Temple of God - Christians or a physical building in Jerusalem?

[Angela53510]

No. The orthodox believe that Jesus will return and create new heaven and new earth.
They also believe in a general resurrection of both the just and the unjust John 5:28-29.

I know because in my country its the second biggest church.

Here is one link: http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Parousia.htm

I do not see the conflict between what the Orthodox priest said, and this link. Both talk about the coming of Jesus. Both are anticipating it. What is left out is all the millennial stuff, which as an amill, I long ago discarded. I think the priest in the video is a solid preterist, and that article you posted only says it is tiresome (my words) all this nonsense about pre-post, amill, and conditions for the return of Christ. And really, nothing about the rapture, which is a made up 18th century bit of nonsense. I mean, in the way it is predicted.

I think eschatology is at best a guess. And too many Christians treat it like a dogmatic creed. Really, there is no way we can absolutely pin down what is going to happen, using the Bible or not. Certainly, the only thing we can really trust, is that Jesus said he is coming again, and I believe he will.

The modern church does miss so much was fulfilled in the 1st century, especially the razing of the temple. My hope is in Jesus return. Not in all these twisted interpretations of metaphors literally. The Apocalypse is mostly symbolic, tied to the past, but I read person after person that says, "The plain meaning of the text is literal." Say what?? Revelation is Apocalyptic literature!! You cannot interpret it literally, because that is not the intent of the book. It never has been and never will be.

 

[Locutus]

but this priest says that the world has already ended and we are living in the new earth that will have no end:

I haven't watched the video Trof - I believe he is right, the old "world" ended with the destruction of the temple - it was the Jewish world/heaven and earth that ended in the fire of destruction wrought on the temple by the Romans in the war of 66-70AD

We need to understand how the Hebrews understood "heaven and earth:.

Josephus, 1st century Jewish historian and of the Pharisee sect wrote:

"Antiquities Book 3 6:4

As for the inside, Moses parted its length into three partitions. At the distance of ten cubits from the most secret end, Moses placed four pillars, the workmanship of which was the very same with that of the rest; and they stood upon the like bases with them, each a small matter distant from his fellow.

Now the room within those pillars was the most holy place; but the rest of the room was the tabernacle, which was open for the priests. However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world; for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a heaven peculiar to God. But the space of the twenty cubits, is, as it were, sea and land, on which men live, and so this part is peculiar to the priests only.

Antiquities book 3 7:7

Now here one may wonder at the ill-will which men bear to us, and which they profess to bear on account of our despising that Deity which they pretend to honor; for if any one do but consider the fabric of the tabernacle, and take a view of the garments of the high priest, and of those vessels which we make use of in our sacred ministration, he will find that our legislator was a divine man, and that we are unjustly reproached by others; for if any one do without prejudice, and with judgment, look upon these things, he will find they were every one made in way of imitation and representation of the universe.


When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the sea, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. "

So the above describes the "heaven and earth" in Hebrew thought that was to pass away - which it did in the 1st century AD.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ In view of that, consider Revelation 11:2 -

"2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."

Some of us see this ^ 42 months to be the same time period as the 3.5 yrs of Dan12:6,7,1 (at the END of which, Daniel is to be "resurrected" [to stand again on the earth]) and also the 42 months of Rev13:5 (the AC), all of which conclude when "the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled" [Lk21:24b ^] (which some of us understand [that whole phrase] to be meaning "Gentile domination over Israel" which started in 606bc [think: Neb's statue/image] and which will END at the end of the future trib, when Dan7:25/27 / Dan2:35/44 happens [i.e. Christ's Second Coming to the earth], oh and at the end of the same time period Rev12:6,14 also refers to.)

 

[Quantrill]

Are there any verses anywhere for this two separate bodies, church and israel in the New testament? I'll be happy to change my mind if you can prove to me from the scriptures that the church and israel is separate in the NEW TESTAMENT. This should be a tough task, considering that Jesus took down the wall separating the people, book of galatians and ephesians make it clear. Despite all this, my mind is open to be proven wrong, please do so.

ANd one more thing, there is no verse in the NT that says the "church is gone" and THEN Israel turns to the messiah. Rev 3:10 isnt saying anything about church being gone.
Even if the rapture is pre-trib, those "tribulation saints" who then convert, WOULD BE the church, because they put their faith in Christ. This idea is just completely unscriptural. But as stated, I could be wrong, so I ask kindly show me where im wrong.

