Third Temple

[Dave L]

This had occured to me before. I considered it, and yet the Greek from which our Bible are translated uses emphatic singular in its grammar, not plural. Thus the question.

Jr

Paul calls believers the temple too.

 

[SwordmanJr]

It's not allegorical.

Yes, and that's what perplexes me the most about any third temple being referred to as "holy" from the perspective of inspiration.

The Jews are still a people of God,

Agreed.

although they have been placed under partial blindness for a time (Romans 11:25). They will rebuild a literal Temple, and Paul refers to this at the 'temple of God' in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

This does seem to be the case.

They are fully prepared to do so at a moment's notice.

As is evidenced to anyone who goes there and sees the sign posted in English, Hebrew and Arabic at the entrance to the plaza where the "Wailing Wall" is located.

All material has been obtained, priests named and trained, the Sanhedrin fully functional, initial lamb sacrifices performed, and they are scheduling the sacrifice of the red heifer. It's basically 'GO' time. At this point, if someone denies this temple will be constructed has some serious blinders on.

I had heard that they have not yet bred a red heifer without blemish, but that they are getting close.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Paul calls believers the temple too.

Yes. I agree.

I appreciate your input.

Jr

 

[SeventyOne]

I had heard that they have not yet bred a red heifer without blemish, but that they are getting close.

Recently, they've been saying they have two of age and ready to go.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Recently, they've been saying they have two of age and ready to go.

Hmm, well they better get busy building that temple, and without any noise of metal tools at the site....if they're willing to build it in accordance with historic guidelines for its construction.

Jr

 

[SeventyOne]

Hmm, well they better get busy building that temple, and without any noise of metal tools at the site....if they're willing to build it in accordance with historic guidelines for its construction.

Jr

As of last December, the Jews were allowed to openly pray on the Temple Mount for the first time in decades. One step at a time.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Where eschatology is concerned, we have been puzzled over the things said about the third temple, about the antichrist desecrating that temple.

How can that third temple have any descriptor as being "holy" when it is well established that we who are in Christ Jesus are the temples. When that veil was ripped down the middle, and thus exposing the place where the Lord once dwelt, buildings constructed by the hands of men no longer were holy by virtue of the dwelling place of the Lord.

How is it, then, that ANY place on this earth, in the post-cross era, be "desecrated" that's no longer the special dwelling place of the presence of the Lord. Was John's inspiration, to write those things that SEEM to indicate that place as truly holy from God's perspective, meant to point more toward the perspective of the Jews? If so, then I'm wondering why he didn't express that thought clearly.

It's one thing for the antichrist to proclaim himself God, and thus demand worship, but quite another that he did so in what will allegedly be a holy place.

I've read where some speculated that the designation of "holy" is actually a reference to the hearts of people moreso than the stone temple itself. The text doesn't seem to point in that direction as being merely allegorical.

Thoughts?

Jr

This interpretation of scripture is based on a theological system known as dispensationalism. It has taken various scripture and twisted its meaning in order to come up with an erroneous end time scenario that includes the very thing you are having a problem with.Well you are blessed to notice this error and I encourage you to do more research on this system. It has put so many at odds with scrpture. I will pray that the Lord continue to reveal the truth to you. Be blessed.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The Jews and their secular government fully expect there to be a third temple built. The entry point to the wailing wall now has a 10 foot sign proclaiming the coming rebuilding of the temple. Is it all nonsense, or is it something we can count on? Time will tell, but the fact remains that there is a serious intent to rebuild sometime soon.

Jr

Regarding the temple being raised for the third time, it has nothing to do with the The Fathers will. It is a temple made by the will of men.

 

[Running2win]

It's not allegorical. The Jews are still a people of God, although they have been placed under partial blindness for a time (Romans 11:25). They will rebuild a literal Temple, and Paul refers to this at the 'temple of God' in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

They are fully prepared to do so at a moment's notice. All material has been obtained, priests named and trained, the Sanhedrin fully functional, initial lamb sacrifices performed, and they are scheduling the sacrifice of the red heifer. It's basically 'GO' time. At this point, if someone denies this temple will be constructed has some serious blinders on.

