How would a potential Third Temple be constructed?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't know how and when the Temple will be rebuilt, it may by the result of a peace treaty, but I would suspect it will be rebuilt as the result of a WMD war between Israel and its neighbors:  In such a case, Israel will suffer great loss but will win, then the Jews will expell the Muslims from the land and rebuild the Temple.  (Such a path to the rebuilding of the Temple is only a guess on my, but it is plausible.)  The expelling of Muslims from the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Temple will lead to worldwide upheaval, thus setting the stage for the new world order in which the AntiChrist will propose a peace treaty ending the Israeli/Muslim conflict.  Such a scenario is possible within the next 10 years, certainly within the next 50 years.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't know how and when the Temple will be rebuilt, it may by the result of a peace treaty, but I would suspect it will be rebuilt as the result of a WMD war between Israel and its neighbors:  In such a case, Israel will suffer great loss but will win, then the Jews will expell the Muslims from the land and rebuild the Temple.  (Such a path to the rebuilding of the Temple is only a guess on my, but it is plausible.)  The expelling of Muslims from the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Temple will lead to worldwide upheaval, thus setting the stage for the new world order in which the AntiChrist will propose a peace treaty ending the Israeli/Muslim conflict.  Such a scenario is possible within the next 10 years, certainly within the next 50 years.

Nurse?! One of the patients has escaped!

it is very plausible that in a WMD war Tel Aviv (where a good portion of secular Jews live) will be nuked (Jerusalem would be spared because it is holy to Muslims).  The remaining population of Jews, with the religious now making up a much higher percentage take over the West Bank and expel the Muslims from Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.

There are already groups in Israel amassing material for the rebuilding:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Second, I'll assume you're counting Christians as one of the "bitchy groups". This is very stupid as the vast majority of Christians could not care less about the Temple Mount. Like around 95%. Only a handful of nutjobs like jmfcst do.

this is so full of misrepresentations:

1) I have no personal interest in the Temple Mount.  I, myself, along with every other believer filled with the spirit of Jesus Christ, am the temple of God.

2) There is a MUCH larger percentage than 5% of Christians who believe the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt.  In fact, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of millennialists believe the temple will be rebuilt. (and, as a side-note, millennialism was the norm during the 1st four centuries of Christianity.  It wasn’t until the formation of the Catholic Church that the belief was pushed aside)

---

Please note he is the only person on this forum raving about it. Even most conservative Christians would not agree with him.

I am also one of the very few persons on this forum preaching against sexual immorality, though the bible is filled with such warnings.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Justin Martyr says himself in the Dialogue with Trypho, that while he himself is a premillenialist, there were many other Christians you disagree. That is immaterial anyway. They weren't dispensational premillenialists--their premillenialism was church centered, not Israel centered. I know you never read anyone with which you disagree, but I'm still going to recomend you check the work of George E. Ladd, who is the most known modern proponent of "histoci" premillenialism. Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby(Peace Be Upon Him), regardless of whatever lineage you might try to claim for it.

Bono, I find your repeated statement “Peace be upon him” to be quite arrogant, as it attempt to proclaim that I follow Darby when I don’t know anything about him.

If you would TAKE THE TIME to read the early church fathers, you would know that same thing that took me the last 10 mintues to google:

Exhibit A – Justin

Justin’s statemetnts about the antiChrist are in agreement with my own:

"The one that Daniel revealed would reign for a time, times and a half, is now at the door ready to utter bold and blasphemous words against the Most High.  And you, being ignorant of how long he will reign, hold a different opinion, interpreting the word “time” as meaning one hundred years.  But if this is so, the man of sin must reign at least three hundred and fifty years….But the other (advent) in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy (who speaks strange things against the Most High) will venture to do unlawful deeds on earth against us Christians”

Exibit B: Irenaeus 

Irenaeus  believed the AntiChrist would be ruling from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and that he  held believes on this topic which are identical to my own, quoting 2Thes2 and Matt 24:14 to back up his beliefs.  And Irenaeus  believed the AntiChrist would rule for 3.5 years ,just as I believe.  And he used linked Dan 9:27 with the sacrifice being taken away to the antichrist in the rebuilt temple (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chp. 25)

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple in Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chp. 30)

If I hadn’t quoted Irenaeus, everyone on this forum would have thought that the above statement came from jmfcst! 