Why is the Church called the Church? Why isn't the term 'Israel' used?

You say your mind is 'open'. I doubt it. Sounds good though.

Don't give me general statements such as the book of Galatians and Ephesians makes this clear. And then ask of me to prove to you what I have said. If you have something in Galatians and Ephesians that proves your point then give me the chapter and verse and prove your point. And, why do you not capitalize the books of Galatians and Ephesians? Do you have that little of respect for the books of the Bible?

There is no one verse in the Bible that says God is a Trinity made up of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three Persons yet One God. No one verse says that. But, the understanding of the many verses that point to that, convince us that God is indeed One God yet three Persons.

No, once the Church is raptured out, the Church is complete. It exists forever as the Body and Bride of Jesus Christ. Anyone saved after that, even though it is through Jesus Christ, they are not part of the Church. Just like from Adam to Moses, these people were neither Israel or the Church. A different set of believers.

Quantrill

 

[Nehemiah6]

Facts: 1. Paul always uses "temple of God" as a name for Christians.

Except when Paul prophesied about the future third temple in which the Antichirst would sit.

2. There is no relevant use in the NT that would be about the temple in Jerusalem.

Except when Christ prophesied about the Holy Place and the Abomination of Desolation which would stand there in future.

You are trying to fit Scripture into your false system of prophecy. Why don't you simply take the Scriptures for what they say. The term "temple" is used BOTH metaphorically as well as factually. There is a factual and real temple in Heaven right now. There will be a factual and real temple during the reign of the Antichrist. There will also be a factual and real temple during the Millennium and beyond that.

 

[trofimus]

I haven't watched the video Trof - I believe he is right, the old "world" ended with the destruction of the temple - it was the Jewish world/heaven and earth that ended in the fire of destruction wrought on the temple by the Romans in the war of 66-70AD

I have no problem with accepting that "heaven, earth, darkened sun, blood moon, fallling stars" are just illustrations of some spiritual realities and it could happen in the past.

But I have a problem with this - who was the Antichrist sitting in the temple and saying he is God, before the 70 AD and parousia of Christ in that age?

 

[trofimus]

Except when Paul prophesied about the future third temple in which the Antichirst would sit.

Except when Christ prophesied about the Holy Place and the Abomination of Desolation which would stand there in future.

You are trying to fit Scripture into your false system of prophecy. Why don't you simply take the Scriptures for what they say. The term "temple" is used BOTH metaphorically as well as factually. There is a factual and real temple in Heaven right now. There will be a factual and real temple during the reign of the Antichrist. There will also be a factual and real temple during the Millennium and beyond that.

Your aggresive and "all-knowing" tone of your post makes me not to dive into any theological response.

 

[tanakh]

Yes I'm back from what was meant to be a break.

Anywhere that the Holy Spirit resides is a true temple. The last Temple was destroyed because Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law
that was centered on it. It was left standing until AD70 while the the Church and the New Covenant was coming in to replace it.
Once the Church was established God destroyed it. This is not replacement theology as some understand it. The Church is an extension
of the true Israel that was instituted by Christ as Israels Messiah. Any new Temple built before the second coming will be part of the Satanic deception involving the Anti Christ. Modern Israel as a whole is Anti Christian. The whole purpose of its existence is to bring
Israel to judgement and fulfill end time prophecies.

Every day Jews are dying and facing a Godless eternity. Jesus said He was the way the truth and the life. No man can come to the father except through him. No man includes Jewish men and women. We should pray for their eyes to be open and to accept Christ as Lord and Savior

 

[iamsoandso]

Even though Moses was instructed to follow the pattern of them that he saw and the true that they represent did not fall.

 

[iamsoandso]

Yes I'm back from what was meant to be a break.

Anywhere that the Holy Spirit resides is a true temple. The last Temple was destroyed because Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law
that was centered on it. It was left standing until AD70 while the the Church and the New Covenant was coming in to replace it.
Once the Church was established God destroyed it. This is not replacement theology as some understand it. The Church is an extension
of the true Israel that was instituted by Christ as Israels Messiah. Any new Temple built before the second coming will be part of the Satanic deception involving the Anti Christ. Modern Israel as a whole is Anti Christian. The whole purpose of its existence is to bring
Israel to judgement and fulfill end time prophecies.

