Has the temple been rebuilt?

Acts 15:16-18
After those days I will return,
And I will rebuild the tabernackle of David which has fallen,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord,
Who makes these things known from long ago.

Ephesians 2:19-21
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a "holy temple" in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

1 Corithians 3:16
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit if Gid dwells in you?

Certain streams of end times teaching say a millenial temple needs to be built in Jerusalem. Probably where the Dome of the Rock mosque sits.

The New Testament tells us the temple has already been built. It is the church, the body of Christ.

Bearmaster.

The following comment is from a Jewish man speaking to a Christian man about Christ Jesus.

"Don't be so confident. The jesus of Christianity is anti-Torah anti-Yisrael and anti-Temple. Sounds like the ideal anti-Messiah to me. All "faith" and no Torah? Did not Yosef, David, Mosheh, and the prophets have great faith, and yet their lives were characterised by a deep passion for Torah? True faith CANNOT exist apart from Torah (HASHEM's Word and Truth). Re-examine your religion. Seek His Torah and His true Messiah--the Jewish one who will prove that His Word and His Torah stand. "If He is further successful in rebuilding Beit HaMikdash on its original site and gathering the dispersed of Yisrael, then His identity as the Mashiakh is certain." - The RAMBAM. Wise up christian."

Do you see the confidence which this man has? It is in the building of the third temple on the Dome of the Rock. He then says that Jesus of Nazareth is the anti-christ. He believes that Jesus is against the Torah, against Israel and against the temple. Then he confirms that Joseph, King David and Moses, as with all the prophets had great faith but that which characterised them was their "deep passion" for the Torah. Then he advises this Christian to re-examine his religion. To seek His (God's) true Torah and the true Messiah…..a Jewish one who will prove that His Word and His Torah stand. Then he quotes from another man and says "If He is further successful in rebuilding Beit HaMikdash on its original site and gathering the dispersed of Yisrael, then His identity as the Mashiakh is certain." In other words the one who will succeed in rebuilding the temple on the mount in Jerusalem and by that means draws Israel to it will prove himself to be the Messiah.

RAMBAM is an acronym for a man. His full Hebrew name is Rabbi Mosheh ben Maimon (Hebrew: רבי משה בן מימון”Ž), whose acronym forms "Rambam" (רמב"ם).

"Wise up christian" is a threat.

It is not without good reason that the third temple is of such importance. It has been in the thinking of the Diaspora throughout Europe for more than 800 years. Today thousands of men and women have committed themselves fully and whole heartily to its realisation. Does that make it a biblical prophetic reality? No! What the men of Israel do is not necessarily evidence of biblical reality. Yet for all that this thing is being done in the full visibility of the nations and it cannot be stopped and its purpose of itself is the evidence to many that the Messiah has come. Only the Holy Spirit can make of that a reality of understanding to those for whom this will be necessary. The rest is simply vanity.

Kelly what makes such teaching erroneous to Christians is the reintroduction of sacrifices. There are elements of dispensational teachiing that imply Christians will be worshipping in the rebuilt temple during the thousand year reign of Christ. They will be offering animal sacrifices. If this be true. Then one should throw out the book of Hebrews and repudiate the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Blaine.

I remember in a TV program, a secular historian observed that had not Herrod's temple been destroyed in 70 AD, the spread of Christianity might have been impeded.

I thought very profound observation by a secular historian.

Bearmaster.

Sister thank you for the historical background of the first two temples. It was very informative.

Bearmaster.

Brother I agree with your insights.

Bearmaster.

Blaine there are almost endless vanities taught about the end times. I do not follow them personally. Neither do I have any strong views about eschatology. There is one certainty which is visible in Scripture which is that before the Lord returns the man of sin or (another) anti-christ will appear in Israel. Or to put it another way the Son of Perdition. As far as I am concerned the vanity lies in asserting "ideas" as though they were facts as far as actual events are concerned.

