Where does the idea of a natural rebuilt Temple come from?

[OneLight]

I submit that the temple being built is the corporate Son of which Jesus is the head & not a "natural" temple built by man. God is spirit & has no need of a manmade temple.

This creates the question of why did God have a temple in the first place? If you look into what the temple is going to be used for, it makes sense that one is built again.

The answer to that one seems simple enough. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1Cor 15:46) Seems to me that somewhere along the line this verse, along with others have been expanded to say "natural, spiritual, and then natural again." Just saying. Doesn't it seem so to you?

When we look at the verse in it's context, where it speaks of the rapture, then that which is natural (us) becomes spiritual (our glorified body), it does make sense, but this is not speaking of the temple where men go to worship. It seems to of been lost somewhere in the mix of defining the difference between the believers and the unbelievers temples, but the temple that is to be build will be for the Jewish believers that have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, not for those who do believe where their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. These two are not the same.

[goldust59]

I submit that the temple being built is the corporate Son of which Jesus is the head & not a "natural" temple built by man. God is spirit & has no need of a manmade temple.

This creates the question of why did God have a temple in the first place? If you look into what the temple is going to be used for, it makes sense that one is built again.

The answer to that one seems simple enough. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1Cor 15:46) Seems to me that somewhere along the line this verse, along with others have been expanded to say "natural, spiritual, and then natural again." Just saying. Doesn't it seem so to you?

When we look at the verse in it's context, where it speaks of the rapture, then that which is natural (us) becomes spiritual (our glorified body), it does make sense, but this is not speaking of the temple where men go to worship. It seems to of been lost somewhere in the mix of defining the difference between the believers and the unbelievers temples, but the temple that is to be build will be for the Jewish believers that have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, not for those who do believe where their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. These two are not the same.

ok...where exactly is the scripture you are referencing? I may learn something new today.

[OneLight]

I submit that the temple being built is the corporate Son of which Jesus is the head & not a "natural" temple built by man. God is spirit & has no need of a manmade temple.

This creates the question of why did God have a temple in the first place? If you look into what the temple is going to be used for, it makes sense that one is built again.

The answer to that one seems simple enough. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1Cor 15:46) Seems to me that somewhere along the line this verse, along with others have been expanded to say "natural, spiritual, and then natural again." Just saying. Doesn't it seem so to you?

When we look at the verse in it's context, where it speaks of the rapture, then that which is natural (us) becomes spiritual (our glorified body), it does make sense, but this is not speaking of the temple where men go to worship. It seems to of been lost somewhere in the mix of defining the difference between the believers and the unbelievers temples, but the temple that is to be build will be for the Jewish believers that have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, not for those who do believe where their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. These two are not the same.

ok...where exactly is the scripture you are referencing? I may learn something new today.

The reference to our new glorified bodies is found in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. We can also see that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 6:19. The temple, the physical one, is read in Matthew 24, which refers back to Daniel 11 & 12.

[Littlelambseativy]

I think what you are asking is well interpreted by Matthew Henry and Scofield in the following and has nothing to do with the temple per se.

Gall 2 11-18

Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when Paul saw him acting so as to hurt the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he was not afraid to reprove him. When he saw that Peter and the others did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they professed, namely, That by the death of Christ the partition wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force; as Peter's offence was public, he publicly reproved him. There is a very great difference between the prudence of St. Paul, who bore with, and used for a time, the ceremonies of the law as not sinful, and the timid conduct of St. Peter, who, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, led others to think that these ceremonies were necessary.

Paul, having thus shown he was not inferior to any apostle, not to Peter himself, speaks of the great foundation doctrine of the gospel. For what did we believe in Christ? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? If so, is it not foolish to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified by the merit of moral works, or sacrifices, or ceremonies? The occasion of this declaration doubtless arose from the ceremonial law; but the argument is quite as strong against all dependence upon the works of the moral law, as respects justification. To give the greater weight to this, it is added, But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and also very hurtful to them. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the works of it, and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and cleansings of it, since they were done away in Christ, by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us. He did not hope or fear any thing from it; any more than a dead man from enemies. But the effect was not a careless, lawless life. It was necessary, that he might live to God, and be devoted to him through the motives and grace of the gospel. It is no new prejudice, though a most unjust one, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, tends to encourage people in sin. Not so, for to take occasion from free grace, or the doctrine of it, to live in sin, is to try to make Christ the minister of sin, at any thought of which all Christian hearts would shudder.

The following is Scofield's interpretation

Chapter 22:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

We who are

Paul here quotes from his words to Peter when he withstood him at Antioch to show the Galatians that, whatever the legalists may have pretended, Peter and he were in perfect accord doctrinally. Paul appealed to the common belief of Peter and himself as a rebuke of Peter's inconsistent practice.

sinners

Sin.

(See Scofield "

Romans 3:23

")

.

2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

we seek

That is, "we" Jews.