Yep.

 

[Dave L]

It's not allegorical. The Jews are still a people of God, although they have been placed under partial blindness for a time (Romans 11:25). They will rebuild a literal Temple, and Paul refers to this at the 'temple of God' in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

They are fully prepared to do so at a moment's notice. All material has been obtained, priests named and trained, the Sanhedrin fully functional, initial lamb sacrifices performed, and they are scheduling the sacrifice of the red heifer. It's basically 'GO' time. At this point, if someone denies this temple will be constructed has some serious blinders on.

Any return to animal sacrifice is an unforgivable sin. (Heb 6). And I believe it also includes planning on it if it should arise.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It's not allegorical. The Jews are still a people of God, although they have been placed under partial blindness for a time (Romans 11:25). They will rebuild a literal Temple, and Paul refers to this at the 'temple of God' in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

They are fully prepared to do so at a moment's notice. All material has been obtained, priests named and trained, the Sanhedrin fully functional, initial lamb sacrifices performed, and they are scheduling the sacrifice of the red heifer. It's basically 'GO' time. At this point, if someone denies this temple will be constructed has some serious blinders on.

For clarity, this position is from a theological system called"Dispensationalisim". Though it has been a popular view since the late 19th century, it is by no means the "only" view on eschatology.
Be blessed.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I suspect that will be impossible to get agreement upon from those who are of the "replacement theology" crowd.

Jr

Replacement theology is a pejorative term and often used as a tool against those who believe in the "New Covenant". Supersessionism is the proper term when speaking of "one" people in Jesus Christ of Nazareth both Jew and Gentile. The danger of twisting scripture once again with this system is that it invites the dual covenant theory that the Jews can live under the Mosaic Law while the rest of us who have been regenerated can live under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. This, IMO, is the most wicked part of this system. The most prolific proponent of this theory is John Hagee. He believes that just merely being a Jew brings you to salvation and that any attempt to bring the "Good" News" to them is "a waste of time". Very dangerous person.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Regarding the temple being raised for the third time, it has nothing to do with the The Fathers will. It is a temple made by the will of men.

I agree. A third temple will serve no purpose for even sin covering, although that was the case for the first two. Animal sacrifice was only a blood covering before the cross, thus the reality of the OT saints were actually held captive in Sheol, on the side of Abraham's Bosom, until led free by Christ Jesus after the cross.

Some folks like Hagee have argued that the third temple will point BACK to the cross rather than forward. That's some very subjective sounding justification for something that has long since lost its significance, as is evidenced with the mighty Hand of God having ripped the veil from top to bottom.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Replacement theology is a pejorative term and often used as a tool against those who believe in the "New Covenant".

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that one of the two camps doesn't believe in the New Covenant? I've seen arguments from both sides, but none of them seemed to indicate a disbelief in the New Covenant that Jesus established at what is called the Last Supper. The New Covenant, to my understanding, took the world out from under the Law of Moses by virtue of the perfect living of that Law, its fulfillment, and the redemption about to become a reality soon after the point of the passing of that Cup.

So, I hope you can appreciate my confusion over your statement.

Supersessionism is the proper term when speaking of "one" people in Jesus Christ of Nazareth both Jew and Gentile. The danger of twisting scripture once again with this system is that it invites the dual covenant theory that the Jews can live under the Mosaic Law while the rest of us who have been regenerated can live under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Hmm. Again, Peter gave ample evidence that the Law of Moses was indeed a yoke that the forefathers and that the Jews before and after the cross could not bare. (Acts 15).

So....although there may be some out there who believe even modern, bloodline Jews are under the Law of Moses, I have never encountered such a belief....except as demonstrated by those legalists out there who believe in salvation by works, and those legalistic denominations and some messianic Jews who believe we all today should still be striving to live by the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments (the letter that killeth).

