PDA

View Full Version : How destroyed is it?



Walstib
Apr 21st 2007, 01:37 AM
I have not spent much time researching the end times. Scripture, yes, fancy definitions and lingo, no. So please go easy on me here as I know how passionate people are about it.

I have read a bunch of stuff where the view is that the temple was destroyed and fulfilled this part of the prophecies already. Jesus described the destruction as not one stone being left upon another.

We have the wailing wall still standing today.

In that light why is this view held when it has not been destroyed to the point Jesus said it would be? Do I have my wires crossed here somewhere?

Peace,

Joe

quiet dove
Apr 21st 2007, 02:28 AM
Thats an interesting question. I dont have an answer, but its an interesting question. Can you elaborate more about the wailing wall and how it was apart of the temple, where it would have been as so on.

TEITZY
Apr 21st 2007, 04:19 AM
I have not spent much time researching the end times. Scripture, yes, fancy definitions and lingo, no. So please go easy on me here as I know how passionate people are about it.

I have read a bunch of stuff where the view is that the temple was destroyed and fulfilled this part of the prophecies already. Jesus described the destruction as not one stone being left upon another.

We have the wailing wall still standing today.

In that light why is this view held when it has not been destroyed to the point Jesus said it would be? Do I have my wires crossed here somewhere?

Peace,

Joe



To my knowledge the wailing wall is part of the temple mount (a retaining wall) and not part of the temple complex itself. The temple and associated buildings were destroyed (first burnt then they crumbed and fell down) by Titus in 70 AD as Jesus predicted.

Cheers
Leigh

Walstib
Apr 21st 2007, 05:02 AM
Thats an interesting question. I dont have an answer, but its an interesting question. Can you elaborate more about the wailing wall and how it was apart of the temple, where it would have been as so on.


Doing a web search for “western wall” will give you more info then I ever could. Not meaning to be lazy as much a not wanting to plagiarize. Some of the recreation pictures found of the second temple would give a better picture then I can do justice trying to explain. Hopefully more will come out in discussion as well.


Peace,

Joe

Walstib
Apr 21st 2007, 05:20 AM
Hi Leigh,

I was thinking about that myself. Brought me to a few thoughts. One that when everything was standing it would have all been connected together, the “retaining walls" really being the foundation of the temple proper as it could not have stood without them. Second that the it could be compared to the outer curtain and bases of the tabernacle in the wilderness. Third…

And 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! And 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. (Mar 13:1-2)

Stones and buildings…. I think the temple mount/foundation could easily be included in that. We could play semantics with the words all day though...:)

Peace,

Joe

TEITZY
Apr 21st 2007, 06:16 AM
Hi Leigh,

I was thinking about that myself. Brought me to a few thoughts. One that when everything was standing it would have all been connected together, the “retaining walls" really being the foundation of the temple proper as it could not have stood without them. Second that the it could be compared to the outer curtain and bases of the tabernacle in the wilderness. Third…

And 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! And 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. (Mar 13:1-2)

Stones and buildings…. I think the temple mount/foundation could easily be included in that. We could play semantics with the words all day though...:)

Peace,

Joe

Verse 2 would indicate that stones and buildings are the same thing. Some of the stones were very large and many were gold plated as well which is perhaps why the disciples spoke about them individually as things of awe and beauty. Most of us are used to fairly mundane building materials (eg. small bricks) in this day and age but the building blocks of the temple were anything but mundane.

Cheers
Leigh

napsnsnacks
Apr 21st 2007, 08:05 AM
[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]I have not spent much time researching the end times. Scripture, yes, fancy definitions and lingo, no. So please go easy on me here as I know how passionate people are about it.

I have read a bunch of stuff where the view is that the temple was destroyed and fulfilled this part of the prophecies already. Jesus described the destruction as not one stone being left upon another.

We have the wailing wall still standing today.

In that light why is this view held when it has not been destroyed to the point Jesus said it would be? Do I have my wires crossed here somewhere?

MT 24:2 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.

MK 13:2 And 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.

LK 21:6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Hhhhmmmm, let's see:

"See ye not all these things"

"Seest thou these great buildings"

"As for these things which ye behold"

I notice that he is ALL inclusive of the temple, all the buildings and "these things" and "all these things" includes the walls, even the western or "wailing" wall.

