Here are a few thoughts with regard to what it is I *think* you are conveying... My thoughts:
--nowhere in the NT is the definite article ('
the') used with the word "temple" WHEN it is referring to "the Church
which is His body" [US, you and me, we all
![Smile :) :)]()
] (just "temple" in the Grk)
--in both 2Th2:4 and Rev11:1, the definite article IS used in the phrase "
the temple of God" (and in Rev11:1 the wording definitely DISTINGUISHES "
the temple of God" from [the phrase] "... and THEY that worship
THEREIN")
--I believe "the Church
which is His body" ("temple" ... "in this present age [singular]") will
not be present on the earth (starting just BEFORE the INITIAL "birth
PANG [
singular; 1Th5:
2-3/Mt24:
4/Mk13:
5]" / aka SEAL #1 is opened [i.e.
JUDGMENTS unfolding
on the earth, over the course of the 7-yrs]), therefore there will be no particular "place" on the earth (at that INITIAL moment, or beginning span of time, there) that is considered "holy" (meaning, at the START of the 7-yrs)... but does this idea prohibit that there
will be none
at any point thereafter? or does Scripture indicate that (once our Rapture takes place) Israel will eventually have such a place,
at least at some point (being "earthly"... and in fulfillment of their promised and prophesied
earthly Millennial Kingdom age and its designations and so forth), aka "the kingdom of the heavens [
on the earth; like Dan7:27]," aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER [
on the earth]," aka "the age [singular] to come" [where "age [SINGULAR]" is always connected with the earth]; etc...). If so, then this is not wholly unreasonable, as I see it.
____________
Here's an article I posted before, that goes along with this somewhat:
"Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: The Last Twenty" by Paul Martin Henebury
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty
[quoting from article]
"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in
Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see
Acts 1:3).
This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung
to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
"34. This resistance to
the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about
the timing of
the restoration of the kingdom to Israel,
not its nature."
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]