Third temple

You said it very well, Natalie .   All of us have places in our lives where we still fall short and have to repent.   Of course there are lots of subtle tones and nuances regarding people who turn aside from the faith, back-slide, or fall from Grace, and what that looks like.   There are even a few threads regarding The Great Falling Away/Apostasy, and what it means etc. 

As Natalie also mentioned earlier,  - while this is true - it is a gross violation of Basic Bible interpretation to take the passage of Paul - which is not allegory or poetry, or symbolic genre, and he says that the Son of Perdition will be revealed.  This is a very explicit and precise title for the Anti-Christ, and not a general collective term for Christians nor is it a generic collective term for God haters - People who are burning and looting Kenosha and Portland and Baltimore.  

This also underscores why it's so vitally important to let scripture interpret scripture and cross-reference and look at other passages and look at the specific context.  The Son of Perdition is a real person who stands in the Holy of Holies, and will do something so horrible that it's an abomination, but it's something that people will literally see with their eyes, and the Jews will instantly recognize it as defiling the literal physical temple.  

The perfect example of this was when Antiochus Epiphanes erected a statue of the Greek god Zeus, and sacrificed a pig in the temple. Every Jew from every corner of the world recognizes that pigs are unclean, and not to be touched or eaten.  ***Important note - the sacrificial animals = Cows, sheep and goats - are animals that are clean and can be eaten.   

I dearly love Chili's restaurant - it's totally comfort food, but as much as i like it - it's ludicrous to say that the Holy Place is Chilis, or Applebees or The Highest peak in the Smoky mountains. 

One of the most basic, fundamental principles of Hermeneutics is that "before we can ask what does this passage mean to me, we have to ask, What did it mean to them, in their time, and their culture - Mixed, Gentile/ Jewish audience, in Jerusalem,  where 1/3 of the population was military, and 1/3 were slaves. 

One passage in the Gospels talks about Christ being at the feast of dedication and 95% of people gloss right over it.  Why?  They don't have a Jewish worldview.  We can think it was a baby dedication, and draw all sorts of lessons, but the fact is that it wasn't a baby dedication - it was Hanukkah.    The Dedication of the Temple. 

This brings us back to the main topic - The Temple of God. The Temple was not unholy - in fact, Christ himself taught there, and he himself said it was his Father's house.   It was the epicenter for all worship in all of Israel.   

Christ's death was the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and at his death, the veil of the temple was torn in two - literally opening up the physical Holy of Holies, which up to that time, was only for the high priest.  This was an example of a literal, physical thing, which had a higher, spiritual concept.  

Christians everywhere, for the most part - understand that we don't need to kill sheep now, or sacrifice lambs for forgiveness.   Tens of millions of Catholics, however, still believe that we don't have direct access to God.  They are blinded, but there are some who are truly born again, and don't worship Mary, and believe in Salvation by faith alone.     There is a long and well-documented hatred of Jews by the Catholic church and this disdain for Jews and Jewish culture has crept into the mainline protestant churches over the centuries.  
God is not finished with the Jewish people and there eyes will be opened to the truth, in the time of Jacob's trouble.  
Daniel was a Jew, and his vision was for the Jewish people, - and it's very very significant that while Daniel was lifted up, taken out of the fiery furnace - his Jewish friends were in the furnace, but not burned up.  
What i would like, is for someone to answer 3 very simple questions 
   1.  if all the physical things regarding the temple, - menorah, plans, instruments, garments and priests, and red heifer  are real.  ??  I see them as very real, - not symbolic.  
   2. Then, explain why would the Jews be gathering all these things, and spending lots of time and money and research, if the temple is symbolic. ?? 
   3. Regardless of your own opinion - what did the phrase "the Holy Place" mean to the audience in the 1st century church -Mostly Jews? 

Blessings, 

Disciple4life





 




 

 

stormyknight, no, I don't see it as an attack.

I guess that's where the struggle is for me - are we meaning the same things with the words we are using? That's why I was seeking clarification on lawlessness and can believers be lawless. Is lawlessness just a slip in faith or it is more?

I also believe that it's not necessary to have a ceremony and signed paper for it to be a marriage. There's more to the story, there usually is. I won't go into details, but they don't refer to each other has husband and wife. There has been talk of getting married but always "someday" or "if we get married". (They were both married to others when they first moved in together.) So, are they lawless or disobedient children?

So, maybe I could have picked a different example but that one is a visible one for me and one I am struggling with (the lady is my mother-in-law).

First I think we need to ask and/or qualify what is sin? And what is lawlessness?
1 John seems to implicate they are one in the same

1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Also direct from the Greek Everyone committing sin also lawlessness commits and sin is lawlessness

458 anomía (from 1 /A "not" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, without law;
 lawlessness; the utter disregard for God's law (His written and living Word).
458 /anomía ("lawlessness") includes the end-impact of law breaking – i.e. its negative influence on a person's soul (status before God)

266 /hamartía ("sin, forfeiture because missing the mark") is the brand of sin that emphasizes its self-originated (self-empowered) nature – i.e. it is not originated or empowered by God (i.e. not of faith, His inworked persuasion, cf. Ro 14:23)

In light of these definitions of the words, they appear to be the same, however:
1John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Also direct from the Greek If anyone see the brother of him sinning a sin not unto death he shall ask and He will give him life to those sinning not unto death. There is a sin unto death not concerning that do I say he should implore.

Now I do not want to get too far off the topic with the sin that does not lead to death...AND there are sins we commit that we dont realize are sins or are unintentional (Num 15:27)

Got Questions has a nice write up on the difference between sin, transgression and iniquity tying it back to 1 John 3:4

So some sin is not necessarily willful, however lawlessness is willful.

Thanks, Mike, for the link. I guess I see lawlessness as how they describe iniquity. There is no fear of God or fear of discipline from Him. I agree, it's a willful thing.  Like in Romans, God has left evidence for Himself yet people do not acknowledge Him and live as they please. Or for a believer, they know God wouldn't approve, but they do it anyway.  But I also know that God disciplines His children and calls them to return to Him.  That's one of the themes running through the OT.   

That was basically my point earlier in the thread. Sitting in a human temple would require 100%, not 99%, 87.3%, 38.9% - ALL

I do have some other things Id like to inject into this topic but I think we've destroyed this thread and may need a new one or break this one off at some point to its own. I'm considering this topic combined with falling away/apostasy as I have some thoughts on this I'd like to discuss with the larger group

ALSO - for those following along. stormyknight asked if it was ok to interject. While the discussion was between a few folks, it is always ok to chime in. We should remain decent and orderly