As for the specific concern which you mention, that of animal sacrifices in the millennium reign of Christ, I have only one thought on the matter. It does not include glorified believers entering into sacrifices, as such a claim if it were true would of necessity be ludicrous and in that context completely implausible. Such believers would be raised from the dead, have new bodies and the new life which they received to themselves throughout the ages would already be fully expressed and visible. They would already be heavenly so to suggest that believers in such a condition of perfection would need to participate in animal sacrifices for their own benefit would of course be madness as I say. Even as to do so today would be madness. Yet for a people who up until that very hour of the Lord and His kingdom come, their endurance in the kingdom will be tested. The Lord is not coming to reign with a rod of iron for nothing. Neither is the rebellion of men at the end of the kingdom a rebellion of men who has accepted the sacrifice of Messiah for their sins. Who really knows what the thing being learned by Israel and the Nations is, in the Kingdom of 1000 years? Does anyone know?

Now if believers are the "temple of God" could it be that the man of sin will be revealed, the son of perdition; from within those that have fallen away ? instead of a literal man and a literal temple ? proudpapa

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. John 17:12

Let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him. John 6:70-71

Judas was a literal man and he alone in the whole of the scriptures is called the Son of Perdition.

"I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘HE WHO EATS MY BREAD HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.’ "From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking. There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.” He, leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?” Jesus then answered, "That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly.” John 13:18”“27

Peter expressly asks John"Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.”

John , leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?”

I think that all of this would qualify for the saying "one who had fallen away". It seems to be unlikely that the man of sin will be less than one who possessed the truth but has fallen away. That cannot make him any less literal and individual it makes him rather more certain to be a man.

Brother my understanding from the New Testament is the church is referred to as the temple of God. But how this interacts with the verses in 2 Thes I cannot explain.

Bearmaster.

God liked that one and said HE would rebuild it,,,, enter the church!! Ceasless praise is a primary call of the church. rufnrust

The First Council in Jerusalem

Peter had spoken. Paul had spoken. The prophets had spoken. Now James the Lord's brother the Bishop of Jerusalem speaks.

"Brethren, listen to me. "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. Acts 15:13”“18

James is speaking about Amos 9:11-12

Amos 9:11-12

"In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David,
And wall up its breaches;
I will also raise up its ruins
And rebuild it as in the days of old;
That they may possess the remnant of Edom
And all the nations who are called by My name,”
Declares the LORD who does this.

Amen Colin. Indeed the day does draw near.

Bear.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38948&forum=36&start=30&viewmode=flat&order=0

"Milton Green who ministered in hundreds of churches and ministered deliverance from the Pastor on down in many of the same churches, said that "The Church is the dwelling place of demons" and that "there is a war going on and the Church has not shown up for the battle". 

Unclean spirits certainly seem to be welcome in the Churches, today.

This is nothing new, the SYNAGOGUE was a good hiding place for unclean spirits, too. I wonder why it was a good hiding place? Do you think the powers of darkness had convinced the religious leaders that unclean spirits could not cohabitate with them? "

The Adversary in the Church - Milton Green
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=12482

Did not Paul warn the elders of the church at Ephesus that after his departure savage wolves would cone in among them in sheep skins not sparing the flock? Did not Paul warn the same church that among their midst men would arise to distort the truth and draw disciples away from them? Did not Jesus warn that there would always be tares with the wheat?

I saw in the last Presidential election Christians were willing to vote for a man who cane out of a cultic system and make him their leader. I read about one respected well known evangelist who removed this man's cult off his web site. I read abiut one prominant Baptist leader in a Bible belt state who said Christians could vote for this man despite his being in a cultic system.

Given all the above. Yes. The man of lawlessness, the antichrist could very well take his seat in the temple of God proclaiming himself as god. And the scary thing is.......the church will buy it. If not Romney the Mormon. Then why not the antichrist himself.

My thoughts.

