A Question for Futurists

[Rose]

Hi All, :yo:

This is something I've wondered about for some time, and I'm hoping there is someone out there in Forum land who can answer my question.

If, as many Futurists believe there is to be a future temple re-built on the temple mount.....what was the significance of the destruction of the 1st century Temple, and why did Jesus make mention of its desolation?

Thank you in advance for your answers....:signthankspin:

Rose

[joel]

Rose, is this an accurate representation of your questions?

A............B.................................... ..............C

A=Cross of
Christ

B=Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple (70 A.D.)

C=Rebuilt Temple (hypothetical future event)

---------------------------------------------------------

Timeline;

A occurred as the pivotal point in Christian history. Central point
of Biblical prophecy, substantiated in Gospel writings, and letters of
Apostles.

B occurred in 70 A.D. as recorded in historical records.

C has not occurred as of 2009. But, according to some Christians will
occur in the future.

--------------------------------------------------------

What is the biblical support for C, and what is the significance?

What is the biblical support for B, and what is the significance?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose, is this an accurate representation of your questions?

A............B.................................... ..............C

A=Cross of Christ

B=Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple (70 A.D.)

C=Rebuilt Temple (hypothetical future event)

---------------------------------------------------------

Timeline;

A occurred as the pivotal point in Christian history. Central point
of Biblical prophecy, substantiated in Gospel writings, and letters of
Apostles.

B occurred in 70 A.D. as recorded in historical records.

C has not occurred as of 2009. But, according to some Christians will
occur in the future.

--------------------------------------------------------

What is the biblical support for C, and what is the significance?

What is the biblical support for B, and what is the significance?

Joel
Excellent presentation, my Peacemaker friend!
:thpeace_dove_olive_
The challenge I have when thinking of a future Temple in Jerusalem is to understand what Biblical significance it could have.

Is there any way it could be a sanctified House of God?

Would God sanctify it and call it "My Holy House"?

I don't see how that could be possible if it was built by unbelievers who reject the truth of God revealed in His Son. How do you understand this?

And if the Temple is not sanctified, what meaning could there be to its desolation?

Richard

[Rose]

Rose, is this an accurate representation of your questions?

A............B.................................... ..............C

A=Cross of
Christ

B=Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple (70 A.D.)

C=Rebuilt Temple (hypothetical future event)

---------------------------------------------------------

Timeline;

A occurred as the pivotal point in Christian history. Central point
of Biblical prophecy, substantiated in Gospel writings, and letters of
Apostles.

B occurred in 70 A.D. as recorded in historical records.

C has not occurred as of 2009. But, according to some Christians will
occur in the future.

--------------------------------------------------------

What is the biblical support for C, and what is the significance?

What is the biblical support for B, and what is the significance?

Joel

Hey there Joel, :yo:

Thanks for the response.....:signthankspin:

I think you pretty much got it, but the point I really want to emphasize in my question is: what was the significance of Jesus mentioning the destruction of the 1st century Temple, if there was to be another future destruction after another Temple was re-built?

Many blessings to you,

Rose

[joel]

[QUOTE=Rose][the point I really want to emphasize in my question is: what was the significance of Jesus mentioning the destruction of the 1st century Temple, if there was to be another future destruction after another Temple was re-built?
/QUOTE]

Thanks for zero-ing in.......

1.) I think we would all agree that He was referring to His body........using the Temple as a word-picture.

joel

[Rose]

the point I really want to emphasize in my question is: what was the significance of Jesus mentioning the destruction of the 1st century Temple, if there was to be another future destruction after another Temple was re-built?


Thanks for zero-ing in.......

1.) I think we would all agree that He was referring to His body........using the Temple as a word-picture.

joel

What I meant was....when Jesus spoke of the literal stones of the 1st century Temple that He was standing by coming down. What was the significance of Jesus making mention of that event in reply to the Disciples question of "when shall these things be?".

Rose

[joel]

Mark 13:1-4 (King James Version)

Mark 13
1And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

4Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

--------------------------------------------------------

Rose, is this the section that you are focusing on?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

the point I really want to emphasize in my question is: what was the significance of Jesus mentioning the destruction of the 1st century Temple, if there was to be another future destruction after another Temple was re-built?


Thanks for zero-ing in.......

1.) I think we would all agree that He was referring to His body........using the Temple as a word-picture.

joel
Hey Joel,

I think we all agree that Jesus was talking about His Body in John 2 since that is what the Scripture states:
John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 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.
But it seems equally clear that he was talking about the literal Temple made of stones in the Olivet Discourse, since He specifically stated that all its stones would be thrown down:

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the [literal] temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the [literal] temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
You don't think He was talking about the "stones" of His "body" being thrown down, do you?

Richard

[DaveO]

If, as many Futurists believe there is to be a future temple re-built on the temple mount.....what was the significance of the destruction of the 1st century Temple, and why did Jesus make mention of its desolation?

Thank you in advance for your answers.... Rose

Hello Rose. As you can see I'm new here.

Let me begin to answer you Rose by first asking you a question:

From the "futurist" point of view what Biblical figure do you suppose would have the most to gain by the temple being rebuilt?

[Rose]

Mark 13:1-4 (King James Version)

Mark 13
1And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

4Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

--------------------------------------------------------

Rose, is this the section that you are focusing on?

Joel

Yes, :thumb:

That is the central point of my question, because before we can understand why another temple would need to be re-built, :sCo_hmmthink:we must first understand why the Temple Jesus worshiped in....came down! :prof:

Rose

[Rose]

Hello Rose. As you can see I'm new here.

Let me begin to answer you Rose by first asking you a question:

From the "futurist" point of view what Biblical figure do you suppose would have the most to gain by the temple being rebuilt?

Hello DaveO,

Welcome to the Forum....:welcome: and thank you for joining the conversation....:signthankspin:

I'm pretty sure I know what Biblical figure you're speaking of, and that would be "the man of sin". The one big problem with that is that when the Apostle Paul spoke of "the man of sin" in 2 Thess. the the Temple was still standing, and because that Temple was desecrated by Israel's apostasy, God poured out His wrath upon it....using Rome as the weapon with which to destroy Jerusalem in 70AD.

God Bless

Rose

[DaveO]

But it seems equally clear that he was talking about the literal Temple made of stones in the Olivet Discourse, since He specifically stated that all its stones would be thrown down:
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the [literal] temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the [literal] temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Richard

Of course He was talking about the literal Temple. Jesus was always and in all ways a law keeping Jew. In order for His future prophesies to be valid He was REQUIRED BY LAW (Duet 18:21-22) to also give a prophesy that would be fulfilled during the generation to which the far-off prophesies were spoken.

Does that mean other prophesies weren't fulfilled way back when? No. But it DOES mean they didn't have to be...

Which leads to an interesting (at least to me) point about the Revelation. To be a valid prophesy at least some of it had to be fulfilled in John's generation.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Of course He was talking about the literal Temple. Jesus was always and in all ways a law keeping Jew. In order for His future prophesies to be valid He was REQUIRED BY LAW (Duet 18:21-22) to also give a prophesy that would be fulfilled during the generation to which the far-off prophesies were spoken.

Does that mean other prophesies weren't fulfilled way back when? No. But it DOES mean they didn't have to be...

Which leads to an interesting (at least to me) point about the Revelation. To be a valid prophesy at least some of it had to be fulfilled in John's generation.
Hi Dave,

First, let me welcome you to our forum!

:welcome:

You have introduced a new idea I have not seen before. I think I'll need a little more explanation because I don't see anything in the law of Deuteronomy that limits how far in the future a prophecy can be. It only says that it must come to pass at the time the prophet proclaimed:
Deuteronomy 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Looking at this passage, I don't see anything that demands that a prophet must give a testable short term prophecy.

Of course, this test could not be applied until the time predicted. But that does not seem to prohibit the making of only long term prophecies.

Did I miss something here?

Again, welcome to our forum!

Richard

[DaveO]

Richard

It isn't exactly stated but it is implied, at least to my reckoning. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe all the OT prophets proved themselves with a short-term prophecy before making any far-future prophecy. Daniel definitely did. Why else would Israel take Isiah's prophecies of Messiah seriously if he hadn't proved himself first? Without that provision anyone could make some far future prophecy and people could be duped.

