Temple of God - Christians or a physical building in Jerusalem?

Just the way the HS lead me into the scriptures and learn to accept that some of it may be locked. Therefore, I do not try to absolutely interpret every scripture. I have learned to be satisfied that I won't know everything this side of glory. That keeps me from becoming a know-it-all and leaves me open to learn something. Your first sentence is correct, anyone saved will have to acknowledge Christ: the one way to salvation.

Some of the best understanding can be achieved by applying common sense. Learn about the character of God and we can start to see why He did certain things. I was a truck driver when I got converted back to Christianity. On my every-other night layovers in my sleeper berth I would study God's word. The Lord was communicating with me often about then. I would come across a certain law or ordinance and I asked God: "Why did you do that?" The usual answer was another question like: "Why did I?" Then He would give me another scripture reference to dig some more. Eventually I had an answer.

Physical Israel as a nation is no longer of any relevance to God - the Israelites were gathered into the Church in the 1st century where there was and still is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. - they are one nation in Christ.

We are told Jesus died to gather them - according to you Zionist's Christ failed to "gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" and is awaiting fulfillment

(John 11:51 KJV) And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

(John 11:52 KJV) And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Peter is writing to the scattered tribes and is calling them an holy nation:

(1 Pet 1:1 KJV) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

(1 Pet 2:9 KJV) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Notice how I don't need some over complicated self contradicting "theology" such as mis-dispensationalism to arrive at the truth.

It doesn't matter that it is not the New Testament. It is prophetic.

It doesn't matter that nothing is said of the millennium, the Temple, it's priesthood, and sacrifices are being addressed. And this temple in (Ez. 40-48) is nothing like any temple gone before. It is future. Yet to come. It is this temple that the 'glory of the Lord' returns to. (Ez. 43:2, 4)

Animal sacrifices 'never' took away the sin of the world. They simply were used by God to cover, and show forth the One Sacrifice that was to come. And Jesus One Sacrifice did that. In like matter, the animal sacrifices during the millennium by Israel, do not take away sin, do not replace the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. They point back to that Sacrifice, just like the animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law, pointed to that Sacrifice. When you partake of the Lord's Supper you do the same.

Yes, at this time, the Church age, the Church is the Temple of God on the earth. But when the Rapture occurs, the Church is removed. God is now working with Israel again, and thus a 'Temple' is necessary because Israel always has a Temple and a priesthood.

Yes, at this time, the Church age, every believer in Christ is a priest on earth. But once the Church is taken out at the Rapture, the priests come from the nation of Israel.

Quantrill

You are exactly right. Such detail cries for a literal fulfillment.

I would say this. Eschatology with the Amillennialist is not hard. They can spiritualize it to their liking. Eschatology for the Dispensationalist and premillennialist is hard, believing that these things are literally so, and trying to understand how they will work and play out.

One thing is sure, you must decide which form of interpretation you believe is correct and study that one. You will learn of the other in the process, but you must choose one.

Quantrill

I dont know why hey. But I like you bro

Im not going to lie to myself. Israel is coming back. The Temple is coming back. Lets face it people. Ezekiel makes it clear. Jeremiah 33 makes it clear. Zechariah makes it clear, Isaiah makes it clear.

I repent. As I stated earlier i hate spiritualizing texts and i cant just be honest with myself doing it. It says what it says, its not my problem I didnt write it, I just gotta believe it. Sorry!

Amill OFF the table. Postmill OFF the table.
Now its just historic premil vs dispensational premil.

And your point is?

Quantrill

And yet God's promise to Abraham has a physical component to it:

Gen. 35:11, 12 "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land." See also Gen. 13:7; 15:5; 17:6; 17:16; 18:18; 22:17; 28:3; 28:14; 32:12; 48:4.

No, you were being evasive. I asked a question, you did not answer. If we can't agree on the beginning of the Church, it is useless to try and agree on the completion of the Church.

It is not that I can't explain it. Why bother when you have shown you will not answer my questions that establish what I want to say.

Quantrill

Appreciate your encouraging words.

Quantrill

You are correct I must choose one! It is between dispensational premillennialism vs historical premillennialism.

What are the major differences between the two? I think its 1. Timing of the rapture 2. Israel and Church separate.

Other than that, I dont think there are any major differences? Quantrill bro can you tell me why you believe your view (dispensational) is SUPERIOR to the historical premillennial view?

While this is not addressed to me, my understanding is that historical Premillennialism attempts to make the Rapture and the Second Coming ONE EVENT.

And that is purely ABSURD. To simply ignore the Marriage of the Lamb, which is in between (and presumably also the Judgment Seat of Christ prior to that), and claim that while the saints are going up they are also going down, it totally absurd.

