It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Things that won't happen;- The building of the temple

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 05:03 PM
The full title of this theme ought to be “Things that won’t happen in the end-times”.
I’m referring to those anticipated events, featuring frequently in speculations about the end-times, which are based on misinterpretations of what the Bible says.

In this case, I’m looking at “the rebuilding of the Temple”.
This expectation does not come directly from any New Testament promise.
It’s mainly an inference from the statement that the “man of sin… takes his seat in the temple of God” (2 Thessalonians ch2 vv3-4).
Similarly, Jesus confirms that an abomination of desolation will be standing “in the holy place” (Matthew ch24v15), and there’s a reference to the temple of God and its altar in Revelation ch11v1.
Since the one Temple of the Biblical God has already been destroyed, these references would seem to imply the building of a Third Temple (or Fourth Temple, if Herod’s building is counted separately).
So any critique of the “rebuilding” theory needs to be based on a better understanding of what these references mean.

Paul speaks of a temple in other places.
He tells the believer that his body is a temple, as a place where God dwells;
“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Corinthians ch6 v19).
More to the point, he tells the Christian church in Corinth that they themselves, as a community, are a temple, as a place where God dwells;
“Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (! Corinthians ch3 v16).
It isn’t clear in modern English, but that “You” is in the plural. All of them together make ONE temple.
That is why the fostering of disunity is so offensive to God. Anyone who breaks up the unity of the church is breaking up the temple of God, which is an act of sacrilege; “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (v17).

We may compare this with what Jesus says about the Temple in John’s gospel;
“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’… But he spoke of the temple of his body” (John ch2vv19-21).
There may be one further level of meaning, referring to the future “body of Christ” as the re-established Temple.

So the church, as a corporate body, is the temple of God of the New Testament era.
If we read that conclusion back into the reference from Thessalonians, then the implication of “taking his seat in the temple” would be that the man of sin seizes control of the visible church.
When he “proclaims himself to be God”, and obliges the church to accept that proclamation, that would be the “abomination” (that is, the focus of idolatry) predicted by Jesus.
The same proclamation would have the (disguised) effect of suppressing the church’s worship of the Biblical God and breaking off their contact with him. That would be the “desolation” (that is, the sense of isolation) which accompanies the abomination.
These results, between them, would reproduce what was accomplished by the original “abomination of desolation” established by Antiochus Epiphanes.

The passage in Thessalonians should also be compared closely with the passage in Revelation ch11.
If both passages are talking about a literal physical temple, then they are flatly contradicting each other. Paul sees the man of sin taking over the temple, while in Revelation the integrity of the temple and its worshippers are preserved from the invasion of “the nations”.
The best explanation is that both passages are speaking metaphorically, but using the metaphor in different ways.
Since Paul is echoing the image already used by Daniel and by Jesus, his “temple” must be something external and accessible to human control.
In the Revelation vision, the external structures of the church, which the enemies of God are able to control, are labelled as “the outer courts”. The real “temple” is the inaccessible spiritual sanctuary of the church- that is, the unquenchable faith of the stubborn saints who are resisting the deception.
With that qualification, we ought to recognise both versions of the temple as the Body of Christ.

For New Testament purposes, that is the dwelling-place of God.
No other temple would be necessary.
So there is no reason found in the New Testament to suggest that any other temple will be built.


posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 05:04 PM
Some people would propose the Temple vision of Ezekiel as a prophecy promising a new Temple in the end-times.
It will be necessary to point out that this last vision of Ezekiel is about the final restoration of things after God’s enemies have been defeated, in the shape of Gog of the land of Magog. It is the Old Testament equivalent of the “new Jerusalem” at the end of Revelation.
Therefore it has nothing to say about “the end-times” in the sense of the events occurring before the Return of Christ.

Ezekiel;- The new temple

edit on 10-1-2020 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 06:03 PM
edit on 10-1-2020 by Plotus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 06:11 PM
good thread dizzy and Plotus.....dat's funny i don't care what.....he he

and the real temple was down by the gihon springs....the only water the city of David....15 acres

a reply to: Plotus

edit on 10-1-2020 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 06:13 PM
link this threw me..

posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: Plotus
I assume this was a good thing. I see you replied to it the first time round, as well.

posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 06:21 PM
a reply to: DISRAELI

Where you been hiding, Disaeli? I haven't heard from you in a while.

posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 06:33 PM
a reply to: lostbook
I took a break at Christmas, as usual, but apart from that I start a new thread every week. See profile. I post on other people's threads, too, but only on the interesting topics.

posted on Jan, 10 2020 @ 10:17 PM
a reply to: DISRAELI

Would the most logical inference from your post be that the Man of Sin is the Pope?

I can’t imagine any other type of religious figure fitting the bill.

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 12:10 AM
a reply to: sparkofdivine
Only on the assumption that the Man of Sin has to be in the world at the present time. If we abandon that assumption (and I think we should), then that leaves the field open for future unseen possibilities. E.g. a more extreme Hitler-type figure, bending the church to his will along with everybody else, and "proclaiming himself to be God" in a more literal sense than the Pope is doing.

