Will a Third Temple Be Rebuilt?

shepherdsword · Saturday at 5:47 PM

Are these guys credible? It seems to be starting with the suggestion that a synagogue be placed on the temple mount.

What do you think? @WPM @Spiritual Israelite @Davidpt @Marty fox @Davy @WalterandDebbie @Marilyn C @Anchorite @ScottA

If a third temple is rebuilt how will it effect your eschatology?

PinSeeker · Saturday at 10:00 PM

shepherdsword said:
Are these guys credible?

No.

shepherdsword said:
If a third temple is rebuilt how will it effect your eschatology?

There is a temple being built, and God is it's designer and builder (Hebrews 11). And we are it. (Ephesians 2:11-22).

Grace and peace to you.

shepherdsword · Saturday at 11:19 PM

@Angelina

This is what I see:

Marilyn C · Sunday at 12:01 AM

shepherdsword said:
Are these guys credible? It seems to be starting with the suggestion that a synagogue be placed on the temple mount.

What do you think? @WPM @Spiritual Israelite @Davidpt @Marty fox @Davy @WalterandDebbie @Marilyn C @Anchorite @ScottA

If a third temple is rebuilt how will it effect your eschatology?

Hi ss,

Yes, the third temple on the sacred site will be rebuilt as God`s word says - in the millennium with the glory of God over it.

However, the temple that the A/C desecrates is already there. Jerusalem has a temple.
The Jews also build an impressive Temple on King George Street in Jerusalem. It was constructed with the same local stone as was Solomon`s Temple. This will be the Temple that man`s world leader desecrates. (2 Thess. 2: 4 Matt. 24: 15)

TribulationSigns · Sunday at 12:07 AM

shepherdsword said:
Are these guys credible? It seems to be starting with the suggestion that a synagogue be placed on the temple mount.

No. They are NOT credible. They spew false prophecies and false doctrines. Third temple will not take place.

shepherdsword said:
If a third temple is rebuilt how will it effect your eschatology?

The problem is that "What if?" seems to be the foundation of your entire eschatology.

What if Trump is a prophetic stage-setter?
What if the rapture is imminent?
What if the beast system is forming?
What if they aren't aliens but angels?
What if the final kingdom is rising?
What if Christian Zionism is correct?
What if the Ten Kings are emerging under Elon Musk's influence?
What if Gog and Magog are about to invade?

What if? What if? What if?

Endless speculation is not Bible prophecy. It is conjecture dressed up as biblical teaching.

These prophecy channels thrive on sensationalism, fear, and speculation. Every headline becomes a prophetic sign. Every political event becomes "proof" that their latest theory is correct. Yet decade after decade, their predictions fail, their timelines collapse, and their interpretations constantly change.

The tragedy is that many believers are being deceived by these false doctrines because they sound exciting and convincing. Instead of carefully studying what Scripture actually says, they chase after speculation and prophetic entertainment.

The reality is that most of these teachers have little understanding of biblical prophecy in its proper context. They read modern news into the Bible rather than drawing meaning out of the biblical text itself.

Frankly, it appears you have been thoroughly influenced by dispensational pre-tribulation rapture theology and are repeating its assumptions as if they were established biblical facts. But assumptions are not doctrine, and speculation is not exegesis. God's Word deserves better than a never-ending stream of prophetic "what ifs."

Jay Ross · Sunday at 12:10 AM

shepherdsword said:
If a third temple is rebuilt how will it effect your eschatology?

It means that a third Temple had already been built before it was rebuilt.

Ziggy · Sunday at 12:13 AM

I don't think it's going to be a Synagogue or a Mosque or even a Catholic Church.
It will be God's House.
Wherever he decides to place it.
And it will be Glorious!

Hugs

shepherdsword · Sunday at 12:30 AM

TribulationSigns said:
Frankly, it appears you have been thoroughly influenced by dispensational pre-tribulation rapture theology and are repeating its assumptions as if they were established biblical facts. But assumptions are not doctrine, and speculation is not exegesis. God's Word deserves better than a never-ending stream of prophetic "what ifs."

I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture or dispensationalism

Ziggy · Sunday at 12:44 AM

shepherdsword said:
I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture or dispensationalism

I think what if's are a good thing.