Every day Jews are dying and facing a Godless eternity. Jesus said He was the way the truth and the life. No man can come to the father except through him. No man includes Jewish men and women. We should pray for their eyes to be open and to accept Christ as Lord and Savior

In line with what you said about another temple do you see John 5:43 a prophecy?

 

[trofimus]

Any new Temple built before the second coming will be part of the Satanic deception involving the Anti Christ

Why does Paul call that temple to be "temple of God"?

 

[Quantrill]

I do not see the conflict between what the Orthodox priest said, and this link. Both talk about the coming of Jesus. Both are anticipating it. What is left out is all the millennial stuff, which as an amill, I long ago discarded. I think the priest in the video is a solid preterist, and that article you posted only says it is tiresome (my words) all this nonsense about pre-post, amill, and conditions for the return of Christ. And really, nothing about the rapture, which is a made up 18th century bit of nonsense. I mean, in the way it is predicted.

I think eschatology is at best a guess. And too many Christians treat it like a dogmatic creed. Really, there is no way we can absolutely pin down what is going to happen, using the Bible or not. Certainly, the only thing we can really trust, is that Jesus said he is coming again, and I believe he will.

The modern church does miss so much was fulfilled in the 1st century, especially the razing of the temple. My hope is in Jesus return. Not in all these twisted interpretations of metaphors literally. The Apocalypse is mostly symbolic, tied to the past, but I read person after person that says, "The plain meaning of the text is literal." Say what?? Revelation is Apocalyptic literature!! You cannot interpret it literally, because that is not the intent of the book. It never has been and never will be.

When I say I interpret the Bible literally it doesn't mean I don't allow the use of metaphors, symbols, allegories etc. But the Bible is not a metaphor to be interpreted metaphorically. If a symbol is used, fine, by all means find the interpretation of that symbol. If a metaphor is used, find what the metaphor is describing.

In other words, that symbol or metaphor is describing a literal truth. The book of Revelation does use many symbols. (Rev. 1:1) But these symbols or signs are not left to your or my imagination to determine their meaning. The Bible itself will give the understanding of the symbol.

You say, 'the only thing we can really trust, is that Jesus said he is coming again'. I'm certainly glad He gave us a little more information than that. What good is the blessing given in (Rev. 1:3) if there is no understanding?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Are there any verses anywhere for this two separate bodies, church and israel in the New testament? I'll be happy to change my mind if you can prove to me from the scriptures that the church and Israel is separate in the NEW TESTAMENT.

(1 Cor. 10:32) "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God."

Quantrill

 

[Angela53510]

When I say I interpret the Bible literally it doesn't mean I don't allow the use of metaphors, symbols, allegories etc. But the Bible is not a metaphor to be interpreted metaphorically. If a symbol is used, fine, by all means find the interpretation of that symbol. If a metaphor is used, find what the metaphor is describing.

In other words, that symbol or metaphor is describing a literal truth. The book of Revelation does use many symbols. (Rev. 1:1) But these symbols or signs are not left to your or my imagination to determine their meaning. The Bible itself will give the understanding of the symbol.

You say, 'the only thing we can really trust, is that Jesus said he is coming again'. I'm certainly glad He gave us a little more information than that. What good is the blessing given in (Rev. 1:3) if there is no understanding?

Quantrill

I agree that metaphors are metaphors. Not so sure about allegories, what would be some examples of this in the Bible?

My point is that Revelation is apocalyptic literature. Only found in a few places, like Daniel and Ezekiel (Now that is a difficult book to interpret!) and the Apocalypse. Apocalypse in Greek means "unveiling" or "revelation." Hence the English title. It does NOT mean, the end. Or prophesing the end. Now, the end is in there, for sure! But the book is not about signs of the end times. That is pure dispensationalism, which is the scenerio that are the people that keep saying they interpret the Bible literally.