Exhibit C: Hippolytus

Hippolytus also seperated Daniel’s 70th week and believed it signified the last 7 years.  Hippolytus also believed the AntiChrist would rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, where the AntiChrist will abolish the sacrifice and proclaim himself to be God:

"For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world...."
[Hippolytus, On Daniel, II, 22] 

"Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every God, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: 'And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.' As also it was announced to Daniel: 'And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed' - that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: 'And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'
[Hippolytus, On Daniel, II, 39]

"And at first, indeed, that deceitful and lawless one, with crafty deceitfulness, will refuse such glory; but the men persisting, and holding by him, will declare him king. And thereafter he will be lifted up in heart, and he who was formerly gentle will become violent, and he who pursued love will become pitiless, and the humble in heart will become haughty and inhuman, and the hater of unrighteousness will persecute the righteous. Then, when he is elevated to his kingdom, he will marshal war; and in his wrath he will smite three mighty kings, - those, namely, of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia. And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem, and will restore it again speedily, and give it over to the Jews. And then he will be lifted up in heart against every man; yea, he will speak blasphemy also against God, thinking in his deceit that he shall be king upon the earth hereafter for ever; not knowing, miserable wretch, that his kingdom is to be quickly brought to nought, and that he will quickly have to meet the fire which is prepared for him, along with all who trust him and serve him. For when Daniel said, 'I shall make my covenant for one week,' he indicated seven years; and the one half of the week is for the preaching of the prophets, and for the other half of the week - that is to say, for three years and a half - Antichrist will reign upon the earth. And after this his kingdom and his glory shall be taken away. Behold, ye who love God, what manner of tribulation there shall rise in those days, such as has not been from the foundation of the world, no, nor ever shall be, except in those days alone. Then the lawless one, being lifted up in heart, will gather together his demons in man's form, and will abominate those who call him to the kingdom, and will pollute many souls."
[Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXV] 
 
Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease. By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations. For John says, And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. [Hippolytus - Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 43]

--==========================================

So, Bono, in closing, I have two suggestions for you…

1) Put your arrogance aside, for you may be well read, but you know very little – your knowledge is limited to labels.  For it took me a mere 10 minutes to google the beliefs of early Christians and demonstrate that my beliefs concerning the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and its subsequent occupation by the AntiChrist did NOT come from Darby, a person I have never read, but rather were common in the early church among those who studied the scriptures.

2) Put all your books written by Christians aside and get into the scripture.  Those other books may have some value, but they’ve also passed onto to you the doctrinal errors and prejudices of their authors, which took only 10 minutes for me to refute.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To All -

I hope my previous post puts aside all talk that I gleaned my beliefs from anyting other than scripture. That's not to say my beliefs are perfect, but I do hope it ends all this talk that I am a pawn of some Christian writer within the last 500 years.

In my years on this forum, I have repeatedly communicated the fact that I do not read Christian books other than the bible.  I have never read the beliefs of Calvin, Luther, or whoever else is out there.

I came to believe in Christ as a result of being prompted by a follower of Herbert Armstrong in Oct '92.  During my first night of study, I happened to start with the book of Galatians.  God gave me the ability to understand the book of Galatians refuted the legalism of Armstrong, and I became a believer and received the Holy Spirit that very same night while alone in my apartment.

I spent the next 18 months studying with and witnesses to my friends caught up in Armstrong's church.  I quickly became aware of the dangers of following teachers instead of reading the bible for yourself.  I can’t not tell how you many times I would have my friends read to me scripture and how when I would have them interpret it themselves (without me first telling them my interpretation), their interpretation would agree with mine…but when they realized they were contradicting their church’s doctrine, they would claim that there must be something their own interpretation had missed even though they couldn’t pinpoint it.  I have them take an entire book of scripture, like Hebrews, and have them read it to me while they provided a steady steam of their own interpretation, and be completely on the same page without me saying a single word…until they found out what their church believed.  And this sort of thing happened so often, that my friends began refusing to give their own interpretations without first checking their church’s position. 

Sadly, that is how much of Christianity operates.  And my frustrations from witnessing it firsthand is the reason I have admittedly taken an over-extreme position of being somewhat indifferent to Christian writings.  I believe that if you can’t interpret scripture for yourself, then you have no way to verify your church’s teachings.  I do, however, check to make sure I am not out on a limb by myself on any given doctrine, for I do not believe I have been given special knowledge apart from other Christians.

As for as the church I go to and my pastor...I didn't step foot into my church until 5.5 months after being saved. And during that intervening 5.5 months, I studied everyday and basically had the outline of what I believe today BEFORE I ever stepped foot into my current church.

During those 5.5 months, I was without a church and I was attending Armstrong’s church with my friends (not that I agreed with it, but I went to learn more and to demonstrate to my friends in that church that I was going the extra mile).  I planned to find a church, but my priorities were to help my friends.

