Some Questions About The Temple and Kingdom of God

[PeteWaldo]

 

 

So is your position that there is No Millennium or that the Millennium Started over 2,000 Years ago?  Then that would mean that the events of Revelation have already taken place...or do you dismiss...in it's Entirety, The Book Of Revelation? And a Healthy Chunk of the Book Of Daniel, among many others? 

 

If any of those above apply, You got Encyclopedic Volumes of Problems.  For Brevity, let's stick with just a couple (They'll be quite sufficient).

 

Is it my position that the Son of Man came in His kingdom nearly 2,000 years ago?

 

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Or is it you that denies that Jesus came in His kingdom, before some of those standing before Him died in the first century, just as He promised them He would?

The term for the view that Christ has been ruling and reigning in His kingdom throughout the Christian era is called "amillennialism".

 

Now I can see why your posts make no sense to me. Please, do us all the pleasure of outlining in a timeline where every one of the events in Revelation occurred, from the first seal to the last bowl. This will save many hours of back and forth posting trying to garner information of what you believe.

 

**Edited by a servant Please do not repost this **

 

"Now I can see why your posts make no sense to me."

 

So are you saying that you believe that Jesus prophesied falsely, when He told those standing before Him, that some of them would not die before they saw the Son of Man come in His kingdom? Didn't you yourself post:

 

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world.....

 

So what are you saying? Oh gee I meant the other kingdom of God? If you don't think that Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning over you, in His kingdom today, you might need to review your relationship with Him.

 

It may be hard for you to see that what you are actually requesting is that I help you understand an entire Dan-Rev study, within the entirely separate yet traditional approach to Bible prophecy of historicism (with which I am going to venture that you are unfamiliar), through a series of one-line zingers that you can seize on to wring through the filter of pre-conceived notions that spring from the eschatology you have been taught.

 

Let alone that to even begin with a "timeline" would be foiled right out of the gate, because it would have to be prefaced by an understanding of the repetitive bifidic and chiasmic nature, of the books of Daniel and Revelation.

 

Additionally, the attitude expressed in your post, seems to belie your left sidebar profile claim of a desire to "learn" and "share". I was a futurist for many years so I am well familiar with what you believe. I even began teaching it on a website I had previously uploaded (that was originally more geared toward politics). However the further I developed the website and the more I shared, the more convicted I became by a compounding of serious questions that arose as I wrote, that I increasingly could not find answers to. Ultimately deciding that (what I later learned was John Darby's) futurist eschatology, has a beyond difficult time of standing in the light of the truth of the Gospel. I was introduced to it through Jack Van Impe shows and tapes for some years (who has taught the doctrine for over 60 years, beginning on UHF TV in Detroit in the 1950s) followed by attending Calvary Chapel for several years, with independent Bible study throughout that time.

 

Now let me ask you. If you measured it in terms of full-time study, how many weeks or months or years do you suppose you have spent, studying the book of Revelation through the traditional approach of historicism? (There are only 3 viable approaches which are futurism, preterism and historicism.)

 

The part I find most amazing, is that futurists are generally resistant to learning anything other than what they have been taught, yet it doesn't even seem to bother them that Darby's 19th century eschatology, necessarily precludes them from even considering that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation.

 

This even as 1/4 of mankind - 1.5 billion people in the world today - must DISbelieve that Christ was crucified, and thus reject His shed blood, while they deny and blaspheme the Son of God, as articles of their faith in the false prophet Muhammad who commands his followers to conquer all kingdoms and ultimately subjugate all people to DISbelieving the crucifixion and denying the Son of God. Who are taught that if they were to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, or even to pray in Jesus' name, would be to commit the single most "heinous" and only unforgivable sin ("shirk") in Muhammadanism.

 

So committed to doctrine are today's Christians, that they would never consider even investigating, how another approach to prophecy may even paint a bullseye square in the middle of Muhammad's back as THE false prophet, and explain just why his Islamic kingdom "beast" is out there slaughtering and subjugating non-Muslims around much of the world today, as they have for 1400 years.

In light of that doesn't it seem just a little bit weird to you, that you are necessarily precluded from even considering that Muhammad could be the false prophet, when we believe in.....