Think about it. How else were they (or we!) supposed to know what is or is not a true prophecy from God?

Even though the Revelation is from Jesus Christ it was still given through John so he should have needed to prove himself a true prophet.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe all the OT prophets proved themselves with a short-term prophecy before making any far-future prophecy. Daniel definitely did.

Think about it. How else were they (or we!) supposed to know what is or is not a true prophecy from God?

However since the Revelation is actually from Jesus Christ perhaps none is needed?
Hey Dave,

I agree completely that a test like Deut 18 is essential for discerning between true and false prophets. But that's not the issue at hand. You had written that it was "REQUIRED BY LAW (Duet 18:21-22) to also give a prophesy that would be fulfilled during the generation to which the far-off prophesies were spoken." I was confused by that because Deuteronomy 18 did not actually require that. Sorry, but I'm a bit of a "stickler" for sticking to what's written. :p

Now as for your argument that all the prophets of the OT always gave short-term prophecies that could be confirmed - that sounds right, but I haven't ever thought of that before, so I will have to review the OT and see if it's true.

Great chatting! You are introducing some interesting ideas.

Richard

[joel]

One thing about the discussions we have on this forum,........you never know where it may lead. That makes it fun....and exciting.

We now have a new guy, DaveO, to join in. That is good......no......that is very good.

Rose started this thread, and, she has limited the discussion to;

[QUOTE=Rose][Yes,

That is the central point of my question, because before we can understand why another temple would need to be re-built, we must first understand why the Temple Jesus worshiped in....came down!

/QUOTE]

This is Rose's first main question.

We may run down many other rabbit trails.........and our discussions may lead to other questions........but......please......please :pray:
can we stay on this question??????

Rose......you have the floor......please try to get us focused again as to what you are asking.....

Joel

[DaveO]

Actually I did answer her question. It was destroyed so Jesus could prove He was a true prophet.

Can you show me any verse that says that it CAN'T be rebuilt?

My question to Rose was to get people thinking "outside the box" if you will. Who says it is God that causes the temple to rebuilt?

Mark 13:14
'So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not' ...

Could not the abomination of desolation be the rebuilt temple itself?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose started this thread, and, she has limited the discussion to;

[quote=Rose][Yes,

That is the central point of my question, because before we can understand why another temple would need to be re-built, we must first understand why the Temple Jesus worshiped in....came down!

/QUOTE]

This is Rose's first main question.

We may run down many other rabbit trails.........and our discussions may lead to other questions........but......please......please :pray:
can we stay on this question??????

Rose......you have the floor......please try to get us focused again as to what you are asking.....

Joel
Hey Joel,

I see you are still being challenged with the quote function. I hope this explanation will help you and anyone else having this problem. Here is how it should work:



Blah blah blah ...


The reason your quote did not work is because you put the text in the wrong place like this:


[quote=RAM][Blah blah blah .../QUOTE]


Hope that helps,

Richard

[joel]

Thanks to you.....Richard, the bicylcing administative One,:biking_better:

I am so wanting to overcome these mundane, puny problems:sEm_ImSorry:

To Rose........please get us back to Square One.

Joel

[P-nut]

Rose
What I meant was....when Jesus spoke of the literal stones of the 1st century Temple that He was standing by coming down. What was the significance of Jesus making mention of that event in reply to the Disciples question of "when shall these things be?".

His disciples asked two questions:

1. When will the temple stones be torn down?

Jesus did not tell them when the present temple would be destroyed or there would be a third temple destroyed in like manner before the end of the age. This prophecy has a duel fulfillment in the first century and in the destruction of the third temple when this present age ends.

2. What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?

The sign of the Lord’s coming is the Son of Man riding on a white horse (24:30; Rev 19). When he does come, this present age of Satan as the god of the earth and man ruling over it will end and Christ begins to reign. The sign of the Son of Man and the end of the present age was not fulfilled in the first century.
There are many OT scriptures prophesying the restoration of Israel in the Millennium, Eze 37:15-28 is one of them.

Jesus spoke to his disciples on the Mount of Olives the spring (March) of 31. He spoke of the sign in the future tense; “will appear” and the earth morning; “will morn.” He spoke of sun and moon darkening and stars falling in the future tense and his coming in the future tense; “it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” To his disciples Christ had already come. There needs to be a second time he comes to fulfill these prophecies.

Herod’s temple was destroyed because the apostasy of God’s people and their rejection and crucifixion of Jesus.

Prophecy requires another temple be built, but since you are a preterist it would be futile to quote them.

[Rose]

His disciples asked two questions:

1. When will the temple stones be torn down?

Jesus did not tell them when the present temple would be destroyed or there would be a third temple destroyed in like manner before the end of the age. This prophecy has a duel fulfillment in the first century and in the destruction of the third temple when this present age ends.

Hi P-nut,

You are correct, Jesus did not tell the disciples when the Temple would be destroyed, but we know it was in 70AD. There is nothing that speaks of a another temple being rebuilt after the one of the 1st century was destroyed. There is also nothing that would imply a duel fulfillment as you said: "one in the 1st century, and one when the "third" temple is destroyed at the end of this age".



Herod’s temple was destroyed because the apostasy of God’s people and their rejection and crucifixion of Jesus.

Prophecy requires another temple be built, but since you are a preterist it would be futile to quote them.

I agree, Herod's Temple was destroyed because of the apostasy of Israel, but please quote the Scriptures that you speak of, that require another temple to be built and destroyed.....that is why I asked the question, I want to understand why Futurists think there needs to be another temple built, but please quote me Scripture, no speculation....:signthankspin:

God Bless

Rose

[CWH]

Hi all,

To answer Rose question of why the Temple of Herod was destroy, we need also to understand why the first temple (of Ezekiel) was also destroyed. There is also no reason why a third temple cannot be re-build so as to fulfill the prophesy of the Antichrist coming to desolate it. Excerpt from this website in wiki:

The Talmud (Yoma 9b) provides theological reasons for the destruction: Why was the first Temple destroyed? Because the three cardinal sins were rampant in society: idol worship, licentiousness, and murder… And why then was the second Temple – wherein the society was involved in Torah, commandments and acts of kindness – destroyed? Because gratuitous hatred was rampant in society. This teaches that gratuitous hatred is equal in severity to the three cardinal sins: idol worship, licentiousness, and murder.[9]

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem


Many Blessings to all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Prophecy requires another temple be built, but since you are a preterist it would be futile to quote them.
Hey P-nut,

That last line is absurd. Pretersts beat futurists a thousand to one on quoting Scripture to support their position because the plain meaning of the plain text is preterist. It's fine if you want to claim that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says, but you can not deny that it says the end-time events were going to happen "soon" for the "time is at hand" and the "judge is at the door" and "it IS (in the first century) the last hour." If these facts are not admited as a starting point, then there can be no discussion because you would not be talking about what the Bible actually states.

And there are two other problems with your assertion. 1) It is just plain rude, and 2) It appears to be an excuse to hide the fact that you can not support your position on Scripture.


Richard

[Rose]

Actually I did answer her question. It was destroyed so Jesus could prove He was a true prophet.

Can you show me any verse that says that it CAN'T be rebuilt?


Hi DaveO,


I never said the Temple couldn't be rebuilt, but that is pure speculation and if we choose to go that route the sky is the limit as far as what can be speculated. We all know the bookstores are full of books that speculate about the "end times". We need to build on a solid foundation of Scripture, not the sands of speculation.


My question to Rose was to get people thinking "outside the box" if you will. Who says it is God that causes the temple to rebuilt?

Mark 13:14
'So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not' ...

Could not the abomination of desolation be the rebuilt temple itself?

I like your idea of getting people to think outside the box, I have gotten many insights from doing that very thing.