Yet this "thing" still stands.

I see only one explanation and that means this remaining part must come down either by mans hands or by earthquake.

Maybe this piece was reserved to come down later as another sign of the approaching end days?

RogerW
Apr 21st 2007, 04:26 PM
I have not spent much time researching the end times. Scripture, yes, fancy definitions and lingo, no. So please go easy on me here as I know how passionate people are about it.

I have read a bunch of stuff where the view is that the temple was destroyed and fulfilled this part of the prophecies already. Jesus described the destruction as not one stone being left upon another.

We have the wailing wall still standing today.

In that light why is this view held when it has not been destroyed to the point Jesus said it would be? Do I have my wires crossed here somewhere?


It seems to me that finding what appears may be part of a foundation wall shows fulfillment of prophesy spoken through the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel is speaking of the literal Temple, because it symbolized the presence of God, and His holy place. The prophesy is against the prophets who speak lies in His name. They look at the Temple as evidence that God will never leave them nor forsake them. Building up the wall and daubing it with untempered morter symbolizes divining lies, and false prophesy, saying the Lord says, when the Lord has not said. These prophets cried peace, peace when there is no peace. The people listened to the lying prophets, and rejected the true prophets of God. For this cause the literal destruction Ezekiel describes came against them, and Jerusalem with her walls and her Temple and buildings were utterly destroyed, leaving only the foundation as evidence that the Temple had ever stood. It should not surprise us to find the exact same thing.

Eze 13:10 Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered morter:
Eze 13:11 Say unto them which daub it with untempered morter, that it shall fall: there shall be an overflowing shower; and ye, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall rend it.
Eze 13:12 Lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where is the daubing wherewith ye have daubed it?
Eze 13:13 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even rend it with a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in my fury to consume it.
Eze 13:14 So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered morter, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Eze 13:15 Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered morter, and will say unto you, The wall is no more, neither they that daubed it;
Eze 13:16 To wit, the prophets of Israel which prophesy concerning Jerusalem, and which see visions of peace for her, and there is no peace, saith the Lord GOD.

Mt 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to SHEW HIM THE BUILDINGS OF THE TEMPLE.
Mt 24:2 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.

Mr 13:1 And 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!
Mr 13:2 And 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.

Lu 21:5 And as some SPAKE OF THE TEMPLE, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
Lu 21:6 AS FOR THESE THINGS WHICH YE BEHOLD, the days will come, in the which THERE SHALL NOT BE LEFT ONE STONE UPON ANOTHER, THAT SHALL NOT BE THROWN DOWN.

Clearly when Christ spoke to His disciples He spoke specifically of BUILDINGS. He was not showing them the FOUNDATIONS of the buildings, but the completed buildings. Foundations do not a building make. You can build without a foundation, but having only a foundation does not mean you have a completed structure. It doesn’t matter that some of the foundations of the structures still exist today, the prophecy spoke of literal buildings, and Christ’s prophecy was fulfilled when the literal buildings were destroyed. Christ did not say, “see all the foundations of all the buildings standing here, there will not be one stone left standing upon these foundations.” No, what Christ says is, “Seeth thou these GREAT BUILDINGS, TEMPLE, ALL THESE THINGS, there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Just as Christ prophesied, every stone in every building was completely laid to the ground.

I've searched throughout the Bible for mention of some specific wall (wailing wall), and cannot find reference to this wall. Not saying it is not there, only that I cannot find it. This wall is suppose to be an integral part of the temple (even part of the temple worship?) so since some of it still exists today, it is supposed that this proves Christ’s prophecy is not to be viewed as literal. I find a wall surrounding the city, and I find a middle wall of partition, but I cannot find this wailing wall in the Bible. If this wall cannot be proven to exist through Scripture, how can it be used to show the prophetic words of Christ were not to be viewed literally? And even if it could be found in the Bible, how does that prove it is the wall in question?

RW

Benaiah
Apr 22nd 2007, 05:36 PM
There are alot of assumptions being made about the "wailing wall" that will not stand up to any real scrutiny. first the "wailing wall" was not part of the foundation of the temple, Herod the great did NOT build the temple, He renovated it and enlarged it's precients adding covered porches, grand stairs and other buildings. He also built fort anatonia which overlooked the temple and was garrisoned by the romans. so if Herod is the one responsible for the "wailing wall" it was not built as a foundation for the temple. And we can add the fact that no one today knows for sure where exactly the temple stood, if the "wailing wall" were the foundation then there would be no question.

