Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Randy Kluth]

Paul has to be prophesying about a future new Temple that as I say: is well prophesied to be present on the Temple Mount:

The prophetic Scriptures clearly predict that the Third Temple will be built and the sacrifices reinstated, in the final years leading up to the Return of the Messiah. It is clear, too, that there will be more than just the Jewish people living in the Land of Greater Israel. All the Israelites from all 12 tribes of Israel, plus those grafted in, will migrate to New Israel soon after the Lord’s Day of vengeance and wrath, the terrible Day of fire and storms, that will clear and cleanse most of the Middle East.

But that isn't a prophecy--it's your own interpretation of the Scriptures. And mentioning Antichrist will take his seat in the temple of God is hardly a statement indicating the old temple of Herod would be rebuilt!

Look at how Moses told Israel the tabernacle would be built with great detail. And look at all the detail the Bible went into describing Solomon's project in building the temple. Finally, look at all the attention to the event at which the temple would be rebuilt after the Babylonian Captivity.

Then look at the lack of attention to any event or any detail with respect to a supposed rebuilding of a temple at the end of the age. It just isn't there. And that's likely because the temple of stone and wood was just a temporary phase until Christ came, became the real heavenly temple, and built his Church, the fulness of his temple.

The several statements about a future temple may purely be use of OT language to express a NT temple with Christ and the Church figuring prominently--not a physical temple. After all, OT prophecies would not likely use NT language as long as the Old Covenant was still in effect!

Any reference back to an OT physical temple seems purely designed to distract away from Christ to the externals that had caused the Jews to fail in the first place. It wasn't all about a physical temple, but more, about obedience from the heart and about an inward spirituality, not tied to a particular regimen of rituals and laws. The Law was fulfilled in love, and not in killing sheep and cows.

 

[Keraz]

But that isn't a prophecy--it's your own interpretation of the Scriptures

2 Thessalonians 2:4...so that he; as god sits in the Temple of God, promoting himself as God.
My interpretation?
Plain, understandable scripture Words say: the man of sin will sit in a literal Temple at some point during the end times.

And mentioning Antichrist will take his seat in the temple of God is hardly a statement indicating the old temple of Herod would be rebuilt!

There will be a new Temple, greater that both Solomon's and Herod's. Haggai 2:9

Then look at the lack of attention to any event or any detail with respect to a supposed rebuilding of a temple at the end of the age. It just isn't there.

A sad demonstration of either an inability to read the Prophesies, or perhaps you just do as you like to deny: preterist foolishness: of placing Ezekiel 40 to 46 into the past.
That Ezekiels prophecy detailing the construction and use of the future Temple, remains unfulfilled, is proved by Ezekiel 45:1-4; where he says how the Shekinah glory of God will come into it and reside in the holy of Holies.
The Shekinah Glory of God departed Solomons Temple, Ezekiel 11:22-23 and was never in the second Temple.

And that's likely because the temple of stone and wood was just a temporary phase until Christ came, became the real heavenly temple, and built his Church, the fulness of his temple.

That is how it has been since Jesus came, but when the Christian peoples are all together in all of the holy Land; WE will build the new Temple.
Zechariah 8:9

Any reference back to an OT physical temple seems purely designed to distract away from Christ to the externals that had caused the Jews to fail in the first place. It wasn't all about a physical temple, but more, about obedience from the heart and about an inward spirituality, not tied to a particular regimen of rituals and laws. The Law was fulfilled in love, and not in killing sheep and cows.

The real and most serious distraction comes from those who reject the clearly stated Prophetic Words.
We do not know the Mind of God, He wanted a Temple twice before, the Prophets tell us there will be a third Temple, but in Eternity a Temple will not be needed. Revelation 21:22 Which is proof enough that there was a existing Temple during the Millennium. And for a few years before Jesus Returns. He will reside in it and rule from it. Zechariah 14:16-21

 

[Randy Kluth]

2 Thessalonians 2:4...so that he; as god sits in the Temple of God, promoting himself as God.
My interpretation?
Plain, understandable scripture Words say: the man of sin will sit in a literal Temple at some point during the end times.

