Top Israeli Rabbi Believes Trump Will Build Third Temple in Jerusalem

Israel Today ^ | 3/29/18 | Israel Today

[G Larry]

You should look to scripture for the answer. Verse 60 IS meant to be taken literally!!! The concept is too difficult for them to accept, and they lack faith, so they leave. Which is exactly why Christ continues to explain in the rest of the chapter. Elsewhere, scripture makes clear that to receive the Eucharist unworthily is to drink damnation to himself. 1 Corinthians 11: 26‑30-
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

This is also intended quite literally. For how can one be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord by engaging in merely a symbolic act.

This makes clear the need for confession for grave sin (i.e. violation of 10 commandments), true sorrow for our sins, penance, and forgiveness.

Thus, all of your other concerns regarding faith and conditions to be saved, are addressed.

The rest of your questions are simply the same as those expressed in verse 60, and you are unwilling to accept the words of Christ.

[Salvavida]

Your theology makes no sense.

Do you follow Jewish dietary laws? No? Because we are no longer in that dispensation.

Grave sin? Is there any other kind? One sin will put you into eternal damnation without faith in Christ. How more grave do you need it?

The disciples found his teaching to be difficult to accept because of lack of faith? You are writing an interpolation. It doesn't say that. They couldn't UNDERSTAND the metaphor, which Christ had to explain, thus, repeating the normal pattern in which Christ had to explain because he spoke in parables so that the religious leaders could not understand.

As for 1 Cor 11- the Lord tells the purpose for the supper: to remember and show His death. It isn't a salvation issue.

Eating the supper unworthy, what does that mean? What standard do you ascribe to it? What standard could it be for broken sinners? There are only two possibilities: (1) non-Christians, and (2) unrepentant sinners.

[G Larry]

First, keep in mind that the Christians had heeded the warnings and fled Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 70 A.D.

Shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the mad Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus - nicknamed Caligula ("little boots") - attempted to desecrate the Temple. Everywhere else in the Roman empire subjugated peoples had been forced to conform to the cult of Rome and acknowledge not only Caesar as Lord but also fall into line by adopting the Roman pantheon of gods. The Jews had been left alone and it was time they began to conform. Caligula gave an order to set up his statue in the Holy of Holies in the Temple:

Now Caius Caesar did so grossly abuse the fortune he had arrived at, as to take himself to be a god, and to desire to be so called also, and to cut off those of the greatest nobility out of his country. He also extended his impiety as far as the Jews. Accordingly he sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem to place his statues in the temple, and commanded him that, in case the Jews would not admit of them, he should slay those that opposed it, and carry all the rest into captivity.

>http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html<

Important to read at the link, as it is too long to post here.

[G Larry]

Your refusal to accept Christ’s words in John 6 makes no sense.

[Salvavida]

I most readily do accept Christ's words. But I apply a rational, consistent hermeneutic that would be understandable to anyone.

You simply insult because you can't make your theology understandable. A leftist tactic.

In your theology, there is no measurable line of grace upon which a man may be saved. You keep the Eucharist, and you keep the Eucharist, and you keep the Eucharist, inasmuch as it is available.

A consistent hermeneutic and clear teaching is that Christ died for our sins ONCE, and the supper is a celebration so that we remember and show His death. That was the confession of the early church, and that is the testimony of Scripture.

Christ did speak in parables. Then he interpreted them. Some things are not meant to be taken literally. Paul saying "Pray without ceasing," is not to be taken literally, nor is Christ's admonishment to cut "off an offending member or take out an eye" if it causes you to sin.

You are doing Christianity wrong if there is no consistency.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thank you. I will look at it this afternoon...

[nonsporting]

You don't provide any verses to support your post. Where does God give Solomon "directions" to build the temple? David charges Solomon with the task. This is very different that the explicit instruction and detailed directions (manner and materials) for building the tabernacle given by God to Moses in Exodus 35 and following.

“Now that the true lamb has been sacrificed, there is no need for any other.“ Yes there is. It is not for payment of sins/sin, but looks back on Christ’s complete sacrifice, which has always been the basis of salvation.

Where does the Bible say there will be temple sacrifices that will serve in the fashion?

Hebrews makes it clear that aNew Covenant (a better covenant) has been establish which does away with sacrifice. In fact, there is no longer any need for an offering for sin. "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have not desired, nor have you taken pleasure in them" (Hebrews 10:8)

“Resuming the “daily sacrifice” serves to illustrate the Christ-rejecting nature of any who do so.” No. It fulfills the specific commands and prophecy of God in Scripture. Sacrifices will not be to forgive sins. They never were. They were to restore fellowship between the nation and God. The foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ. They will in the future, look backwards to His sacrifice.

God takes no pleasure in these sacrifices. What God has in mind is the New Jersalem. And there will be no temple in it.

"I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." (Revelation 21:22)

“Resuming the “daily sacrifice” serves to illustrate the Christ-rejecting nature of any who do so.” No. It fulfills the specific commands and prophecy of God in Scripture.

As I indicated its fulfillment marks the nearness of the anti-christ.

Yes. They will be renewed in the millennial kingdom when the glory of God again fills the temple.

Where in the Bible does it say this?

In Revelation 15, before the wrath of God is poured out (six bowls), this is pre-millennial. It speaks of the heavenly "temple of the tabernacle of testamony". This is not an earthly temple, but is it fact the heavenly tabernacle.

Revelation 19, which describes the events marking the imminent onset of the millennial kingdom and chapter 20 which gives virtually no details, neither mention a temple.

Recap: No temple. No sacrifices.

Postscript: A temple wasn't even necessary for sacrifices. An earthen mound of an alter of uncut stones was sufficient. It amazes me how people find ways to justify the carnal ordinances of the OT, when they they been done away with.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thanks for your post FRiend.