Secondly we have reason to question that the "wailing wall had anything to do with Herod at all or even existed in the first, second, or third century A.D. josephus a first century eyewitness of Jerusalem who witnessed it's destruction gave detailed descriptions of Jerusalem in the first century A.D He never once mentioned this wall with it's massive stones before or after the destruction of Jerusalem. eyewitness accounts of the aftermath of the destruction mention that it was so complete that if someone who knew the city were to come there then they could be standing where the city once stood and still be looking for it.

Jerusalem was rebuilt by the Romans in 135 A.D. as Aelia capitolina around A.D. 333 we have the writtn account of the bordeaux Pilgrim who wrote about the monuments and features of the city and surrounding area He made no mention of the massive wailing wall. nor does the Madaba map created in the first half of the 6th century and shows th notable features of Jerusalem show the wailing wall. How could all these people miss this massive structure? also Herod was a great builder and we have plenty of evidence of how he built and none of the other sites which herod had built reflect construction with massive blocks as are present in the wailing wall.

so where and when was this wall constructed? we have the writings of the Roman historian Procopius who writing in 558 A.D. (just shortly after the Mardaba map was created) says that the Emperor Justinian desired to build the largest and grandest Church in all of the empire in Jerusalem and in order to comply with the length and breadth the emperor specified the builders had to build a retaining wall to enlarge the mount. Procopius states that the builders resorted to using stones of a unusual size as not previously known in the area. this would be an unusual statement of the massive blocks of the "wailing wall" were standing there already.

Given the evidence, ( 1. archeology shows no such massive stones used in herods other numerous building projects, 2. No mention by any eyewiotnesses to Jerusalem before or AFTER it's destruction of the existence of this massive wall, 3. historical record that the emperor Justinain had a massive retaining wall built in 558 A.D. using Stones of such size as had not been seen in the area before to accomadate the construction of his Grand church.) it is very likely that the "wailing wall was NOT built by herod or had anything to do with the temple.

Walstib
Apr 22nd 2007, 06:26 PM
Thanks all for the time and effort. It was just a curious question and I am learning thorugh it.


Benaiah,

I had never heard the first temple was still there and just renovated, Just wondering your reasoning for this. Not challenging you, more wondering if it is historical or scriptural evidence. Do you think it possible to have any recreation pictures do any justice to what things may have loked like. Or just dimentions as we have in scripture.

Peace,

Joe

Benaiah
Apr 22nd 2007, 06:41 PM
Walstib,

The first temple was built by solomon and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzer. the Second temple was constructed after the babylonian captivity in the time of Nehemiah. it was this second temple that Herod later renovated. and the time between it construction after the captivity and it's destruction in 70 A.D is reffered to as the "second temple period".

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2007, 11:08 PM
Thanks all for the time and effort. It was just a curious question and I am learning thorugh it.

I had never heard the first temple was still there and just renovated, Just wondering your reasoning for this. Not challenging you, more wondering if it is historical or scriptural evidence. Do you think it possible to have any recreation pictures do any justice to what things may have loked like. Or just dimentions as we have in scripture.

Peace,

Joe




Joe,
After Solomon's temple was destroyed around 586 B.C. by the Babylonians; and after the return from exile of the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, Zerubabbel was charged with rebuilding the temple starting around 515 B.C..

Zerubabblel's Temple as Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple)

It talks about Zerubabble's initial charge to rebuild it after the return from captivity, as well as the later renovation of it by Herod starting in 19 B.C.

It is also discussed in the book of Ezra here:
Ezra 3:8 "in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to set forward the work of the house of the LORD. Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to set forward the workmen in the house of God: the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites. And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the LORD, after the ordinance of David king of Israel. "

It is also discussed in the book of Haggai here:
Haggai 1:1, 8 "In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built. Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD. "

It is also discussed in the book of Zechariah here:
Zechariah 4:9 "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. "

Do those references, both biblically and historically, help you Joe?

