Conference yukon::christian

    
    The whole idea is soooo strange.  
    
    Christ incarnate, the fulfillment of all of the Old Testament symbols, 
    such as the temple, is sitting at the right hand of the Father.  The
    Father had the temple destroyed  in 70 AD.  He's continuing to build his 
    church, his body, the better covenant.  And folks think he's going to 
    direct or honor the building of a physical temple where those who reject
    the Son will be able to offer acceptable animal blood sacrifices to God
    for the covering of their sins.
    
    How can it be?
    
    jeff

    I don't think Christians believe the building of the 3rd temple is of
    God.

>    I don't think Christians believe the building of the 3rd temple is of
>    God.

Probably a bit too broad.  The impetus behind the building of the 3rd temple
is not by any stretch an essential to faith in Christ.  I personally have
never given it any thought one way or the other, but I'm sure that one could
believe either way and it would not directly affect one's salvation.

Paul

      In the last days, God will build His temple.  The temple is
      His church and once completely built, it will be cleansed.
    
      I see the looking to a physical temple as a possible deflection
      from the gospel.  I think it will be built and I think it will
      be Satan's doing as part of a deception.
    
    						Tony

>    I don't think Christians believe the building of the 3rd temple is of
>    God.
    
    That is not the way I sense it at all.  I wonder if I could have
    misunderstood it so completely! From what I can recall of the
    dispensational belief, I'm sure that the rebuilding of the Temple is a
    good thing in itself, not as simply a sign of the times.  
    
    jeff

    Must be another sect of the dispenstationalists. ;-)

    This is but a house
    It has a steeple
    Open the door and see
    The Church is the People!

    I just went to this site and immediately the following caught my
    attention, not because of their subject, but because of the date
    references.  Maybe it is just a personal problem that I have, but why
    do things constantly have to be changed to remove references to Christ?
    
    "The 9th of Av, 586 B.C.E.; The Destruction of the First Temple"
    "The 9th of Av, 70 C.E.; The Destruction of the Second Temple"

    In case any of you are not aware, B.C.E. translates to "Before Common
    Era", which is substituted for B.C.  C.E. translates to "Common Era",
    which is substituted for A.D.

    The birth of Christ is the reference point that nearly the entire world
    uses.  Why, suddenly, is there a need to change this?  OK, I could
    perhaps understand changing A.D., which I believe is interpreted as "In
    the year of our Lord", simply because Christ is not everyone's Lord.
    However, "Before Christ" is a reference to a literal event that nearly
    everyone in the world acknowledges as having occured.

    I first encountered this in two different classes when I was completing
    my degree.  In one class it was explained that "modern day scholars"
    prefer to use these new terms.  Are they implying that everyone who
    uses the more common terms are nonscholarly???

    Sorry for my ranting, but this is something that just bothers me.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

    Ron

    Ron, that is something typically done in Jewish writings.  They don't
    view Christ as we do.

	God has already built the third temple.  He accomplished
	that act almost 2000 years ago, if you believe his own
	Incarnate Word:

	"Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days."

	The third and final temple is the resurrected Body of Christ,
	of which all Christians are very members incorporate.

/john

      Interesting that "three days" is a time period rampantly
      used in the scriptures.  Methinks there will be an endtime
      thematic occurance of that one!
    
      Ezra 10 is probably my favorite!  Esther is really cool too.
    
    						Tony

    John, does this mean the Temple in the Millenial Kingdom, as described
    in Ezekiel (around chapter 40 onward) is the 4th Temple?

The temple described in Ezekiel is

	1. A concept for the second temple, not actually realized in
	   exactly that form

as well as

	2. a theological symbol of the ideal relationship with God
	   (for example, the river flowing out of it is the water which
	   flowed from the side of Christ at his crucifixion and is the
	   living what which He gives us always.)

/john

    John, how can that be when the dimensions of the temple in Ezekiel 40
    is so large that it couldn't even fit in Jerusalem?

Concept and symbol.

37.12 �    John, does this mean the Temple in the Millenial Kingdom, as 
37.12 �    described in Ezekiel (around chapter 40 onward) is the 4th Temple?

