There shall not be left one stone upon another

[researcher]

Mar 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
Mar 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Looking for the third temple to be built and then destroyed so this prophecy can be fulfilled?

Let's see. If Jesus was looking at "those" buildings that existed 2000 years ago, then, they were destroyed by the Roman armies in 70, and, burned to the ground, then that must have been the temple he was talking about. "Those" buildings that Jesus and the disciples were looking at will never exist again. You can build another temple, but, it won't be that temple.

Did Jesus say, "this temple will be destroyed, then, they will build another one, and that one will be destroyed also, and when that one is destroyed, then the end will come?" Lol. Nope, just don't see it.

The buildings that they were looking at won't ever exist again.

Article on the destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructio ... _Jerusalem

 

[RND]

Common sense wins again! Very nice! Praise the Lord!

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

 

[researcher]

Common sense wins again! Very nice! Praise the Lord!

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

;) Common sense is good. ;) lol. ;)

 

[samuel]

The Temple that was destroyed in AD 70, was the Temple Jesus was talking about. I have thought about the building of another temple, and for some reasons it makes sense. And the Abomination standing where it should not ---- well that would just fit nicely.

Given just half a chance the Jews will build another Temple, but there is nothing in scripture about one. And the dome of the rock, just may have a good reason for being where it is. Only time will tell.

 

[Vic C.]

Since the new (and much improved) Temple is spiritual, I personally see no reason from a doctrinal POV that suggests another physical Temple is needed. The old Temple is akin to the Old Covenant.

 

[toddm]

Since the new (and much improved) Temple is spiritual, I personally see no reason from a doctrinal POV that suggests another physical Temple is needed. The old Temple is akin to the Old Covenant.

Precisely. Jesus told his disciples to look at the Temple in front of them. I balk at the idea of a new temple being built where offerings will be made again. Now THAT is ANTI-Christ in the truest sense.

 

[Orion]

There is a movement who want to build that new temple, which would take the destruction of an Islamic landmark, . . . which would end very badly, producing world wide affects. Let's hope it never comes to that.

 

[Michae1]

There will be a third Temple.

In Revelation 11:1 where John is being shown the Tribulation, he is told to measure the Temple. This would be the third Temple.

Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both describe the Anti-Christ desecrating the third Temple.

Will the third Temple be built on the Temple Mount, thereby necessitating the removal/destruction of the Dome of the Rock, or will it be built nearby? I do not know. There are theories on both these scenarios that I will have to study at a later time.

Will building the third Temple cause a lot of problems? Probably. That is why they call it the Tribulation. Am I looking forward to it? You bet. But that will mean that I am already gone because of the Rapture.

 

[RND]

There will be a third Temple.

In Revelation 11:1 where John is being shown the Tribulation, he is told to measure the Temple. This would be the third Temple.

Nope. Measurement in the Bible is synonymous with 'judgment'. We are told, clearly and specifically (by Jesus) that the believers in Jesus Christ are part of the temple which is His body.

Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both describe the Anti-Christ desecrating the third Temple.

Desecrating the 'people' of God that make up the 'temple' of God. The 'antichrist' claims to sit in authority over the 'people' of God that make up the 'temple' of God.

This is happening as we speak.

Will the third Temple be built on the Temple Mount, thereby necessitating the removal/destruction of the Dome of the Rock, or will it be built nearby? I do not know. There are theories on both these scenarios that I will have to study at a later time.

Fortunately there are no 'theories' in solid Bible prophecy exegesis.

Will building the third Temple cause a lot of problems? Probably. That is why they call it the Tribulation. Am I looking forward to it? You bet. But that will mean that I am already gone because of the Rapture.

How can one look forward to something they won't (allegedly) be party to witnessing?

 

[toddm]

Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both describe the Anti-Christ desecrating the third Temple.

No where in Matt. 24 or 2 Thess. 2 does it say that this is the anti-christ. That is popular OPINION that ASSUMED into the text, but the text never makes these connections. Matt. 24 speaks of the abomination that causes desolation and 2 Thess. 2 speaks of the "man of lawlessness".

Will the third Temple be built on the Temple Mount, thereby necessitating the removal/destruction of the Dome of the Rock, or will it be built nearby? I do not know. There are theories on both these scenarios that I will have to study at a later time.

So, after Jesus destroys the Temple in 70 AD, he changes His mind, decides to re-institute Temple sacrifices, and make His work on the cross completely null & void?? Plus, even if the Temple is somehow rebuilt, you have the perfect red heifer issue.

 

[Vic C.]

Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both describe the Anti-Christ desecrating the third Temple.

Desecrating the 'people' of God that make up the 'temple' of God. The 'antichrist' claims to sit in authority over the 'people' of God that make up the 'temple' of God.