Im not sure its absurd, thats the idea I got by just reading through the Bible.
But after later investigation I have definately saw some problems with the post-trib view, such as the sheep and goats. There are no sheep lol, all the sheep are raptured out.

This is how I handled the rapture / second coming when i read through the bible the first time, I simply compared 1 thess 4:16-17 and Matthew 24:31 and concluded yeah its one event. i even threw in the last trumpet of Revelation, without knowing it wasnt written yet when Paul wrote to the corinthians lol.

Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

No resurrection is mentioned in Matthew 24:31 though, but a coming is mentioned in the previous verse v30.

Rev 21

22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

One should carefully compare and contrast these two verses.

Christ DOES NOT send His angels to gather the saints within the Church at the Rapture. Instead He said "I WILL COME AGAIN, AND RECEIVE YOU UNTO MYSELF". This is the Bridegroom coming for His Bride, thus "THE LORD HIMSELF SHALL DESCEND". This is critical. And this is long before the second coming, since we know with certainty that the Marriage of the Lamb takes place after the Rapture and before the second coming.

In contrast, in Matthew 24 "the elect" would be the believing Jewish remnant, which are gathered up from all around the world BY ANGELS. "The elect" could also refer to all of the Jews who would believe on Christ after they were gathered, since Paul applies the term "the election" to all Jews in Rom 11:28: As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

This gathering up of all the Jews who would believe and be saved is mentioned in Ezekiel 36:24: For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. This would have to be a supernatural gathering up, hence the sending out of angels to the four corners of the earth.

While there are trumpets involved in both cases, they do not necessarily have to be identical. And the 7th trumpet of Revelation (bringing severe judgments) definitely has nothing to with this. "The trump of God" (called "the last trump") is for the Church. "A great sound of a trumpet" is a summons to Israel (God knowing who will believe on Christ).

How do we know that the marriage of the Lamb takes place after the rapture and BEFORE the second coming? To be honest, if you can prove this from the scriptures, that PROVES a rapture BEFORE the second coming.

Btw this is a question to everyone: Has anyone found a proper rapture in revelation? I know of Revelation 4:1 but thats just John, I know of Rev14 but thats in the middle of the tribulation and is hardly a resurrection. In rev20 we see people rise up but no mention of a translation/rapture.
I cant seem to find the rapture in the book of Revelation at all. Unless it really is coded in Rev 4:1 as many suggest.

So you believe rapture before or after tribulation?

There is no "rapture" is scripture as dispensationalism "describes" it.

1 Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming (Greek– parousia) of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

1 Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet (Greek- apantesis) the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The Greek parousia and apantesis would have specific meanings to the people of 1st century AD.

Greek definitions (not all)

parousia - presence, of persons; arrival; esp. Visit of a royal or official personage

apantesis - to move from a place to meet a person; then, generally, to meet, encounter

Paul's usage of the words do not suggest a removal of Christians from earth, but rather Christ is visiting them to dwell with them.

Parousia and apantesis when used together are being used in a “technical” sense, the words in the ancient world would be used (and understood) to describe a visit by a king or a royal dignitary when making a visit to a town or a city.

The people being in wait for the dignitary would watch for his coming, they would then go out to “meet” (apantesis) him.They would then escort him back to the city. The city is the destination. He was not coming to remove them from the city.

We can see how “apantesis”, meet is used in the following verses:

Mat 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet (Greek– apantesis) the bridegroom.

Mat 25:6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bride groom cometh; go ye out to meet (Greek- apantesis) him.

Acts 28:15 And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet (Greek– apantesis) us as far as Appii forum, and the three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.

Paul is telling the Thessalonian's they will meet him in the air in a spiritual event – his coming in the clouds – just as Paul was caught up to the third heaven.

God puts no difference between a old testament saint that had the Holy Spirit as a member of the bride of Christ, the church, than that of this side of the reformation. The refomation put a end to using the flesh of a Jew as a shadow of Christ in parables.

They were cut off from being used as a metaphor in parable for ever...…………….

Matthew 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

You offered the church began at Pentecost and not after the first member Abel a member of the bride of Christ the church who found favor with God.

That simply is not true the spiritual meaning of a parable must be compared to the spiritual, or faith the unseen to faith the eternal not seen it must be compared .

You cannot just make words mean what ever you desire them to mean .If the was the case then when Christ the anointing Holy Spirit spoke without parables he spoke not it would make no sense. Spiritual words having meanings applied to them hid from the literalism

Eschatology for the Dispensationalist and premillennialist is hard they have no spiritual meaning to compare their literal as that seen the temporal, to literal interpretation

don't you all just love 'man-made-interpretive-scripture'??? -

Please, allow The Holy Spirit to lead you where you are supposed to go -
and Not those 'old money grabbing 'harlots' that speak for 'profit'...

we, know that it's a GREAT-STREATCH', but, we have FAITH that you can do it...
-