Bearmaster.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, I think this is a wonderful topic for discussion, and I only wish that I had time to enter into it right now; but I am on the way out the door for the day. I said that to say that I hate to miss this opportunity to expound on the rebuilding of the temple for antichrist, the building of the temple for Jesus Christ, and the temple sacrifices to be made during the one thousand year reign of Jesus Christ. I believe they are all literal, and perhaps can give an explanation tomorrow, but in the meantime you may want to consider a little bit that I shared on that subject in a brief Powerpoint teaching I put online several years ago. Hope this helps a bit.

http://www.proclaimit.org/pptext.html#9

in His grace,

Mark

"Vespasian sent Titus who said, Where is their God, the rock in whom they trusted? This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven. What did he do? He took a harlot by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies and spread out a scroll of the Law and committed a sin on it. He then took a sword and slashed the curtain. Miraculously blood spurted out, and he thought that he had slain God himself,as it says, Thine adversaries have roared in the midst of thine assembly, they have set up their ensigns for signs." Savannah

You know brother it is a foolish thing to lay more merit by the seeming wickedness of men than is necessary. When Titus uttered the words "where is their God" it would have only been necessary for one man to whisper "He is ascended into heaven my Lord Titus" to have brought the foolishness to an end. What ever Titus did or did not he was acting against mere elements, and by the body of a woman in pure vanity. When Christ died the curtain was rent in two. The true blood which was shed was that of Christ and the curtain which Titus smote was more evidence of the wickedness of men than anything Titus could have comprehended.

As has been said in this thread already…..we are missing the point. The rebuilding of the temple is not for righteousness. It is for wickedness.

I really don't know if there will be a literal physical temple rebuilt on the temple mount. I have never done a study on the subject at any time. In fact I have avoided the whole subject primarily on the grounds that I think it is all complete vanity for me at least.

I do have some revelation from my first days as a young believer and so I have some substance as to the merit of taking the claim of an end time anti-christ as being a real and literal man as true. Beyond that I have no firm basis for believing anything.

The whole reason for my comment to you here is because by giving credence to the things said by a historian without comprehending that the claims are vain even if they are true, (including the blood from the curtain} is to fail to see that the Scriptures themselves are more full and complete than anything an historian could write. Even if Josephus had been said to be a believer (which thing he is not said to be) his words would still be worthless as far as seeking to understand this issue. The point about the curtain and my saying that the curtain represents more wickedness than even Titus could comprehend is because it is of course true. When the curtain was rent in two by the Father it was a more visible reality to the priests of the temple than was the cross which they despised. Yet they mended it and hid its meaning for another 37 years. It's meaning was even hid from the consciences of those who ordered its repair in its day, just as they themselves were "hid" from eternal life. All of this was beyond Titus who could have understood none of it as they understood it. It was a physical evidence in its day which was greater than the temple itself. Yet they hid it.

As far as the temple itself is concerned brother I genuinely have no firm view of it. Other matters specifically regarding the Son of Perdition I have a long standing clear mind on it. That alone is what informs me and all of that is scriptural. My reference to "we are missing the point" was not missing my own point it was Colin Murray's point. I agree with him completely. That seems to me to be the only reason for believing that there will be an end time temple in Jerusalem.

In this thread we have missed the point about the temple being re-built look at what Paul says: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3”“4

Let no man deceive the temple will be rebuilt and the man who will exalt himself above God will be found sitting in that temple, showing himself to be God.

Thats the point of the temple… Colin Murray

The very fact that the curtain was there for Titus to strike was more evidence of wickedness than all the things Titus himself did in that place. It was the very evidence of the rejection of Christ. Just remember this brother when the Chief leaders of the people were asked by Pilate if they wanted their king released to them, they said "away with Him. We have no king but caesar". If the thing which Titus did was the least part of it, what then this man of sin whose sins are as the things of children compared to the chiefs priests and the leaders of the people of Israel who by the hand of wicked men crucified their Messiah? The child can hardly be said to be the man?

I too, have not paid much attention to all this talk about a rebuilt temple. I think it is a deception and even if it was built and temple sacrifices were re-instituted, God is not obligated to forgive Israel's sins on the basis of those sacrifices. Why Christians are supporting the rebuilding of the Temple which is tied to the Law is beyond me.

Heb_7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb_10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb_10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Andrew I may be mistaken. But I think Savannah is a sister. Only going by her/ his SI handle.