Oh I agree. It's plain, but very questionable in light of the fact Paul taught the new temple was Christ and the Church, and in light of the fact Jesus told his disciples Herod's temple would be completely demolished.

What is also plain is the absence of any reference by Paul of a *restoration* of the temple, after its destruction! So what may be "plain" to you may be as plain as mud to others.

There will be a new Temple, greater that both Solomon's and Herod's. Haggai 2:9

A sad demonstration of either an inability to read the Prophesies, or perhaps you just do as you like to deny: preterist foolishness: of placing Ezekiel 40 to 46 into the past.

You also are going to indulge in the name-calling? Sad! I thought you were better than that! No, I'm not and never have been a Preterist!

I do not place Eze 40-48 in the past. It was a vision for Israel in their day to focus on what the temple worship should've been, in light of what it is to be, in a sense, in the future--even though it will be an entirely different kind of temple!

Ezekiel was using the language of the temple law because he still lived in OT times under the period of the Law. But we now know, looking back, that he was speaking of a future without the temple law and without the Law of Moses.

As such, the new temple will be as it is described in the book of Revelation. After all, there is much in Revelation that comes from Ezekiel's vision!

That Ezekiels prophecy detailing the construction and use of the future Temple, remains unfulfilled, is proved by Ezekiel 45:1-4; where he says how the Shekinah glory of God will come into it and reside in the holy of Holies.
The Shekinah Glory of God departed Solomons Temple, Ezekiel 11:22-23 and was never in the second Temple.

Jesus came to Herod's temple! Jesus was God's glory!

That is how it has been since Jesus came, but when the Christian peoples are all together in all of the holy Land; WE will build the new Temple.
Zechariah 8:9

The real and most serious distraction comes from those who reject the clearly stated Prophetic Words.
We do not know the Mind of God, He wanted a Temple twice before, the Prophets tell us there will be a third Temple, but in Eternity a Temple will not be needed. Revelation 21:22 Which is proof enough that there was a existing Temple during the Millennium. And for a few years before Jesus Returns. He will reside in it and rule from it. Zechariah 14:16-21

There is no distinct prophecy of the building of a 3rd temple. The description of New Jerusalem indicates how God views the temple today--as a heavenly temple, not built with bricks and wood. Your literal rendition is not supported by any biblical detail in the Bible, such as was involved in the building of the Tabernacle, the building of Solomon's temple, or the rebuilding of the temple in the Persian Restoration.

Since that time Jesus has been the temple, and the Church his house! No mention of a 3rd temple at all. The book of Revelation depicts a heavenly temple, or in the case of ch. 11, uses the physical image of the old earthly temple to depict true worshipers, as existed under the OT system. This is just symbolism--it certainly isn't a prophecy of a physical rebuilding of Herod's temple!

 

[Keraz]

You also are going to indulge in the name-calling? Sad! I thought you were better than that! No, I'm not and never have been a Preterist!

I do not place Eze 40-48 in the past. It was a vision for Israel in their day to focus on what the temple worship should've been, in light of what it is to be, in a sense, in the future--even though it will be an entirely different kind of temple!

Ezekiel was using the language of the temple law because he still lived in OT times under the period of the Law. But we now know, looking back, that he was speaking of a future without the temple law and without the Law of Moses.

As such, the new temple will be as it is described in the book of Revelation. After all, there is much in Revelation that comes from Ezekiel's vision!

Sorry to make any kind of accusation. I didn't call you a preterist, just thought maybe you placed Ezekiel 40 to 48 in the past.

Try reading Ezekiel 40 to 48 again. Is he prophesying real humans, in Jerusalem, doing actual things? Or what?
God does not seem to have given Paul the knowledge of a new Temple. Maybe that would have been too confusing for him, as he told the truths of how we Christians are the spiritual Temple, for the Church age.
However; 2 Thess 2:4 remains indisputable - there WILL be a Temple and the 'beast' will desecrate it by sitting in the holy place.