Now to your question about the "abomination of desolation" being the future rebuilt temple....the reason that doesn't work for me is because there was already an abomination that caused the 1st century Temple to be desolated. If you are at all familiar with the writings of Josephus, he states in numerous places in his "Wars of the Jews" where the Jews themselves polluted their own temple by slaughtering not only Romans but their very own country men in the Temple. They were the abomination that lead to the desolation of the Temple. Here's an example of what I mean.
Book VI 2:4 And what do you do now, you pernicious villains? Why do you trample upon dead bodies in this temple? and why do you pollute this holy house with the blood of both foreigners and Jews themselves? I appeal to the gods of my own country, and to every god that ever had any regard to this place; (for I do not suppose it to be now regarded by any of them I also appeal to my own army, and to those Jews that are now with me, and even to yourselves, that I do not force you to defile this your sanctuary;

God Bless

Rose

[P-nut]

Hey Ram, you'll have to wait for the rebuilding of the temple on the Temple Mount just north of the Dome. Patience man, it's a coming.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Ram, you'll have to wait for the rebuilding of the temple on the Temple Mount just north of the Dome. Patience man, it's a coming.
Well, before I start waiting, maybe you could present some real Biblical evidence that I should expect such a thing.

Thanks!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Actually I did answer her question. It was destroyed so Jesus could prove He was a true prophet.

Hey DaveO, :yo:

I agree that the 70 AD destruction was an extremely powerful vindication of Christ as a prophet, but I'm pretty sure that's not the only reason it was destroyed. Indeed, Christ explained why it was destroyed:


Matthew 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Luke 21:20-22 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
The Temple was destroyed because it had been desecrated by apostate Jews who killed Christ and were "contrary" to God in every way.

And there is another reason too - the Old Jerusalem had to die to make place for the New Jerusalem. Good insight to this is found in Galatians 4.




Can you show me any verse that says that it CAN'T be rebuilt?

It is not the job of the Bible student to prove what "can't" happen. Our job is to articulate the truth revealed in the Bible. It is wrong to base doctrines on speculation.



My question to Rose was to get people thinking "outside the box" if you will. Who says it is God that causes the temple to rebuilt?

Mark 13:14
'So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not' ...

Could not the abomination of desolation be the rebuilt temple itself?
Now that is an interesting way to look at it. I agree completely that it would be a true abomination if the Jews built a Temple and began sacrificing animals again. But we know it would not be the "Abomination of Desolation" that Christ spoke of because it would have nothing to do with the true House of God that has already been desolated.

How could there be any Biblical significance to the destruction of an unsanctified pile of rocks?

Richard

[DaveO]

It is not the job of the Bible student to prove what "can't" happen. Our job is to articulate the truth revealed in the Bible. It is wrong to base doctrines on speculation.

But that is what you do! ALL prophecy interpretation involves some speculating.

Who says that a new temple couldn't be sanctified? The laws to do so are still in force because Jesus said so.


Matthew 5:18
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Has Heaven and earth passed away? Nope!



2 Peter 3


6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

BTW that was real WET water. Not "spiritual" or invisible water but actual h2o.


7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.... 10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

That's right! Just like the water was real wet h2o, so will it be real HOT BURNING fire! :sFi_flamethrower: NOT "spiritual" fire burning "spiritual" elements. That's our heavens and earth, stars, planets, galaxies and EVERYTHING. BANG! Poof. Gone. Replaced. That passage has NOTHING to do with some little fires in Jerusalem in 70 AD. It means what it says.

Has that happened yet? NOPE!!! But it's going to.

Honestly I need go no further to show that the preterist view so many here cling to is found wanting. Oh I have no doubt that you will try to "spiritualize" the above but try as you will those passages are literal and any attempt to say different is both foolish and grossly errant.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is not the job of the Bible student to prove what "can't" happen. Our job is to articulate the truth revealed in the Bible. It is wrong to base doctrines on speculation.

But that is what you do! ALL prophecy interpretation involves some speculating.

Hey there DaveO!

I agree that any discussion of prophecy will involve some speculation if we attempt to answer every question. But that's not what I am talking about when I say we should not speculate. I very specifically stated that it is wrong to base doctrines on speculation. But you are new here so you may not be aware of the high standard that I require before any doctrine is accepted as "Biblical." I call this standard the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics (http://www.biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.asp), and state it as follows:
The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics
Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:
Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.
This is an amazingly powerful principle. Its application creates firestorm that immediately consumes the dry brush of two millennia of human inventions and speculations about the Bible. No false doctrine can withstand its blazing heat. It utterly devours every false teaching. It purifies all doctrines of Scripture.

So that's my standard. Can your doctrines endure such a fire?



Who says that a new temple couldn't be sanctified? The laws to do so are still in force because Jesus said so.
Matthew 5:18
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.Has Heaven and earth passed away? Nope!

The meaning of that verse may not be what you assume it to be. Your assertion that the first covenant law is "still in force" directly contradicts the Book of Hebrews:
Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
By your interpretation of Matthew 5:18 there was no "change in the law." But the Bible says there was. Therefore, you will need to explain how your interpretation fits with these other verses. Simply stated, you have some serious homework to do before making such broad and sweeping statements. And while you are researching this, please be sure to study what God meant when He said that the First Covenant of which Christ spoke in Matthew 5:18 "decayeth and waxeth old" and was "ready to vanish away."



2 Peter 3
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:BTW that was real WET water. Not "spiritual" or invisible water but actual h2o.

Correct. Natural water is wet. But you must remember also that God has taught us a very important truth - first the natural, then the spiritual:
1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
This is a fundamental truth that God used throughout the Bible. The literal Temple of the OT was "raised" to be a spiritual Temple in the NT. God contrasts the literal Jerusalem with the heavenly Jerusalem in Galatians 4. A failure to understand this fundamental Biblical truth would make it impossible to understand the real meaning of God's Word.



7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. [/b][/color] 10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.That's right! Just like the water was real wet h2o, so will it be real HOT BURNING fire! :sFi_flamethrower: NOT "spiritual" fire burning "spiritual" elements. That's our heavens and earth, stars, planets, galaxies and EVERYTHING. BANG! Poof. Gone. Replaced. That passage has NOTHING to do with some little fires in Jerusalem in 70 AD. It means what it says.

Has that happened yet? NOPE!!! But it's going to.

Dave, you've made a HUGE mistake here. You are responding to things that have not been stated (as far as I know) in this forum. If you want to dispute someone's beliefs, you need to begin by quoting what that person actually wrote.



Honestly I need go no further to show that the preterist view so many here cling to is found wanting. Oh I have no doubt that you will try to "spiritualize" the above but try as you will those passages are literal and any attempt to say different is both foolish and grossly errant.
On the contrary, you have not yet touched any of the assertions that any of the preterists in this forum have presented.

You have a lot of homework to do if you want to dispute us here. If we are wrong on any point your correction from the Bible will be received with great appreciation. But shooting at imaginary preterist errors that have not been asserted in this forum is a meaningless waste of time. You should ask what we believe before passing judgment. After all, that is what Scripture teaches, does it not?
Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

John 7:50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) 51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
I very much look forward to discussing these important matters with you after you have properly prepared yourself.

All the best,

Richard

[DaveO]

Can your doctrines endure such a fire?

Absolutely and probably better than yours Richard.


The meaning of that verse may not be what you assume it to be. Your assertion that the first covenant law is "still in force" directly contradicts the Book of Hebrews:

No It doesn't. Those new laws will be in effect AFTER heaven and earth have passed away (exactly like Jesus said) and/or our High Priest and King is physically in His body reigning on earth on the throne of David (which was never a "spiritual" throne and was NEVER anywhere but in the physical city of Jerusalem). He isn't here yet and the "heavens and the earth, which are now,... reserved unto fire" still are here so the "old" law still applies.


Simply stated, you have some serious homework to do before making such broad and sweeping statements.

Right back at ya my friend.


But you must remember also that God has taught us a very important truth - first the natural, then the spiritual:

Yes. I'm very well acquainted with that concept. I assure you I'm not a Bible newbie.


The literal Temple of the OT was "raised" to be a spiritual Temple in the NT

Could you share your three "witnesses" to this assertion?


On the contrary, you have not yet touched any of the assertions that any of the preterists in this forum have presented.


Yes I did. I proved with one simple scripture that all prophesy has most definitely NOT been fulfilled.


