Would You Help To Rebuild The Jewish Temple?

Atkin said:

By His Grace,

Regarding the Jewish temple, who was given the responsibility of building the temple specified

in 2 Thess 2:4?

2 Thess 2:4 mentions a temple in which the man of sin would place himself .

Who was given the responsibility of building that temple when the prophecy was given?

The Bible must provide that information.. yes?

Could we name who specifically [A PERSON] was given the responsibility for rebuilding the temple specified in 2 Thess 2:4 from the Bible?

Click to expand...

Ephron said:

By His Grace said:

I would like to get peoples opinions on how they feel about supporting the rebuilding of the Jewish temple?

What are the jews/zionist Christians to do about the Dome of the Rock? and 1 billion muslims? I don't think a jewish temple will ever be rebuilt there, and I can't see the world allowing jews to sacrifice animals even if they did build a temple, what with peta and other animal rights activists. I wouldn't support such a thing.

Peace

Click to expand...

Hi Ephron. The area where that Dome of the rock is sitting, has been proven to belong to the Jews. Now, what the Muslims do is their problem. From what I understand, they have several places that they can go worship in. The whole thing with them is, we have it, and you aren't getting it, and we think it is ours.
Oh, I'm sure that the animal rights activists will rear their heads up when this happens. Who knows, maybe that is one of the reasons that the sacrifices are stopped, and the AC wants to be Mr. Nice Guy, LOL. After-all, he is suppposed to come in as man of peace in the beginning.

Click to expand...

parousia70 said:

So anyone who rejects Christ and converts to Judiasm OWNS the land that the Dome of the Rock is on?

How exactly has that been "Proven"?

Click to expand...

parousia70 said:

BHG, it was a simple question.

Do you believe Converts to Judiasm own the land or not?

Click to expand...

Atkin said:

It doesn't matter if someone rejects Christ and reverts to Judism or not???

.... You must have overlooked what the Bible says in this regard.

You cannot be right on this.

You mean to say God never placed conditions on the Jews regarding their faith-relationship with Him and their possession of the land?

Well, explain why God used Romans to KILL JEWS. in 70 AD and take away their land as CHRIST himself prophesised and allowed to happen.

Explain why God used Nebuchadnezzar to slaughter and dispossess Jews of their land --

2 Chronicles 36: 14 Moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much
after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the LORD
which he had hallowed in Jerusalem.

16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till
there was no remedy.
17 Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their
young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no
compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age:
he gave them all into his hand. .



Explain why God smashed the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel FOR THEIR WHOREDOM and Idolatry.

God is not one who just gives out land for free.. y'know.

============
Jeremiah 9: 11 And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the
cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.
12 Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the
mouth of the LORD hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land
perisheth and is burned up like a wilderness, that none passeth through?
13 And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before
them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein;
14 But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim,
which their fathers taught them:
15 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will
feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to
drink.
16 I will scatter them also among the heathen, whom neither they nor their
fathers have known: and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed
them.

Click to expand...

parousia70 said:

[/color][/color][/font]

Thats Funny, for in 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert.
The kenesset huh? Well, unless they go by the name GOD, so what?

Indeed, even in the OT we find many "Jews" who were Proselytes to the faith and not geneticly related to the hebrew race at all, yet they and their decendants are considered equally "Jew" by Mosaic Law.
Mosaic law? How about the covenant of God with Abraham? We aren't under the law anymore. Gods covenant with Abraham stands forever, or until we go to heaven at least.

You apprantly disagree with this.
Oh YEAH.



What if it can be shown that the Jews who reside in the land we call Israel today are made up of either converts to Judiasm or decendants of converts who have chosen to continue in the faith of their ancestors, with zero genetic relation to the pre desolation hebrew?
It's not religion, but blood. God knows who the decendants are. The kenesset can do whatever, or whoever these converts with no Jewish heritage are don't mean a thing.


Would you still insist those folks there today own the land?

Click to expand...

Atkin said:

The Jews are not using the words of Jesus as reference , so why do you mention Jesus's name?

Are you going to build a Temple based on nothing instructed by Jesus.

The Jews who want to rebuild the Temple ARE NOT doing so because they are following orders from Jesus.

Jesus never told anyone to build a Temple. Let us not lay the issue on Jesus's name.

Jesus spoke about the sacrilege in the temple but did not instruct anyone to build a temple.

Paul never instructed anyone to build one either..

2 Corinthians 6
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the
temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Click to expand...

Covenant Heart said:

Dad Ernie suggested a word study for "hieron" and for "naos." That struck me as reasonable and intelligent. Too many such ideas are consigned to eternal oblivion. So, I gave Bibleworks for Windoze a kick and generated a few statistics. My eyes don’t always work the best. I don’t claim infallibility, but I think that this is reasonably accurate. Here’s the scoop.