There is no distinct prophecy of the building of a 3rd temple.

There is many clear prophesies about the new Temple in the OT and Revelation 21:22 says there won't be a Temple in Eternity, which proves there was one during the Millennium, as Zechariah 14:16-21 tells us.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry to make any kind of accusation. I didn't call you a preterist, just thought maybe you placed Ezekiel 40 to 48 in the past.

I appreciate that, brother. No, I don't place Ezekiel's vision in the past. But I do see it as a vision for the future, albeit in terms that a vision would use. Thus, it is to be taken symbolically, in my opinion.

Eze 40.2 In visions of God he took me to the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, on whose south side were some buildings that looked like a city...
43.10 “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider its perfection, 11 and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple—its arrangement, its exits and entrances—its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.
12 “This is the law of the temple: All the surrounding area on top of the mountain will be most holy. Such is the law of the temple."

2 Thess 2:4 remains indisputable - there WILL be a Temple and the 'beast' will desecrate it by sitting in the holy place.

2 Thes 2.4 indisuputably mentions a temple that the Antichrist will sit in. What that "temple" is is the question? Paul undoubtedly knew of Jesus' prediction on the Mt. of Olives that the temple would be completely destroyed. So what temple would the Antichrist sit in?

My guess is that Paul was referencing back to the prophecy of Antiochus 4 in the book of Daniel, where he commits abominations in the temple of God. Antichrist, similarly, would create an abomination by claiming to *be God."

As such, Paul is merely quoting an OT prophecy that applied to Antiochus, indicating that something like it will happen with Antichrist in the future. I personally think his sense of a temple for Antichrist could be either a physical or a heavenly temple--you decide.

There is many clear prophesies about the new Temple in the OT and Revelation 21:22 says there won't be a Temple in Eternity, which proves there was one during the Millennium, as Zechariah 14:16-21 tells us.

Interesting argument. The only problem I have with it is it's an argument from silence. John was writing in a time when the memory of Herod's temple was still vivid and fresh. The prophecy may have had no concern whatsoever about a supposed "Millennial temple."

Again, you decide.

 

[Truth7t7]

I appreciate that, brother. No, I don't place Ezekiel's vision in the past. But I do see it as a vision for the future, albeit in terms that a vision would use. Thus, it is to be taken symbolically, in my opinion.

Eze 40.2 In visions of God he took me to the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, on whose south side were some buildings that looked like a city...
43.10 “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider its perfection, 11 and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple—its arrangement, its exits and entrances—its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.
12 “This is the law of the temple: All the surrounding area on top of the mountain will be most holy. Such is the law of the temple."



2 Thes 2.4 indisuputably mentions a temple that the Antichrist will sit in. What that "temple" is is the question? Paul undoubtedly knew of Jesus' prediction on the Mt. of Olives that the temple would be completely destroyed. So what temple would the Antichrist sit in?

My guess is that Paul was referencing back to the prophecy of Antiochus 4 in the book of Daniel, where he commits abominations in the temple of God. Antichrist, similarly, would create an abomination by claiming to *be God."

As such, Paul is merely quoting an OT prophecy that applied to Antiochus, indicating that something like it will happen with Antichrist in the future. I personally think his sense of a temple for Antichrist could be either a physical or a heavenly temple--you decide.



Interesting argument. The only problem I have with it is it's an argument from silence. John was writing in a time when the memory of Herod's temple was still vivid and fresh. The prophecy may have had no concern whatsoever about a supposed "Millennial temple."

Again, you decide.

As clearly shown, Ezekiel Chapter 43 showed the temple "Pattern" to the House of Israel in the Babylonian Captivity let "Them" measure, Ezekiel was instructed to write the ordinances and law in "Their" sight, that "They" keep them, not some future generation as many "Falsely" claim

The temple seen in Ezekiel Chapters 40-46 is nothing more than the 2nd Zerubbabel Temple built 536BC after the Babylonian Captivity, where animal sacrifice for "Sin" was was instructed by "God", prior to the shed blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary, don't be deceived

Ezekiel 43:10-11 & 19-21KJV
10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering.
20 And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it.
21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary.