I very much look forward to discussing these important matters with you after you have properly prepared yourself.

Thanks, but honestly I am more than prepared. I had spent many weeks simply reading the posts on this forum a few months back.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?...

Be careful lest some of that apply to you also....

Richard, God isn't finished with His creation by a long shot. And Christ isn't finished with this present earth either.

Cheers!

DaveO

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Dave - oh!

:tea:

It looks like we may be in for a very fruitful discussion. I certainly pray :pray: it will be so!




Can your doctrines endure such a fire?
Absolutely and probably better than yours Richard.

That is precisely what is to be determined! :D




The meaning of that verse may not be what you assume it to be. Your assertion that the first covenant law is "still in force" directly contradicts the Book of Hebrews:
No It doesn't. Those new laws will be in effect AFTER heaven and earth have passed away (exactly like Jesus said) and/or our High Priest and King is physically in His body reigning on earth on the throne of David (which was never a "spiritual" throne and was NEVER anywhere but in the physical city of Jerusalem). He isn't here yet and the "heavens and the earth, which are now,... reserved unto fire" still are here so the "old" law still applies.

It seems to me that there are HUGE problems with your interpretation. Here are the first five that leap from the top of my mind:
Where does the Bible state that "Those new laws will be in effect AFTER heaven and earth have passed away"?
Where does the Bible state that that "those new laws" will not be in effect until Christ "is physically in His body reigning on earth"?
Your theory seems to contradict the fact that Christ is our King and eternal High Priest NOW. Indeed, He is King of Kings! How would a carnal throne made of stone amplify that?
Your theory seems to contradict the fact that the Old Law was annulled when Christ the Testator died - "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Hebrews 9:17).
Your theory seems to contradict that the New Testament was ratified and became effective by the blood of Christ.And there are many more serious problems but there is no need to list them all now. You have begun your presentation way up in the sky far away from the Biblical foundation. I have no idea what you believe or why - you seem to be contradicting the entire meaning of the New Testament. Your theories make no sense to me and I doubt they would have made any sense to the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived.

There is only one way we will be able to discern the truth between such radically differing views of Scripture. We need to establish the foundation of our doctrines on what the Bible plainly teaches.





But you must remember also that God has taught us a very important truth - first the natural, then the spiritual:

Yes. I'm very well acquainted with that concept. I assure you I'm not a Bible newbie.

Great! But then I don't understand why you mock "spiritualizing" if you understand that God has emphatically taught us to read His Word that way.





The literal Temple of the OT was "raised" to be a spiritual Temple in the NT

Could you share your three "witnesses" to this assertion?

Certainly! But first I need to be sure you understood what I meant when put "raised" in quotes. I was intending for you to understand it meant "raised" from a literal to a spiritual understanding.

With that understanding, here are the verses that establish this as a Biblical fact. Let me begin with two OT prophecies that many folks misinterpret as literal:
Leviticus 26:11 And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. 12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
Ezekiel 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.These verses are fulfilled in the Church:
2 Corinthians 6:16-17 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said [indicating the fulfillment of OT prophecy], I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Hebrews 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Hebrews 12:21-24 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake) 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.I could go on and on. There are countless witnesses that the OT prophecies concerning the prophetic Temple in which God would dwell were fulfilled in the Church.





On the contrary, you have not yet touched any of the assertions that any of the preterists in this forum have presented.

Yes I did. I proved with one simple scripture that all prophesy has most definitely NOT been fulfilled.

I think you are confusing "proof" with "assertion." You proved nothing. You merely stated your opinion.



Thanks, but honestly I am more than prepared. I had spent many weeks simply reading the posts on this forum a few months back.

Then why are you arguing against things that have never been stated in this forum?



2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?...

Be careful lest some of that apply to you also....

:hysterical:

Peter was writing to first century Christians concerning folks (such as unbelieving Jews who harassed them frequently) who were scoffing because the Day of Judgment had not come upon apostate Jerusalem. I can assure you that their scoffing ended in 70 AD.

Also, you comment was very RUDE. :mad: If you had really read the threads in this forum then you would KNOW that I have never scoffed about His Coming! On the contrary, I proclaim that His Coming in judgment in 70 AD is the greatest proof of the truth of His prophetic Word. It is the futurists who destroy the testimony of the fulfillment of God's Word and so destroy the faith of millions by twisting Scripture beyond the limits of all rationality when they simultaneously assert that "soon" means 2000+ years and Jesus is coming "soon" because the Bible says so! It's all anti-Biblical madness.



Richard, God isn't finished with His creation by a long shot. And Christ isn't finished with this present earth either.

Cheers!

DaveO
I never said God was finished with His creation. Again, you are making assertions that have nothing to do with anything I have written. Are you sure it was this forum that you spent all the time reading? From your comments I get the impression you have no idea whatsoever about what I believe or why.

Well ... let's get our feet on the BEDROCK FOUNDATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, shall we?

No more speculation. No more unfounded theories. Let's restrict ourselves to what the Bible actually teaches. OK? Please?

Great!

Thanks,

Richard

[DaveO]

Hello Richard!

First I should state my beliefs so that you know the foundation of my faith.

I believe in my heart that Jesus Christ is God and that He died on a cross, was buried and God raised Him up on the third day. I have confessed this with my mouth. Salvation is by faith + nothing and that sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit. I believe that good works cannot help but spring naturally from this sanctification and serve as proof to myself and others that my faith is genuine and also that God will get the glory for any rewards that may come from my works. There will be no boasting in heaven.

This is getting off topic so I'm going to start a new thread called

DaveO and Richard reason together. :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard!

First I should state my beliefs so that you know the foundation of my faith.

I believe in my heart that Jesus Christ is God and that He died on a cross, was buried and God raised Him up on the third day. I have confessed this with my mouth. Salvation is by faith + nothing and that sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit. I believe that good works cannot help but spring naturally from this sanctification and serve as proof to myself and others that my faith is genuine and also that God will get the glory for any rewards that may come from my works. There will be no boasting in heaven.

This is getting off topic so I'm going to start a new thread called

DaveO and Richard reason together. :thumb:
Hey there my brother!

Thank you for stating the foundation of your faith. It is identical to mine! We are brothers in the Lord! :woohoo:

I think your idea of a new thread is excellent. We can sit peaceably together to discuss what the Bible really says with much grace and mutual respect:

:talk002:

Perhaps the most important thing is to never make assumptions about what the other believes, but only respond to what each other has explicitly stated. Does that sound like a good idea?

Many blessings to you in Christ our Lord,

Richard

PS: I just changed your status from "New Members" to "Registered Users" which means you can now start your own threads.

[joel]

Rose, please provide a clarification concerning a previous post where you indicated that Paul, II Thessalonians 2:1-5, since the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Paul wrote to them, that he was talking of the Temple destroyed in 70 A.D.?

Joel

[Rose]

Rose, please provide a clarification concerning a previous post where you indicated that Paul, II Thessalonians 2:1-5, since the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Paul wrote to them, that he was talking of the Temple destroyed in 70 A.D.?

Joel

Hi Joel,

Thanks for the follow-up question... :signthankspin:
2 Thess. 1:2-4 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Temple of God that Paul was referring to can be none other then Herod's Temple. That was the only "Temple of God" existing at that time, and even if a temple were to be rebuilt today on the Temple Mt. in Israel, it would not be "the Temple of God". That Temple was destroyed in 70AD and there will never be another temple of stone sanctified by God....the body of Christ is now the living temples of God.

God Bless

Rose

[joel]

Hi Joel,

Thanks for the follow-up question... :signthankspin:
2 Thess. 1:2-4 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Temple of God that Paul was referring to can be none other then Herod's Temple. That was the only "Temple of God" existing at that time, and even if a temple were to be rebuilt today on the Temple Mt. in Israel, it would not be "the Temple of God". That Temple was destroyed in 70AD and there will never be another temple of stone sanctified by God....the body of Christ is now the living temples of God.

God Bless

Rose

Just so we can be clear, then, it is your belief that;

1.) the falling away occurred at that time, (vs. 3),
2.) the man of sin revealed, (vs. 3),
3.) son of perdition (man of sin) opposes and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, (vs. 4),
4.) he (the son of perdition, the man of sin), as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

.....all of these events also occurred at that time (70 A.D.)?

