Martyrdom of Antipas

[xcav8tor]

So where is this third temple? Paul died before the second temple was destroyed - and there is nothing in the text to show that he is referring to any temple other than the one that, should he visit Jerusalem, he would see.

Hi Tabibito,

Paul is speaking in a future context because he is talking about "The Day of the Lord" when Jesus comes back (2 Thess. 2:1, 2). Jesus destroys the man of lawlessness who proclaims himself to be God in God's temple and is destroyed by the brightness of Christ's return. This places Christ's return, the antichrist's blasphemy and the temple in which it takes place all in the same time frame, and since Jesus has not yet returned, Paul must have been referring to a future temple which is not yet built. This 3rd temple will be in Jerusalem.

It so happens that the Jews are planning to rebuild their temple as soon as circumstances permit. The Temple Institute has recreated all the necessary temple furniture and priestly garments, including the breastplate and crown for the High Priest. They have manufactured the Golden Lampstand which is already on display. They have the blueprints ready. They have recovered a sample of the oil of anointing and have raised a red-heifer whose ashes will be used for the purification ceremony. They have reconvened the Sanhedrin and have priests already trained in Mosaic sacrifice. It is just a matter of time before the building is set in motion. Go to: www.templeinstitute.org and https://youtu.be/nyXAAm7K_3U and https://youtu.be/kMIxZc_SKFo for a look at the progress so far.

[Terraceth]

It so happens that the Jews are planning to rebuild their temple as soon as circumstances permit. The Temple Institute has recreated all the necessary temple furniture and priestly garments, including the breastplate and crown for the High Priest. They have manufactured the Golden Lampstand which is already on display. They have the blueprints ready. They have recovered a sample of the oil of anointing and have raised a red-heifer whose ashes will be used for the purification ceremony. They have reconvened the Sanhedrin and have priests already trained in Mosaic sacrifice. It is just a matter of time before the building is set in motion. Go to: www.templeinstitute.org and https://youtu.be/nyXAAm7K_3U and https://youtu.be/kMIxZc_SKFo for a look at the progress so far.

The problem is, "the Jews" that are "planning to rebuild their temple as soon as circumstances permit" are a fairly small group that are in no actual position to rebuild it. It'd be like saying that "some Alaskans" are "planning to have their state leave the US as soon as circumstances permit."

The various problems that have prevented a reconstruction in the past are still there and show no signs of going away anytime soon. They still aren't sure exactly where the altar of the previous temple stood (and the new altar must be in the exact same spot as the previous one), nor would building a new temple be any less likely to provoke international conflicts due to the necessity of disturbing major Muslim holy sites in order to rebuild it. And there is considerable Jewish opposition to a rebuilding of the temple on religious grounds, believing that there should be no attempts to rebuild it until the messianic age.

There may be some more rhetoric and posturing about a third temple than there was in the past, but in terms of practical progress I do not think we are any closer than we were when Israel was first re-founded.

[Darfius]

They still aren't sure exactly where the altar of the previous temple stood (and the new altar must be in the exact same spot as the previous one),

Do you have Biblical support for this claim or are you similar to other preterists in that you find the Bible superfluous?

The Bible (that book you neither read nor understand) presents the Antichrist as a man with all the answers, from the standpoint of the unsaved world. The "problems" you present exist to make him look good when he solves them. I'm sure some pompous preterist like you was explaining in 1947 how Israel wouldn't literally be reborn as a nation with heavy usage of his nasal passages in the process.

[Terraceth]

Do you have Biblical support for this claim or are you similar to other preterists in that you find the Bible superfluous?

It doesn't matter whether it has biblical basis or not; it's what the Jewish people believe, and they're the ones who the decision to construct the temple or not is up to.

[Darfius]

It doesn't matter whether it has biblical basis or not;

Well that sums you preterists up, doesn't it.

it's what the Jewish people believe, and they're the ones who the decision to construct the temple or not is up to.

Actually, it's up to God, not the Jewish people or any other group of people. But God's sovereignty has never mattered much to preterists either. Man I dislike you guys.

[Terraceth]

Well that sums you preterists up, doesn't it.

I thought it was obvious, but I was talking about it from the perspective of the Jewish people. So long as it comes from a source they consider authoritative (the Hebrew Bible being one, but not the only, such source), it's a belief of theirs. Your demand of biblical basis for a Jewish belief is therefore like wondering how Germany could legally pass a law that contradicts the United States constitution.

Actually, it's up to God, not the Jewish people or any other group of people.

My point was that none of the things xcav8tor was pointing to was actually anything close to a coherent step towards solving any of the current problems. Yes, of course God could just solve them all in a swoop, but that's exactly as true now as it was when Israel was founded or for that matter anytime since the destruction of the second temple.

