3rd Temple.

[Diaste]

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

I have never disputed that. I trust and rely upon a shared allegiance to scripture as authoritative. While every word in scripture may be taken as inspired truth it's plain reading is not. The literal reading isn't inspired truth. Neither is much of scripture treated exegetically. This too is a matter of record, not some unevidenced opinion I make baselessly. The record shows and proves this to be the case. An obvious example of this is the undeniable, irrefutable facts Paul writes quite plainly and explicitly the ends of the ages had come upon his reads in Corinth. Instead, "physical" is added. The verse was not taken literally, exegetically, nor within its stated context(s). The verse is not taken or  accepted as one part of a whole, a plethora of many verses in many passages plainly reporting the end times, last days AND ends of the ages began in the first century. These are the facts in evidence. 

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,"  That was not a reality at this point when the prophecy was spoken. The physical manifestation of the child born and the Son given was some distance in the future. It was a spiritual reality at the time for "the One giving-life-to the dead and calling the things not being as being," but not yet a physical existence on this plane. Same thing. Maybe I'm wrong. Been wrong before; will be again. You aren't proving it incorrect by recitation ad nauseum.

The ends of the fulfillment came upon the disobedient in the exodus is how I read it and I will stand on that. 

The end of the age is explained in Matt 24. Only the terminal generation will witness it and we have not yet reached that point in time.

 

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

Yes, I completely agree. This is the crux of the issue between our views. In the case of this particular op, I ask, "So what?" and 17 pages later I still do not have an answer that aligns with all the Word itself. I did ask. I did provide plenty of opportunity for that answer AND I did so with an expectation the answer would be firmly, richly, abundantly couched in God's word, God's word rendered well. 

If you continue to fail to acknowledge this then I'm out.

"So that he sits in the Temple of God proclaiming himself to be god." in the context of Jesus 2nd coming and the gathering of the elect. Where would this be? In the body of every individual believer? It's a prophecy that must come to pass as stated. 

 

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

And that has not happened. 

It did, you just don't like it. 

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

Instead I had to wade through digression, a lack of parity and in the end several negative insinuations suggesting I would not accept scripture were it provided when the evidence shows I am not the one with a problem in that area. 

It would have been great if some evidence had been posted in this op but sadly it was not. It would be great if the non-gathered evidence had made the "concept" clear, but sadly there is no evidence a new temple will be fulfilled prophesy. It is assumed, not evidenced. Neither is there a scintilla of evidence a red heifer is inherently prophesy fulfilled. None. I did ask.

There is no wisdom, no knowledge, and no understanding posted. In other words, There is no wisdom, no knowledge, and no understanding in not-posted content. Show me the knowledge! Show me the wisdom! Show me the understanding. And in the absence of such evidence face the facts in evidence: there is no evidence. Lacking evidence there is no knowledge, wisdom or understanding. Off-topic scapegoating and gas-lighting prove it.

Unnecessarily. 

There's no need to insinuate a lack in others. That is ad hominemic. It is avoidant. 

The better response is to post.....

a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture. 

 

Surely that is a standard to which every Christian here, no matter their eschatological orientation, can ascribe.

 

I wasn't insinuating anything. It was a clear admonition to you and all of us, including myself.

 

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

Do you find that standard was met in these posts? I do not. Go back through the posts and count the number of times "red heifer" was mentioned. Consider how many of those non-existent mentions provided an actual answer and scriptural explanation to the question(s) asked. While some time was spent on the prospect of another temple - and I will gladly acknowledge that evidence - look at how much content in so many posts had absolutely nothing to do with a future temple or proving the veracity of another temple as an automatic fulfillment of scripture. I did ask. 

My complaints are not personal, Diaste. I'm sure were we to meet in person we could and would share a cup of coffee, fellowship in worship, take a hike, fix some manicotti, and do a wide variety of things together in genuine, authentic, sincere regard for one another connecting not just as the world does but through the same Spirit that dwells within each of us. 

I would ask the things I have asked of this op of any similar op - and I have done so in this forum and numerous others - because these are good, valid, and relevant questions. Similarly, the problems inherent in the kind of futurism asserted by this op - or any op that begins with predictions of temples and red heifers - are not unique to anyone personally. The problem is the entire theology, not merely its eschatology and/or its hermeneutic.

You're painting a picture here and it's a terrible rendering. Sure I can see the Temple. What is that to you? My goal was to begin a conversation over what is empirical fact. Nothing in the OP was fabricated and no claims were made by me other than, "Times are changing." I feel you made up a story and gathered the troops and marched to war while dismissing all reasonable arguments because they don't fit your perceptions. That's fine. Rejoice, you won.

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

It's not personal. 

My dissent is not personal. 

If you have to make this claim the opposite is true. It's always personal.

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

Veiled insinuations I lack of knowledge, understanding, wisdom, I wouldn't believe scripture if provided? 

That is personal. 

Yep. That's how I see it. Didn't think I veiled it. 

12 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

At any time in the future you feel so inclined to do so just answer the question asked. So what if another temple is built or red heifer bred?  How is either inherently a fulfillment of prophesy? My subscription to the op will message me when new comments occur so take your time and consider the questions asked, not any question not asked or comment not posted. 

 

Again, "...so he sits in the Temple of God showing himself that he is god." Is this the body of Christ individual and corporate? Obviously that's ridiculous. This is the simplest of deductions. It's akin to removing the lid from a jar to get at the contents of the jar. You argue the true Temple of God is the body corporate of each individual believer and I have agreed time and time again; not because you say it but because it's Spiritual truth.

The pinnacle of nonsense is the contention the Temple here is the body of Christ. The man of lawlessness is not going to sit in the body of every individual believer, and he must sit in the Temple of God as spoken in this prophecy of the return of Jesus and the gathering, and the events immediately surrounding that return and gathering.  In this context then the Temple of God is not the body of Christ  but the Temple in Israel in Jerusalem; as I have said many times in this same way.

That's the answer. It's not wrong. You just don't like it as it flies in the face of dogma. And it's an answer I have posted more that once. 

The red heifer you wield like a cudgel in an attempt to discredit the above reasoning has a major purpose in the dedication and purification of a Temple as prescribed in the OT. It's not prophecy, and I never said it was, it's one bit of fact in the continued quest of the Jews to make that Temple stand once again. 

Again, I made no claims in the OP, simply reported what I came across. Well, I did claim times were changing, so there's that.

The fact the Jews have readied everything required for the Temple and are ready to build it, and there is a groundswell in Israel for this idea, as well as members of the Knesset who's political platform is the quest for the rebuilt Temple, in no way changes the fact and truth of the true Temple of God. 

So I'm done. If you want to continue there are always PM's.

 

[1to3]

Has anyone come to think that Holy scripture of the bible mentions and refers to both temples, one built by man and one built by God?

yes the Antichrist will visit a temple made by man and will  make himself known but also will try to invade each persons temple= their body by trying to get people to receive in them the mark or number of the beast?

They are both indicated. just like the biblical references to the "elect".

The Word of God mentions a specific elect like the 144,000 in Rev. Ch 14 and also of

saints in Christ , they who make our election a sure thing in Christ Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 2:3

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

What is the falling away refering to?

The apostasy of the church

1 Timothy 4:1-2

4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, ² speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

 

The bible says make your election a sure thing.

2 Peter 1:10

 10Therefore, brothers, strive to make your calling and election sure. For if you practice these things you will never stumble, 11and you will receive a lavish reception into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.…

 

 

 

 

•  

• Quote

 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by 1to3