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

While Muhammad's followers follow the satanic trinity of:

the father of lies, his messenger Muhammad, specifically and necessarily in the spirit of antichrist

(each and every one, as an article of their faith, in Muhammad alone)

 

If you actually do have an interest in learning, as your sidebar indicates, and would like an introduction to an entire approach to Bible prophecy with which you may be unfamiliar, I recommend the book "The False Prophet" by Ellis Skolfield, available free online. It is a brick by brick empirical argument that is fun and fast to read. For over 35 years our 87 year old elder brother, has written about Islam in Bible prophecy, as revealed through the traditional historicist approach of the Reformers and 1800 years of church history. However if you pick it up with the same amount of Berean spirit that your post seemed to indicate, and instead of giving it a fair and impartial reading but instead try to wring every sentence through the filter of your pre-conceived notions, it will be as big a waste of time as anything else that is approached in that manner.

"He who is convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

 

But do you imagine that until and unless you do make a real effort at understanding prophecy, through the entire approach of the tradition of historicism, that you really have any standing to argue against it through a 19th century pop-eschatology?

(And I don't mean learning historicism as held by cults like SDA that happen to share the same approach. For example just because Arnold Murray's Serpent Seed cult are futurists, doesn't mean that all futurists are compelled to believe that Eve literally had sex with Satan, as they do.)

Edited November 10, 2014 by PeteWaldo
TOS~If you have a problem with any of the Moderators , please keep it private.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

===========================================================================================================

 

 

Is it my position that the Son of Man came in His kingdom nearly 2,000 years ago?

 

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Or is it you that denies that Jesus came in His kingdom, before some of those standing before Him died in the first century, just as He promised them He would?

 

 

99.5% of your entire position hangs on this verse.  It's called "One Verse Theology" and is quite dangerous.  The other .5% hangs on dwelling in a temple built with human hands.  (Can you show in Ezekiel 40-48 who built/will build this Temple....?)

 

 

As I said previously, If Christ's Kingdom was Established then, ...

 

(Daniel 2:44-45) "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.  {45} Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure."

This is Christ's Kingdom "The Stone" = Jesus Christ.  It's a Literal Kingdom....on the Earth.

The Gold is Babylon, The Silver is Medo-Persia (Iran), The Brass is Greece, The Iron is Rome.  Has Christ's "Literal" Kingdom, Broke these in Pieces and consumed them??  Google still has these places as currently Existing.

 

 

Moreover, if Christ's Kingdom was already here then why did HE teach us to pray....

 

(Luke 11:2-4) "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say,  Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.  {3}  Give us day by day our daily bread.  {4}  And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

 

 

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Or is it you that denies that Jesus came in His kingdom, before some of those standing before Him died in the first century, just as He promised them He would?

 

 

I don't deny it....I deny your interpretation of it.

 

Do you deny these...

 

2.  Are you familiar with what Gabriel said to Mary, Literally and Specifically?.....

(Luke 1:31-32) "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.  {32} He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"

(Acts 15:13-16) " And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:  {14} Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.  {15} And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,  {16} After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:"

Which is Basically Quoting a Third Witness, Amos 9:11 ....

(Amos 9:11) "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:"

 

Has Christ ever ruled from the Throne of David?  Was the Throne of David even in existence @ the time of Christ?

Unless you can show The Throne Of David...AND, Christ RULING from it, Then any position (outlined above) is Untenable x 1000000000000000000000000000000000000------>

 

 

Furthermore are these synonymous?: "Kingdom of GOD" and "Kingdom of Heaven"...?

 

Of the 4 Gospels, Matthew is the only one that uses "Kingdom of Heaven"....32 times.  But He also uses "Kingdom of GOD" 5 times.  Apparently these are speaking to 2 different things.

 

The Word "of" actually means "From"...."Kingdom from Heaven", "Kingdom from GOD" would be a more accurate rendering.  So it's not a genitive of apposition it's a genitive of "Source".

 

I can't put my finger on exactly what's here....but it's significant, IMHO.

 

 

Further, as I already expressed in the thread on the subject the Greek word for a single 1000 is "chilias", but the word used in Rev 20 is "chilioi" which is an indefinite plural, that could indicate many thousands. This doesn't mean that it can't indicate a single thousand, but If something as important as a whole doctrine surrounding a single future thousand year reign were meant, don't you think "chilias" would have been a better choice?

 

 

I don't know, seems appropriate

 

5507   //  cilioi  //  chilioi   //  khil'-ee-oy  // 

plural of uncertain affinity; TDNT - 9:466,1316; adj

AV - thousand 11; 11

1) a thousand

 

 

In other words I take a uniform approach to all Bible prophecy, while you switch from historicism for the OT, to the pop-eschatological approach of futurism when it comes to the book of Revelation.

