activity as that is what the Lord has taught us. That in no way means I hate and despise the individual engaging in the activity.

Likewise, if I disagree with Islam, then I must be a Islamophobe and hateful of those who hold to Islamic ideas. Again, not true. And again, the accusation is designed to shut down meaningful discourse regarding the issue and condemn the one who disagrees.

It is sad when those who claim to be brothers in the Lord use the same tactics against the brethren as the heathen do.

I don’t see any dodge

Departure if one read in context what one was saying one can clearly see that Paul clearly said a departure from the faith and hope in Christ Jesus

Departure is not synonymous with gathering of the saints

It is departure a falling away and as inkfingers stated apostasy

 

[miknik5]

Reading in context 2 Thessalonians 2, we clearly understand (what you have only supplied and given men’s opinions on) what Paul was saying regarding the departure


(Nice try but it doesn’t work)

 

[Copperhead]

Reading in context 2 Thessalonians 2, we clearly understand (what you have only supplied and given men’s opinions on) what Paul was saying regarding the departure


(Nice try but it doesn’t work)

And you did the same thing... give men's opinions. Up until the KJV showed up, everyone translated the word apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as "departure". Given that they were closer to the original writing than the KJV folks were, they might be a little more astute on how to properly translate the word. The departure is a physical departure, not a doctrinal departure. And it says this departure comes first before the man of sin is revealed. And if it only means a falling away from the faith, then how can we tell it is the one that Paul is meaning. There are myriads of instances in history of departing doctrinally. But there is yet to be a departing physically on a scale to make it newsworthy.

You understand based on what someone else said the word means. Same as I. We just listen to different opinions. And we have to look at the language on how the original words can be used. But the context it is placed also makes a huge difference. The context is in verse 1 where Paul is talking about our gathering unto the Lord. Not our being beat up by the Lord in a GT. And Paul, in Verse 5, reminded them that he had told them of these things, so we need to keep 1 Thessalonians 4 & 5 in plain view. And there is nothing to suggest in those passages that believers go thru the GT. Quite the opposite.

The fact that you do not follow basic grammatical rules or listen to Paul when he refers back to his previous letter when you read something is not Paul's fault. And if you choose to adhere to "believers must go thru the GT period" idea, then by all means, enjoy. I will stick with the Blessed Hope.

Is the pre-trib escapism? You bet! Just like believing and trusting in Yeshua is escapism from damnation to Hell. In both cases, I trust the Lord's promises. It is all rather humorous on one level. The Lord will have to gather some people while they are kicking and screaming that the pre-trib is false. This is going to be fun to watch!

 

[miknik5]

And you did the same thing... give men's opinions. Up until the KJV showed up, everyone translated the word apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as "departure". Given that they were closer to the original writing than the KJV folks were, they might be a little more astute on how to properly translate the word. The departure is a physical departure, not a doctrinal departure. And it says this departure comes first before the man of sin is revealed. And if it only means a falling away from the faith, then how can we tell it is the one that Paul is meaning. There are myriads of instances in history of departing doctrinally. But there is yet to be a departing physically on a scale to make it newsworthy.

You understand based on what someone else said the word means. Same as I. We just listen to different opinions. And we have to look at the language on how the original words can be used. But the context it is placed also makes a huge difference. The context is in verse 1 where Paul is talking about our gathering unto the Lord. Not our being beat up by the Lord in a GT. And Paul, in Verse 5, reminded them that he had told them of these things, so we need to keep 1 Thessalonians 4 & 5 in plain view. And there is nothing to suggest in those passages that believers go thru the GT. Quite the opposite.

The fact that you do not follow basic grammatical rules or listen to Paul when he refers back to his previous letter when you read something is not Paul's fault. And if you choose to adhere to "believers must go thru the GT period" idea, then by all means, enjoy. I will stick with the Blessed Hope.

Is the pre-trib escapism? You bet! Just like believing and trusting in Yeshua is escapism from damnation to Hell. In both cases, I trust the Lord's promises.

they won’t. They won’t go through the full tribulation wrath They’ll be killed. The apostates will go thru the tribulation period though


And the “violent men of the covenant” will go through the tribulation period clueless to the warnings not only from the church who were there up until the 3 1/2 period but from Jewish unbelievers turned believers during that time as well

And remember as per Daniel that the lord is detained 21 days and no one helped him except the prince of Daniels people

The prince of Daniels people are Jews who are marked just before the lords wrath comes upon those who have harmed those who belong to him

 

[miknik5]

Who said anything about being beat up?