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 12:21 AM
a reply to: DISRAELI

I think your theory is far too much of a prolonged grope.

I don't think it's that hard to distinguish between metaphorical temple vs literal temple.

I still hold to the Biblical interpretation policy, strategy that dictates to take a passage literally unless it's obviously otherwise.

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 12:53 AM
a reply to: DISRAELI

First the Rapture...Then the Great Tribulation...Temple will be rebuilt during the Tribulation...Anti-Christ will sit in the Temple AS Jesus...

End of Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus...Jesus will sit in and reign from that Temple for a thousand years...

You can learn those things by BELIEVING the Bible...When you turn everything into a metaphor, you end up with a mess that doesn't make any sense to anyone, as you have shown...

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 12:59 AM
a reply to: JoseGarcia
Given that even starting to erect a new building on the site of the present mosque is not practical politics (instant World War3), I think the "grope" is the rebuilding theory. You might have a point if any New Testament text actually said "The destoroyed temple will be rebuilt", but there is no such text. Just an inference from the statement about "sitting in the temple". If it is not possible to rebuild, then "sitting in the temple" has to be fulfilled in some other way.

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 01:02 AM
a reply to: Iscool
You see, the Rapture" isn't in the Bible either. It's just an oblique, contorted inference from Paul's description of what happens when Christ returns at the end of the age. We and the resurrected saints will be "taken up" to meet him. We need to believe what the Bible MEANS to say, and for that we must understand it properly.

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 01:18 AM
I like the idea of the body (and by extension the congregation) as the temple, the place where the spirit of God dwells. Why would God be in a temple building if it were empty or filled with non-believers? What if there is no temple building?

It fits well with Christ's teachings IMO and with identifying as a "Natural Christian" (someone who follows the teachings of Jesus as if they were with him at his first coming).

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 02:47 PM
a reply to: DISRAELI

There are a lot of verses in the Bible about--first the Tabernacle in the wilderness and then Solomon's Temple and then the third or 4th Temple of the Tribulation period and then the Temple of Christ's Millennial reign.

It is illogical, irrational & inconceivable, to me, to think that all those very detailed verses about very tangible aspects of the Temples are totally metaphorical.

It is highly likely that many aspects of the Temple *are* symbolic of spiritual principles, truths, illustrations. That does NOT preclude their also being solid tangible descriptions of solid tangible objects.

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 03:46 PM
a reply to: JoseGarcia
The view I've been taking, e.g. in the Peace restored series of last August, is that Old Testament interpretation is physical and literal, while New Testament re-interpretation is spiritual and largely metaphorical. For example, I offered spiritual interpretations for "God blessing his people" (which is about receiving the Spirit, not about receiving money), and for "God's people returning home".

On these issues, I'm challenging two combined approaches which I believe to be modern innovations. One is the insistence that we should take everything in the Old Testament absolutely literally, instead of allowing for a spiritual re-interpretation as befits Christians guided by the Spirit, able to pierce the "veil" which hid the true meaning of scripture from the Jews of Paul's time. The other is the modern obsession with creating some sort of narrative for events of the "end-times" out of contrived interpretations of isolated texts which are then woven into an artificial sequence. I include in this the claim to be able to determine fixed intervals between the various end-times events. All this "so many years for the tribulation, then the building of the temple, then the antichrist's peace treaty, then the rapture", and so on. We don't need any of this, and it's not what the Bible wants to say to us.

Next week I will be challenging "the destruction of Damascus" as an end-times event. You must be ready to be indignant.

posted on Jan, 11 2020 @ 07:37 PM
a reply to: DISRAELI
You are correct we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, there will be no physical temple built until the 1000 year reign. Will that be the saints of living stones being fitted together?

posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 01:33 AM
a reply to: JON666
Why should that not be a continuation of the way the living stones are fitting together now? Without the visible disunity, of course.

posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 01:42 AM
Actually Matthew 24 is clear on the temple. Verse 15 is the answer to the question asked in verse 3 "what is the sign of the end of the world?"

15 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:

Which is actually a cross reference to these verses in Daniel 11.

30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

Jesus Christ is clearly implying that the prophesies of Daniel are to repeat themselves in the end times. So when is the end times/last days? That actually has an answer to it in the book of Hosea and the day of Jezreel prophecy. Simply put the prophecy states that Israel and Judah were to face a long term top level Leviticus 26 curse. But the short version of the prophecy and it's timeline is in verses 6-1 and 2.

1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

2nd Peter 3-8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Put simply the timeline of the curse is 2000 years followed by the 1000 year "day of Jezreel".

So I would pose that when the last days are referenced in the bible they are referencing these 3 days in Hosea as well as the 70 weeks of days in Daniel 9. And the last 7 days of Daniel occur at the end of the 2nd day of Hosea.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in