 

 

Yes, it's called....

 

(2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

And the Book of Revelation isn't the only Book that speaks to the end times.  Many OT Books speak to or infer....the time of the end; Almost every single one.

 

 

and as the church understood before the 20th century

 

 

What Church?

 

 

when I explained how I believe that Muhammad is indeed THE false prophet of the book of Revelation, and his Islam kingdom "beast" of Revelation 13 the final foe of God's people, and recognize the restoration of Jews to their land and city as marking the beginning of what Daniel's prophecy refers to as the "time of the end".

 

 

Ahhh yes, The "Red Herring" (Fallacy) post.

 

Here's my response....

 

(Daniel 9:26-27) "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

{27} And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

In Verse 26 it's talking about the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD...who destroyed it: Titus Vespasian leading the 5th, 10th, 12th and 15th Roman Legions.  <----The People of the Prince.

 

Look @ Verse 27 "And he"!!  Who's "he"? .... The Antecedent from Verse 26: The Prince a ("Type") from Verse 26.  Who's the Prince's People..... THE ROMANS.  He/they're coming again. 

 

Additionally, Please show any reference to "Muhammad" or the "islam kingdom beast" in Scripture either directly or implied/inferred....?

 

 

The difficulty you are having in understanding what I post, as your reply well demonstrates, is that you are trying to wring an entirely different approach to prophecy, through the filter of pre-conceived notions from the approach you have been taught and currently hold. The only way you will be able to even begin to see, is if you decide to consider the traditional historicist approach entirely on its own merit, and then judge between, futurism, preterism and the tradition of historicism, each independently on its own merit.

 

 

A bit presumptuousness don't you think?  Do you know me?  How do you know I didn't start with a clean slate and let THE WORD and Holy Spirit Guide Me?  Do You have Special Mind Powers that we're not aware of ??

 

 

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in exegesis of scripture arises when one first begins with interpretation, of the figurative language, of prophetic dreams and visions in Old Testament prophecy, before turning to the literal language of literal passages of New Testament scripture.

 

 

Yes, so please stop engaging in it.

 

Please deal with these "Literal" New Testament Passages....

 

(Luke 1:31-32) "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.  {32} He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"

 

(Acts 15:13-16) " And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:  {14} Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.  {15} And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,  {16} After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:"

 

Show this....?

 

 

But let's get to the questions of this thread, some of which you ignored, even in the post you quoted.

 

 

So you make absolute conclusions off of Vapor Support OR you have Special Mind Powers.   This is speaking volumes.

 

 

1. Did the Son of Man come in His kingdom in the 1st century, as He prophesied that He would, or not?

 

2. Was the temple that Jesus built in 3 days through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, somehow so insufficient, and so incomplete, as to require that a physical temple to be built in the future by the hands of men?

Particularly in light of the scriptures that unequivocally state in literal language of a literal passage of New Testament, that God doesn't well in temples made with hands.

 

3. If faithful Jews are saved through their faith in our great God YHWH, since YHWH Himself blinded some of them to the Gospel so that they couldn't transgress new covenant law (no law no transgression), what would the purpose of a physical temple built by men's hands be?

Particularly if indeed the New Testament scriptures indicate that Jews and Christians have been saved by faith over the last 2,000 years. It should be obvious that any animal sacrifice under a restoration of the old covenant would be irrelevant at best.

 

 

1.   If this Kingdom Included the Throne of David and Jesus Ruling from it with a Rod of Iron.... Then Obviously, NO.

 

2.  This is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).  One is speaking to The Physical Body the Other is speaking to a Physical Temple.  Insufficient or Sufficient are irrelevant and quite nonsensical.  

And as I asked, Please show who built/is building/will build the Temple outlined in Ezekiel 40-48....?

 

3. Is a Begging the Question (Fallacy) IN TOTO. -----assuming the very thing you're asserting.  PROVE that the Jews are/were "Blinded" to The Gospel ??  And I already showed in the last post where this was inane.

 

 

4. A curious question. How many weeks or months have you spent in the study of New Testament Bible prophecy, through the same traditional historicist approach through which you understand Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled, while judging the approach completely on its own merit without filtering it through pre-conceived notion or futurist eschatology you have been taught?

 

 

Relevance?  How much time spent offers NO Veracity Whatsoever to any postulate proffered.  I've dealt with Biology/Physics Professors et al that have spent their Entire lives studying evolution/big bangs/black holes and I've dismantled each "a priori" adherence to fairytales in front of their eyes in less than 5 minutes.