Rom 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Everybody is entitled to question everything.
Isa 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

To Reason – To use the faculty of reason to arrive at conclusions or to persuade by logical argument.

Questions are good.

Gen 18:24
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

Hugs

shepherdsword · Sunday at 2:06 AM

Ziggy said:
I think what if's are a good thing.

Rom 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Everybody is entitled to question everything.
Isa 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

To Reason – To use the faculty of reason to arrive at conclusions or to persuade by logical argument.

Questions are good.

Gen 18:24
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

Hugs

I think they are too. "What if" scenarios force one to think outside their current paradigm. Some live in eschatological boxes and seem afraid to peek outside of them. I posted the video and opened the thread just to get some discussion going. It seems to me if the temple is rebuilt then amillennialism has been dealt a one/two knockout punch. The first being the re- establishment of Israel in 1948.

Ziggy · Sunday at 2:17 AM

shepherdsword said:
I think they are too. "What if" scenarios force one to think outside their current paradigm. Some live in eschatological boxes and seem afraid to peek outside of them. I posted the video and opened the thread just to get some discussion going. It seems to me if the temple is rebuilt then amillennialism has been dealt a one/two knockout punch. The first being the re- establishment of Israel in 1948.

I just don't know if the "temple" is a literal place or as Paul puts it,
1Co 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

There is another one of those questions.

Do we need to see it or be it?

It's that Firmament between heaven and earth, always making things difficult.
LOL
Hugs

Ziggy · Sunday at 2:26 AM

The "re-establishment of Israel in 1948.
Somehow I feel is not what we were supposed to be looking for.
Israel is a people, a nation of peoples. Whose name was Jacob.
God changed Jacob's name, not the Land's name.
I believe when God is speaking to Israel in the bible, that he is speaking to the people and not the location.

What is it called, the Balfour Declaration?

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British Government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary, to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm just saying...
Israel are the people.
Hugs

TribulationSigns · Sunday at 3:00 AM

shepherdsword said:
I think they are too.

I think they are not! LOL!

shepherdsword said:
"What if" scenarios force one to think outside their current paradigm.

False. The problem with "What if?" theology is that it places human imagination above divine revelation.

God never instructed believers to build doctrine on endless possibilities, speculation, or current events. He instructed us to compare Scripture with Scripture and allow the Bible to interpret itself.

The question is not, "What if this headline fulfills prophecy?" The question is, "What does God's Word actually say?"

Every false doctrine begins with someone asking, "What if?" and then forcing their theory into the text. Sound biblical interpretation begins with the text itself and draws conclusions from what God has revealed, not from what man imagines.

The Bible is not a prophetic puzzle that requires newspapers, political movements, technological developments, or social media trends to unlock its meaning. God's Word was written to be understood by God's people through careful study, comparing passage with passage, context with context, and Scripture with Scripture.

When Christians start using world events as the lens through which they interpret the Bible, they inevitably end up changing their interpretations every time the news cycle changes. Today's prophetic certainty becomes tomorrow's abandoned theory.

shepherdsword said:
Some live in eschatological boxes and seem afraid to peek outside of them. I posted the video and opened the thread just to get some discussion going. It seems to me if the temple is rebuilt then amillennialism has been dealt a one/two knockout punch. The first being the re- establishment of Israel in 1948.

As for your weak claims that 1948 or a future temple automatically disproves amillennialism, that is merely an assertion, not an argument. The question is not what happened in modern geopolitics. The question is what the biblical text teaches in its context. Doctrine is established by exegesis, not by headlines.

God's Word is not subject to man-made "what if" theories. It stands above them. We are called to submit our ideas to Scripture, not submit Scripture to our ideas.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

The church needs less speculation and more Bible. Less sensationalism and more sound exegesis. Less obsession with the latest prophecy theory and more devotion to what God has actually revealed. The 1948/1967/rumored third temple are NOT the true Sign of Christ's return. You are looking for signs in the WRONG place. :stageright:

Selah!

shepherdsword · Sunday at 3:15 AM

TribulationSigns said:
I think they are not! LOL!