 

[Truth7t7]

2 Thes 2.4 indisuputably mentions a temple that the Antichrist will sit in. What that "temple" is is the question? Paul undoubtedly knew of Jesus' prediction on the Mt. of Olives that the temple would be completely destroyed. So what temple would the Antichrist sit in?

My guess is that Paul was referencing back to the prophecy of Antiochus 4 in the book of Daniel, where he commits abominations in the temple of God. Antichrist, similarly, would create an abomination by claiming to *be God."

As such, Paul is merely quoting an OT prophecy that applied to Antiochus, indicating that something like it will happen with Antichrist in the future. I personally think his sense of a temple for Antichrist could be either a physical or a heavenly temple--you decide.



Interesting argument. The only problem I have with it is it's an argument from silence. John was writing in a time when the memory of Herod's temple was still vivid and fresh. The prophecy may have had no concern whatsoever about a supposed "Millennial temple."

Again, you decide.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-11 is speaking of the Lord's second coming and the gathering of the church in the resurrection

Your claim Paul was referencing Antiochus Epiphanies 167BC as the (Man Of Sin) is laughable, as 2 Thessalonian's 2:1 below silences your claims made "Gone"

Paul is writing a prophetic warning below, and you claim it already had taken place at the time of Paul's writing? "Really"

The (Man Of Sin), second coming, and resurrection "gathering" is future unfulfilled, and didn't take place in 167BC or 70AD

2 Thessalonians 2:1KJV
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

 

[covenantee]

2 Thessalonians 2:1-11 is speaking of the Lord's second coming and the gathering of the church in the resurrection

Your claim Paul was referencing Antiochus Epiphanies 167BC as the (Man Of Sin) is laughable, as 2 Thessalonian's 2:1 below silences your claims made "Gone"

Paul is writing a prophetic warning below, and you claim it already had taken place at the time of Paul's writing? "Really"

The (Man Of Sin), second coming, and resurrection "gathering" is future unfulfilled, and didn't take place in 167BC or 70AD

2 Thessalonians 2:1KJV
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

The Reformation identified the apostasized papacy as the man of sin, who took up residence, and over the centuries usurped and arrogated spiritual authority, within the temple of God, i.e. the Church.

That usurpation and arrogation included the apostate popes declaring themselves to be the representatives and replications of God and His Son on the earth, as 2 Thessalonians 2 describes.

The process had already begun when Paul wrote ("the mystery of iniquity doth already work"), as history confirms.

Fulfilled centuries ago.

The laugh's on you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

2 Thessalonians 2:1-11 is speaking of the Lord's second coming and the gathering of the church in the resurrection

Your claim Paul was referencing Antiochus Epiphanies 167BC as the (Man Of Sin) is laughable, as 2 Thessalonian's 2:1 below silences your claims made "Gone"

Paul is writing a prophetic warning below, and you claim it already had taken place at the time of Paul's writing? "Really"

The (Man Of Sin), second coming, and resurrection "gathering" is future unfulfilled, and didn't take place in 167BC or 70AD

2 Thessalonians 2:1KJV
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I think Paul was referencing Antichrist as the "Man of Sin." But I think he was attributing the characteristics of Antiochus 4 from Dan 8 and 11, as they applied to him.

In other words, Paul was not talking about Antiochus, but only applying something like what he did to the Antichrist. He would sit in the temple of God just as Antiochus placed idols there. Sorry you misunderstood--I wasn't very clear.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As clearly shown, Ezekiel Chapter 43 showed the temple "Pattern" to the House of Israel in the Babylonian Captivity let "Them" measure, Ezekiel was instructed to write the ordinances and law in "Their" sight, that "They" keep them, not some future generation as many "Falsely" claim

The temple seen in Ezekiel Chapters 40-46 is nothing more than the 2nd Zerubbabel Temple built 536BC after the Babylonian Captivity, where animal sacrifice for "Sin" was was instructed by "God", prior to the shed blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary, don't be deceived

Ezekiel 43:10-11 & 19-21KJV
10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering.
20 And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it.
21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary.

