3rd Temple.

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

Third, future-temple-ism is doing exactly what you've just questioned! It deliberately says God wants another temple!!!! The God who "didn't ask for such a thing from His followers" has according to future-temple-ism asked for such a thing!!! Not only has He asked for such a thing but... He asked those who killed His Son to build it. 

One has to admit that. 

No. Because the thing is prophesied to happen does not include sanction. It's allowed not condoned. It could be assisted even, for a greater purpose. I propose the building of the Temple is not sanctioned or condoned or assisted but rather a prophesied act of final and complete rebellion of the namesakes of God. 

It's akin to Aaron casting the golden calf right in front of the very face of the Lord God.

It's not a question. The followers of God and Jesus Christ do not do as asked in every case; that's patently obvious for several millennia. That Temple, when it is built, will be built ostensibly in the name of Jehovah only. The Jews crave it like a starving dog craves a morsel. It represents a cultural and national identity to them and they feel it's the final act ushering in their earthly messiah; and this from the mouth of the orthodoxy.

 

 

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Sorry Diaste, I think he's got a point here...... or two, no, three.... yea, I am sure there are three..... Charlie

Only because he doesn't yet understand. 

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

Then I encourage you to re-read the thread and take that up with your fellow future-temple-ist because that was argued. I am glad we have agreement: it is ridiculous. 

Was it? That's a shame.

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

Not a single one of them is a fulfillment of prophesy. 

The devil here is in the details, Diaste. Future-temple-ism doesn't simply say another temple is going to be built but that another temple is going to be built in fulfillment of prophesy and that temple is a sign. Building that temple will usher in Christ's return (so let's hurry up and built it!) Let's build it and bring about Christ's return. There's a small sect within Christianity on the complete far opposite end of this spectrum. Perhaps if you can step back enough to objectively compare the two you'll realize just how "ridiculous" a whole lot of future-temple-ism is. Within the post-milllennial view there is a portion of believers known as Dominionists. Dominionism is limited but diverse set of views (many don't know that) and within the small group known as Dominionists there's an even smaller group called Reconstructionists and they get that name, that label because the want to reconstruct the Mosaic case laws (not the ceremonial or other laws) and reconstruct a Christ geo-political state in the belief that doing so will usher in Christ's return. 

Bah. Because the acolytes are incorrect doesn't make the source material inaccurate. It's a shame some think the Temple existing ushers in the return of Jesus. I'd apologize for them but I just don't care.

Whatever the many sects do or believe is of no consequence to me. I don't argue for or against them on purpose. If there is overlap or alignment it's happenstance and not deliberate. 

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

God is not dependent upon man in any way, especially not in the building of nations. It's absurd. It would be nice if we had an actually Christian nation that actually practiced God's precepts but that's not gonna happen on this side of the grave. Creating a "Christian nation" will not bring about Christ's return. 

 

Neither will building a temple. 

Truth. I have never said otherwise even if I have not specifically addressed this. so...amen.

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

Temples are built every day. None of them fulfill prophesy. If another temple is built on the temple mount (even though nowhere does scripture say the temple must be built there ) it may be a beautiful work of human creativity but it will not be a fulfillment of prophesy. There is no such prophesy!!!!! The only way a future temple is ever read from scripture is when the scriptures are treated eisegetically and not exegetically. A repeated series of inferences - inferential inferences, not exegetical inferences - have to be made to get to an actual temple of stone. 

I hate beating a dead horse but....

The man of sin seats himself in the temple of God.

The A of D stands in the holy place.

Unless you are concluding the temple of God and the holy place is the individual believer, and the man of sin sits there and the A of D is placed there, then what is this holy place and the Temple of God?

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

It is not accurate. 

What is accurate? The fact God never lived in the tabernacle or any temple built by human hands. That's accurate. God doesn't live in such houses. That's accurate. God builds His own temple. That's accurate. We are God's temple. That's accurate. 

It is truth. 

Agree. Though the glory of God did reside with the Jews in the Tabernacle.