Walstib
Apr 22nd 2007, 11:50 PM
Benaiah,

I see where I misinterpreted what you were saying, thanks.

Joe

Walstib
Apr 22nd 2007, 11:55 PM
Do those references, both biblically and historically, help you Joe?

Yep ;)

Peace,

Joe

KnightwithDignity
Apr 23rd 2007, 12:55 AM
As has been said previously, the first temple was built by solomon. This was destroyed by the babylonians.

The second temple was built by Zerubbabel during the time of Ezra. The temple was already in use when Nehemiah took over as Govenor. All this was done during the time of the Persian rule.

In the days of Jesus, during roman rule, Herod the great undertook a renovation of the temple. In the process he made every thing bigger. To do this, he had the area at the top of the mount enlarged. To do this retaining walls had to be built around the mount.

Today there is focus on the western wall, as the area of Jewish worship. On the southern and eastern sides there are bulges in the walls threatening to collapse. Attempts are being made to remidy these.

In his enlargement of the temple, Herod had the temple dismantled stone by stone, and then it was fully rebuilt on a bigger scale. I am not sure if his building was larger than the original built by solomon or not.

Have a look at the info on this site.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/JerTem.htm

Blessings in the Lord

Benaiah
Apr 23rd 2007, 01:02 AM
The problem of where the Temple actually stood will never be rectified until archaeologist are allowed to dig on the temple mount. that has been forbidden for quite some time. The muslims who control the Temple mount do not want any evidence revealed that there was EVER a temple of the Jews there so they will not permit archaeological digs there. and even then just any foundation found there is not necessarily the foundation of the temple. we know that the romans built a temple to Jupiter there when they rebuilt the city after 135 A.D. there are some clues though about where the temple would have had to stand. for one thing blood sacrifices and blood being poured out around the base of the altar would require a source of water for cleaning and ritual purposes. which leads many to think that the temple stood over the Gihon spring where David's tabernacle was. this is no were near the dome of the rock. but in the end until archaeologist are permitted to investigate the actual location will remain uncertain.

ScottJohnson
Apr 23rd 2007, 01:22 AM
The problem of where the Temple actually stood will never be rectified until archaeologist are allowed to dig on the temple mount. that has been forbidden for quite some time. The muslims who control the Temple mount do not want any evidence revealed that there was EVER a temple of the Jews there so they will not permit archaeological digs there. and even then just any foundation found there is not necessarily the foundation of the temple. we know that the romans built a temple to Jupiter there when they rebuilt the city after 135 A.D. there are some clues though about where the temple would have had to stand. for one thing blood sacrifices and blood being poured out around the base of the altar would require a source of water for cleaning and ritual purposes. which leads many to think that the temple stood over the Gihon spring where David's tabernacle was. this is no were near the dome of the rock. but in the end until archaeologist are permitted to investigate the actual location will remain uncertain.
So the possibility exists that a third temple, (no matter how pointless), could be built and co-exist with the Dome of the Rock?

Benaiah
Apr 23rd 2007, 01:37 AM
So the possibility exists that a third temple, (no matter how pointless), could be built and co-exist with the Dome of the Rock?

well......first I would say that a rebuilt temple offering sacrifices for sin goes beyond pointless into the territory of being an abomination. second the muslims are unlikely to agree on "sharing" the temple mount as they claim the whole mount is sacred. (one of the reason they put forward for refusing to allow archaeological investigations on the mount itself.) Third, the obstacles that would have to be overcome even if the Muslims agreed are enormous, one cannot simply construct a temple. First they would require the ashes of the red heifer for purification before construction can even be started. and producing a pure red heifer has so far proven a considerable problem. the matter of purification is why orthodox Jews will not set foot on the temple mount even if they could for fear they might tread on the holy of holies or even profane the mount itself in their unpurified state. these things are why I am not looking for a rebuilt temple any time soon, plus the fact that the temple made without hands that is the temple of God already exists and it is the only true Temple of God.

napsnsnacks
Apr 23rd 2007, 02:43 AM
The way I see it, since this rebuilt temple will be a godless sham anyway, it doesn't matter if it is built to the square inch of its original location (except to those who want it rebuilt) since the important part is that it will be rebuilt an not where.

We will knew the where and the square yardage of the property lines soon enough.