Bear

I was listening to Mathew this morning. I fond it worth noting that Jesus said behold "something greater than the temple is here". Namely Himself.

In Revelation it says there will be no temple as God and the Lamb will be the temple. In other words God will be dwelling with His people. They will be His temple in heaven.

As such are we not the temple
of God here on earth?

Something to ponder.

Bear.

I have retitled this thread as more of a question than an actual declaration.

Bear.

Am I mistaken Colin or is this article by Reggie Kelly and not Art Katz? I don't suppose it matters but it seems that way!

The link in the opening paragraph to the page linked to the url you posted which reads "I have to say, this [statement from the article Phil sent] really struck me:" comment, is the article from which I took the "conversation between the Jewish man and the Christian Man. It can be found in the blog comments section underneath the article itself.

It is difficult to tell where Reggie is really coming from in his comments. I suspect it is a swing in part to those believers who always portray end times as a time of destruction. His "doomsayers" comment appears to infer that. This too is linked to his detestation of any pre-trib prophetic claims and so on. Anyway disregarding the obvious prejudice Reggie is of course saying that the first 42 months of the 70th week of Daniel will be characterised by peace and prosperity. I think this is his "egg on the face" comment, after which it is primarily Israel which will suffer. Anyway the whole point I suppose for this OP is that Reggie sees a temple as essential to the man of sin being revealed and so clearly he sees a temple as inevitable.

I am curious about two points really. The one is alluded to by Chris and has to do with whether the temple itself could in any sense be called a holy place even if it was rebuilt? The article by Reggie covers that a little but not very convincingly for me. The second point has to do with the two greek words used for temple. The one being always and only used for the Holy of Holies inside the temple and the other being only used for the temple in terms of bricks and mortar.

As Allan shared……..

There are two words used for "temple" in the Greek New Testament-- "heron" and "naps." Both words were used for the temple in Jerusalem until "the veil of the temple (naos) was rent" (Mt. 27.51). After that, the word "naos" was never used for that temple made with hands.

"Naos" was the word used for "the temple of His body (Jn. 2.21)" and, after His ascension, for those who became "the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6.19)" or "the temple of God" (1 Cor. 3.16). Allan

What is the significance in this distinction really? I cannot see how it can be precisely as Allan shared in his ongoing explanation because that would of necessity be the same as saying that the man of sin is revealed in the apostate or else at least a significant part of the church itself. This itself would be easy enough to believe but it does sort of make ruin the idea that the man of sin is a man after all. A man cannot possess another man. It is impossible. Even Jesus Himself does not possess men. We never read of "Jesus in you" it is always "Christ in you". On the other hand perhaps thats is precisely the point of the comments Allan made. Perhaps the man of sin is capable of possessing other men by reason of being a spirit as well as a man! Perhaps he is a man who comes up out of the Abyss and therefore has overcome death, as it were, by reason of resuscitation. Does that make him the same for wickedness that Christ is for good? Christ being a life giving Spirit…..The man of sin being a pseudo life giving spirit?

There are a number of comments in this OP which subtly point to the idea that the man of sin is not a man per se but a condition of apostasy. Then it would be foolish to focus on a man at all. The same idea is also present in the idea that the temple is not a physical stone temple but is in fact those who believe in Christ. Therefore to connect the two ideas one might say that the temple therefore of the man of sin is not a temple of stone but apostate believers themselves. If so where does this leave those Jews who believe in the man of sin? Seeing that they would inevitably have to believe that he is the Messiah of Israel at least. Is Israel going to believe the church at the end of the age and thereby secure their sovereignty and dominion by reason of finally embracing the faith of the nations? Will this be in defiance of Islam as the provocation and the threat?

Just curious where the thoughts have gone! Of course if no one is willing to actually read then whats to say! God help us!

Seems to me that there are differences of opinions as to what the "Abomination of Desolation" will look (how it will be manifested).

What was the "holy place", then?

What is it, today?

The first question is easy and others have been coming forth with their understand of what the "holy place" is, today.