Dan 9:25 7 weeks & 62 weeks

I am assuming nothing. Anyone who reads those verse in their plain literal sense will agree. At the same time, we know when "the temple of God" is used metaphorically for believers. We also know that there is a true temple in Heaven. So really you are the one who is either confused or deceiving himself.

There was Solomon's temple, then "Herod's" temple (not really Herod's but so-called), and there will be a third temple erected in Jerusalem to fulfil the prophecy of the Abomination of Desolation mentioned by Daniel. But this temple will also be destroyed, and there will be a fourth temple in Jerusalem after the Second Coming of Christ. This will be an undefiled temple, and Jerusalem and Israel will be cleansed from all Gentile presence.

The temple of God since Christ was raised is His body, the church. The Jerusalem temple has not been referred to in scripture as the temple of God since Jesus was raised. We are living stones being built together as God's temple. That IMHO is the only temple God recognises as His temple today. I could be wrong, but that's what seems to be the case according to scripture as it speaks to me.

Consider:

--(in the Greek) Paul never uses the definite article ('the') when referencing us as "temple";

--yet, in both 2Th2:4 and in Rev11:1 (both being eschatological contexts), the phrase is expressed like this: "THE temple of God";

--the latter of these two verses (Rev11:1) clearly distinguishing between "[measure] THE temple of God, [and the altar], and THEM that worship THEREIN" (distinguishing between the structure itself AND them that worship therein);

--in the other verse (2Th2:4), the character/person being spoken of ('the man of sin' per context) connects back to the person/"king" in Daniel 11:36 (at the time-slot of Dan12:11 "abomination of desolation SET UP [H5414]"--the reference Jesus spoke to [AOD-singular/singular], in His words of Matt24:15-16 [note the specified LOCATION! in v.16!],21)




--[bonus info] Irenaeus also speaks of that future time / place

Hi @Nehemiah6

So you reject any idea that the Dome of the Rock is an abomination before God that pretty literally sits on 'a wing of the temple'? And that we are now waiting for the desolation that has been decreed to be poured out.

"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. ” Daniel 9:27

God bless you,
Ted

Yes. I reject that idea and so do the Orthodox Jews who plan to build that third temple. See the Temple Institute website: "The Temple Institute is dedicated to making the Holy Temple a reality in our day, and toward this end, the Temple Institute has, for 36 years, been building and planning and researching and teaching and sharing with you our reconstructed sacred vessels and priestly garments, our books and paintings, our red heifer candidates, our teachings and insights and our love for HaShem and the Holy Temple!"
The Temple Institute of Jerusalem - Learn About the Temple Institute

They even have red heifers, a Levitical choir, the High Priest's robes etc. Christians can observe these developments in light of Bible prophecy without necessarily agreeing with the Jews. The Jews imagine that they are doing what God wants, but since they are in unbelief they will be preparing for the Antichrist instead.

We cannot speculate regarding how the Dome will be dealt with. There is some talk about the location of the new temple away from the Dome so that it does not have to be torn down.

But before there are any desolations, the Antichrist -- the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition -- must literally sit in this third temple. And Christ said that the Abomination of Desolation will be set up in "the Holy Place" (which is within that temple). And Daniel says (Dan 9:27) that there will be sacrifices and offerings in that temple: And he [the Antichrist, the prince that shall come] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [seven years]: and in the midst of the week [after 3 1/2 years] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Hi @Nehemiah6

Well, you do know that the Jews have been wrong before... right? Yes, I've read about all of the preparations that some groups have been making for a third temple. They have a lot the accoutrements already made to be set in place when the new temple is built. But the new temple hasn't been built. What if those who are bringing together all of these smaller pieces don't understand that the larger piece isn't coming, just as they misunderstood when the larger piece did come and they missed it.

The fact is that the Dome of the Rock is a muslim sacred site and it sits literally on the temple mount. So, the first thing that Israel has to do is to remove the Dome of the Rock. Let me know when that's done. Then maybe we will have some better idea of whether or not this third temple gets rebuilt. I haven't yet seen any solid proof that the Scriptures somehow infer or intend or say that there will ever be a third temple in Jerusalem. Some Jews are saying that they can build a temple without disturbing the Dome of the Rock, but really, is God likely to honor that work?

I know that Ezekiel makes mention of a temple being built, but he only describes it and some say it isn't a very good likeness of the temple that Ezra built after Solomon's temple was torn down by the Babylonians. He doesn't actually mention that it's a 'third' temple and he was writing this before Ezra built the last temple in Jerusalem when Nehemiah and Ezra returned to Israel and Jerusalem to begin the rebuilding work of the city and it's walls, and ultimately a new temple.

If my understanding of the Scriptures is correct, that God raised up Israel for a purpose and that purpose is now complete, then I'm not sure I can see 'why' God would be interested in some third temple for the Israelites to worship in.

God bless,
Ted

I already posted those Scriptures so did you ignore them? So let's take only what the Lord Jesus Christ said and look at it closely within the Olivet Discourse.

1. Christ prophesied about the destruction of the second temple: 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. (Mt 24:2). Was this fulfilled in 70 AD. Absolutely. No one will question that.

2. Following that prediction, He prophesied about the Abomination of Desolation standing in "the Holy Place" which can only mean within a temple in Jerusalem. The Holy place was within the temple, and within it was the Holy of Holies: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)... (Mt 24:15)

3. Did the Antichrist (who is directly connected to the Abomination of Desolation) appear in Jerusalem between 30 AD and 70 AD? Of course not. It would be outrageous for anyone to make such a claim.

4. So what options does that leave you? You can either reject the words of the Lord (and continue to deceive yourself), or you must accept the fact that He was speaking about a third temple by mentioning "the Holy Place".