Jr

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Where eschatology is concerned, we have been puzzled over the things said about the third temple, about the antichrist desecrating that temple.

How can that third temple have any descriptor as being "holy" when it is well established that we who are in Christ Jesus are the temples. When that veil was ripped down the middle, and thus exposing the place where the Lord once dwelt, buildings constructed by the hands of men no longer were holy by virtue of the dwelling place of the Lord.

How is it, then, that ANY place on this earth, in the post-cross era, be "desecrated" that's no longer the special dwelling place of the presence of the Lord. Was John's inspiration, to write those things that SEEM to indicate that place as truly holy from God's perspective, meant to point more toward the perspective of the Jews? If so, then I'm wondering why he didn't express that thought clearly.

It's one thing for the antichrist to proclaim himself God, and thus demand worship, but quite another that he did so in what will allegedly be a holy place.

I've read where some speculated that the designation of "holy" is actually a reference to the hearts of people moreso than the stone temple itself. The text doesn't seem to point in that direction as being merely allegorical.

Thoughts?

Jr

The other appalling fact about this theological system of "Dispenstaionalism" that most premillennialists who adhere to it's teachings are either, aware and do not care or unaware and have not thought it through to its logical conclusion, is , what happens to the Jews who are living during the seven year period?
Answer..... Two thirds of them get slaughtered. This is the modern day view and it amazes me how many miss this part of its literal interpretation. It would be more loving and Christian to tell them to get out rather than gather into!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that one of the two camps doesn't believe in the New Covenant? I've seen arguments from both sides, but none of them seemed to indicate a disbelief in the New Covenant that Jesus established at what is called the Last Supper. The New Covenant, to my understanding, took the world out from under the Law of Moses by virtue of the perfect living of that Law, its fulfillment, and the redemption about to become a reality soon after the point of the passing of that Cup.

So, I hope you can appreciate my confusion over your statement.



Hmm. Again, Peter gave ample evidence that the Law of Moses was indeed a yoke that the forefathers and that the Jews before and after the cross could not bare. (Acts 15).

So....although there may be some out there who believe even modern, bloodline Jews are under the Law of Moses, I have never encountered such a belief....except as demonstrated by those legalists out there who believe in salvation by works, and those legalistic denominations and some messianic Jews who believe we all today should still be striving to live by the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments (the letter that killeth).

Jr

Maybe do a study of "dual covenant" theology. This is helpful.

 

[Timtofly]

The other appalling fact about this theological system of "Dispenstaionalism" that most premillennialists who adhere to it's teachings are either, aware and do not care or unaware and have not thought it through to its logical conclusion, is , what happens to the Jews who are living during the seven year period?
Answer..... Two thirds of them get slaughtered. This is the modern day view and it amazes me how many miss this part of its literal interpretation. It would be more loving and Christian to tell them to get out rather than gather into!

The foolish virgins who deny the millennium get slaughtered as well. Perhaps they should ask God’s forgiveness now, instead of hedging their bets, "nothing is going to happen."

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The foolish virgins who deny the millennium get slaughtered as well. Perhaps they should ask God’s forgiveness now, instead of hedging their bets, "nothing is going to happen."

I guess like me? I am amillennial. We best not judge each other on eschatological views.
Be blessed.

 

[SwordmanJr]

The other appalling fact about this theological system of "Dispenstaionalism" that most premillennialists who adhere to it's teachings are either, aware and do not care or unaware and have not thought it through to its logical conclusion, is , what happens to the Jews who are living during the seven year period?
Answer..... Two thirds of them get slaughtered. This is the modern day view and it amazes me how many miss this part of its literal interpretation. It would be more loving and Christian to tell them to get out rather than gather into!

The Jews who are left here, are they not responsible for their own continued rejection of Christ Jesus? I seem to recall that something is going to happen that drives them jealousy, and thus the realization they had already crucified the Messiah.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Maybe do a study of "dual covenant" theology. This is helpful.

Hmm. I can't say that this helped much from my experience, because I had never run across anyone who laid claim to such a belief.

Jr