The Temple of His Body.

[kc1]

yes, my bad.....I was referring to this from kc "This Temple will be rebuilt during three thousand years,"

The Jewish temple of the future.

I did not say anywhere that the third Temple will be rebuilt during three thousand years.
The third Temple will be rebuilt at the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan.9: 24-27)

 

[Chopper]

I did not say anywhere that the third Temple will be rebuilt during three thousand years.
The third Temple will be rebuilt at the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan.9: 24-27)

kc1, is this the temple of 2 Thessalonians?.... 2Thessalonians 2:4 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.

 

[kc1]

kc1, is this the temple of 2 Thessalonians?.... 2Thessalonians 2:4 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.

Yes, it is.

 

[Chopper]

Yes, it is.

I really like your thinking and theology. There are some who do not see the gift of prophesy that is in you by the Holy Spirit, BUT I DO!! I haven't had time to go back and study in detail your OP but I hope to real soon. That's when I said to myself, Hey, this guy has something important to say. After 3 to 4 hours of intense Scripture study each morning, I usually get the Holy Spirit hugging me inside His Temple, so I usually know when He's speaking thru someone like you, kc1.

I love you my friend, so don't let those who disagree with you, get you down. Keep the prophetic gift flowing for Jesus' honor and Glory. That way, the Father is glorified.

 

[Free]

I agree with your statement. I like what James Ryle had to say about what we are concerned with....

James Ryle,
"Sooner or later the last word will be spoken. All debate will cease, and arguments will come to an end. Somebody somehow in someway will be able to sum it all up and put everything and everyone in their place. That somebody is Jesus.

Until then we are surrounded by a hurricane of opinions, ideas, suggestions, postulations, pontifications, exaggerations, exclamations, theories, concepts, notions, imaginations, vanities, snippets, and a host of other verbal squalls that wreck lives and strew debris across the landscape.

The wind blows faster and faster, the swirl moves more and more quickly — gathering speed and force. The vortex of the man-made Blow Cloud sucks virtually everything and everyone into it spin. Soon it will reach such velocity that one will hardly be able to put a clear thought on the table for discussion.

BOOM! That’s when a trumpet blast will call the whole thing to a screeching halt and we will find ourselves dizzy with nonsense as we stand before the Lord. He will look us over, and His gaze will humble us one and all.

And then He will speak — and what He says goes. He will have the final word on everything and everyone. It would be a good idea to become friends with Him now, don’t you think?"

This is exactly how I feel my friend.

So, for the third time, what truth and what preconceptions that keep one from seeing this truth?

 

[Chopper]

And for the third time I've tried to answer your questions. Preconceptions are matters of known facts and an unwillingness to accept someone else's position. That's not text book, that's dirt bag psychology. Here is kc1's OP....

In the Book of Revelation, in the fifth chapter, the whole Church of God is represented to us in its entirety. Jesus Christ said: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’ (John. 2:19). He ‘spake of the temple of his body’ (John.2:21). This Temple will be rebuilt during three thousand years, because ‘one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2Pet.3:8)

So, ‘the four beasts’ (Rev.5:6) are ‘faithful’ (Rev. 17:14), or ‘church of the firstborn’ (Heb.12:23), or ‘a sheaf of the firstfruits’ (Lev.23:10) of the harvest...,

Twenty-four elders are ‘called, & chosen’ (Revelation 17:14), or ‘barley harvest and of wheat harvest’ (Ruth.2:23), or ‘two wave loaves’ (Lev.23:17) ...,

Many Angels (Rev. 5:11) are the saved of the Millennium and the righteous of the Old Testament who will be resurrected "at the end" (Dan.12:13) of the Millennium is the ‘feast of ingathering at the year's end’ (Ex.34:22)

kc1, Friday at 12:02 PM Report

Lets just take the first paragraph....In the Book of Revelation, in the fifth chapter, the whole Church of God is represented to us in its entirety. Jesus Christ said: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’ (John. 2:19). He ‘spake of the temple of his body’ (John.2:21). This Temple will be rebuilt during three thousand years, because ‘one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2Pet.3:8)

The fifth chapter of Revelation is certainly Truth, or don't you believe that Jesus was in the grave 3 days. thus the 3,000 that kc1 referred too.

I'm not really sure how you want me to answer your questions that satisfy you. I have given you Truth, and explained the obstacle of preconceptions that hinder a person to believe that Truth. People have already questioned kc1's use of 3,000 years as 1. Why? preconceived dogma of a different explanation.