There are several other Scriptures to support this, and now it is up to you to fo go and search for them.

If a third [physical] temple were to actually be built, that does not automatically make it fulfilled biblical prophecy.

There is no third [physical] temple in biblical prophecy.

I believe that many/most Christians today severely misinterpret Daniel 9:24-27 as well as the 'abomination of desolation' reference in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.

Most of the debate in these types of threads is completely and totally meaningless - because, both sides of the [usual] debate are wrong...

There is only one real-and-true bona fide actual official biblical 'Abomination of Desolation' event - and, it occurred in 167 B.C.

As difficult as it may be for some to believe - Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 are not predicting a future 'Abomination of Desolation'.

Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 are saying precisely the same thing as Luke 21:20 - only, in a "cloaked" way of saying it.

Matthew 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, and Luke 21:20-23 are referring to the same exact event - circa 70 A.D.

There is no 'antichrist' in Daniel 9:24-27. The words 'he' in verse 27 (all three of them) are referring to Jesus. Everything in the passage is 100% fulfilled - none of it has ever been about anything in our future.

There is no gap in the 490 years. The 70th week ended in 34 A.D. It is all past history.

There will be no 7-year treaty between any antichrist and Israel (as being in accordance with bible prophecy).

There is no 7-year 'prophetic' End Times period.

However, there is a 3.5-year 'prophetic' End Times period. And, we call it the 'Two Witnesses'.

Why not? Just because you say so? Daniel, Christ, Paul, and John all prophesied about this temple, but you are willing to ignore all that? Christians need to simply take Scriptures in their plain literal sense.

The more valid question is 'Why?' - why would it automatically make it fulfilled biblical prophecy?

Answer that one.

The Jews have been wanting to build another temple for a very long time - simply because they believe they should do so - that does not mean it is fulfilled biblical prophecy. It is not biblical prophecy that they want to build it. And, I know of no biblical prophecy that specifically says/states/indicates that they will build it.

Of course not - don't be silly.

If you will make a list of ALL of the verses in which you believe these four prophesied about a third [physical] temple, I will try to show you why those verses are not actually talking about a third [physical] temple.

A simple list - one line for each Book/Chapter/Verse(s) - will be sufficient.

Make a complete list, now - don't leave any verses out - okay?

(This is necessary if we are to have a productive discussion.)

Yes - and, if they did - they would obtain a better interpretation and understanding - instead of the convoluted stuff they have now and are so convinced is the truth.

You need to remember that - while you are looking at the plain literal sense of a verse/passage - you cannot just decide to overlook and leave out something like '(let him that readeth understand,)' - because, it is just as important as the rest of the verse in a plain reading of scripture. And, you must understand how it affects the meaning of the verse/passage if you are to obtain the proper interpretation.

If you think/say "Well, I don't know what that one part is about - but, the rest of the verse means..." - you are very likely wrong already - because, that approach can "leave you in limbo" if you do not have a sufficient understanding of every part of the verse/passage.

Also, a plain reading of scripture will result in the clear understanding that Matthew 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, and Luke 21:20-23 are referring to the same exact event. Only by twisting scripture do you end up with anything else.

With specific regard to the two verses/passages containing the parenthetical phrases referred to above - until you can explain exactly how the parenthetical phrase fits into the verse/passage - how exactly it affects the overall meaning - I highly recommend that you do not try to promote any particular interpretation of those verses/passages. Until you can explain the meaning of the whole verse, in context, you are missing something very important that is at the very core of what it means - and, the proper interpretation cannot be obtained without it!

Hi @GaryA

Are you answering your own questions as a sort of 'devil's advocate' thing. LOL!

Not sure what you mean - what [specific] "questions" are you referring to?

Hey @GaryA

Well, in your post #72 you copied your own post and answered it. That's not generally how this works and so I was questioning whether you were trying to play the devil's advocate to your own post. That's all.

When you quote all or part of a post, it does not necessarily mean that you are addressing the post as you indicate. Rather, a quoted post is merely a reference that you intend to use for your current post - to make a point, or whatever. Nor does it mean that you are addressing the person whose post you are quoting. It means you wish to draw the reader's attention to the quoted content while reading the content you are posting.

The person who posted what you are quoting only comes into play as a matter of overall context.

If I quote your post, it does not necessarily mean that I disagree with you, or with what you posted, or any other such thing. It means I wish to direct the attention of readers to what you said in a previous post - as part of what I am intending to get across in my post.

All-to-often, folks on here get offended just because someone quoted them - because, they think that the person who quoted them is against them in some way - or, in direct opposition to them in some way. This is not automatically the case.

It merely means someone is making a reference to what they said - agree, disagree, or whatever.

And, when someone quotes their own post, it usually means they just want to add something to what they have said already - related to what they quoted.

It is yo who needs to read and understand what Daniel, Christ, Paul, and John have said. Instead you have invented your own eschatology. But I will leave you to your own ideas.

There is a man who wrote about this I don't remember his name but he was on Youtube Janie Duvall's channel. I do not think everything he said was correct, but he was onto something. He said the 483 years until Messiah was the 3rd decree by Artaxerxes. His main theory is that there were 2 restorations of Jerusalem. He states that in Nehemiah when Jerusalem's walls were rebuilt for the first time the walls were rebuilt by Jews only. Isaiah 60:10 talks about a time when the walls will be rebuilt by Foreigners and their kings. Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the walls in 1537 and there is a plaque on the temple mount about the rebuilding. The Man also states that there is no proof that the moat was rebuilt in Nehemiah's time, but under Suleiman the Magnificent the moat was rebuilt. Daniel 9:25.

I am waiting for you to list for me all of the verses/passages where Daniel, Christ, Paul, and John all prophesied about a third [physical] temple.