This is happening as we speak.

Simple, straightforward and Biblical too.

No where in Matt. 24 or 2 Thess. 2 does it say that this is the anti-christ. That is popular OPINION that ASSUMED into the text, but the text never makes these connections. Matt. 24 speaks of the abomination that causes desolation and 2 Thess. 2 speaks of the "man of lawlessness".

I agree Todd, two separate events.

So, after Jesus destroys the Temple in 70 AD, he changes His mind, decides to re-institute Temple sacrifices, and make His work on the cross completely null & void?? Plus, even if the Temple is somehow rebuilt, you have the perfect red heifer issue.

Great points! Since the perfect sacrifice has already been offered up by God HIMSELF in HIS Son, Jesus and since that sort of perfection could never be achieved by neither man or beast, why bother?

 

[Drew]

There will be a third Temple.

In Revelation 11:1 where John is being shown the Tribulation, he is told to measure the Temple. This would be the third Temple.

Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both describe the Anti-Christ desecrating the third Temple.

I think that your argument here is actually circular. You assume the material in Matt 24:15 and 2 Thess is about future events and you retroject that view onto the text about the temple.

I agree with many of the arguments made by others: the temple Jesus refers to is the actual temple. And since Jesus basically says "all these things will be witnessed by this generation", we need to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that all the stuff in Matt 24, prior to that statement, is 70 AD stuff - including Matt 24:15.

And I think that can all be accomplished in a satisfactory manner.

 

[Michae1]

I can see I am going to have to start putting the text of the Bible quotes I use, instead of just the reference, so you guys can see how your contradicting yourselves.

As an example, where do you get that Jesus destroyed the second Temple in 70 AD? Jesus did not say he would destroy the Temple himself, he merely stated that it would be torn down. History records that it was the Romans who destroyed (tore down) the Temple. History verifies what the Bible says. This is one of the ways we know the Bible to be true

Your other theories can be just as easily disproved, but I am going to move on. Whether you want to reexamine your interpretation of the Bible, I will leave that up to you.

 

[RND]

I can see I am going to have to start putting the text of the Bible quotes I use, instead of just the reference, so you guys can see how your contradicting yourselves.

That's always helpful. Let's us know that you aren't just repeating things you hear from the pulpit or a video.

As an example, where do you get that Jesus destroyed the second Temple in 70 AD?

From the prophecy of Jesus predicting that the Temple would be destroyed.

Jesus did not say he would destroy the Temple himself, he merely stated that it would be torn down.

By proclaiming the destruction of the Temple it was obviously God's (Jesus) will that it be destroyed.

History records that it was the Romans who destroyed (tore down) the Temple. History verifies what the Bible says. This is one of the ways we know the Bible to be true

Did the Romans predict the Temple would be destroyed or did Jesus?

Your other theories can be just as easily disproved, but I am going to move on. Whether you want to reexamine your interpretation of the Bible, I will leave that up to you.

I suspect you are moving on because you simply refuse to see how you are espousing doctrine that is untrue.

 

[Drew]

Your other theories can be just as easily disproved, but I am going to move on. Whether you want to reexamine your interpretation of the Bible, I will leave that up to you.

Well, if you can disprove them please do so. Saying you can, and not actually doing so, looks a tad suspicious.

To be fair, though, you have every right to choose your battles...

 

[Vic C.]

Those who have been here for a while know I have changed some of what I believed about prophecy and end times. The reasons why is because I did reexamine the interpretations I once believed.

I do want to say one thing; the Lord Himself did not destroy the Temple, but He sure did allow it to happen, as part a judgment (but not the judgment).

 

[toddm]

I can see I am going to have to start putting the text of the Bible quotes I use, instead of just the reference, so you guys can see how your contradicting yourselves.

As an example, where do you get that Jesus destroyed the second Temple in 70 AD? Jesus did not say he would destroy the Temple himself, he merely stated that it would be torn down. History records that it was the Romans who destroyed (tore down) the Temple. History verifies what the Bible says. This is one of the ways we know the Bible to be true

Your other theories can be just as easily disproved, but I am going to move on. Whether you want to reexamine your interpretation of the Bible, I will leave that up to you.

Here's where this type of hermeneutic fails under the weight of the rest of Scripture. Did God cause Israel to be exiled or was it Babylon? Did God lead the Hebrews out of Egypt or did Moses? Did Joshua cause the walls of Jericho to fall or did God? Did Jesus destroy the Temple in 70 AD or did the Romans? See the implications here? If you remove God out of 70 AD, then you have to remove Him from every other story in the OT where He used His creation to bring about His judgment and will.