When I decided to get baptized (I received the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism), I took a long lunch from work, drove the 20 miles back to my apartment, and walked into a Baptist church chose to where I lived.  I told the pastor my story and asked to be baptized.  The pastor told me he would schedule it for the following Sunday, but I was disappointed and asked again to be baptized then and there.  The pastor said that he would baptize me immediately under one condition: that I would come back Sunday and be rebaptized in front on the congregation.  Even though I had planned on attending Sunday and making it my home, having to be rebaptized made no sense to me, so I left.  I arrived back at work and told a fellow worker what had happened.  She replied that she knew a pastor who would baptize me today and that was close to work.  She made a phone call, and set up an appointment with me immediately after work.  I told the next pastor my story and what the other pastor said.  He agreed there was no scriptural basis to the other pastor's objections.  After a short talk, he baptized me and has been my pastor ever since, even though I have had to drive 20 miles to attend church for the last 16 years.

Granted, my pastor teaches me a lot, otherwise I wouldn’t have continued attending, but my doctrine was pretty much put in place during those intervening 5.5 months through self-study (I was about 95% in agreement with my pastor when I first accepted his as my pastor, now I’m about 94% in agreement).  That’s why every attempt to categorize my beliefs will flop.  No one can take the beliefs or Calvin or Luther or Darby or even my pastor and use them as a template in an attempt to label and dismiss my beliefs.  I’m not going to fit neatly into any box because I didn’t get my beliefs from any box other than my own interpretation of the bible.

And that is what I have an issue with – labeling for the purpose of dismissing, especially when the label doesn’t fit.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bono, I eagerly await your reaction to the fact the early church fathers believed as I do - that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist when Christ returns.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bono, I eagerly await your reaction to the fact the early church fathers believed as I do - that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist when Christ returns.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bono, I eagerly await your reaction to the fact the early church fathers believed as I do - that the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist when Christ returns.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is "my reaction".

First, Justin Martyr. We find his eschatological views in his Dialog with Trypho, the Jew. There is no dispute that he was a Premillenialist. But a few considerations blunt the strenght of this fact as an argument for the universality of Premillenialism in the early church. First, Justin makes clear that not all Christians agree with him about premillennialism.

Dude, I NEVER argued for the “universality” of Premillenialsim, I simply said it was a common belief.  Whether it had the acceptance of 20% or 80% is relevant to my point.  I simply was pointing out that the idea was nothing new and the early church fathers that I quoted prove that.  So stop trying to redefine the argument.

---

But this is not the only problem. Justin's premillenialism was clearly distinct from modern dispensational premillenialism: one of the great thrusts of Justin's Dialog  is the doctrine that Christians are the true Jews.

Likewise I also believe Christians (whether Gentile or Jew) are the true spiritual Jews and makeup the true spiritual Israel.  But I, like Justin, also distinguish between spiritual Jew and blood Jew.  Again, you’re attempting to force a disagreement in an area where it doesn’t exist.

---

Justin's millennium would have no special place at all for the Jew, for he tells us over and over that Christians "are the true Israelite race".

Your conclusion is plain conjecture, for I myself believe Christians are the true spiritual Israel, yet I am able to distinguish the spiritual Israel from the physical Isreal.

---

I think this does away with any claim dispensationalism can lay on Justin Martyr's lineage.

What?!  As I understand the term “dispensation”, unless you believe the Law of Moses is still in effect, you, by definition believe in different dispensations of time where God’s economy (the system he gave man) changed.  Catholics are dispensationists, which is why they mention throughout the catholic catechism the fact that God’s economy has changed.

---

Irenaeus, too, denied any special Judaic character in the Millenial kingdom.

And….what’s your point?  Irenaeus still believed the Temple in Jerusalem was going to be rebuilt and occupied by the AntiChrist before the Second Coming.

---

He equates Abraham's seed not with Jews, but with those "who are justified by faith".

As you can see in the following, I’ve always believed the exact same thing:

430 years before the Old Covenant commandments, God prophesied to Abraham that the Gentiles would be justified by faith through the message of gospel: "All nations will be blessed through you."  The blessing of the gospel to the whole earth came “through Abraham” because Jesus was a descendent of Abraham.  That is why Abraham is called “the father of the faithful”, because we become children of Abraham in the eyes of God when we receive Christ into our hearts, so we become identified with Christ, who is Abraham’s heir and promised seed.

 

---

Hippolytus…

He wasn't talking of a sacrifice in the rebuilt Jewish temple, he was talking about transubstantiation!

Hippolytus clearly believed the temple in Jerusalem was going to be rebuilt:

“And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem, and will restore it again speedily, and give it over to the Jews”  [Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXV] 

Case closed.

---

Ie, he envisions the antichrist persecuting the Church, not the Jews, thus establishing that he, too, was no proto-dispensationalist

I also believe the antichrist will persecute the church:

I am NOT a Pre-Tribber, I believe the church will have to endure persecution from the Anti-Christ.

And whether or not there is a difference between Hippolytus and I concerning the Jews, he and I are still in agreement that the Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt.

---

More generally, none of this indicates that premillenialism had an origin in apostolic Christianity.