 

[Free]

And for the third time I've tried to answer your questions.

Your first reply was: "Free my friend. I have looked closely at each of kc1's theological statements with an open spiritual mind and I see truth in each one. Perhaps not exactly how he phrased them, but truth never the less. I'm an avid student of Revelation and that's where you will find nuggets of truth."

No attempt to answer there. Your second reply was: "Free. We all end up with preconceptions as to our own interpretations of the Book of Revelation. I might believe in a pre-trib rapture as the Church at Philadelphia promises and you might not. Therefore a certain statement concerning that would color your acceptance of a truth stated, where I would accept it.

Prophesy is a big one. I might accept a truth that someone states where as you might believe the prophesy speaks to something entirely different based on preconceptions."

Ok, I suppose that sort of answers the preconceptions part but it didn't tell what you found to be true.

Preconceptions are matters of known facts and an unwillingness to accept someone else's position. That's not text book, that's dirt bag psychology.

Not textbook, no. A preconception is: "an idea or opinion that someone has before learning about or experiencing something directly" (Merriam-Webster). As it is the opposite of "known facts," I don't think that was the word you were looking for. Preconceptions, properly defined, does work somewhat but we must also consider "biases". Both are based on what one thinks or believes are the facts--one out of ignorance, one out of knowledge--but those "facts" may not be facts at all, they could be error.

Here is kc1's OP....

In the Book of Revelation, in the fifth chapter, the whole Church of God is represented to us in its entirety. Jesus Christ said: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’ (John. 2:19). He ‘spake of the temple of his body’ (John.2:21). This Temple will be rebuilt during three thousand years, because ‘one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2Pet.3:8)

So, ‘the four beasts’ (Rev.5:6) are ‘faithful’ (Rev. 17:14), or ‘church of the firstborn’ (Heb.12:23), or ‘a sheaf of the firstfruits’ (Lev.23:10) of the harvest...,

Twenty-four elders are ‘called, & chosen’ (Revelation 17:14), or ‘barley harvest and of wheat harvest’ (Ruth.2:23), or ‘two wave loaves’ (Lev.23:17) ...,

Many Angels (Rev. 5:11) are the saved of the Millennium and the righteous of the Old Testament who will be resurrected "at the end" (Dan.12:13) of the Millennium is the ‘feast of ingathering at the year's end’ (Ex.34:22)

kc1, Friday at 12:02 PM Report

Lets just take the first paragraph....In the Book of Revelation, in the fifth chapter, the whole Church of God is represented to us in its entirety. Jesus Christ said: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’ (John. 2:19). He ‘spake of the temple of his body’ (John.2:21). This Temple will be rebuilt during three thousand years, because ‘one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2Pet.3:8)

The fifth chapter of Revelation is certainly Truth, or don't you believe that Jesus was in the grave 3 days. thus the 3,000 that kc1 referred too.

Revelation 5 has nothing to do with Jesus being in the grave for three days. It says the Lamb was slain, yes, but there is simply no way to draw a conclusion about three days and then three thousand years. That is going far beyond what the text says. Then we have the very plain and clear teaching from John 2 that Jesus was speaking of his body when he said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Full stop. And to top it off, as I have shown, Peter was most definitely not making some sort of mathematical equation where one day is literally equal to one thousand years. It is a simile, a figure of speech, to make the very clear point that God's timing is not our timing, as the context indicates.

Apart from Scripture being quoted, I see no truth. It is just someone trying to force connections on Scripture where there are none. As has been said, we are not to add to Scripture. We ought never make it say more than it does and we ought never make it say less.

People have already questioned kc1's use of 3,000 years as 1. Why? preconceived dogma of a different explanation.

It is not "preconceived dogma of a different explanation," it is simply biblically wrong.

 

[Nathan]

Consider this Free

There were times when Christ spoke of 'raising' in the personal sense, then when we read about His resurrection it is always God the father who raised Jesus.

Could it be that when Jesus was speaking in the first person about raising up His body, it could be that He was prophesying about the ressurection of the dead - not His personal ressurection?

I've never completely studied it out, but I have always seen this distinction when reading.

John 10:17-18 is very interesting when you start to think about this. It must be taken in context when looked at though.

 

[Free]

Consider this Free

There were times when Christ spoke of 'raising' in the personal sense, then when we read about His resurrection it is always God the father who raised Jesus.