Who knows, they could even go fantastic and build OVER top the dome of the rock without touching it like a building will have a road or house under it or a tunnel through a tree then the temple sits on a platform then the property lines of the temple will be in line geographically with the "original" specifications. That invisible line could easily intersect the Mosque without ever touching it.

All they need is a platform. I don't recall and of Gods instructions that the foundation must be touching the earth.

ScottJohnson
Apr 23rd 2007, 02:56 AM
well......first I would say that a rebuilt temple offering sacrifices for sin goes beyond pointless into the territory of being an abomination. second the muslims are unlikely to agree on "sharing" the temple mount as they claim the whole mount is sacred. (one of the reason they put forward for refusing to allow archaeological investigations on the mount itself.) Third, the obstacles that would have to be overcome even if the Muslims agreed are enormous, one cannot simply construct a temple. First they would require the ashes of the red heifer for purification before construction can even be started. and producing a pure red heifer has so far proven a considerable problem. the matter of purification is why orthodox Jews will not set foot on the temple mount even if they could for fear they might tread on the holy of holies or even profane the mount itself in their unpurified state. these things are why I am not looking for a rebuilt temple any time soon, plus the fact that the temple made without hands that is the temple of God already exists and it is the only true Temple of God.

I agree with you Dan about the abomination thing. But what you said right here.......


...which leads many to think that the temple stood over the Gihon spring where David's tabernacle was. this is no where near the dome of the rock. but in the end until archaeologist are permitted to investigate the actual location will remain uncertain.

....led me to the understanding that the first two temples sat in an area away from where the Dome sits today. If this is the case, then the possibility of the building of a third temple exists in spite of the Muslim objection. Bear in mind, that I'm no expert on the geographical layout of Jerusalem either ancient or modern.

Also, just so you know, Dan I'm not arguing with you. Your first post, #9 makes a lot of sense to me. It certainly refute's the futurist's objections to the valid fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in Matt 24:2. Never the less, there is an effort under way, by Evangelicals, Messianics and Zionists to bring about the construction of third temple. One way or another, I believe that they will suceed. I don't believe that this sucess will be the fulfillment of any biblical propecy, but I do believe that that very declaration will be made.

Benaiah
Apr 23rd 2007, 03:49 AM
....led me to the understanding that the first two temples sat in an area away from where the Dome sits today. If this is the case, then the possibility of the building of a third temple exists in spite of the Muslim objection. Bear in mind, that I'm no expert on the geographical layout of Jerusalem either ancient or modern.


Scott,

there are alot of researchers that are begining to question the traditional belief that the dome of the rock sits in the exact position that the Temple once stood. one reason being as I mentioned the necessity of a water supply. and not just any water would do. the water required for ritual purposes had to be "living" water, meaning flowing naturally. so a well would not do.


Also, just so you know, Dan I'm not arguing with you. Your first post, #9 makes a lot of sense to me. It certainly refute's the futurist's objections to the valid fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in Matt 24:2. Never the less, there is an effort under way, by Evangelicals, Messianics and Zionists to bring about the construction of third temple. One way or another, I believe that they will suceed. I don't believe that this sucess will be the fulfillment of any biblical propecy, but I do believe that that very declaration will be made.

LOL scott, I didnt think you were arguing, besides I dont argue anymore, I am a reformed poster.:spin:

I agree with you that certain segments defintely are striving to bring about the reconstruction of the temple. the enthusiasim of some christians for it makes one think they believe church services are going to be held there. and hey, if the modern nation of Israel founded by atheists and agnostics is the fulfillment of "prophecy" a temple built anywhere on the mount can be considered the fulfilment of prophecy to I suppose. when prophecy is treated like horseshoes "close" is good enough.:lol:

napsnsnacks
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:20 AM
I agree with you that certain segments defintely are striving to bring about the reconstruction of the temple. the enthusiasim of some christians for it makes one think they believe church services are going to be held there. and hey, if the modern nation of Israel founded by atheists and agnostics is the fulfillment of "prophecy" a temple built anywhere on the mount can be considered the fulfilment of prophecy to I suppose. when prophecy is treated like horseshoes "close" is good enough.:lol:

That is why I have always had my doubts that what we know as Israel today is the Biblical restoration of Israel.

