What think ye of Ezekiel's Temple?

[jgr]

Demanding this from the New Testament, when it is explicitly stated in the Old, is willfully wresting scripture.

Under the legal and spiritual definition, meaning, and operation of Wills and Testaments, can the contents in an Old Will and Testament supersede the contents in a New Will and Testament?

They cannot.

The testamentary contents are unambiguous. Not only are the literal temple and sacrifices of the Old Will and Testament not found in the New Will and Testament, but through Christ's fulfilled accomplishments at Calvary they are now unmistakably and explicitly redefined in the latter as spiritual realities.

All in God's Will, Plan, and Purpose. (Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-47; 1 Peter 1:19-21; Ephesians 3:9-11)

 

[Douggg]

If you have been following the thread for the las few posts, it’s within the context of Daniels 70 ‘weeks’.
Keras used Daniel 9:27 as proof of a future rebuilt Jerusalem and temple. He made the assumption the temple in Daniel 9:27 is different than Daniel 9:26.
Daniel clearly stated it was rebuilt in Daniel 9:25. Where is the 2nd time it is rebuilt in Daniels 70 ‘weeks’ prophecy?

I haven't been following the thread. Thanks for the briefing.

I am not understanding what the difference is whether it's specific or not in Daniel 9 regarding the second temple - because it was rebuilt as a matter of historic record, and Jesus preached there. The sanctuary, a referral to the second temple in verse 26, was destroyed in the first century.

There is a third temple coming that will be defiled by the Antichrist as he commits the transgression of desolation, followed by the abomination of desolation after the person becomes the beast. I don't see the next temple as being the Ezekiel 40-44 temple, though.

 

[συνείδησις]

I do not deny that Jesus paid the price for our sins. But does that absolutely stop anyone from sinning?
I will post again the scriptures that say how there will again be offerings and sacrifices in a new Temple. Who are we to question God, what He wants, or requires of us.

Actually you are denying Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient by merely countenancing the idea that animal sacrifices are even a possibility. You can post all of the scripture that you want, but your interpretation of them is carnal.

 

[BABerean2]

It is a wilful attempt to wrest scripture, to demand a showing of a concept in one scripture when it has been demonstrated in another scripture.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

So is demanding your interpretation from the Old Testament when you can’t produce one ounce of scripture from the New Testament to support it.

The old covenant was only a shadow of Christ, NOT the true realities.

Pot calling the kettle black just a little bit

Simply believing what a prophecy says, because it was inserted into the Bible by the Holy Spirit, is not interpreting it.

 

[claninja]

I am not understanding what the difference is whether it's specific or not in Daniel 9 regarding the second temple - because it was rebuilt as a matter of historic record, and Jesus preached there. The sanctuary, a referral to the second temple in verse 26, was destroyed in the first century.

Keras made the point that Daniel 9:27, shows that there will be a future (to us) rebuilt temple. He made the assumption that the temple in Daniel 9:27 is different than Daniel 9:26. He is using Daniel 9:27 as evidence of a future 3rd temple, that is why we are specifically discussing Daniel 9, and why I asked where in Daniel's 70 'week' prophecy does it say that Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt a 2nd time, in order to support the assumption that the temple in Daniel 9:27 is different that Daniel 9:26.

His assumption is about a specific verse in Daniel 9, hence why I asked him about Daniel 9 and not Genesis 12, or Luke 14, or micah 2, etc.......

 

[claninja]

Simply believing what a prophecy says, because it was inserted into the Bible by the Holy Spirit, is not interpreting it.

I agree. So Where did keras read that Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt a 2nd time in Daniel 9. Or did he interpret that part?

 

[seventysevens]

It does seem to be pointless to battle if there will be a temple built or not as it will be built by people that have not accepted what scripture teaches about Christ
The HUGE difference of what happened in the past and what will happen in the future is the LORD GOD Himself will be sending a man who will declare himself to be God and demand that all people worship him and accept his number /name/ or image
To this Day that has never happened before ,

The difference is that in the past it was just some guy who decided of himself , by himself and not being sent by LORD GOD to demand people worship him

The future will be that LORD GOD will be the One that sends the man who will sit in a temple and declare he is God and despise all that is called God by any other name -aka the beast

No amount of saying there will not be a temple built will have any effect on it being built and has nothing to do with Christians
Telling Christians that they deny Christ because they acknowledge the scripture is nonsense

It is the people that have yet to accept Christ that will build the temple - it will lead some of those people into repentance After they realize that Jesus IS Thee Messiah- but misled Christians express hostility to people that will become Christians

 

[Biblewriter]

I agree. So Where did keras get read that Jerusalem and the temple will be rebuilt a 2nd time in Daniel 9. Or did he interpret that part?

The passage you are referring to says,

25 "Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. 26 'And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate." (Daniel 9:25-27)

Messiah was to come after the 62 weeks, which were to be after the 7 weeks. (69 weeks total) After that, the city and the sanctuary (which is the temple) were to be destroyed. (verse 26) But then verse 27 says that one more week was to ensue. And in the middle of that week. "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering." But such sacrifices and offerings could only be offered in a temple. So verse 27 does indeed reveal a new temple, after the one in verse 26 was destroyed.

 

[Davy]

Simply believing what a prophecy says, because it was inserted into the Bible by the Holy Spirit, is not interpreting it.

That statement really doesn't make sense, because one must... believe God's Holy Writ is revealing His Truth before trying to interpret its details.

 

[Biblewriter]

That statement really doesn't make sense, because one must... believe God's Holy Writ is revealing His Truth before trying to interpret its details.

Interpreting and believing are two entirely different concepts. When God says, "thus-and-so shall happen, I simply believe that thus-and-so shall happen, as God said. But you want to interpret "thus-and-so" to mean "this-and-that," which is not what God said.