False. The problem with "What if?" theology is that it places human imagination above divine revelation.

God never instructed believers to build doctrine on endless possibilities, speculation, or current events. He instructed us to compare Scripture with Scripture and allow the Bible to interpret itself.

The question is not, "What if this headline fulfills prophecy?" The question is, "What does God's Word actually say?"

Every false doctrine begins with someone asking, "What if?" and then forcing their theory into the text. Sound biblical interpretation begins with the text itself and draws conclusions from what God has revealed, not from what man imagines.

The Bible is not a prophetic puzzle that requires newspapers, political movements, technological developments, or social media trends to unlock its meaning. God's Word was written to be understood by God's people through careful study, comparing passage with passage, context with context, and Scripture with Scripture.

When Christians start using world events as the lens through which they interpret the Bible, they inevitably end up changing their interpretations every time the news cycle changes. Today's prophetic certainty becomes tomorrow's abandoned theory.

As for your weak claims that 1948 or a future temple automatically disproves amillennialism, that is merely an assertion, not an argument. The question is not what happened in modern geopolitics. The question is what the biblical text teaches in its context. Doctrine is established by exegesis, not by headlines.

God's Word is not subject to man-made "what if" theories. It stands above them. We are called to submit our ideas to Scripture, not submit Scripture to our ideas.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

The church needs less speculation and more Bible. Less sensationalism and more sound exegesis. Less obsession with the latest prophecy theory and more devotion to what God has actually revealed. The 1948/1967/rumored third temple are NOT the true Sign of Christ's return. You are looking for signs in the WRONG place.

Selah!

LOL!

quietthinker · Sunday at 3:21 AM

Will a Third Temple Be Rebuilt?

Does it really matter and is it just another distraction in line with the many smoke and mirrors out there?

shepherdsword · Sunday at 3:29 AM

quietthinker said:
Will a Third Temple Be Rebuilt?
Does it really matter and is it just another distraction in line with the many smoke and mirrors out there?

It could be.

TribulationSigns · Sunday at 3:45 AM

shepherdsword said:
View attachment 84951
LOL!

This poorly made meme completely misses the point and actually undermines your own theological position.

The irony is that you're posting this as a moderator, yet the argument collapses under basic covenant theology chronology. If, as many covenantalists argue, the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Christ's death and resurrection (Hebrews 9:15–17), then the birth of Christ occurred before the New Covenant was established.

Herod's inquiry concerned a prophecy that was still awaiting literal fulfillment in history. The chief priests and scribes correctly pointed to the literal Bethlehem of Micah 5:2, and Matthew explicitly records that Jesus was born there. There was no New Covenant church yet. There was no post-cross redemptive reality yet. There was no basis for identifying Bethlehem as "the church" at that point in history.

Therefore, this meme attacks a position that covenantalists themselves could not consistently apply to Christ's birth narrative. The question was where the Messiah would be born, not where future covenant blessings would eventually be realized.

If anything, the passage demonstrates that God fulfilled the prophecy exactly as written. Herod asked for a location, and Scripture provided a location. Not a symbol. Not an allegory. Not a spiritualized reinterpretation. A real town called Bethlehem.

Mockery is not an argument. Exegesis is. And this meme does not refute amillennialism or any other view—it simply ignores the historical fact that Christ's birth took place before the New Covenant was ratified and before the church even existed.

shepherdsword · Sunday at 4:29 AM

TribulationSigns said:
This poorly made meme completely misses the point and actually undermines your own theological position.

The irony is that you're posting this as a moderator, yet the argument collapses under basic covenant theology chronology. If, as many covenantalists argue, the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Christ's death and resurrection (Hebrews 9:15–17), then the birth of Christ occurred before the New Covenant was established.

Herod's inquiry concerned a prophecy that was still awaiting literal fulfillment in history. The chief priests and scribes correctly pointed to the literal Bethlehem of Micah 5:2, and Matthew explicitly records that Jesus was born there. There was no New Covenant church yet. There was no post-cross redemptive reality yet. There was no basis for identifying Bethlehem as "the church" at that point in history.