But it does indicate that the idea of the rebuilding of the Temple and the occupation thereof by the AntiChrist just prior to the Second Coming was NOT an idea that originated with Darby.  Period!

---

As the quotations from Justin have already suggested, a Christian premillennialist could recognize a remarkable similarity between his own views and those of the Jews at this point. This tends to confirm the view that premillennialism originated within ancient Judaism. Masselink in his polemic work against premillennialism, Why Thousand Years? asked the question:

"What is the origin of this strange doctrine?" The careful study of church history will furnish us with the conclusive answer. Premillennialism is a descent of ancient Judaism.

This is what I don’t get about you, Bono:  For some idiotic reason, you discount the possibility that some members of Judaism and some members of Christianity (e.g. Justin, jmfcst) can read the same scriptures and independently come to the same conclusions in certain areas. 

I know it is difficult for you to grasp the idea of independent thought, which is why you’re always quoting Christian writers to back up your beliefs instead of quoting scripture; but believe it or not, some of us can think without the help of others:

1 John 2:27 “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you”


Two closing points…

1)   You have no basis to accuse me of following the teachings of anyone.  My testimony is that I am largely self taught, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

2)   Belief in a rebuilt Jerusalem temple did NOT originate with Darby, but rather the idea came about independently by believers who independently read the same set of scriptures and came to the same conclusion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To reiterate--I never said some early Christians never believed the temple would not be rebuilt, nor that most prophecies were yet to be fulfilled. I just denied that they were proto-dispensationalists, and none of your arguments disprove that, for you are arguing against something I never said.

Then, I think you've got the wrong car, McFly, for this thread deals with the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple.

But, since you've pulled us off topic...name a single non-Judadizing Christian denomination that doesn't believe in dispensation. 

If you believe that the new covenant did away with the dietary laws of unclean meat, then you are, by definition, a dispensationalist.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Massive red herring. Believing in different dispensations is not the same as believing in the system known as dispensationalism.

Huh?!  Was that a typo?  Dispensationalism isn’t the belief in different dispensations?

----

Dispensationalism is an overarching hermeneutical grid with which to understand scripture. When it comes do dispensations, the main difference about how dispensationalism and covenant theology look at them is that dispensationalism tends to emphasize the discontinuity, and covenant theology tends to emphasize the continuity and see different 'dispensations' as simply different ways of administering the same covenant of grace.

If you care to learn more (which I know you don't, but I'll say it anyway, you can look at this simple comparison chart.

dude, that whole chart seems to be put in terms of a whole variety of Calvinists.  I don't want to look up multilayered definitions.  So, let me cut through all the clutter and state what aspects of “Dispensational Theology”, based on that chart, I agree or disagree with:

“Dispensational Theology”:

1)  “May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never five-point Calvinist.”  (I cannot enumerate Calvinism, and I have no idea what “Arminian” means.  So point number one goes right over my head.)

2) “Usually does NOT accept the idea of the Analogy of Faith” - allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture”  (jmfcst totally disagrees, for jmfcst ALWAYS uses scripture to interpret scripture – one jmfcst strike against DT)

3) “'Israel' always means the literal, physical descendants of Jacob.” (jmfcst totally disagrees, Rom 9:6 “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” is a point-blank reference to BOTH physical and spiritual Israel – two jmfcst strikes against DT)

4) “Israel of God' in Galatians 6:16 means physical Israel alone.” . (jmfcst totally disagrees, though I don’t see the significance of this verse in the context of the current discussion – three jmfcst strikes against DT)

5) “The Church was not prophesied as such in the OT but was a "mystery", hidden until the NT.” . (jmfcst totally disagrees, Joseph saving the Gentiles is one example of the Church being prophesied in the OT – four jmfcst strikes against DT)

6) “All OT prophecies for 'Israel' are for the physical nation of Israel, not the Church.” (I have not reviewed every OT prophecy with the word “Israel” in it to see if it passes this test, nor does it matter it me since I believe many of the blessings of physical Israel are passed along to spiritual Israel – the Church)

7) “God's main purpose in history is national physical Israel.” (huh?  jmfcst totally disagrees – five jmfcst strikes against DT )

8 ) “The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages.” (jmfcst totally disagrees – six jmfcst strikes against DT )

9) “The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel.” (jmfcst totally disagrees – seven jmfcst strikes against DT )

Need I continue? How many years have you attempted to label me as DT, yet I believe almost totally the opposite as DT.  As I stated before:

every attempt to categorize my beliefs will flop.  No one can take the beliefs or Calvin or Luther or Darby or even my pastor and use them as a template in an attempt to label and dismiss my beliefs.  I’m not going to fit neatly into any box because I didn’t get my beliefs from any box other than my own interpretation of the bible.

And that is what I have an issue with – labeling for the purpose of dismissing, especially when the label doesn’t fit.