When NT writers mention a stone-and-mortar temple, "hieros" is the word of choice. Mark (the earliest) mentions "temple" 12 times. 9 references are "hieros" and 3 are "naos." Matthew has 17 temple references of which 9 are "hieros." Of John's 14 temple references, 11 are "hieros." Of Luke's 18 references, 14 are "hieros" and 4 are "naos." Of 26 temple references in the Acts, 24 are "hieros." And in Act 19:24 "naos" is rendered not "temples" but "shrines." Acts 19:24 and 17:24 aside, it's "hieros" in the Acts every time. So when the NT writers make temple references, it is very clear that "hieros" is the dominant word by a wide margin.

But now an interesting thing happens. While so predominate in Matthew to Acts, "hieros" seems to drop off the face of the planet. 70+ hits-and then "boom!" "Hieros" occurs in 2Ti 3:15 where it is rendered "holy" (KJV, DRA, YLT, NKJ, BBE, NIV, NLT, NJB) and "sacred" (WEB, RWB, DBY, NAU, NRS). And it is mentioned in 1Co 9:13-14 as Paul discusses his salary package. Otherwise, "naos" rules from Acts 27 to Revelation 22! How weird is that!

But what’s even weirder is the way that "naos" is used after the Acts.

Paul witnesses time and again that believers in Christ are the Temple ("naos") of God. We see that in 1Co 6:19 (your body is the "naos" of the Holy Spirit), 2Co 6:16 (we are the "naos" of the living God) and Eph 2:20ff ("we are his "naos"). Paul asked, "don't you know that all of you together are the "naos" of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? God will bring ruin upon anyone who ruins this "naos." God's "naos" is holy, and you Christians are that "naos" (1Co 3:16-17).

I’m struck by a certain similarity of this with John usage of "naos" (the body of Christ) in John 2:19-21. Did they compare notes? In the Revelation, John makes 13 references to "temple." Distributed fairly evenly throughout (chapters 3,7,11,14,15,16 and 21), "naos" accounts for all 13 temple references in the Revelation. "Hieros" recedes from view; "naos" alone stands.

One can argue that John's usage of "naos" in the Revelation recognizes no such distinction as "hieros = stone and mortar temple" and "naos = body of Christ." But that makes several of John's references pretty puzzling. In Rev 3:12, victors in Christ become pillars in the "naos" of God. In Rev 21:22, we read that God and the Lamb ARE the "naos" of the New Jerusalem. So if "naos" means a stone-and-mortar temple in the Revelation, we get some pretty bizarre stuff-believers as physical columns-and God apparently transubstantiates (pray take no offense, RC brothers/sisters) himself into a building.

But such images aside, so mixing uses of "naos" in the Revelation is still downright confusing. John knows that he is writing a canonical document (Rev 1:1) in which God's temple plays a key part. Yet rather than using "hieros" (far and away the dominant "stone-and-mortar" temple word), John says "naos." "Naos" can refer to a "stone-and-mortar" temple, yes. But can also refer to God's dwelling place [Rev 14:15], Spirit-filled believers [1Co 6:19], etc.). So given 1) earlier dominance of "hieros," 2) the use of "naos" in Paul’s ministry and 3) in his own Gospel (2:19-Christ's body as distinct from "hieros"), 4) the bizarre images that result from so reading the first and last "naos" texts in the Revelation (3:12; 21:22) PLUS 5), the comparative specificity of "hieros" over "naos," why would John do that? If a "stone and mortar" temple is so critical to the Revelation, would it not be much better to say "hieros" for temple as John himself did years earlier (John 2:19ff)?

My take is that since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, his body is the one temple in which the NT writers take interest. And this becomes increasingly apparent as years advance, the canon nears completion and "hieros" recedes until the Revelation of Jesus Christ by which time the once dominant "hieros" is totally eclipsed by "naos."

By His Grace’ original post referenced 2Th 2:4. Since "naos" is Paul's word for believers as God's temple, we might well expect 2Th 2:4 to say that, "he will seat himself in the "hieros" (stone-and-mortar temple) of God. But 2Th 2:4 says "naos." So however else we may interpret 2Th 2, it seems highly unlikely that Paul intended to say that the lawless one would park in a stone-and-mortar temple. That would run counter to every other use of "naos" by Paul without exception.

Don’t get me wrong. Paul had a profound interest in the "naos" of God as the body of Christ. But he shows no interest in a "hieros" temple whatsoever. And for that reason, neither do I.

Click to expand...