When Will the Third Temple Be Built

[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.

[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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

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.

My point was not to prove they are either future or not, but to show the basis people use to demand they're future is faulty. Since these details were taken at face value, and since such literal events never occurred, literalists have always used that as their basis to say Rev. is future. I just showed that is faulty reasoning. And this removes the grounds saying that these things did not yet occur. It makes us realize we have to look for some other proof they did not occur. And the fact is they could very well have been fulfilled when we realize we did not have to look for literal fulfillments. This brings on an entirely whole new approach to interpreting Revelation. I think my series of posts PROVED THAT.

Hardly anyone ever wants to do this, but the BEST way to discuss views on Revelation is to discuss the MANNER OF INTERPRETATION rather than the interpretations themselves.

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.

No problem. But that was not my point in bringing up Zech 4. The point was WHY does Rev 11 point us to Zech 4?

Just because there are OT references, doesn't mean Rev has already been fulfilled.

I agree. Not my point, though.

I don't see the connection or evidence for that in the OT references.

I agree. However, since Rev 11 makes references to Joshua and Zerubbabel in Zech 4 and also Moses and Elijah in Exodus and Kings, we know it is error to pawn it off as easy as saying they have to be Moses and Elijah. So why would Moses, Elijah, Zerubbabel and Joshua be implied in this prophecy? These are the questions we must ask and use in determining their identities. I only ask you why you do not deal with those facts in your assessments. And if you can realize we have to deal with them, and that they somehow are showing us the truth of the prophecy's understanding, then you may also consider that your own viewpoint has been offbase.

I will say this. If you intend to try to learn what purpose Moses, Elijah, Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest have in this prophecy, and seek to come up with an explanation, you will find people think you are off the wall, too, since they never stopped to consider such details. And without considering these details, you'll get the popular idea, since most people do not bother to deal with the entire prophecy.

My strongest point is all the AT HAND references in Revelation coupled with the overwhelming point that Rev 11 predicted the exact time it took Rome to besiege Jerusalem. We work from the easiest parts to understand and interpret the harder parts.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

My point was not to prove they are either future or not, but to show the basis people use to demand they're future is faulty. Since these details were taken at face value, and since such literal events never occurred, literalists have always used that as their basis to say Rev. is future. I just showed that is faulty reasoning. And this removes the grounds saying that these things did not yet occur. It makes us realize we have to look for some other proof they did not occur. And the fact is they could very well have been fulfilled when we realize we did not have to look for literal fulfillments. This brings on an entirely whole new approach to interpreting Revelation. I think my series of posts PROVED THAT.

Hardly anyone ever wants to do this, but the BEST way to discuss views on Revelation is to discuss the MANNER OF INTERPRETATION rather than the interpretations themselves.




No problem. But that was not my point in bringing up Zech 4. The point was WHY does Rev 11 point us to Zech 4?


I agree. Not my point, though.



I agree. However, since Rev 11 makes references to Joshua and Zerubbabel in Zech 4 and also Moses and Elijah in Exodus and Kings, we know it is error to pawn it off as easy as saying they have to be Moses and Elijah. So why would Moses, Elijah, Zerubbabel and Joshua be implied in this prophecy? These are the questions we must ask and use in determining their identities. I only ask you why you do not deal with those facts in your assessments. And if you can realize we have to deal with them, and that they somehow are showing us the truth of the prophecy's understanding, then you may also consider that your own viewpoint has been offbase.

I will say this. If you intend to try to learn what purpose Moses, Elijah, Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest have in this prophecy, and seek to come up with an explanation, you will find people think you are off the wall, too, since they never stopped to consider such details. And without considering these details, you'll get the popular idea, since most people do not bother to deal with the entire prophecy.

My strongest point is all the AT HAND references in Revelation coupled with the overwhelming point that Rev 11 predicted the exact time it took Rome to besiege Jerusalem. We work from the easiest parts to understand and interpret the harder parts.

I know that the spirit and power of Elijah rested on John the Baptist. Could it be speaking of the spirit and power of Moses and Elijah resting on the church as a whole? What we see is the church militant in the two witnesses and the church's persecution and revival.

Thoughts?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know that the spirit and power of Elijah rested on John the Baptist. Could it be speaking of the spirit and power of Moses and Elijah resting on the church as a whole? What we see is the church militant in the two witnesses and the church's persecution and revival.

Thoughts?

That could very well be it!

When I said the two witnesses were SPIRIT AND TRUTH, I meant that through the church's ministry SPIRIT AND TRUTH worked, and we are not meant to take this as two individual human beings. When Jerusalem was under siege for 42 months, the church was absent, so the SPIRIT AND TRUTH ministering through the church was dead, so to speak. The 42 months and the 3.5 days are synonymous in this prophecy. 42 months saw the siege occur as the Gentile power of the world, ROME, trampled the city, and the 3.5 days the 2 witnesses lay dead are the same 42 months or 3.5 years. With the church fled to Pella, since they took Matt 24's directions for them to flee when Rome came to the city, the witnesses were dead in the city.

[mfblume]

What is interesting about Revelation 11 and the reference to THE two olive trees in Zechariah 4, is that Joshua the High Priest and Zerubbabel the governor were the two witnesses WHO RESTORED THE TEMPLE after Babylonian exile. And Revelation shows a TEMPLE portraying God's people whom the Gentiles (Roman armies) cannot touch since the church fled the city, and the OUTER COURT standing for the entire city Jerusalem.

John is not shown a literal temple. The temple he sees is SYMBOLIC of the people of God. Notice that IT IS MEASURED. Measuring something always occurred to indicate ownership in the Bible. And the outer court is NOT measured. The reason given for not measuring it is that it is given to the GENTILES TO TREAD THE CITY DOWN. So, the outer court represents THAT WHICH IS NOT GOD'S PROPERTY, the city of Jerusalem who rejected Christ. Just as the temple had a COURT OF THE GENTILES, in this vision the outer court represents the territory the GENTILES FORCES are allowed to destroy at God's permission. But the actual TEMPLE, that stands for the CHURCH, is measured and off limits to the Roman armies.

Can we see that the lack of measuring the outer court to allow the Gentiles to tread Jerusalem under for 42 months shows us that the temple and outer court in the vision was not an actual temple, but a symbolic one of the two distinctions of Church and Jerusalem?

It's as though the vision is saying that THERE IS A NEW TEMPLE that is RESTORED in the sense Zerubbabel and Joshua restored one after the exile from Babylon. I think that is why the reference in Rev is made to Zech 4, the time when the two men restored the temple. The PHYSICAL temple in the first century was no longer the Temple of God. The true temple is the church.