Therefore, this meme attacks a position that covenantalists themselves could not consistently apply to Christ's birth narrative. The question was where the Messiah would be born, not where future covenant blessings would eventually be realized.

If anything, the passage demonstrates that God fulfilled the prophecy exactly as written. Herod asked for a location, and Scripture provided a location. Not a symbol. Not an allegory. Not a spiritualized reinterpretation. A real town called Bethlehem.

Mockery is not an argument. Exegesis is. And this meme does not refute amillennialism or any other view—it simply ignores the historical fact that Christ's birth took place before the New Covenant was ratified and before the church even existed.

I think the statement it is trying to make is that the prophecies for the second coming of Christ will have a literal fulfillment just as the prophecies for his first did. No need to stretch and imagine all of the metaphoric symbolism some have to use.

rebuilder 454 · Sunday at 9:06 AM

TribulationSigns said:
No. They are NOT credible. They spew false prophecies and false doctrines. Third temple will not take place.

The problem is that "What if?" seems to be the foundation of your entire eschatology.

What if Trump is a prophetic stage-setter?
What if the rapture is imminent?
What if the beast system is forming?
What if they aren't aliens but angels?
What if the final kingdom is rising?
What if Christian Zionism is correct?
What if the Ten Kings are emerging under Elon Musk's influence?
What if Gog and Magog are about to invade?

What if? What if? What if?

Endless speculation is not Bible prophecy. It is conjecture dressed up as biblical teaching.

These prophecy channels thrive on sensationalism, fear, and speculation. Every headline becomes a prophetic sign. Every political event becomes "proof" that their latest theory is correct. Yet decade after decade, their predictions fail, their timelines collapse, and their interpretations constantly change.

The tragedy is that many believers are being deceived by these false doctrines because they sound exciting and convincing. Instead of carefully studying what Scripture actually says, they chase after speculation and prophetic entertainment.

The reality is that most of these teachers have little understanding of biblical prophecy in its proper context. They read modern news into the Bible rather than drawing meaning out of the biblical text itself.

Frankly, it appears you have been thoroughly influenced by dispensational pre-tribulation rapture theology and are repeating its assumptions as if they were established biblical facts. But assumptions are not doctrine, and speculation is not exegesis. God's Word deserves better than a never-ending stream of prophetic "what ifs."

You have little understanding of the bible

rebuilder 454 · Sunday at 9:10 AM

TribulationSigns said:
This poorly made meme completely misses the point and actually undermines your own theological position.

The irony is that you're posting this as a moderator, yet the argument collapses under basic covenant theology chronology. If, as many covenantalists argue, the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Christ's death and resurrection (Hebrews 9:15–17), then the birth of Christ occurred before the New Covenant was established.

Herod's inquiry concerned a prophecy that was still awaiting literal fulfillment in history. The chief priests and scribes correctly pointed to the literal Bethlehem of Micah 5:2, and Matthew explicitly records that Jesus was born there. There was no New Covenant church yet. There was no post-cross redemptive reality yet. There was no basis for identifying Bethlehem as "the church" at that point in history.

Therefore, this meme attacks a position that covenantalists themselves could not consistently apply to Christ's birth narrative. The question was where the Messiah would be born, not where future covenant blessings would eventually be realized.

If anything, the passage demonstrates that God fulfilled the prophecy exactly as written. Herod asked for a location, and Scripture provided a location. Not a symbol. Not an allegory. Not a spiritualized reinterpretation. A real town called Bethlehem.

Mockery is not an argument. Exegesis is. And this meme does not refute amillennialism or any other view—it simply ignores the historical fact that Christ's birth took place before the New Covenant was ratified and before the church even existed.

Amil is a completely different Bible and beliefs that are shot down immediately.

I got saved in a amil church over 40 years ago.
Saw it's error right away.

Will a Third Temple Be Rebuilt?

Encounter Team - Eagle

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team - Eagle

Encounter Team

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team - Eagle

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team - Eagle

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team - Eagle

Well-Known Member

Will a Third Temple Be Rebuilt?​

Encounter Team - Eagle

Will a Third Temple Be Rebuilt?​

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team - Eagle

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Will a Third Temple Be Rebuilt?

Will a Third Temple Be Rebuilt?