Joel

[Rose]

Just so we can be clear, then, it is your belief that;

1.) the falling away occurred at that time, (vs. 3),
2.) the man of sin revealed, (vs. 3),
3.) son of perdition (man of sin) opposes and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, (vs. 4),
4.) he (the son of perdition, the man of sin), as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

.....all of these events also occurred at that time (70 A.D.)?

Joel

Yes, the only time that those events could have happened was while the Temple of God was still standing....there can never be another Temple of God made of stone. We only have one option, and that is the events that Paul was speaking of occurred while the Temple of God was still standing.

Rose

[joel]

Then, Rose, that must all mean that the Day of Christ has already arrived?

Joel

[DaveO]

there will never be another temple of stone sanctified by God....the body of Christ is now the living temples of God.

Why not?


Romans 11:
19 You will say then, 'Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.' 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

When the Word of God says "if" one really needs to pay attention.

There is absolutely NOTHING that prevents our "branch" from being broken off. Who knows, it may have been a near thing in the Dark Ages? It could also be closer today than any of us would like to admit. There is a very serious lack of prayer and recognition of the work of the Holy Spirit in today's churches.

So if our branch is broken off and Israel is grafted back in then what?

Of course that is pure speculation but the point is Rose, please be very careful in thinking you know for certain what can or cannot be. Our God is awesome beyond words and keeps his own council.


Somewhat related side note:

I read about a survey that was done that asked Christians if they thought the Holy Spirit was real or a concept and the vast majority said He was just a concept! (I don't remember the site or the exact %. And I couldn't verify the survey but it wouldn't surprise me because of what my own eyes see)

Here's a couple of passages I like to share with my rapture friends:


Luke 18:
8.... Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

That one is part of the parable about the importance of persistent prayer.


1 Thessalonians 4:
17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Remain what? The Greek is perileipomai. It is used only twice in the Bible both right here 1 Thess 4: 15 & 17. It means:


1) to leave over
2) to remain over, to survive

To me the Spirit says it means "remain faithful".

So for any rapture-ists that may find their way here, have a care! Clearly Christ could come and find no one to rapture!

[joel]

Rose, let's stay on task.

Please answer the question.

Joel

[Rose]

Then, Rose, that must all mean that the Day of Christ has already arrived?

Joel

Hi Joel,

Yes, The Great and illustrious Day of the Lord, that was prophesied by Joel, and confirmed by Peter at Pentecost as being upon them, indeed did arrive.

Rose

[joel]

Rose, you have been quick to reply, and probably hope to venture on to other things.......thanks.

But I still have a few items concerning our discussion that I hope you may comment on;

1.) "the coming of the Lord, and our gathering together unto Him"....(II Thess. 2:1).....when is that?

2.) the man of sin will be revealed when his time comes,......"and we know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time"...(vs. 6)......"what" is Paul referring to here?

3.) Paul says..."he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way"...(vs. 7)......is this, in your opinion, the same as 2.)?

4.) the same being (man of sin, son of perdition, that Wicked (vs. 8)....would be consumed "with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." The Lord is the one spoken of here who will be the destroying One. Are you saying that that occurred in 70 A.D. as well?

There are some more issues in that chapter of II Thessalonians but I will wait on your reply.

Joel

[Rose]

Rose, you have been quick to reply, and probably hope to venture on to other things.......thanks.

But I still have a few items concerning our discussion that I hope you may comment on;

1.) "the coming of the Lord, and our gathering together unto Him"....(II Thess. 2:1).....when is that?

2.) the man of sin will be revealed when his time comes,......"and we know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time"...(vs. 6)......"what" is Paul referring to here?

3.) Paul says..."he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way"...(vs. 7)......is this, in your opinion, the same as 2.)?

4.) the same being (man of sin, son of perdition, that Wicked (vs. 8)....would be consumed "with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." The Lord is the one spoken of here who will be the destroying One. Are you saying that that occurred in 70 A.D. as well?

There are some more issues in that chapter of II Thessalonians but I will wait on your reply.

Joel

Hi Joel,

I don't have much time this morning so I will just answer your first question.

1.) "the coming of the Lord, and our gathering together unto Him"....(II Thess. 2:1).....when is that?

First I will go to the parallel verse of 2 Thess.2:1 to give a better understanding of what I think is really being said concerning "the rapture".
1 Cor. 15:52-54 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on (enduo) incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on (enduo) incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

The Greek word enduo means to put something on like an article of clothing, or a garment. It is the same word used for the enduing of power of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 29:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued (enduo) with power from on high.

From that context, my interpretation of what is being said is: The change that Paul speaks of taking place at the last trump, is the putting on of our heavenly house that he is desiring to be clothed with.
2 Cor. 5:1-3 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed (enduo) upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed (enduo) we shall not be found naked.

Many blessing to you,

Rose

[joel]

Hi Joel,

I don't have much time this morning so I will just answer your first question.

1.) "the coming of the Lord, and our gathering together unto Him"....(II Thess. 2:1).....when is that?

First I will go to the parallel verse of 2 Thess.2:1 to give a better understanding of what I think is really being said concerning "the rapture".
1 Cor. 15:52-54 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on (enduo) incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on (enduo) incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

The Greek word enduo means to put something on like an article of clothing, or a garment. It is the same word used for the enduing of power of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 29:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued (enduo) with power from on high.

From that context, my interpretation of what is being said is: The change that Paul speaks of taking place at the last trump, is the putting on of our heavenly house that he is desiring to be clothed with.
2 Cor. 5:1-3 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed (enduo) upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed (enduo) we shall not be found naked.

Many blessing to you,

Rose

---------------------------------------------------

I did not use the word, "rapture". That is a very loaded word, full of a multitude of opportunities for misconception, misunderstanding, etc.

Without going to a parallel verse, for the meantime, can we focus on the word that is used in the verse;

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (Young's Literal Translation)

2 Thessalonians 2
1And we ask you, brethren, in regard to the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him,


"Our gathering together unto him".........

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,


Verse # = 29663 | Words = 17 | Letters = 88
Data from Strong's Concordance
KJV Greek Strong's # Value
Now δε G1161 de 9
we beseech ερωταω G2065 erotao 2006
you, υμας G5209 humas 641
brethren, αδελφος G0080 adelphos 810
by υπερ G5228 huper 585
the coming παρουσια G3952 parousia 862
of our ημων G2257 hemon 898
Lord κυριος G2962 kurios 800
Jesus Ιησους G2424 Iesous 888
Christ, Χριστος G5547 Christos 1480
and και G2532 kai 31
[by] our ημων G2257 hemon 898
gathering together επισυναγωγη G1997 episunagoge 1560
unto επι G1909 epi 95
him, αυτος G0846 autos 971


επισυναγωγης 1760
επ 85
αυτον 821

-----------------------------------------------------

Wow! That's the first time I used Richard's Database to copy and bring forward!

When, in your opinion, is the "episunagoge" (a gathering together unto Him) going to take place?

Joel:peep:

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Rose http://biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14399#post14399)
Hi Joel,

I don't have much time this morning so I will just answer your first question.

1.) "the coming of the Lord, and our gathering together unto Him"....(II Thess. 2:1).....when is that?

First I will go to the parallel verse of 2 Thess.2:1 to give a better understanding of what I think is really being said concerning "the rapture".
1 Cor. 15:52-54 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on (enduo) incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on (enduo) incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

The Greek word enduo means to put something on like an article of clothing, or a garment. It is the same word used for the enduing of power of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 29:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued (enduo) with power from on high.

From that context, my interpretation of what is being said is: The change that Paul speaks of taking place at the last trump, is the putting on of our heavenly house that he is desiring to be clothed with.
2 Cor. 5:1-3 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed (enduo) upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed (enduo) we shall not be found naked.

Many blessing to you,

Rose---------------------------------------------------

I did not use the word, "rapture". That is a very loaded word, full of a multitude of opportunities for misconception, misunderstanding, etc.

Without going to a parallel verse, for the meantime, can we focus on the word that is used in the verse;

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (Young's Literal Translation)

2 Thessalonians 2
1And we ask you, brethren, in regard to the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him,


"Our gathering together unto him".........

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,


Verse # = 29663 | Words = 17 | Letters = 88
Data from Strong's Concordance
KJV Greek Strong's # Value
Now δε G1161 de 9
we beseech ερωταω G2065 erotao 2006
you, υμας G5209 humas 641
brethren, αδελφος G0080 adelphos 810
by υπερ G5228 huper 585
the coming παρουσια G3952 parousia 862
of our ημων G2257 hemon 898
Lord κυριος G2962 kurios 800
Jesus Ιησους G2424 Iesous 888
Christ, Χριστος G5547 Christos 1480
and και G2532 kai 31
our ημων G2257 hemon 898
gathering together επισυναγωγη G1997 episunagoge 1560
unto επι G1909 epi 95
him, αυτος G0846 autos 971


επισυναγωγης 1760
επ 85
αυτον 821

-----------------------------------------------------

Wow! That's the first time I used Richard's Database to copy and bring forward!

When, in your opinion, is the "episunagoge" (a gathering together unto Him) going to take place?

Joel:peep:

No need to hide Joel, it's safe to come out....:lol:

Isn't Richard's Database great! :specool: I use it all the time....:D

The reason I went to the parallel verse in 1 Cor. 15, is because 1 Thess. 4:16-17 is a difficult verse to interpret on its own without some background as to the usage of Paul's words, so I wanted to establish a foundation for what I believe those verses to mean.

Now to the verse at hand:
1 Thess. 4:1 And we ask you, brethren, in regard to the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of [B]our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

My understanding of Paul's meaning in this verse is to reassure the brethren that the "coming" or presence of the Lord, which Paul referred to in other places as the "epiphany" of Christ, or the "manifestation" of Christ, had not happened yet, but when Christ does make His presence known the brethren will be gathered together as one in Christ (meaning as a united body).

In my opinion, the gathering together unto Christ happened when the Old was completely vanished away and the New Jerusalem, which is the body of Christ was fully ushered in. The time frame for that was 70AD, when the Temple was completely destroyed, and the Old was found no more! At that point all believers were gathered together in Christ as part of the New Jerusalem, of which Christ is the Temple and the Light.
Rev. 21:22-23 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Now, forevermore all believers are one with Christ, which is the New Jerusalem.
Rose

[joel]

επισυναγωγη episunagoge {ep-ee-soon-ag-o-gay'} from 1996; TDNT - 7:841,1107; n f AV - gathering together 1, assembling together 1; 2 1) a gathering together in one place 2) the (religious) assembly (of Christians)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rose, isn't "episunagoge" a noun, meaning "a gathering together in one place"?

It is a literal gathering, not a figurative gathering.

The Day of Christ, and the gathering together of believers, seem to me to occur at the same time, at the same place.

And you are saying that the simultaneous event has already occurred in 70 A.D.

Paul's word of caution concerning this is very clear....."be not shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
---------------------------------------------------------

1..........2,3...........4

In this simple figure, let 1 = cross of Christ, 2,3 = a falling away, and the revelation of the man of sin.........4 = the day of Christ.

Since you are asserting that 4 has already occurred, please provide scriptural support for that. I ask you not to venture out into any historical record as if it were proof because Paul warned against that.

Paul said....."the day (the Day of Christ)...shall not come, except......(2,3)....occur first.

Please tell me when that occurred, and provide scripture. Thanks, Joel

[Rose]

επισυναγωγη episunagoge {ep-ee-soon-ag-o-gay'} from 1996; TDNT - 7:841,1107; n f AV - gathering together 1, assembling together 1; 2 1) a gathering together in one place 2) the (religious) assembly (of Christians)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rose, isn't "episunagoge" a noun, meaning "a gathering together in one place"?

It is a literal gathering, not a figurative gathering.

The Day of Christ, and the gathering together of believers, seem to me to occur at the same time, at the same place.

And you are saying that the simultaneous event has already occurred in 70 A.D.

Paul's word of caution concerning this is very clear....."be not shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
---------------------------------------------------------

1..........2,3...........4

In this simple figure, let 1 = cross of Christ, 2,3 = a falling away, and the revelation of the man of sin.........4 = the day of Christ.

Since you are asserting that 4 has already occurred, please provide scriptural support for that. I ask you not to venture out into any historical record as if it were proof because Paul warned against that.

Paul said....."the day (the Day of Christ)...shall not come, except......(2,3)....occur first.

Please tell me when that occurred, and provide scripture. Thanks, Joel

Hi Joel,

The problem with what your asking Joel, is the time frame of the Bible. Paul's last Epistle, 2Timothy was written no latter than probably 67AD, so the prophecies of Paul concerning the "man of sin" did not happen while he was alive. That leaves us with no choice, but to try and discern from historical records if those events happened. A good example is the destruction of the Temple: Jesus prophesied it would happen, but it's not recorded in the Bible though we know for historical records that the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

From the historical record of when the Temple was destroyed, we know that the "man of sin", (the desecration of the Temple) had to have occurred before its destruction.

1).....> 2).....> 3) has now been established as having happened before the Temple's destruction.....all that is left is 4)....the Day of the Lord, which of course cannot be verified as happening from either the Bible or from historical records. So now we need to ask the question if "the Day of the Lord" which was intimately connected with the previous 3 events would be left hanging unfulfilled..........? And what exactly do we expect the Day of the Lord to be like?

Rose

[joel]

Rose,
Based on II Thessalonians 2:1.......the Day of Christ is mentioned along with "our gathering together unto Him."

We have not been gathered together unto Him.
Isn't it self-evident that the Day of Christ has not occurred?

Joel

[Rose]

Rose,
Based on II Thessalonians 2:1.......the Day of Christ is mentioned along with "our gathering together unto Him."

We have not been gathered together unto Him.
Isn't it self-evident that the Day of Christ has not occurred?

Joel

Hi Joel,

Why would you say "We have not been gathered together unto Him"? Are we not all counted together as the body of Christ? And is that not why the Old had to be done away with so it would not be a point of division for Gods people of whether or not to keep the Law, for while the Temple still stood the tendency of the believing Jews would have been to try and keep the Law, while being faithful to Christ.
Rom. 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth (the Temple stood), she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead (the Temple destroyed), she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man (married to Christ).
The Day of the Lord occurred when the Old was fully done away with and all believers were gathered together in Christ as one unified body.

Rose

[gregoryfl]

Remembering audience relevance, I believe that those believers back then did indeed get gathered to him, just as he promised. For us to read someone elses mail, namely, the letter written to the Thessalonians, and claim that the "we" must include us, is not respecting audience relevance.

I know it is not the popular view, but having read a 158 page book called "Expectations Demand A First Century Rapture" by Edward Stevens, I have become convinced that there was indeed a literal gathering together to the Lord in the sky when he came, which explains to me why just after that in subsequent writings, we have such a shift in what we read by those who wrote in the 2nd century and on.

Ron

[Brother Les]

This is something I've wondered about for some time, and I'm hoping there is someone out there in Forum land who can answer my question.

If, as many Futurists believe there is to be a future temple re-built on the temple mount.....what was the significance of the destruction of the 1st century Temple, and why did Jesus make mention of its desolation?

Thank you in advance for your answers....

Rose


The answer to your question can be found in Hebrews 9:8-9

[[YLT Heb 8the Holy Spirit this evidencing that not yet hath been manifested the way of the holy [places], the first tabernacle having yet a standing;

9which [is] a simile in regard to the present time, in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which are not able, in regard to conscience, to make perfect him who is serving, ]]


The Mosaic Temple Cultus marriage agreement was still in full effect with its' Blessings and Curses. (ie.) as long as the Temple was standing it "Had Standing" for Judah. God/Jesus were no longer 'Married' to OC,OT Israel as her Husband for she hand 'Killed' Him (but she still declared in Rev. "I am no Widow"). But by Him (Jesus/God) being 'Dead' to that covenant did not make 'Her' 'Dead' (or Free) from the Covenant until all the terms of the Mosaic Covenant were Fulfilled. (ie.) As long as The Temple stood the Jewish Nation were obligated to Worship there. 'Gentiles' were never 'under' the Law of stone and Paul would not let the come under 'The Law'.... but Jews were still under the terms of 'The Law'... The Jerusalem Church knew that and Worshiped and taught about Jesus until just shortly before Jerusalem was surrounded by the army of Titus.

But what about 'The Way to the Holy of Holies' that the verse states? We should understand that The Promises to The Fathers was the Resurrection (Rising Up)of The Dead from Sheol. No man had come to the Father (Holy of Holies/Heaven) before Jesus and no one had still gone to 'Heaven' by the time of the writing of Hebrews 9. The Holy of Holies was still Closed and OC,OT Elect were still 'Dead' in Sheol. That would change when 'The Temple' with all that it represents came crashing down. That would be the End of The Ages when Dead and Hell are/were thrown in The Lake of Fire (Gods Glory)


Brother Les

[joel]

Brother Les;

You use an expression that I cannot find in scripture;

"The Mosaic Temple Cultus marriage agreement".....what exactly is it.....and,......where exactly do you find that?

Please be specific as I assume that you are using a term that cannot be tied to any Hebrew or Greek words and/or phrases in the scripture.

Joel

[Brother Les]

Brother Les;

You use an expression that I cannot find in scripture;

"The Mosaic Temple Cultus marriage agreement".....what exactly is it.....and,......where exactly do you find that?

Please be specific as I assume that you are using a term that cannot be tied to any Hebrew or Greek words and/or phrases in the scripture.

Joel__________________

It's called The Law of Moses and its' counter part is The Prophets.

ie. "The Law AND Prophets shall not pass until ALL is fulfilled.



Brother Les

[joel]

Brother Les......I was askiing you to give me a specific reference......if you use a phrase that I am not familiar, and, it is used in the scripture,.......if I can look at it on my own, then......I may understand what the term means.

It is like........Logos........what is that? It is the Greek word for "word" The logos of God.......the word of God.....is the expression that you use found in the Logos of God? The answer is either......yes....or.....no.

If it is "yes"....where do you find the words......that you used to convey an idea?

Joel

[Brother Les]

by Joel
Brother Les......I was askiing you to give me a specific reference......if you use a phrase that I am not familiar, and, it is used in the scripture,.......if I can look at it on my own, then......I may understand what the term means.

Jer. 31:31-33

[joel]

Jeremiah 31:31-33 (King James Version)

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother Les;

You said;

"The Mosaic Temple Cultus marriage agreement was still in full effect with its' Blessings and Curses. (ie.) as long as the Temple was standing it "Had Standing" for Judah. God/Jesus were no longer 'Married' to OC,OT Israel as her Husband for she hand 'Killed' Him (but she still declared in Rev. "I am no Widow"). But by Him (Jesus/God) being 'Dead' to that covenant did not make 'Her' 'Dead' (or Free) from the Covenant until all the terms of the Mosaic Covenant were Fulfilled. (ie.) As long as The Temple stood the Jewish Nation were obligated to Worship there. 'Gentiles' were never 'under' the Law of stone and Paul would not let the come under 'The Law'.... but Jews were still under the terms of 'The Law'... The Jerusalem Church knew that and Worshiped and taught about Jesus until just shortly before Jerusalem was surrounded by the army of Titus."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand how Jeremiah 31:31-33 has any direct bearing on what you say in the paragraph above.

My specific objection to phrases that you are using is that those word/phrases are not directly linked to words used in the scripture.

When we use words or phrases that are not based on specific words or phrases in the scripture how can we be confident that our description is accurately conveying the scriptural meaning of the words/phrases?

Joel

[DaveO]

Hello Les and Joel,

Joel asked:

Brother Les;

You use an expression that I cannot find in scripture;

"The Mosaic Temple Cultus marriage agreement".....what exactly is it.....and,......where exactly do you find that?

If I may be so bold as to answer for Les, "Mosaic Temple Cultus" is not found in Scripture but it is an expression very commonly used in theological study that refers to and encompasses the many and various temple rituals mandated in the Law of Moses. (A web search of the term will confirm this.) HOWEVER, I think the words "marriage agreement" *may* be a term that brother Les has coined in reference to the fact that God did refer to Israel as His "wife" or "as a wife to Me" on at least 2 occasions that I can recall.


************************************************** *


Les said:

The Mosaic Temple Cultus marriage agreement was still in full effect with its' Blessings and Curses. (ie.) as long as the Temple was standing it "Had Standing" for Judah.

Yes and no. The hypocrisy that Jesus often accused the priests of was that they truly believed that they were keeping all the Law of Moses when in fact that was impossible and they should have known that. The Sin Offerings were NEVER accepted by God as evidenced by the fact that the Shekhinah Glory cloud never once appeared in Ezra's temple. i.e No Ark of the Covenant = No Mercy Seat = Sin Offering incomplete and unacceptable. The Law is quite specific about this. And that Cloud was the visible evidence that the sacrifice was accepted by God.


Exodus 40:35 Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, for the cloud rested [shakhan] upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle.

This cloud was always visible in its manifestation and DID appear in Solomon's Temple:


1 Kings 8:
10 And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, 11 so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. 12 Then Solomon spoke: “The LORD said He would dwell in the dark cloud".

I believe that those non-accepted sin offerings is what Paul was referring to in Hebrews 9:


8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest (visible Shekhinah cloud) while the first tabernacle was still standing.9 It (the Temple) was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—

I also believe that's why Paul repeatedly warned people about putting themselves under the Law. For once they did they were obligated to keep it ALL (Galatians 5:3) which was impossible to do and had been since sometime around the Babylonian captivity when the Ark "disappeared".

Thus the destruction of the Temple was simply a disciplinary action to remove all hypocritical illusions that the Priests were or could ever fully obey the Law without the "Mercy Seat".

IMHO the typical futurist puts way too little significance on the 70 AD destruction while the preterist puts way too much on it. As Paul clearly states, it had been "a symbolic pile of rocks" for hundreds of years.

I am inclined to agree with the preterist view that new a stone temple would also be "a symbolic pile of rocks" and *probably* have no significance unless the Ark were miraculously recovered which is unlikely.

Also IMHO the futurist would *perhaps* be better served watching for the "abomonation that causes desolation" and/or the "son of perdition" to rise up within the only current and truly significant Holy Temple which is the Body of Christ, A.K.A. the Church. But sadly they're watching only Mount Moria... Perhaps it would be prudent to watch both?

"See this hand? SLAP! You should have been watching the other..."

May the Spirit guide us into all truth :pray:

DaveO

[Rose]

Hello Les and Joel,

Joel asked:
Brother Les;


You use an expression that I cannot find in scripture;

"The Mosaic Temple Cultus marriage agreement".....what exactly is it.....and,......where exactly do you find that? If I may be so bold as to answer for Les, "Mosaic Temple Cultus" is not found in Scripture but it is an expression very commonly used in theological study that refers to and encompasses the many and various temple rituals mandated in the Law of Moses. (A web search of the term will confirm this.) HOWEVER, I think the words "marriage agreement" *may* be a term that brother Les has coined in reference to the fact that God did refer to Israel as His "wife" or "as a wife to Me" on at least 2 occasions that I can recall.


************************************************** *


Les said:
Brother Les;


You use an expression that I cannot find in scripture;

"The Mosaic Temple Cultus marriage agreement".....what exactly is it.....and,......where exactly do you find that? Yes and no. The hypocrisy that Jesus often accused the priests of was that they truly believed that they were keeping all the Law of Moses when in fact that was impossible and they should have known that. The Sin Offerings were NEVER accepted by God as evidenced by the fact that the Shekhinah Glory cloud never once appeared in Ezra's temple. i.e No Ark of the Covenant = No Mercy Seat = Sin Offering incomplete and unacceptable. The Law is quite specific about this. And that Cloud was the visible evidence that the sacrifice was accepted by God.
Exodus 40:35 Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, for the cloud rested [shakhan] upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle.This cloud was always visible in its manifestation and DID appear in Solomon's Temple:
1 Kings 8:
10 And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, 11 so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. 12 Then Solomon spoke: 'The LORD said He would dwell in the dark cloud".I believe that those non-accepted sin offerings is what Paul was referring to in Hebrews 9:
8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest (visible Shekhinah cloud) while the first tabernacle was still standing.9 It (the Temple) was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—I also believe that's why Paul repeatedly warned people about putting themselves under the Law. For once they did they were obligated to keep it ALL (Galatians 5:3) which was impossible to do and had been since sometime around the Babylonian captivity when the Ark "disappeared".

Thus the destruction of the Temple was simply a disciplinary action to remove all hypocritical illusions that the Priests were or could ever fully obey the Law without the "Mercy Seat".

IMHO the typical futurist puts way too little significance on the 70 AD destruction while the preterist puts way too much on it. As Paul clearly states, it had been "a symbolic pile of rocks" for hundreds of years.

I am inclined to agree with the preterist view that new a stone temple would also be "a symbolic pile of rocks" and *probably* have no significance unless the Ark were miraculously recovered which is unlikely.

Also IMHO the futurist would *perhaps* be better served watching for the "abomonation that causes desolation" and/or the "son of perdition" to rise up within the only current and truly significant Holy Temple which is the Body of Christ, A.K.A. the Church. But sadly they're watching only Mount Moria... Perhaps it would be prudent to watch both?

"See this hand? SLAP! You should have been watching the other..."

May the Spirit guide us into all truth :pray:

DaveO

Good post DaveO, :thumb:

Just a couple things I wanted to comment on. First, even if the the "Ark of the Covenant" were found today it would still only be an artifact, because it was the presence of God on the Mercy seat that gave significance to the Ark. That is why whoever took the Ark simply disappeared from history.

Secondly, even if a "son of perdition" rose up in the body of Christ today as a world leader his effect would only be on those who were deceived by him, not each individual temple of Christ. So, in my opinion any way you look at it no desecration can occur, whether it be in a rebuilt temple, or effect all the individual living temples of God.

The last Temple of God that had been inhabited by His presence, and as a whole unit could be desecrated thus effecting the whole of Judaism, was the Temple that stood in the 1st century, and was destroyed in 70AD.

Many blessings

Rose

[DaveO]

Hello Rose!



Just a couple things I wanted to comment on. First, even if the the "Ark of the Covenant" were found today it would still only be an artifact, because it was the presence of God on the Mercy seat that gave significance to the Ark.

Maybe yes maybe no. It was the presence of the "cloud" that was significant. I think it could only be significant if our "branch" was broken off. (The Ark is probably long since become dust but then who knows?)


That is why whoever took the Ark simply disappeared from history.

Hmmm.... Again, can we really know that for 100% certain?


Secondly, even if a "son of perdition" rose up in the body of Christ today as a world leader his effect would only be on those who were deceived by him, not each individual temple of Christ. So, in my opinion any way you look at it no desecration can occur, whether it be in a rebuilt temple, or effect all the individual living temples of God.

We are not actually a bunch of little "individual temples". That view would necessitate the Spirit "chopping" Himself into billions of little pieces! Rather we are all individual "building stones" that construct the temple as one cohesive unit.


Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;

And again:

Ephesians 2
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.





Who says the "son of perdition" MUST be a single person? Or a person at all. The "abomination that causes desolation" is not a person. Also, because the Temple is a spiritual thing, perhaps only a spiritual thing could desecrate it. AND it was a spirit that brought down old Israel:


Ephesians 2:2
.... according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,...

They thought they were forever safe being sons of Abraham. They were wrong. They didn't see that God didn't need them to fulfill His plans.


Luke 3
8... For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

They didn't realize that there were conditions to be met to continue to receive God's blessing. Can you honestly say that you know for CERTAIN that today's "Israel" (us) is so different?


Hebrews 3:
6 but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

And again:

Romans 11:
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

Mark 13:22
For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Rose my sister, I am well aware that you full-preterists believe that all that is past and so a moot point. But know this; Just because one believes a thing does not necessarily make it true.

One of the things that caused Israel of old to fail to recognize Messiah when He came was that they were divided into 4 distinct groups that each interpreted scripture a completely different way:


The Sadducee thought it was all to be taken literally.
The Pharisee's thought it had to be interpreted with some symbolic meaning.
The Essene thought it was all spiritual allegory.
The Zealots thought they were God's warriors and should Judah-ize the world.


Divided by that "spirit of disobedience" they argued with their noses in books and failed to see what what going on right in front of them. The eerie similarities to today's fractured church body are frightening! As an entire body we are besieged from without and crumbling from within.

God always dealt with old Israel as an entire body. I see no reason to think He won't deal with His "new Israel" the same way.


The last Temple of God that had been inhabited by His presence, and as a whole unit could be desecrated thus effecting the whole of Judaism, was the Temple that stood in the 1st century, and was destroyed in 70AD.

Hopefully this post shows why I must respectfully disagree.

Peace to you sister Rose.

DaveO

[Rose]

Hello Rose!


We are not actually a bunch of little "individual temples". That view would necessitate the Spirit "chopping" Himself into billions of little pieces! Rather we are all individual "building stones" that construct the temple as one cohesive unit.
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;

And again:

Ephesians 2
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.Greetings brother DaveO,

Yes, we are one body made up of living stones, but the downfall of one stone, or many stones does not desecrate every stone! Just think of all the heresies that are thrown about by those who say they are Christians, that does not contaminate the whole body.

The same cannot be said for the Priests who led their people into apostasy, thus affecting the whole body until the coming of our high priest, Jesus Christ who made a way for each individual to come to salvation.




Who says the "son of perdition" MUST be a single person? Or a person at all. The "abomination that causes desolation" is not a person. Also, because the Temple is a spiritual thing, perhaps only a spiritual thing could desecrate it.

I don't understand what you mean by a spiritual thing desecrating it? Desecrating what? It couldn't be the whole body of Christ as a collective thing, so how could the body of Christ be desecrated in the spiritual sense? :confused:


God Bless

Rose

[DaveO]

Hello Rose,


The same cannot be said for the Priests who led their people into apostasy, thus affecting the whole body until the coming of our high priest, Jesus Christ who made a way for each individual to come to salvation.


My point exactly! How many Christians really study the bible on their own as opposed to how many just believe whatever their chosen church tells them it says?

I saw the results of a survey among people who identified themselves as Christian. Over 70% said the holy Spirit was just a concept! Where did they get that idea?
I'm not saying that the Church is apostate but how many generations before it is?

I'm not saying I know for sure that the Church could be desecrated as a Temple. But what if it's possible? You as a preterist should know that the Bible doesn't necessarily say what popular opinion thinks it does. Even minority popular opinion.

I also know that you will never change your view from full-preterism. Once one finds what they believe is the truth they just won't budge.

Anyway there's really nothing else I can say on this subject so bye for now.

DaveO

[Rose]

Hello Rose,



My point exactly! How many Christians really study the bible on their own as opposed to how many just believe whatever their chosen church tells them it says?

I saw the results of a survey among people who identified themselves as Christian. Over 70% said the holy Spirit was just a concept! Where did they get that idea?
I'm not saying that the Church is apostate but how many generations before it is?

I'm not saying I know for sure that the Church could be desecrated as a Temple. But what if it's possible? You as a preterist should know that the Bible doesn't necessarily say what popular opinion thinks it does. Even minority popular opinion.

I also know that you will never change your view from full-preterism. Once one finds what they believe is the truth they just won't budge.

Anyway there's really nothing else I can say on this subject so bye for now.

DaveO

My beliefs on Full-Preterism did not come overnight....they came as a process of studying Scripture trying to find answers to fill all the gaping holes that Futurism taught. When I first started digging into Scripture to seek a better understanding of Revelation, I didn't even know what a Preterist was.

My beliefs are not static, as I learn more and fill in more parts of the big picture my beliefs change accordingly, that is how I got to where I am today. Of course, I feel I have found the truth, but I'm totally willing to change if I am presented with valid reasons why my interpretation of Scripture is false.

Thank you for taking the time to converse with me....:signthankspin:

Rose