Mike, wouldn't that make Ezekiel's Millenial temple at least the 5th?   ;-)

1st:  Solomon's
2nd:  Ezra 3, extended by Herod [to make '2a', rather than '3'?;-]
3rd:  The Church
4th:  Tribulational	[desecrated by the antichrist, as referred to in 
			Matthew 24:15, from Daniel 9:27]
5th:  Millenial		[Ezekiel 40...]

- though the numbered temples [per Mike's previous] are usually only taken
to refer to the physical buildings, otherwise we would be handling
seriously heavy numbers by now, from passages like 1 Corinthians 6:19 - 
they'd be 'way past the badge numbers. ;-)  We are individual temples, as 
well as a corporate one.  
 - But He uses names, not numbers (Revelation 20:15, Luke 10:20, etc). 

								Andrew

    Andrew, looks good to me.

    I've been watching a news-type show here at work, during my lunch hour. 
    It's called _Strange Universe_.  Aptly named, to be sure, as there are
    some really strange stories on this show.  I watch it because it shows
    stories that you won't see on normal news programs - mainly
    paranormal-type stuff (and also because there is little else to watch
    at this time of day  8^) ).
    
    I find it fascinating that reports of UFOs have virtually skyrocketed
    (if you'll pardon the pun), while New Age religions and practices are
    intertwined, unbeknownst to many, into the lives of many people.  Not
    that these things are new to us, but there seems to be a quickening of
    sorts taking place.  People are ready to accept nearly any spirit, it
    seems.
    
    Though I take these reports for what their worth, I also look at this
    as another sign that something is close at hand (close being a relative
    term, of course).  The trend is obvious, and the numbers of people
    chasing after anything spiritual is a sign as well.
    
    As Christians, we need to do our part in helping those who are
    spiritually hungry.  Without us allowing the Holy Spirit to work within
    each of us to reach these people, they will find spiritualism of a
    demonic nature.  I see so many hungry people out there, and I see the
    enemy out there leading them away from God by demonizing (a true term,
    in this case) anything related to Christians/God, in a rather insidious
    fashion.
    
    Why insidious, when most of us can see the obvious nature of it? 
    That's the very reason why it is insidious.  We can see it, but to those
    who lack spiritual discernment, it is very subtle, wrapped up inside an
    ideology that seems good on the outside.  The fact that most Christians
    can see it, and many non-Christians cannot, causes conflict between the
    two groups.  Such a conflict can only further push non-Christians away
    from God's message.
    
    Think about it.  I may have to do a bit of rethinking myself on this
    subject, and the subject of appologetics in general (as well as the way
    I participate in other conferences).  
    
    If this note seems to have rambled a bit, it did.  It sort of took on a
    life of its own.  8^)  [My original intent was to simply suggest
    that the signs of the times are quickening.]
    
    I'll go away now, and regroup my thoughts.  8^)
    
     
    -steve      

    .18
    
       No Steve don't apologize. I (only me speaking) usually always read
    anything your write end t end, agreeing with most all, or all your
    content.
     
       You and one or two other netizens are a breath of fresh air
    between the far left, touchey-feeley socialist commie liberals and
    the equally annoying far right Stinkwater Texas tent revival crowd.
    
       So I could list the people I honestly enjoy reading in here, but
    then that would be against politikkkal korrectness, and others might
    feel hurt that they did not make the fave list.
    
       But then, who am i anyway? Certainly nobody that'd ever get 
    invited to any function where any worthwhile people would gather.
    
       Feeling pretty dimestore worthless of late,
    
       ttfn, ray

    re .19
    
    Hi Ray,
    
        But then, who am i anyway? Certainly nobody that'd ever get
        invited to any function where any worthwhile people would gather.
    
    If you look through the Bible you will find that you are in good
    company!  :-)
    
    
    Jill
    

    .19
    
    Thanks for your comments, Ray.  
    
    And FWIW, I know all too well that "worthless" feeling.  Hang in there!
    
    
    -steve