Exodus 40 Ezekiel 10

 

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

And it is also truth that none of the many, many, many, many temples to God built over the centuries were a fulfillment of prophesy. Temple to God are built every day (true) and none of them are a fulfillment of prophesy (true). 

Yep. Agree.

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

 

You're doin a lot of work to defend future-temple-ism. Very little of it withstands critical examination. You might consider studying the alternative eschatologies. Do they have any of these problems? If not then consider them. 

I don't care for methods and acceptance. That just gets a person walking a path that leads who knows where. I have been over a great many ideas and conclusions throughout the years. The word of the Lord is constant and sure, dispelling the dark and revealing the light of truth. 

People hate the truth. The truth is sharp and wicked to the people; arresting the tongue and destroying the thoughts of the heart and mind. 

Only the Lord speaks the truth ever and always. I'll go with that no matter how ludicrous it seems to anyone else.

There's a quote from the world of chess I find has application;

"Playable, therefore dubious; dubious, therefore playable."

Remember the Platypus!

 

[Charlie744]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

Only because he doesn't yet understand. 

Diaste, please note there was NO offense intended at all with my response but I am on that side of the fences on this issue...... best wishes always, Charlie

[Alive]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

"So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’" An obvious reference to a section inside the Temple. The Jews would have known this as 190 or so years prior that very thing occurred in the Temple.

"So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

If one assumes the temple of the living God is as Paul said, "Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple,", and that it can only be this and that Paul further explains, "and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?", then if the man of sin seats himself in the temple of God the man of sin would inhabit the very space where the Spirit of God dwells; the very body of each individual of the elect.

It's not possible as far as I know to usurp the Spirit of God in the very place where the Spirit lives. 

There is a very 'real' possibility that this has already happened and did so in the time leading up to and/or in 70 AD. I suggest reading what Jesus said in Matthew, what questions He was answering and to whom He was speaking. There is zero question that much of what He said 'DID' happen then---so why not also the AOD?

I have found this worth considering carefully. At least as carefully as the time and effort expended on the other. After all--we all seek the truth.

[Diaste]

1 minute ago, Alive said:

There is a very 'real' possibility that this has already happened and did so in the time leading up to and/or in 70 AD. I suggest reading what Jesus said in Matthew, what questions He was answering and to whom He was speaking. There is zero question that much of what He said 'DID' happen then---so why not also the AOD?

I have found this worth considering carefully. At least as carefully as the time and effort expended on the other. After all--we all seek the truth.

"“Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”"

That's the question.  From Matt 24:4-51 is the answer. The question of 'Your coming and the end of the age; is the context of the answer.

Neither have happened and so it's all yet to happen. 

Last days and end of the age aren't synonymous, imo. 

 

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Charlie744 said:

Diaste, please note there was NO offense intended at all with my response but I am on that side of the fences on this issue...... best wishes always, Charlie

None taken. I have strong opinions and I'm convinced of that which I believe. Might be a good thing, might be bad thing.

 

[Alive]

5 minutes ago, Diaste said:

"“Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”"

That's the question.  From Matt 24:4-51 is the answer. The question of 'Your coming and the end of the age; is the context of the answer.

Neither have happened and so it's all yet to happen. 

Last days and end of the age aren't synonymous, imo. 

 

Yup--I agree. What if the 'age' Jesus was speaking of was the age relating to the old covenant and that which defined it in many ways?

Again--just a thought that it may be wise to consider.

Full-disclosure--I have never paid much attention to eschatology--its not been my thing. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am interested in truth.

[Diaste]

3 minutes ago, Alive said:

 What if the 'age' Jesus was speaking of was the age relating to the old covenant and that which defined it in many ways?

Thought about that. 

It seems to understand the full weight and consequence of the prophecy we will have to experience it.

I'm convinced there was no history lesson here as the select disciples query was the 2nd coming and the end of the age. 

I'm no dispensationalist so that 'age' in question is the age of man's government, as far as I can tell. 

Question:

If Jesus was speaking to the past how would be able to watch and recognize these things, and what then would differentiate between past events and prophecy in the moment of fulfilling?