Many times I have watched a thread in here get abducted by a dispensationalist or two. One starts out with some very literal twisting of the Bible, and says it is the literal interpretation. Then, another dispie starts arguing with the first, saying, "No, this means this, not what you said." A big discussion ensues. Then a third dispie gets involved, saying "No, you are both wrong. This is the literal interpretation." I could name names, but I won't. I believe these people are very sincere and saved. But utterly deluded with regards to who has the right "literal" interpretation.

All this nonsense about the rapture, which is so limited in number of times it is in the Bible. Which is to say, zero, or one if you want to twist the verb harpazio into the noun rapture. Which I cannot countenance! The thing that we are looking for, as the disciples were since the time Jesus ascended into heaven, in the early church, that is found quite a few times in the Bible, is the second coming of Jesus Christ. Not the third coming, with a secret one in the middle, or a temple that is not needed, nor prophesied. (More another time about the temple prophesied in Ezekiel, which never happened because of the disobedience of the Jews in captivity!)

We are not looking for interpretations of symbols, except as the Bible interprets them. Jews who don't believe in Jesus are not saved, we need to reach out, not just to them, but to every lost soul. And then, Jesus will come again, and THAT - JESUS RETURNING, to set the heavens and the world in order - THAT!! Is the event that matters. All the rest is so much dross, and mostly interpreted poorly.

 

[Noose]

Why does Paul call that temple to be "temple of God"?

Tanakh is talking about any physical temple that is to be built by man and not a spiritual one.
Can God live in a temple built by human hands? this question has been asked several times in the OT.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Your aggresive and "all-knowing" tone of your post makes me not to dive into any theological response.

Sorry, but the title of your thread is itself provocative. There is no need to pit metaphorical or spiritual temples against temples of "bricks and mortar'. The former do not replace the latter.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I think eschatology is at best a guess.

Since two-thirds of the Bible is prophetic, why would eschatology be "at best a guess?"

God has revealed His plans and purposes to us in broad detail, and Christ has given us an overview of all that would transpire between His first and second comings, and then beyond that to the New Heavens and the New Earth.

It is our privilege, as well as our responsibility, to make the effort to understand what God has revealed, and to clarify it to others. However, too many preachers and teachers fail to study the matter in depth, and present it clearly on the basis of Scripture. The problem is with systems such as Preterism and Amillennialism, which seek to turn prophecy on tis head, where anything can mean anything else, e.g. the Millennium.

 

[tanakh]

In line with what you said about another temple do you see John 5:43 a prophecy?

Yes it is a prophecy. The people and events in the Bible are shadows and types that repeat themselves throughout the scriptures
leading to the ultimate reality in Revelation. Many prophecies have more than one application. Jesus predicted that there would be a number of people who would claim to be the Messiah and deceive many. The last false Messiah of note was Simon Bar Kokhba who led a revolt against Rome from 132 to 136 AD

 

[Hevosmies]

(1 Cor. 10:32) "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God."

Quantrill

Thank you.

 

[Hevosmies]

Why is the Church called the Church? Why isn't the term 'Israel' used?

You say your mind is 'open'. I doubt it. Sounds good though.

Don't give me general statements such as the book of Galatians and Ephesians makes this clear. And then ask of me to prove to you what I have said. If you have something in Galatians and Ephesians that proves your point then give me the chapter and verse and prove your point. And, why do you not capitalize the books of Galatians and Ephesians? Do you have that little of respect for the books of the Bible?

There is no one verse in the Bible that says God is a Trinity made up of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three Persons yet One God. No one verse says that. But, the understanding of the many verses that point to that, convince us that God is indeed One God yet three Persons.

No, once the Church is raptured out, the Church is complete. It exists forever as the Body and Bride of Jesus Christ. Anyone saved after that, even though it is through Jesus Christ, they are not part of the Church. Just like from Adam to Moses, these people were neither Israel or the Church. A different set of believers.

Here are the verses i meant:

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

So in the past the gentiles were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, but not anymore.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Same promise to all.

And yes I am open minded. Dont care if you believe it or not.
I type how I please, and the fact that you point out i typed "galatians" with small letters is just nitpicking and petty. Grow up. there is nothing holy about the word galatians,, its a group of people, i dont worship the galatians, i dont even worship the epistle to the galatians. (notice i also type the word "i" in small letters too sometimes.) God, Holy Spirit and Jesus are the only words I type in big letters, rest i dont care about.