Could it be that when Jesus was speaking in the first person about raising up His body, it could be that He was prophesying about the ressurection of the dead - not His personal ressurection?

I've never completely studied it out, but I have always seen this distinction when reading.

John 10:17-18 is very interesting when you start to think about this. It must be taken in context when looked at though.

I don't see any reason to think that when Jesus was speaking of raising his body that he was implying something else, particularly when we have the very clear teaching in John 2 that Jesus was speaking of his body. Rather than suggesting something that is not implied by the texts, we should see this as being the working of both the Father and the Son, even the Holy Spirit. It seems that, as with creation, the Trinity was involved in the resurrection of Jesus:

https://www.gotquestions.org/who-resurrected-Jesus.html

 

[Nathan]

I don't see any reason to think that when Jesus was speaking of raising his body that he was implying something else, particularly when we have the very clear teaching in John 2 that Jesus was speaking of his body. Rather than suggesting something that is not implied by the texts, we should see this as being the working of both the Father and the Son, even the Holy Spirit. It seems that, as with creation, the Trinity was involved in the resurrection of Jesus:

https://www.gotquestions.org/who-resurrected-Jesus.html

It really dives into deep theological truths. Namely, Jesus was separated from God - as in His life was completely separated from God. He had no power/authority to raise His life from the dead, God the Father had to give Him back that life when He raised Jesus from the dead.

So we cannot just dismiss the words said as something that was not meant to be taken seriously. In John 2 Jesus said He was going to lay down His life(which He did), and He was going to raise it up(which 'He' did not). However, we know that He will raise up His 'body' which is the church. God has given Him that charge to do. But it was The Father who raised Jesus - not Jesus Himself.

When you look at the parallel in John 10, we see Him again referring to this -

John 10:17
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

He prefaced this statement with this -

"And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd."

So, in other words, He considers His 'life' that of a fulfillment of this "one flock".

John 6 is also a great place to understand this relationship.

 

[Free]

It really dives into deep theological truths. Namely, Jesus was separated from God - as in His life was completely separated from God. He had no power/authority to raise His life from the dead, God the Father had to give Him back that life when He raised Jesus from the dead.

That is not what Scripture says.

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." (ESV)

And we know that Jesus had the power to raise the dead.

So we cannot just dismiss the words said as something that was not meant to be taken seriously. In John 2 Jesus said He was going to lay down His life(which He did), and He was going to raise it up(which 'He' did not). However, we know that He will raise up His 'body' which is the church. God has given Him that charge to do. But it was The Father who raised Jesus - not Jesus Himself.

No one is just dismissing anything as not meant to be taken seriously. The point is that it is to go too far in making Jesus say something he does not to suggest that he was speaking of the Church. A plain reading of John 2 clearly shows us that Jesus was going to destroy his body and then raise it up. We cannot just go and say that Jesus meant something else entirely when John clearly states that Jesus was referring to his own body. There is no mention there of it referring to something else.

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (ESV)

Also, there is no mention anywhere else in the NT of the disciples remembering Jesus's words and then relating them to the Church. We have here something very clear and plain that needs no further explanation apart from the Trinity. Just because the Father is most often mentioned in raising Jesus doesn't mean that Jesus had no involvement and he must have meant something else. The Father raised him, the Holy Spirit raised him, and he raised himself. It is the work of the Trinity.

When you look at the parallel in John 10, we see Him again referring to this -

John 10:17
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

He prefaced this statement with this -

"And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd."

So, in other words, He considers His 'life' that of a fulfillment of this "one flock".

That is not what Jesus is saying.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." (ESV)

Nowhere here is it stated or intimated that Jesus "considers His 'life' that of a fulfilment of this 'one flock'." The whole point is that there cannot be one flock until he lays down his life and takes it up again. And that is what we see in Paul's writings:

Eph. 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (ESV)

And, as I have already shown, you are leaving out verse 18 where Jesus clearly states that he has the authority to take up his life again. He already had that authority before he died. And why shouldn't he? He is "the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25), he is the "Author of life" (Acts 3:15), and we see him raise the dead (John 11:43).

 

[Nathan]

That is not what Scripture says.

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." (ESV)

And we know that Jesus had the power to raise the dead.