 

This question is Tantamount to asking how many times have I ate Blue Berry Pie while studying Scripture.  Painfully Irrelevant.

 

I never study anything in a Vacuum, especially Scripture.  I take into account.....The Whole Counsel of GOD.  To sidestep, Missing the Forrest through the Trees.

 

In Closing, I am very much Interested in your response to "One Lights" Query.....

 

"Please, do us all the pleasure of outlining in a timeline where every one of the events in Revelation occurred, from the first seal to the last bowl."

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

=========================================================================================================

 

 

It may be hard for you to see that what you are actually requesting is that I help you understand an entire Dan-Rev study

 

 

This is a Strawman (Fallacy).  That's not what One Light asked you....

 

"Please, do us all the pleasure of outlining in a timeline where every one of the events in Revelation occurred, from the first seal to the last bowl."

 

A simple timeline Depicting the events is all that is needed:  For Example:

 

 

First Seal:  (Revelation 6:1-2) "And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.  {2} And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer."

 

This was the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD

 

Second Seal: (Revelation 6:3-4) "And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.  {4} And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword."

 

This is WW I.

 

Third Seal:  .........  Fourth Seal....... 5th Trumpet.......to the end.

 

 

If "your" theory is even remotely true, this should be quite easy to illustrate.

[Guest]

....parroted a "sinner's prayer" after making a "decision"....

 

 

Billy Graham

 

Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name.

Amen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner's_prayer

 

Campus Crusade for Christ

 

Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner's_prayer

 

God

 

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10:8-11

 

And The Winner

 

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 1 Corinthians 1:30

 

Is....

 

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2 Thessalonians 2:13

 

Jesus~!

[PeteWaldo]

 

....parroted a "sinner's prayer" after making a "decision"....

 

 

Billy Graham

 

I don't know why I couldn't see these replies until now, so please excuse me for editing after they were posted.

 

Indeed, a concept born in the 1950s, and a reason that so many believe themselves to be Christians simply for having parroted it, and perhaps believing themselves to be licensed to continue on in serial sin for having done so. My former pastor even told those before him "Congratulations, your name is written in the Lamb's book of life!". Obviously without having any more idea as to the condition of their hearts, than he could have God's judgments. But then there are few quicker ways to empty the offering plates, a clear out a church today, than to preach repentance.

 

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

Do you think there is any shortage of people who have deceived themselves into believing they are Christian?

What if by simply parroting those words they believe they are "once saved always saved"?

Edited November 10, 2014 by PeteWaldo

[PeteWaldo]

 

 

 

 

===========================================================================================================

 

 

Is it my position that the Son of Man came in His kingdom nearly 2,000 years ago?

 

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Or is it you that denies that Jesus came in His kingdom, before some of those standing before Him died in the first century, just as He promised them He would?

 

 

99.5% of your entire position hangs on this verse.  It's called "One Verse Theology" and is quite dangerous.  The other .5% hangs on dwelling in a temple built with human hands.  (Can you show in Ezekiel 40-48 who built/will build this Temple....?)

 

At least when I peddled Darby's doctrine, I didn't simply discard literal verses in literal passages of New Testament scripture, because they didn't fit my 19th century eschatology. You accuse "One Verse Theology" of an entire approach to Bible prophecy.

 

(Can you show in Ezekiel 40-48 who built/will build this Temple....?)

 

So would that be the "future" temple that is required, because the temple that Jesus built in the 1st century through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, was so inadequate, incomplete and insufficient, that it would require a follow up temple built by the hands of men?

 

Perhaps we can get a better idea as to who built it, once we understand how long it will be occupied:

 

Ezekiel 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, [neither] they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

 

The same temple Jesus built in the 1st century:

 

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

The true tabernacle:

 

Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

(I have to step out for a couple hours)

Edited November 10, 2014 by PeteWaldo

[Fez]

 

 

....parroted a "sinner's prayer" after making a "decision"....

 

 

Billy Graham

 

I don't know why I couldn't see these replies until now, so please excuse me for editing after they were posted.

 

Indeed, a concept born in the 1950s, and a reason that so many believe themselves to be Christians simply for having parroted it, and perhaps believing themselves to be licensed to continue on in serial sin for having done so. My former pastor even told those before him "Congratulations, your name is written in the Lamb's book of life!". Obviously without having any more idea as to the condition of their hearts, than he could have God's judgments. But then there are few quicker ways to empty the offering plates, a clear out a church today, than to preach repentance.