Every time God put these people back in the place, HE did it. And He did it as they honored and obeyed him compared to being dispossessed for idolatry.

Now this Israel we know is run by secular Zionists and atheists.

Also note that Israels religious leaders are being killed off from the inside at an alarming rate.

For a while there I listened to Israel radio station online (can only stomach so much Christ hate) and it was clear that there is a movement inside Israel to get back to who they were with God (minus Christ of course).

So if these Torah Jews come to power compared to the secular Knesset I think that would require a civil war in Israel.

Since the temple is going to be rebuilt it seems that they win that war.

John146
Apr 24th 2007, 05:54 PM
The way I see it, since this rebuilt temple will be a godless sham anyway, it doesn't matter if it is built to the square inch of its original location (except to those who want it rebuilt) since the important part is that it will be rebuilt an not where.

If the temple would be a godless sham (which it most certainly would be), then why are people thinking that it would be the temple of God spoken about in 2 Thessalonians 2:4? That makes no sense at all. We (in the Church) are the temple of God.

napsnsnacks
Apr 24th 2007, 09:52 PM
If the temple would be a godless sham (which it most certainly would be), then why are people thinking that it would be the temple of God spoken about in 2 Thessalonians 2:4? That makes no sense at all. We (in the Church) are the temple of God.

Since the church is the Body of Christ (believers collectively) and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit I suppose that if the temple was built to the specifications that God gave it would be "His" temple since it originally came from Him though God would otherwise now days have nothing to do with it.

John146
Apr 24th 2007, 10:17 PM
Since the church is the Body of Christ (believers collectively) and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit I suppose that if the temple was built to the specifications that God gave it would be "His" temple since it originally came from Him though God would otherwise now days have nothing to do with it.

The temple of God can refer to our bodies (individuals) and it can refer to the Body of Christ/Church as well. Just read 1 Cor 3:16-17, 2 Cor 6:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22. I believe the specifications that God gave for the temple of God mentioned in 2 Thess 2:4 is that it would be a "building fitly framed together" and that it is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:19-22).

napsnsnacks
Apr 26th 2007, 12:16 AM
The temple of God can refer to our bodies (individuals) and it can refer to the Body of Christ/Church as well. Just read 1 Cor 3:16-17, 2 Cor 6:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22. I believe the specifications that God gave for the temple of God mentioned in 2 Thess 2:4 is that it would be a "building fitly framed together" and that it is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:19-22).

The "church," the "Body of Christ," and "our physical bodies' are all one and the same thing.

These three things are simply synonyms. There are also criteria for this "body" all through the New Tstament as entailed in "building fitly framed together."

God's original purpose of the temple made with mans hands is obsolete and serves Him no purpose and is such now being referred to as "their house" and "your house:"

MT 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
MT 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

because the occupants of the "temple" are now Pharisees and you know what Jesus said of them.

davidturtledove
Apr 26th 2007, 07:18 AM
I have not spent much time researching the end times. Scripture, yes, fancy definitions and lingo, no. So please go easy on me here as I know how passionate people are about it.

I have read a bunch of stuff where the view is that the temple was destroyed and fulfilled this part of the prophecies already. Jesus described the destruction as not one stone being left upon another.

We have the wailing wall still standing today.

In that light why is this view held when it has not been destroyed to the point Jesus said it would be? Do I have my wires crossed here somewhere?

Peace,

Joe



I think the important thing is the Temple was destroyed because they did not know the hour of their visitation! Keep in mind at the time He spoke this the jews in their arrogance probably considered this unthinkable but it came to pass. The temple is no more just as the Lord told them so. As far as there not being one brick left on another my thought is why vex about it? I am confident that the Lord knows what He is talking about and I think you share this confidence. If more bricks must be knocked out of place to fulfil God's word then I assure you it will come to pass as well!

gringo300
May 1st 2011, 01:34 PM
From what I understand, the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and built a city called Aelia Capitolina in it's place.

From what I understand, the Romans banned Jews from entering Aelia Capitolina.

I'm not an expert on any of this, so far.

I've long heard that the Romans looked down on most non-Roman people but did admire the Greeks. Reportedly, the Roman religion was originally completely different from the Greek religion, but gradual assimilated (if that's the word) elements of the Greek religion.

I'm a bit confused about the Jewish Temple during this time.