No one is just dismissing anything as not meant to be taken seriously. The point is that it is to go too far in making Jesus say something he does not to suggest that he was speaking of the Church. A plain reading of John 2 clearly shows us that Jesus was going to destroy his body and then raise it up. We cannot just go and say that Jesus meant something else entirely when John clearly states that Jesus was referring to his own body. There is no mention there of it referring to something else.

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (ESV)

Also, there is no mention anywhere else in the NT of the disciples remembering Jesus's words and then relating them to the Church. We have here something very clear and plain that needs no further explanation apart from the Trinity. Just because the Father is most often mentioned in raising Jesus doesn't mean that Jesus had no involvement and he must have meant something else. The Father raised him, the Holy Spirit raised him, and he raised himself. It is the work of the Trinity.


That is not what Jesus is saying.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." (ESV)

Nowhere here is it stated or intimated that Jesus "considers His 'life' that of a fulfilment of this 'one flock'." The whole point is that there cannot be one flock until he lays down his life and takes it up again. And that is what we see in Paul's writings:

Eph. 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (ESV)

And, as I have already shown, you are leaving out verse 18 where Jesus clearly states that he has the authority to take up his life again. He already had that authority before he died. And why shouldn't he? He is "the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25), he is the "Author of life" (Acts 3:15), and we see him raise the dead (John 11:43).

I realize what Jesus said, I'm not leaving it out. Like I said, this goes into deep theological truths that a person has to study the whole of what we have written to understand.

There is one key that cannot be overlooked, and that is Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead. It was impossible. God the Father has to do it. It is even prophesied as such.

Psalm 16:10 (ESV)
For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.

Anyways, I'd be glad to really dive in next week. I just am not where I can do it this week.

 

[Jim Parker]

Who owns the cattle on hill number 1001?

The United States Marines.
They just took that hill.
OOrah!

 

[Jim Parker]

A plain reading of John 2 clearly shows us that Jesus was going to destroy his body and then raise it up. We cannot just go and say that Jesus meant something else entirely when John clearly states that Jesus was referring to his own body. There is no mention there of it referring to something else.

Now, you're being way too logical and rational and reasonable there, brother.


iakov the fool

 

[Free]

I realize what Jesus said, I'm not leaving it out. Like I said, this goes into deep theological truths that a person has to study the whole of what we have written to understand.

There is one key that cannot be overlooked, and that is Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead. It was impossible. God the Father has to do it. It is even prophesied as such.

Psalm 16:10 (ESV)
For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.

Anyways, I'd be glad to really dive in next week. I just am not where I can do it this week.

Before I reply to this, I have a question: Do you believe the soul survives death of the body?

 

[Nathan]

Before I reply to this, I have a question: Do you believe the soul survives death of the body?

Yes, physical death is separate from Spiritual death. Spiritual death is the second death spoken of. It is the death of the soul. Those in Christ will not die this second death.

 

[Free]

Yes, physical death is separate from Spiritual death. Spiritual death is the second death spoken of. It is the death of the soul. Those in Christ will not die this second death.

Since physical death is not the death of the soul, only Jesus's body died. So why, precisely, was it impossible for Jesus to raise his body from dead?

 

[Jim Parker]

Since physical death is not the death of the soul, only Jesus's body died. So why, precisely, was it impossible for Jesus to raise his body from dead?

How about:
Jesus has a complete human nature and humans can die.
Jesus also has a complete divine nature and divinity cannot die.
So Jesus' physical body died. The Logos never did.

Just thinking.......

 

[Free]

How about:
Jesus has a complete human nature and humans can die.
Jesus also has a complete divine nature and divinity cannot die.
So Jesus' physical body died. The Logos never did.

Just thinking.......

Yes, same idea. Can we say that human nature dies if the soul doesn't die? Since Jesus had two natures, what then happened?

Just thinking......too.

 

[Nathan]

Since physical death is not the death of the soul, only Jesus's body died. So why, precisely, was it impossible for Jesus to raise his body from dead?

If Jesus body is the only thing that died, then it was the only thing that came back to life.

Therefore it is only our physical bodies which are saved in His death. He also died in His Spirit - He was seperated from God - separated from eternal life. That way, in Him we will not only be raised physically, but we have eternal spiritual life in Him.

This is why He cried out that God had forsaken Him. It was Him dying - first in the Spirit, then physically.

Sin brings death. When our sin was placed on Him it sepetated Him from God. Therefore, it was only God who could bring Him back from the dead and give Him life again.