[One Bad Pig]

I do not at all take issue with the idea that Israel will return to the Lord. What I dispute is the wholly unsupported (Biblically) theory that they will return via the Old Covenant, separate from that of the Church. Will Christ have two bodies? Will they return to God, without turning to Christ?

[Darfius]

I do not at all take issue with the idea that Israel will return to the Lord. What I dispute is the wholly unsupported (Biblically) theory that they will return via the Old Covenant, separate from that of the Church. Will Christ have two bodies? Will they return to God, without turning to Christ?

Romans 11 is about the blindness being lifted and Israel returning via Christ. But it's also about Christians "returning" to worshipping God the way He desires worship with the help of the people who have worshipped Him longest.

[One Bad Pig]

Romans 11 is about the blindness being lifted and Israel returning via Christ. But it's also about Christians "returning" to worshipping God the way He desires worship with the help of the people who have worshipped Him longest.

Go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." Rebuilding the Temple to worship there is therefore a non-starter. See, generally, the book of Hebrews. The people who have "worshipped Him longest" have gone full-on Pharisee, the system Jesus flatly rejected. Not sure how they're supposed to help us get closer to what He desires.

[Darfius]

Go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." Rebuilding the Temple to worship there is therefore a non-starter. See, generally, the book of Hebrews. The people who have "worshipped Him longest" have gone full-on Pharisee, the system Jesus flatly rejected. Not sure how they're supposed to help us get closer to what He desires.

Scripture Verse: Malachi 3:6

I the Lord do not change

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Malachi 4:4

Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

© Copyright Original Source

Notice the same "measuring line" ritual present in Ezekiel 40 and Revelation 11. The temple will be rebuilt.




Two olive tree/lampstand imagery associated with two witnesses in Rev 11 here also associated with the temple, as there.

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 2:2

This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:
2 In the last days
the mountain of the will be establishedCome, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.

© Copyright Original Source

[xcav8tor]

I do not at all take issue with the idea that Israel will return to the Lord. What I dispute is the wholly unsupported (Biblically) theory that they will return via the Old Covenant, separate from that of the Church. Will Christ have two bodies? Will they return to God, without turning to Christ?

[One Bad Pig]

Hi One Bad Pig,
....
Does this all make sense to you, One Bad Pig? Not that I think anything I have said is going to change your mind, but I at least hope you can appreciate where I'm coming from.

I was raised pre-trib, pre-mil futurist, and never even knew of any other way to interpret such passages until I was in my mid-20's; indeed, I was required to affirm such views to become a member of my family's church. That is to say, I understand where you're coming from; it was a fairly popular subject for exposition. I rather disagree that the (entirely secular) modern state of Israel has anything whatsoever to do with any biblical prophecy, and it is quite clear from, e.g., Romans 11 that the church is the faithful remnant of Israel spoken of by the prophets (and that, by extension, the oikoneme is now the whole world, not simply the ancient land of Israel). IMO futurists tend to take highly allegorical texts entirely too literally.

[xcav8tor]

...I rather disagree that the (entirely secular) modern state of Israel has anything whatsoever to do with any biblical prophecy, and it is quite clear from, e.g., Romans 11 that the church is the faithful remnant of Israel spoken of by the prophets (and that, by extension, the oikoneme is now the whole world, not simply the ancient land of Israel). IMO futurists tend to take highly allegorical texts entirely too literally.

[One Bad Pig]

I mean, in particular, Paul's image of the olive tree - which covers the bulk of the chapter, and which you did not address. "They" appears to be referring back to the branches cut off for unbelief, not verse 26. If your exegesis falls apart when the referent of a pronoun is shifted.... Your exegesis also makes hash of places where Jesus castigates Israelite towns such as Bethsaida and Chorazin as having fates worse than Sodom and where He casts down woes upon the Israelite Pharisees, and where Jesus condemns Israelites as sons of the devil for trusting in their descent from Abraham. The New Testament does not war with itself.

[Darfius]

I mean, in particular, Paul's image of the olive tree - which covers the bulk of the chapter, and which you did not address. "They" appears to be referring back to the branches cut off for unbelief, not verse 26. If your exegesis falls apart when the referent of a pronoun is shifted.... Your exegesis also makes hash of places where Jesus castigates Israelite towns such as Bethsaida and Chorazin as having fates worse than Sodom and where He casts down woes upon the Israelite Pharisees, and where Jesus condemns Israelites as sons of the devil for trusting in their descent from Abraham. The New Testament does not war with itself.

All of your examples were of "this generation", the people Jesus was speaking to and who specifically rejected Him. Where is your evidence that all Israelites throughout time after that were replaced?