Please finish reading the thread.

I’ve responded extensively, quoting Ezekiel, concerning the millennial temple and resumption of animal sacrifices, etc.

I will address one point you raise now...

“God takes no pleasure in these sacrifices. What God has in mind is the New Jersalem. And there will be no temple in it.”

The Temple is not in heaven. It is on earth, in Israel. I cannot address whether God takes pleasure in sacrifices, since He does not say, but I can say He commands the resumption of sacrifices, the continual celebration of Passover, and a new division of the land of Israel. These sacrifices do not save, nor forgive sin. They look backwards to Christ’s sacrifice and complete payment for sin, just as the Passover looks back to the first Passover and just as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper looks at His sacrifice in history, “until He returns.”

Please read my other responses and read Ezekiel chapters 40-46.

Kind regards.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

GL,

Sorry I've been quite busy last night and today.

I did read your link and some other material on the same site. It is interesting. And I spent the past few hours processing this in comparison to Scripture.

So here are some thoughts back to you...

[I am assuming you are suggesting that Emporer Gaius could have been the anti-Christ? If this is not your point, tell me what you meant.]

And I am assuming you are posting this in response to one of my questions to you, "If you take the position that this refers to the second temple, you will also have to conclude the anti-christ has been revealed already and set himself in the temple as God. If so, who is he? When did this occur?"

The section of the article you quote says this...

Caligula gave an order to set up his statue in the Holy of Holies in the Temple: Now Gaius Caesar did so grossly abuse the fortune he had arrived at, as to take himself to be a god, and to desire to be so called also, and to cut off those of the greatest nobility out of his country. He also extended his impiety as far as the Jews. Accordingly he sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem to place his statues in the temple,

This seems to open the door to the possibility that he may qualify as the anti-Christ. It sounds similar, right?

Let's compare what Paul says in II Thessalonians 2:1-12 to what you posted and consider it.

1. We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him,
2 not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,” or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.

3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god—
5 do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things?

6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene.
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord [Jesus] will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming,
9 the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie,
10 and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved.
11 Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie,
12 that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.

I underlined some sections for our discussion. Here they are in summary form:

The context is Paul addressing a concern that the Day of the Lord has already occurred. (v 1, 2) This is understandable, because in I Thess. 5:2, Paul had written that the Day of the Lord would come "as a thief in the night." Easy to miss. They were worried they had missed it.

Paul lists three things that must happen first:

1. "the apostacy (Greek: hē apostasia) comes first" (v. 3)

This is significant for our discussion. The church has experienced apostacy since the beginning. This is much more significant. I am providing other verses where it is described. Here, Paul referred to a specific distinguishable apostasy that will come in the future (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; 4:3–4; James 5:1–8; 2 Peter 2; 3:3–6; Jude).

2. the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction (v 3, 4, 8)

3. and the removal of restraint against lawlessness (vv. 6–7)

The Holy Spirit of God is the only Person with supernatural power to restrain against lawlessness. I'm taking time to note those three things because they impact the identification of the anti-Christ and the timing of the event.

For Gaius to qualify as a candidate for anti-Christ, he would have to meet these criteria:

1. He appeared after a worldwide Christian apostacy (v. 3)
2. The Holy Spirit's restraining influence has to be removed from the world. (v. 6, 7)

3. He will "who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship". This is important because he will insist that HE ranks above any other god or object of worship. (v. 4)

4. He will "seat himself in the temple of God and claim he is a god." (v. 4)

5. He will be not just an evil one, but the one doomed for perdition and "His coming springs from the power of Satan." (v. 3, 9)

6. He himself will be the lawless one. (v. 3, 8)

7. His coming springs from the power of Satan (v. 9)

8. As such, the anti-Christ will manifest the power of Satan, "in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit. (v. 9,10) 9. He will be killed by the Lord [Jesus] by the breath of His mouth (v. 8)

10. He comes because God is sending them a deceiving power that they may believe the lie." (I take this to mean that people who fall away in the worldwide apostacy will fall for the deceiving power of the anti-Christ. (v. 11, 12)

---

Now, when I look at all that God reveals about the timing of the anti-Christ, and the satanic power of the anti-Christ, and the world-wide apostacy that will occur before the anti-Christ, and that the anti-Christ will be killed personally by Christ Himself...

I have to conclude that Gaius partially met just one criteria.

He set up a statue in the Temple.

The rest of the extensive criteria was not met.

So, to circle back, we have never seen this prophecy fulfilled (let alone Daniel's 70th week events that also bear on the anti-Christ).

This means I also must conclude that the anti-Christ has never appeared in a Jewish Temple.

The 2nd Temple was destroyed.

This means for the prophecy to be fulfilled, we need a Third temple.

That third Temple will exist when Christ returns, in order for the anti-Christ to fulfill setting himself up as god, and be killed by Christ.

And I circle back to the temple Ezekiel prophesied about, that will exist in the Millennial Kingdom on earth, in Jerusalem. That will be the fourth and final Temple.

Apologies if I've failed to edit my thoughts very well. I want to get this to you and I am notorious for editing and leaving in words that should come out etc. Also, any spelling errors.

Sorry in advance!

Kind regards.

cc: mark17: I know you love end-times stuff, so I am pinging you

[Mark17]

cc: mark17: I know you love end-times stuff, so I am pinging you.

You are correct sir. That is why I really enjoyed the day long end times teaching seminar, of Amir Tsarfati, at SM Lanang, Davao. Being an Israeli himself, he brings an Israeli standpoint, to the end times teachings. I see his updates at beholdisrael.org
Keep telling the truth bro.