When Will the Third Temple Be Built

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I think only the fire is symbolic and the rest is literal.

Where do we get a rule, though, that allows for you to symbolize one part and nothing more? The point is that anything we are not used to hearing is always going to sound off the wall. In my mind, your thoughts are off the wall. So, the only thing we can do here together is strongly consider each view and resist the tendency to consider the other as being off the wall.

You are avoiding the facts that the world witnessed the death and resurrection of these two witnesses.

No I am not. I can say you avoided the fact that fire came from the mouths of two people. But I at least can relate to your thoughts. But my point is what is the basis for demanding the two witnesses be two actual men when you already admitted fire is not fire?

The WITNESS of truth died in Jerusalem for 3.5 years since the church was gone, leaving the church not ministering since they had to hide for the duration, and then proceed to minister once again after the siege was over and Jerusalem was gone. What is the difference between that and fire being anointing?

This fits with the concept of there having been actually 42 months for Rome to besiege Jerusalem and tread her under.

And that the 2 witnesses had power to shut up heaven just like elijah. How can spirit and truth do these things?

It simply means that God warned against rebellion of Israel in Leviticus, (which, by the way, lists four sets of seven fold judgments just as Revelation lists 7 seals, trumpets, thunders and vials) and Israel experienced it as proof Jesus is God as much as Elijah did that to prove Jehovah was the true God..

sooner or later we will begin to repeat ourselves so I no longer want to debate. But can you answer these questions, please?

I promise to not repeat anything. However, I answered you, and can you answer me as to why you stop at a certain point in symbolism and somehow demand no one can symbolize anything else there?

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I promise to not repeat anything. However, I answered you, and can you answer me as to why you stop at a certain point in symbolism and somehow demand no one can do the same thing with anything else there?

I'm not demanding that you don't have the right to interpret as you please. I just don't agree with your view of Rev 11 or with preterism in general. The bible says we are to rightly divide the scripture, so that means that some things can be symbolic and other things literal. Symbolic fire is where I divide the scripture. If you want to spiritualize the whole chapter, that is your right, but I won't be paying tithes to you anytime soon.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I'm not demanding that you don't have the right to interpret as you please.

That is fine. However, you have not answered questions that must be answered. Why does Rev 11 refer directly to Zech 14 and Genesis and Kings? Were such references wasted and are of no value and concern? My conclusions are based upon including those details and trying to come to grips with the overall prophecy with that in mind.

I just don't agree with your view of Rev 11 or with preterism in general. The bible says we are to rightly divide the scripture,

Which is why we must answer the questions I have asked of you. None of us are perfect in all we believe, but we at least must try to deal with ALL the evidence and not cast aside some of it. My conclusion has taken into consideration things that it does not seem you are able to answer with any alternative explanation.

so that means that some things can be symbolic and other things literal. Symbolic fire is where I divide the scripture.

Good! But why do you not acknowledge the details about Zech 4 and Rev 11?

If you want to spiritualize the whole chapter, that is your right, but I won't be paying tithes to you anytime soon.

I could really care less who you pay your tithes to or if you agree with me or not. I am only trying to indicate in my feeble attempts that we have to deal with the overall prophecy and not stop short of it at parts we care not to look at.

I see strong precedent for seeing symbolism in the entire book where visions are concerned since Rev 1:1 says the information is signified. In fact, I provided some thoughts as to how Revelation MUST be considered symbolic in this thread: http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=29391

I would be interested in your thoughts of what I presented, whether you agree or not.

[mfblume]

TYPO:

That is fine. However, you have not answered questions that must be answered. Why does Rev 11 refer directly to Zech 14 and Genesis and Kings? Were such references wasted and are of no value and concern? My conclusions are based upon including those details and trying to come to grips with the overall prophecy with that in mind.

Should be

That is fine. However, you have not answered questions that must be answered. Why does Rev 11 refer directly to Zech 4 and Genesis and Kings? Were such references wasted and are of no value and concern? My conclusions are based upon including those details and trying to come to grips with the overall prophecy with that in mind.

Anyway, DM,

I see strong precedent for seeing symbolism in the entire book where visions are concerned since Rev 1:1 says the information is signified. In fact, I provided some thoughts as to how Revelation MUST be considered symbolic in this thread: http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=29391

I would be interested in your thoughts of what I presented, whether you agree or not.

[Falla39]

Why is there a need for a third temple.
God no longer dwells in temples made by
man's hands. We are the temple of the
Holy Ghost. Or do those who refuse the
Holy Ghost need a place to worship and
someone to worship!

Falla39

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is fine. However, you have not answered questions that must be answered. Why does Rev 11 refer directly to Zech 14 and Genesis and Kings? Were such references wasted and are of no value and concern? My conclusions are based upon including those details and trying to come to grips with the overall prophecy with that in mind.



Which is why we must answer the questions I have asked of you. None of us are perfect in all we believe, but we at least must try to deal with ALL the evidence and not cast aside some of it. My conclusion has taken into consideration things that it does not seem you are able to answer with any alternative explanation.



Good! But why do you not acknowledge the details about Zech 4 and Rev 11?



I could really care less who you pay your tithes to or if you agree with me or not. I am only trying to indicate in my feeble attempts that we have to deal with the overall prophecy and not stop short of it at parts we care not to look at.

I see strong precedent for seeing symbolism in the entire book where visions are concerned since Rev 1:1 says the information is signified. In fact, I provided some thoughts as to how Revelation MUST be considered symbolic in this thread: http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=29391

I would be interested in your thoughts of what I presented, whether you agree or not.

Brother Blume, I read through your thread on revelation, and while I agree that there are parallels in the OT. You didn't provide any evidence that the events in Rev were already fulfilled or not in the future.

I read through Zech 4 and I see the 2 olive trees and references to the temple, but I don't see any verse that would cause me to interpret rev 11 as being a past event. Just because there are OT references, doesn't mean Rev has already been fulfilled. I don't see the connection or evidence for that in the OT references.

[ENDTIMPREACHER]

The third temple is in planning even now. We are closer than close to the tribulation.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ENDTIMPREACHER

The third temple is in planning even now. We are closer than close to the tribulation.

Prove it!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I believe the 2 witnesses are still future, so why would I have to explain them with scripture? I don't believe they were in the 1st century because we have no evidence or historical record of 2 men preaching for 42 months and no resurrection with a global witness. Chapter 11 says the world witnessed their preaching, death and resurrection. What evidence do you have to the contrary? The onus is on preterists not futurists.

The witnesses are still future? Can you look at your calander and see how longs its been since Revelation been written? When is this future event happing? A future event mind you that is not able to be interpreted, and explained by the rest of scripture? Still you didn't answer my question, will these two witnesses be able to breath fire from out of their mouths?


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

fire is a type of the holy spirit. this is annoited preaching.

Thank your for your answer. Now why did you spiritulize the above?

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

rev 11 says they had power to shut up heaven just like elijah. since the time of the gentiles is fulfilled, these men are prophets to Israel. How can spirit and truth breathe fire, shut up heaven, be killed and lie in the streets, be seen by the world, resurrect and rise in the clouds? I would suspect you to be an undercover Roman Catholic with such a twisted interpretation of such a literal chapter.

And they say I'm the one who throws out insults? Hey, DM, I'm no Mike Blume devoutee, but did you notice that he is just answering your questions and doing it in a sincere manner? Why did you feel to snap his neck back? Don't you understand what you yourself believe to be able to go back and forth with him witth book, chapter, and verse? Oh, you can't, because it's still future, and the book of the Revelation cannot be discussed with the rest of the Bible.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com