 

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

Do you think there is any shortage of people who have deceived themselves into believing they are Christian?

What if by simply parroting those words they believe they are "once saved always saved"?

 

But then there are few quicker ways to empty the offering plates, a clear out a church today, than to preach repentance.

 

Not where I live and go to church, and most of the churches we relate to. 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

=====================================================================================================================

 

 

At least when I peddled Darby's doctrine, I didn't simply discard literal verses in literal passages of New Testament scripture, because they didn't fit my 19th century eschatology. You accuse "One Verse Theology" of an entire approach to Bible prophecy.

 

 

You're doing exactly that....for the 3rd Time:

 

(Luke 1:31-32) "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.  {32} He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"

(Acts 15:13-16) " And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:  {14} Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.  {15} And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,  {16} After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:"

 

 

It's called the Davidic Covenant.  (SEE: 2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 17:11-14,  2 Chronicles 6:16)

 

 

So would that be the "future" temple that is required, because the temple that Jesus built in the 1st century through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, was so inadequate, incomplete and insufficient, that it would require a follow up temple built by the hands of men?

 

 

So just repeat the same "deconstructed" postulate over again? 

 

 

Perhaps we can get a better idea as to who built it, once we understand how long it will be occupied:

 

 

The Temple in Ezekiel has yet to be built.  Or please show us this Temple in Secular History or Scripture with the (Qualitative and Quantitative) details as outlined in Ezekiel 40-48...?

 

 

The same temple Jesus built in the 1st century:

 

 

(John 2:19-21) "Jesus answered and said unto them,  Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.  {20} Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?  {21} But he spake of the temple of his body."

 

Jesus was talking about HIS BODY as the Temple.  Ezekiel is talking about a Physical Temple....a building/structure.

 

 

Side Note that " I " find Fascinating....."Forty and six years".  How many chromosomes do we have? ..... 46.  

 

Just humor me, it'll be over quick .....

 

 

(Genesis 2:23-24) "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

 

Adam spoke 46 Words speaking of One Flesh....Baby

 

 

In the 46th Book of the Bible:

 

(1 Corinthians 3:16-17) "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?  {17} If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 

 

 

Solomon's Temple:

 

(1 Kings 7:21) "And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz."

 

(1 Kings 7:15-16) "For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.  {16} And he made two chapiters of molten brass, to set upon the tops of the pillars: the height of the one chapiter was five cubits, and the height of the other chapiter was five cubits:"

 

Each Pillar Jachin and Boaz 23 Cubits Tall = 46

 

 

(Exodus 26:18-22) "And thou shalt make the boards for the tabernacle, twenty boards on the south side southward.  {19} And thou shalt make forty sockets of silver under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for his two tenons, and two sockets under another board for his two tenons.  {20} And for the second side of the tabernacle on the north side there shall be twenty boards:  {21} And their forty sockets of silver; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board.  {22} And for the sides of the tabernacle westward thou shalt make six boards."

 

Holy Tabernacle = 46 Boards

[Marilyn C]

Hi Pete,
 
I do have some thoughts regarding your statements. Now you said -
 

`But since the book of Daniel was sealed until the "time of the end", wouldn't any individual's understanding of it in the mid-19th century, at best be seriously compromised, and perhaps even egregious error?`

 
If you look closely you will see that `the book,` is the one that holds the names of the people of Israel & NOT the book of Daniel.
 
`And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; & at that time your people, every one who is found written in the book, will be rescued.` (Dan. 12: 1)
 
`Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, & the Lord gave attention & heard it, & a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord & who esteem His name. `(Mal. 3: 16)
 
`...& he had in his hand a little book which was open....` (Rev.10: 2)

 

 

 

You also have said -
 
 

 

`(There are only 3 viable approaches which are futurism, preterism and historicism.)`

 

That is not true, as there is a `Contemporary view of Dan. 7` which explains what is happening today. That together with the purposes of God for the 3 groups brings understanding to what God is doing & has planned. You can talk around & around on your 3 approaches but until we talk on God`s purposes, then it is all so much detail without direction, understanding of God`s heart.

 

 

Marilyn.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 

Edited November 10, 2014 by Marilyn C

[Marilyn C]

Hi Enoch2021,

 

I did appreciate your `46` details. I love the way things like that come together.

 

Marilyn.