Romans 3:19-23

. The passage might be thus paraphrased: If we Jews, in seeking to be justified by faith in Christ, take our places as mere sinners, like the Gentiles, is it therefore Christ who makes us sinners? By no means. It is by putting ourselves again under law after seeking justification through Christ, that we act as if we were still unjustified sinners, seeking to become righteous through law-works.

Galatians 5:1-4

.

sinners

Sin.

(See Scofield "

Romans 3:23

")

.

2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

transgressor

[goldust59]

I submit that the temple being built is the corporate Son of which Jesus is the head & not a "natural" temple built by man. God is spirit & has no need of a manmade temple.

This creates the question of why did God have a temple in the first place? If you look into what the temple is going to be used for, it makes sense that one is built again.

The answer to that one seems simple enough. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1Cor 15:46) Seems to me that somewhere along the line this verse, along with others have been expanded to say "natural, spiritual, and then natural again." Just saying. Doesn't it seem so to you?

When we look at the verse in it's context, where it speaks of the rapture, then that which is natural (us) becomes spiritual (our glorified body), it does make sense, but this is not speaking of the temple where men go to worship. It seems to of been lost somewhere in the mix of defining the difference between the believers and the unbelievers temples, but the temple that is to be build will be for the Jewish believers that have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, not for those who do believe where their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. These two are not the same.

ok...where exactly is the scripture you are referencing? I may learn something new today.

The reference to our new glorified bodies is found in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. We can also see that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 6:19. The temple, the physical one, is read in Matthew 24, which refers back to Daniel 11 & 12.

Thanks. Will look into the physical temple.

[sdktlk]

I submit that the temple being built is the corporate Son of which Jesus is the head & not a "natural" temple built by man. God is spirit & has no need of a manmade temple.

This creates the question of why did God have a temple in the first place? If you look into what the temple is going to be used for, it makes sense that one is built again.

The answer to that one seems simple enough. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1Cor 15:46) Seems to me that somewhere along the line this verse, along with others have been expanded to say "natural, spiritual, and then natural again." Just saying. Doesn't it seem so to you?

When we look at the verse in it's context, where it speaks of the rapture, then that which is natural (us) becomes spiritual (our glorified body), it does make sense, but this is not speaking of the temple where men go to worship. It seems to of been lost somewhere in the mix of defining the difference between the believers and the unbelievers temples, but the temple that is to be build will be for the Jewish believers that have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, not for those who do believe where their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. These two are not the same.

ok...where exactly is the scripture you are referencing? I may learn something new today.

The reference to our new glorified bodies is found in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. We can also see that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 6:19. The temple, the physical one, is read in Matthew 24, which refers back to Daniel 11 & 12.

Thanks. Will look into the physical temple.

Here's ole stupid me again, but I just can't seem to find a natural rebuilt temple in Matthew 24. If we are referring to "the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" that seems a real stretch to me??

[goldust59]

I don't see a natural temple in Matthew 24 or Daniel 11,12 I think the unbelievers will come to the Living Temple to learn of God. As for the abomination of desolation, understanding of that has not been shown me. I haven't found any scripture supporting a rebuilding of a natural temple but contnue to look.

[Littlelambseativy]

He is speaking about Galatians 2:18 That is Paul speaking about Peter and justification.

[sdktlk]

He is speaking about Galatians 2:18 That is Paul speaking about Peter and justification.

Understood. I am not saying that Paul was speaking of a rebuilt temple. Simply pointing out a "spiritual law" that God, being perfect, would not break.

[OneLight]

I submit that the temple being built is the corporate Son of which Jesus is the head & not a "natural" temple built by man. God is spirit & has no need of a manmade temple.

This creates the question of why did God have a temple in the first place? If you look into what the temple is going to be used for, it makes sense that one is built again.

The answer to that one seems simple enough. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1Cor 15:46) Seems to me that somewhere along the line this verse, along with others have been expanded to say "natural, spiritual, and then natural again." Just saying. Doesn't it seem so to you?

When we look at the verse in it's context, where it speaks of the rapture, then that which is natural (us) becomes spiritual (our glorified body), it does make sense, but this is not speaking of the temple where men go to worship. It seems to of been lost somewhere in the mix of defining the difference between the believers and the unbelievers temples, but the temple that is to be build will be for the Jewish believers that have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, not for those who do believe where their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. These two are not the same.

ok...where exactly is the scripture you are referencing? I may learn something new today.

The reference to our new glorified bodies is found in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. We can also see that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 6:19. The temple, the physical one, is read in Matthew 24, which refers back to Daniel 11 & 12.

Thanks. Will look into the physical temple.

Here's ole stupid me again, but I just can't seem to find a natural rebuilt temple in Matthew 24. If we are referring to "the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" that seems a real stretch to me??

Where and how do you think the sacrifices will be held? There is more to understand beyond where the abomination of desolation will take place.

Daniel 11:30b-31 So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation.