The 'Holy Covenant' and the Temple Mount

That is impossible Grasshopper. John didn't write this book until after the temple was destroyed for 25 years. I know your preterism demands that John wrote prior to the fall of the temple, but Gentryism is pure, unadulterated, mindless foolishness.

 

What makes a building God's temple?

1. Built at the decree of God

2. Built by His people

3. At some point--He fills it with His presence.

These three things are true of each of the three temples God has built, Solomon's, Ezra's, and the Church.

The Samaritans tried to build a temple for God, but Christ made it clear that at that point in history, the temple of Jerusalem was the only legitimate temple, and that soon a better (spiritual) temple would be built (John 4).


If someone whom I hadn't hired, without my directive built a house I had no intention of moving into--could it be considered my house? I think not.

So if anyone builds a temple today it will not be the true temple of God unless it fulfills the requirements listed above. I don't see that happening in the scenario you've constructed. Therefore it wouldn't be the temple--just a building that looked like the old temple in approximately the same location.

In Christ,

Tim

 

I need to point something out here:

the temple that will be in existence when Christ returns is NOT God's temple. It will be built by Jews and possibly other groups. They will offer sacrifice, but it won't be accepted by God. It will only be a foul stench.

I want just ONE nondispy to recognize that they don't know what they are talking about, that they keep bringing up points that were advocated my morons like LaHaye/Larkin/Hagee/Lindsay and not actual scholarship. Come one people. Let us strive for excellence in accurately discussing the other side.

 

Prove it.

Which part of his book is false? Assuming you have read it.

How do you butcher verses 1 and 3 of Revelation chapter 1 to make it mean other than things that were soon to take place?

 

DD,

I think word-digger has shown the problem with your position--if God's word calls something the temple of God, then that's what it is--or was(that's where word-digger and I differ).

Any new building on the temple mount built by unbelievers without God's directive cannot be considered "the temple". And believers wouldn't build another "temple"--it would indeed be a stench in God's nostrils as you say.

Thus this "future temple" is a logical dilemna for all futurists. You must either deny what the scriptures call it, or you must revoke New Testament theology to legitimize it.

Tim

 

I know that dispensationalists are adept at getting around New Testament doctrines in the future by simply saying that it is a "new dispensation" or another "age". But all this about returning to "dealing with the Jews" is simply part of an elaborate theological system, not a biblical concept.

Did Paul really believe the "church age" would come to an end? How would Ephesians 3:21 fit such an idea? "Unto [God] be glory in the church by Jesus Christ throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."

Or how can we set aside the truths of the New Testament that clearly say there is "no difference" between the Jews and gentiles?

And what constitutes an official "Jew"--to be eligible to participate in this second-chance plan after the "rapture"?

And finally, regarding God's presence in a future temple--why would He grace it with His presence if the priests were offerring the blood of bulls and goats, while trampling upon the blood of Christ--sacrificed once for all?

"Rightly dividing" the word of God does not mean sacrificing the essential unity of it's doctrine, including the vast superiority of the New Covenant in Christ.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Tim has not been able to explain away the two witnesses and the 144,000 - 12,000 from each tribe. What say you, Tim? When did those events happen if they are not future events? Where are they in recorded history?

 

The two witness are said to be the 2 Olive trees and 2 Lampstands. Go back and find those references in the OT and see what you come up with. Numbers to Hebrews also represented ideas or concepts. Research and see what the numbers 12 and 1000 might represent.

Of course if one takes all this Apocolytic and Metaphoric language literal then the point is moot. Then you have to deal with dragons, lambs, and beasts from the sea as being literal also, don't you?

LadyEagle has never explained how verses 1&2 of Rev. 1 mean some thousands of years in the future instead of near and shortly to take place in the day it was written.

 

LE,

Why is it that non-dispies are compelled to answer all dispie's questions, but dispies are compelled to answer none of ours? I guess that's the priviledge of the majority view. So be it.

The Two Witnesses:

Anyway, I think we discussed the two witnesses in a thread a short while back. Basically I believe Rev. 11 is symbolic--referring us back to Zech. 4, where Zerubbabel and Joshua as king and high priest point toward the work of Christ. But I'm not sure what the point of the Rev. 11 passage is. My guess is that since God established that two witnesses establish a truth, these two represent the truth that the Jews tried to snuff out, but it could not be snuffed out. They tried to kill Christ and eliminate the Church, but they both were raised up in the power of the Spirit. But I admit this is a difficult passage to understand. I suppose from your perspective, such an admission means I must be wrong, since dispies have no problems understanding any scriptures.

The 144,000:

As far as the 144,000 goes, I'm much more confident. I believe they were the first Jewish-Christian martyrs of the early church. I believe the number is both an approximation of the actual number who were killed within the generation before Jerusalem's destruction, as well as a symbollic number. 12 is the number of tribes times 12,000 each gives the idea of full representation from each tribe.

Interestingly, James addresses his epistle to "the twelve tribes", confirming that the title referred to the dispersed Jews of the first century.

Additionally, Revelation 14 calls the 144,000 the "firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb". The title denotes their early coming in the Christian era, i.e. the first to follow Christ to the death. James also refers to the 12 tribes by this same title, the "firstfruits"".

So historically, I'm convinced that the 144,000 lived and died in the first century, and are now in heaven with Christ. As Christians today, we stand on their shoulders.


LE, I'm sure you're dissappointed in my answer--it's not futurist. But imagine how much more disappointing my answer would be to JW's!

In Christ,

Tim

 

I am a dispensationalist and do NOT believe that God "returns to deal with the Jews" the way he did prior to the cross. Those days are over. ANYONE saved post cross is part of the New Covenant, end of discussion. Can we stop with the stereotyping of what we don't understand or agree with?

Grasshopper, you and I both know that the time references could be taken chronologically or qualitatively. I have posted on this many times.

You take the time references literal using only one possible definition, and then allegorize the events.

I take the time references literally using one possible definition, and the rest is taken literally as well.

As far as dragons and such, a literal hermenuetic doesn't deny metaphorical langauge.

This is what I am talking about, basic stuff here people.

 

You might want to talk with LadyEagle,Ed Edwards,Dr. Bob, and many more on this board who would disagree with you. They probably don't like you speaking for Dispys anymore than you like them speaking for you.

Can you give me any NT examples where these words in Rev 1:1,2 are used in the fashion you claim? I suppose "generation" in Matt 24 means race right?
I have still yet to hear if Caiaphus saw Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven in Matt 26:64. Is that chronological or qualitative?

So are the 2 witness and 144000 literal or metaphores? Is the sun being darkened ,the moon not giving it's light, and stars falling from heaven literal or metaphoric in Matt 24:29?

 

Literal.

 

In Is. 13 there is a description of God using the Medes to destroy the Babylonians. Here is part of the description:

9 Behold, the day of Jehovah cometh, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger; to make the land a desolation, and to destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine.

So LadyEagle was this a literal event? Or is it just apocolytic language that is commonly used to describe judgement? And if it is apocolyptic language then why do we try to literalize it in the New Testament?

 

What are you doing, GH, mixing apples & oranges again?

 

No, it's called comparing scripture to scripture. The 1st century Jews understood that language quite clearly. They spent their entire lives studying and reading the OT. So when Jesus used this language, and later John in Revelation, they understood it that was judgement language. The problem today is people try to interpret this language through the 20 century/western culture perspective and not through the eyes of a Hebrew/eastern 1st century perspective. Remember that during the next exciting episode of "Jack Van Impe Presents".

 

Tim

Right again Tim.

 

Grasshopper, this is so easy; I don't know why you are so confused on this point.

The O.T. was about types and shadows. This apocalyptic language in the o.T. was speaking of judgment. However, in the N.T. you have the fulfillment of the types and shadows. This same language is literally fulfilled when those events literally happen. Remember, the O.T. is about shadows, the N.T. is about reality. Come on man.

 

DD,

That seems like an oversimplification. I know you admit that much language in the NT is figurative.

Tim