 

[συνείδησις]

Interpreting and believing are two entirely different concepts. When God says, "thus-and-so shall happen, I simply believe that thus-and-so shall happen, as God said. But you want to interpret "thus-and-so" to mean "this-and-that," which is not what God said.

Any reading is interpretation. You interpret what you read according to certain hermeneutical principles, whether you realize what they are or not. To think otherwise is being naive.

 

[jgr]

The passage you are referring to says,

25 "Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. 26 'And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate." (Daniel 9:25-27)

Messiah was to come after the 62 weeks, which were to be after the 7 weeks. (69 weeks total) After that, the city and the sanctuary (which is the temple) were to be destroyed. (verse 26) But then verse 27 says that one more week was to ensue. And in the middle of that week. "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering." But such sacrifices and offerings could only be offered in a temple. So verse 27 does indeed reveal a new temple, after the one in verse 26 was destroyed.

The KJV (and NASB and YLT) begin verse 27 with “And”. The NKJV, which you cite, begins verse 27 with “Then”. This conveys the erroneous impression of an additional week. The KJV (and NASB and YLT) correctly recognize that the confirmation of the covenant, and cessation of sacrifice and offering, occur in the same (70th) week in which Messiah is cut off, in verse 26. There is no additional week, and no new temple.

 

[Biblewriter]

The KJV (and NASB and YLT) begin verse 27 with “And”. The NKJV, which you cite, begins verse 27 with “Then”. This conveys the erroneous impression of an additional week. The KJV (and NASB and YLT) correctly recognize that the confirmation of the covenant, and cessation of sacrifice and offering, occur in the same (70th) week in which Messiah is cut off, in verse 26. There is no additional week, and no new temple.

Regardless of whether the correct translation is "and" or "then," the order in which the prophecy is given is 69 weeks, the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, and then we one more week. This is why both the oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) and the oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture clearly teach that the seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future.

 

[BABerean2]

Regardless of whether the correct translation is "and" or "then," the order in which the prophecy is given is 69 weeks, the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, and then we one more week. This is why both the oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) and the oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture clearly teach that the seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future.

Christ was cut off after the 69th week.

If I agree to paint your house after 69 weeks, it will not be painted until the 70th week or later.

Do you expect us to believe that the angel Gabriel came to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then the angel failed to even mention the New Covenant?

The scriptural reference beside of Daniel 9:27 in my NKJV Bible is Matthew 26:28.

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Acts of the Apostles 2:36, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, was there a time period when the Gospel was taken "first" to the house of Israel, before Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles?

.

 

[keras]

Actually you are denying Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient by merely countenancing the idea that animal sacrifices are even a possibility. You can post all of the scripture that you want, but your interpretation of them is carnal.

Firstly, I never said that the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus was insufficient to remove all sins.

I object to your name calling of me, without your proving the scriptures I posted mean something other that what they plainly state. It seems as though everyone here wants to ignore them.
Here they are again;
Isaiah 56:6-7 So too with the foreigners who give their allegiance to Me...and become My servants. I shall bring them to My House of Prayer, where their offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on My Altar, for My House will be called a House of prayer for all the nations.

Psalm 51:18-19 Now Lord, show Your favour to Zion and rebuild Jerusalem. Then You will delight in the appointed sacrifices, young bulls will be offered in Your altar.

Jeremiah 17:24-26 Now, if you obey the Lord’s Commandments, then a ruler will again occupy David’s throne and Jerusalem will be inhabited forever. Then people will come bringing whole offerings, sacrifices as thank offerings to the Lord’s House.

Jeremiah 33:14-18 The days are coming when I shall bless Judah and Israel…….there will always be a Levitical Priest to burn the grain and other offerings every day.

Ezekiel 45:13-25 The details of and the dates for making all the sacrifices and offerings on the Altar of the Temple.

Zechariah 14:21…all who come to make sacrifice will use the holy pots in Jerusalem to boil the flesh of the sacrifice……

Isaiah 60:6-7 Livestock in droves will be in the Land to serve your needs, as acceptable offerings on My Altar and I will adorn My glorious Temple.

Those Temple deniers here need to, must; properly address these plainly stated scriptures, BEFORE making insinuations against those who say there will be another Temple in Jerusalem.
I will refute any attempts to spiritualize, allegorize, or throw then into the history bin.

 

[keras]

Messiah was to come after the 62 weeks, which were to be after the 7 weeks. (69 weeks total) After that, the city and the sanctuary (which is the temple) were to be destroyed. (verse 26) But then verse 27 says that one more week was to ensue. And in the middle of that week. "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering." But such sacrifices and offerings could only be offered in a temple. So verse 27 does indeed reveal a new temple, after the one in verse 26 was destroyed.

Thanks BW, you put it well and this truth is confirmed in many other prophesies.
We would now ask Clainjia to retract his accusations.

 

[συνείδησις]

I object to your name calling of me

I didn't call you a name, I said your interpretations are carnal. If I had wanted to call you a name I would have called you Carnal.

 

[keras]

I didn't call you a name, I said your interpretations are carnal. If I had wanted to call you a name I would have called you Carnal.

You made a unsupported insinuation of my integrity.
I demand that you prove what I posted was carnal.

Actually saying they are my interpretations, is wrong, as all I did was post the scriptures. Plain reading of them proves that there must be another Temple built and there will be an Altar in it for sacrifices and offerings.

 

[David Kent]

I told you: it is found in Daniel 11:31.
All prophecy is like that: a little here, a little there. Isaiah 29:13

Daniel 11:31 is an interesting. Would you like to expound it in connection with the verses before and after, and not just take one verse and make a doctrine out of it? In fact why not expound the whole chapter?