Most commentators that I've read deny that the temple Ezekiel saw has ever been built. And the miracles he mentions later, such as turning the salt water into fresh water, has never happened that I know?

But yes, I think Ezekiel was applying this vision for his own day. I just think that it has symbolic application for the future.

 

[Keraz]

I think Ezekiel was applying this vision for his own day.

Ezekiel's Prophesies were for a time far distant. Ezekiel 11:27

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ezekiel's Prophesies were for a time far distant. Ezekiel 11:27

Would you quote that for me?
Obviously some prophecies were for his own day.

Eze 43.10 “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider its perfection, 11 and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple."

The description of the temple was to drive them to repentance.

 

[Truth7t7]

The Reformation identified the apostasized papacy as the man of sin, who took up residence, and over the centuries usurped and arrogated spiritual authority, within the temple of God, i.e. the Church.

That usurpation and arrogation included the apostate popes declaring themselves to be the representatives and replications of God and His Son on the earth, as 2 Thessalonians 2 describes.

The process had already begun when Paul wrote ("the mystery of iniquity doth already work"), as history confirms.

Fulfilled centuries ago.

The laugh's on you.

Thanks for the response, I fully disagree with the reformed churches position, the Roman Catholic Pope's played no part in fulfillment of the (Man Of Sin) the Antichrist

The (Man Of Sin) is a future human man, he will be a King/Ruler of Hebrew/Jewish decent, he hasn't been revealed to the world

 

[covenantee]

Thanks for the response, I fully disagree with the reformed churches position, the Roman Catholic Pope's played no part in fulfillment of the (Man Of Sin) the Antichrist

The (Man Of Sin) is a future human man, he will be a King/Ruler of Hebrew/Jewish decent, he hasn't been revealed to the world

You're welcome; I'll take the Reformers' God-inspired prophetic wisdom and discernment over the fantasies and fallacies of modernist dispensational futurism; every time.

 

[Keraz]

Would you quote that for me?
Obviously some prophecies were for his own day.

Ezekiel 12:27 { sorry; typo, not Ch 11] The people say: The visions that the Prophets now see, are for a time far off.

Actually I don't see any of Ezekiels Prophesies pertaining to his time. All of them are future, even to us today.
Note: that Ezekiel was in Syria, the location of the Kebar river. [Chebar or Khabar river, a tributary of the Euphrates] Where the House of Israel was exiled to at that time, NOT the House of Judah in Babylon. Ezekiel 3:15

The description of the temple was to drive them to repentance.

If you are referring to the Judah; it didn't work, but to the ten Northern tribes of Israel, who are now the Christian peoples; it did, as we ourselves attest.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ezekiel 12:27 { sorry; typo, not Ch 11] The people say: The visions that the Prophets now see, are for a time far off.

Actually I don't see any of Ezekiels Prophesies pertaining to his time. All of them are future, even to us today.
Note: that Ezekiel was in Syria, the location of the Kebar river. [Chebar or Khabar river, a tributary of the Euphrates] Where the House of Israel was exiled to at that time, NOT the House of Judah in Babylon. Ezekiel 3:15

If you are referring to the Judah; it didn't work, but to the ten Northern tribes of Israel, who are now the Christian peoples; it did, as we ourselves attest.

I was referring to the Judah of Ezekiel's time, who he was communicating with. People were still there before and after the Babylonians captured Jerusalem.

Ezekiel said that his vision of the temple had been given him by God to make the people ashamed when they see what they had been failing to do. I believe I quoted it to you?

 

[Keraz]

I was referring to the Judah of Ezekiel's time, who he was communicating with. People were still there before and after the Babylonians captured Jerusalem.

