"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
Per your 824, the point I made is that historically there was more consequence from the Third War in 132-135, where we have significantly larger forces at war on both sides, probably twice as many casualties, a named false mtessiah that most of the Jews followed, whose name we still remember, and an exile of the Jews from the land of Israel. It is only due to preterism's need to have a 70 date that they must try to force the prophecies to fit it. They do not all fit; the chastisement of "this generation" only in 70 does not fit; 132-135, which we even still call the Bar Kochba Revolt, also fits; as will any time the Jews choose a false messiah to fight for/with them. 70 does not fit as the worst time of Jacob's Trouble; it was very bad, but there has been worse, and there is more to come. As for the Gentiles killed throughout WWII and its aftermath, the numbers were horrible but the prophecy in question was for Israel. I'm sure many thought WWII and the Holocaust of the Jews, 6 million or more systematically slaughtered just for being physically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, including Jewish Christians like yourself, was the worst so far, but the end was not yet. Does it really make sense to you that schismatics who rebelled against the Catholic Church in the 16th Century to reform or "redo" the faith once delivered to the saints would then produce a Reformed Theology than keeps reforming itself with new "doctors" into a Preterist Theology that says "I used to love her, but it's all over now, over now?" At least Calvin and Gentry have not called themselves Prophet like Joseph Smith, and their books are not yet treated as scripture although I wonder sometimes.
>>>Careful now - this is vision - 'mountain' also has a spiritual meaning. Does it mean 'hill of rock and earth' here, or does it mean 'nation'? Which is the 'great and high nation', higher than all the rest, which is declared in the time of Messiah's return to rule and reign? Zion is called 'the high mountain' in the prophetic kingdom language.<<<
Of course it is spiritual. And so is most every mention of Zion in the O.T. Prophecies. Of course, you would never get a Pharisee to admit that. To them, everything is earthly: everything is related to a physical temple; a physical Throne of David; and with the Pharisees controlling the world. I know some of them personally. You don't want them ruling the world! LOL!
This is the Church, New Jerusalem, from Isaiah: the church Christ gave his life for:
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (Isa 2:2-4 KJV)
That O.T. prophecy points to the same Church--the same New Jerusalem--as the one in Rev 21:9-14. It is spiritual. Therefore all nations flow into it and walk in the light of it, spiritually, in this manner:
"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me [Christ.]" (John 6:45 KJV)
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb 10:16-17 KJV)
Coming to Christ, the head of the Church, is not a physical pilgrimage, like to Mecca, except under the Pharisaic interpretation of the prophecies, where everyone would make a pilgrimage to old Jerusalem to learn this:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Mat 7:12 KJV)
One would think they could learn that at home. Is our education system really that bad? (don't answer that) Well, it is a little more complicated than that. You also have to love God.
Of course, if one believes the old Mosaic age, and its laws, is still in effect; to them Christ suffered and died in vain:
"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb 9:24-26 KJV)
The wall that he tore down between us [Jews and Gentiles] by hanging on the cross; and the reconciliation he made for iniquity, as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet; would be for naught:
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both [Jews and Gentiles] one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:" (Eph 2:11-16 KJV)
Note that if you are "without Christ, you are an alien from the commonwealth of Israel". In that clause there is no distinction between the Jews and Gentiles, and when the passage is taken as a whole, there is no Israelite who is not a Christian. Is that a revealing passage, or what? But it is contained in this verse:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)
Therefore, Christ is Israel, as are His children:
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29 KJV)
Back to the pilgrimage: they could also travel thousands of miles to see an earthly temple; but all they really need to know is this:
"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;" (Acts 17:24 KJV)
"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (2 Cor 6:16 KJV)
"Now therefore ye [Jews and Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:19-22 KJV)
So, if both Jews and Gentiles are in that temple, who are those people who will be controlling the man-made temple: those pretending to be under Mosaic law?
Back to the pilgrimage: they also could travel thousands of miles to see the Throne of David; but all they really need to know is this:
"The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven…" (Ps 11:4 KJV)
"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;" (Heb 9:11 KJV)
"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal 4:26 KJV)
Therefore, the pilgrimage will be in vain. They will see nothing but fancy buildings: an elaborate tourist attraction. It may be a good money making scheme, like the temple in 70 A.D. before it was destroyed; but this time the Lord most certainly will not be there.
All this assumes the Lord even allows it to be built. He was pretty angry with the Jewish leadership for killing him, his prophets and apostles, even before all the murders occurred:
"Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." (Isa 28:14-18 KJV)
And they were. That last sentence was the flood of Daniel 9:26. Sad.
I would recommend all the dual-covenant types volunteer as part of the construction team, so they can prove to the world their faith that God will not allow this to recur:
"Julian thought to rebuild at an extravagant expense the proud Temple once at Jerusalem, and committed this task to Alypius of Antioch. Alypius set vigorously to work, and was seconded by the governor of the province; when fearful balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, continued their attacks, till the workmen, after repeated scorchings, could approach no more: and he gave up the attempt." [The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, 23.1]
Just kidding. I would recommend avoiding the entire area: the entire nation; if some foolish, arrogant men decide they want a temple.
>>>But the tense is a present promise of a future thing (good things to come). The redemption is real and now, but also a promise of much more - this is almost marriage language - the betrothal period continues, the marriage is considered real (betrothal is considered to really BE marriage, but remains only potential not realized), but the consummation and life of wedded bliss is awaiting the real and tangible coming of the Groom.<<<
That sounds an awful lot like adding words to the scripture.
>>>But the spiritual need not contradict the physical, and there is MUCH physical language concerning the Millennial Temple. <<<
I can't see it. The N.T. would be loaded with the prophecies you are claiming, and instead there not so much as a whisper. Dispensationalists have had to resort to claiming "there has to be a new temple because the man of sin sits in the temple." That one verse. that briefly mentions a spiritual temple, not a physical one, is their lifeline; similar for the other mention of a temple in Rev 11.1. But it is spiritual as well.
>>>Again, when there is contradiction, one is not necessarily greater than the other - One would do well to consider how BOTH things can be true. That severely limits options.<<<
One would do well to throw dual covenant theology in the trash can and return to Christ, the fulfillment of the old covenant, and the mediator of the New Covenant.
Philip