You did


Not I

The fact is sir you make your own assumptions of what others say

Assumptions are not truths or facts

They are based on personal opinion

 

[Copperhead]

Who said anything about being beat up?

You did


Not I

The fact is sir you make your own assumptions of what others say

Assumptions are not truths or facts

They are based on personal opinion

I never said you did say that. Did the general comment I made hit a little close for you to get all fired up? Reminds me of an old saying.... When there is a pack of dogs and you throw a rock, how do you know which one you hit? The one that yelps!

It was a general comment about the idea espoused by some that there is no early removal of the righteous and they have to go thru the tribulation. It instigates kind of a mental picture like this.... Yeshua will betroth us, then He will beat the snot out of us for seven years, then we will go have dinner. Comfort one another with these words.

But it also applies to going thru any of the GT period. It is like some folks are just dying for the chance to get killed in that event. And boy, nothing is going to cheat them out of it, even a pre-trib removal. Like I said... some people will have to be taken kicking and screaming. If they want to prove something, then they need to go stand in Pyongyang and hand out Bibles. Baby Kim will be more than happy to give them all the tribulation they can handle.

 

[miknik5]

again. Who said ANYTHING about it EVER being JESUS beating the snot out of us?

Sir?

Who is misrepresenting the BRIDEGROOM charging to the BEIDEGROOM what should NOT be charged to the BRIDEGROOM?

Sir?
Who would EVER think to blame/curse/attribute to The FATHER OF LIGHT....darkness?

(Remember that HE forewarned us who it is who will “beat the snot out of us”....sir)

 

[DennisTate]

When so-called "brothers and sisters" respond in this fashion, I know that I am probably on the right track and struck gold, since this issue being discussed is not one of condition of salvation. I never once condemned any other view, I just offered a reasoned interpretation from some respected true believers. I never said it was the absolute only way to look at this issue. I said it is a legitimate way to look at the passage, without criticizing any other view.

So, thanks for your response. Yeshua was called the Son of Beelzebub (Satan), so for you to accuse me of being in the same camp is heartwarming. And your approach certainly exhibits some lack of the gifts of the Spirit, so you might want to reevaluate your situation before throwing stones at others. Me thinks ye doest protest too much.

Yes.......... when we get an extreme reaction we are getting into a hot topic...... that we really need to get over like a hurdle!

 

[DennisTate]

But it does remain... whether we support it or not, there will be some form of temple in place for the tribulation period. Else, there is no temple to desecrate per Yeshua and Daniel. And there will be a literal temple during the Messianic Kingdom era, as per Ezekiel, after Israel is restored to the Land in full after the wars of the tribulation period.

I stated earlier that I did not vote in the poll, as the option I choose was not on the list. I don't have any dog in this hunt. I am not concentrating any of my time on seeing that a temple is built, but I am very confident it will be. I don't support it nor do I make any effort to negate it. I am just an observer. It is akin to worrying about who the Antichrist is. I don't give one minute of my time speculating who it is unlike some who like to play numbers and claim that Putin is the Antichrist or Obama is. I just know that character will be part of the scenario that plays out, and when he shows up, there will be no confusion on who he is.

Exactly.......
and one can go further......
can Zechariah chapter 14 come to pass previous to the building of the Jerusalem Third Temple?????

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

One of the best arguments that I have ran into as to why
Christians should support the Orthodox Jewish community
in their desire to rebuild their Jerusalem Third Temple is
a statement by Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus:

Luke 24:25

"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:"

So... all that the prophets have spoken would include Ezekiel chapters 40 - 48 that
clearly describe the restored Jerusalem Third Temple as part of the Era of Messiah / Moshiach.... .the millennial rule of Messiah over all the earth.

Also:
Luke 13:35

"Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Was Ezekiel blessed?

Did Ezekiel come in the name of the Lord?

Is Christianity relatively desolate due to our having forgotten the words of the Prophets?

For Christians, there is only one temple - and that is the temple of the Holy Spirit - our bodies. Supporting a physical Jewish temple would be a useless exercise for me. If one is built, it will be a man-made religious structure that will have no value to God whatsoever.