No, Ezekiel wasn't talking to Judah. He was transported to the river Kebar, in Syria, where the ten Northern tribes were then.
The Jews were taken to Babylon and returned 70 years later from there.
Please keep in mind that God separated the Israelites into 2 groups; the House of Judah: the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and the House of Israel:
the 10 Northern tribes. There was some intermingling, but those who joined Judah became Jews.
They have not yet rejoined; Ezekiel 37 remains unfulfilled.

Ezekiel said that his vision of the temple had been given him by God to make the people ashamed when they see what they had been failing to do. I believe I quoted it to you?

You did and I believe I said that if it applied to Judah, that attempt by God to shame the Jews; failed miserably.
But if it applied to the House of Israel; it succeeded and we are now the faithful Christian peoples of God. The true Israelites of God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, Ezekiel wasn't talking to Judah. He was transported to the river Kebar, in Syria, where the ten Northern tribes were then.

As I understand it, Ezekiel was sent into exile in the group that include the king of Judah, in 598 BC. The northern tribes were deported in 722 BC.

 

[Keraz]

As I understand it, Ezekiel was sent into exile in the group that include the king of Judah, in 598 BC. The northern tribes were deported in 722 BC.

Your *understanding* is incorrect.
Nowhere is it said that the Jews went anywhere other than Babylon. Maybe after Ezra and Nehemiah returned, some went elsewhere.
The King of Judah died in Babylon and they have never had another king. Jeremiah 52:31-34

The ten Northern tribes were conquered in 722/721, by Sennacharib, but their deportation was not total until circa 715/714; under Sargon 2.

Your treatment of the House of Israel, is the usual; They are gone, never to be seen again. But God said: He scattered them among the nations and He watches them. Amos 9:9
The simple truth is; They are now the Christian peoples. The amazing fuflilment of God's plans! Now we await our enemies to be got rid of and our going to live in our heritage of all the holy Land.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your *understanding* is incorrect.
Nowhere is it said that the Jews went anywhere other than Babylon. Maybe after Ezra and Nehemiah returned, some went elsewhere.
The King of Judah died in Babylon and they have never had another king. Jeremiah 52:31-34

I did not say the Jews from Judah went anywhere other than Babylon. I said that Ezekiel went with his fellow Jews from Judah to Babylon in 598 BC. I know the history. Ezekiel ministered to his fellow Jews both where he was in Babylon and to those who were still in Judah. Ezekiel's ministry stretched from a time before the Captivity in 586 BC to a time afterwards. I have no understanding why you're raising issues that seem completely irrelevant to me?

The ten Northern tribes were conquered in 722/721, by Sennacharib, but their deportation was not total until circa 715/714; under Sargon 2.

I've known of the date of the deportation of the Northern Kingdom since 1973, when I attended Bible school. We were asked to memorize the dates 721 BC and 586 BC. I've never forgotten. Again, this has nothing to do with our discussion or with anything I've said. I wonder who you're talking to?

Your treatment of the House of Israel, is the usual; They are gone, never to be seen again. But God said: He scattered them among the nations and He watches them. Amos 9:9
The simple truth is; They are now the Christian peoples. The amazing fuflilment of God's plans! Now we await our enemies to be got rid of and our going to live in our heritage of all the holy Land.

I don't subscribe to Replacement Theology. Sorry. You're welcome to your own view. I personally believe that most of the Northern Kingdom perished form history, and the peoples merged with other nations and peoples. They were idolatrous, broke covenant with God, and lost all means of returning.

However, since the division of Solomon's Kingdom into two kingdoms, many in the Northern Kingdom over time migrated South to properly worship in Jerusalem, and likely stayed. And so, Judah became a melting pot of all 12 tribes, ensuring the survival of the descendants of all 12 tribes.

The Jews, therefore, constitute the sum total of all 12 tribes of Israel. Judah was given a reprieve on behalf of the worship at the temple, which was restored in the days of Zerubbabel.