Isaiah 49:6

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

This exchange is a circular, "Yes it does," "No, it doesn't" argument that goes nowhere. If you wish to prove my point incorrect, then you've got to address the substance of the contradiction and prove it's not contradictory. In one sentence it was claimed, "It is only a matter of time before the temple is rebuilt," indicating the temple in which the AoD occurs has yet to be built and will be built in the future but in the next sentence we read, "The abomination of desolation has already happened millenia ago. It was when the greeks sacrificed a pig to zeus in the jewish temple."

That is contradictory.

Attributing that contradiction to my imagination and appeals to what many believe does not resolve the conflict between those two statements.
I'm not saying it is correct because it is popular. I am disproving your claim that it doesn't make sense for both of them to be true. Umpteen people have no problems believing both at the same time. That doesn't make the two claims proven true. But it does make your claim that they make no sense together to be false.
 
I just love it how Christians make up all these temples that are figurative in an effort to diminish the literal temple.
And I have a fair amount of disdain for those who deny scripture and accuse others of allegory or "spiritualizing," when the word of God literally states Christ, and his body are the literal temple of God.

Literally.

John 2:18-22
The Jews then said to Him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

The rebuilt temple is Jesus' body. That is what Jesus reported. The apostle John, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit literally stated Jesus was speaking of his literal body. John said the disciples believed the Scripture AND the word Jesus had spoken. What "scripture" would that be" The scriptures prophesying a rebuilt temple? If so then ALL of those prophesies are NOT about a temple of stone, but the body of Jesus!

Literally.

Not figuratively, not spiritually, not allegorically, but literally.

Paul bore witness to John's gospel in his letter to Corinth when he wrote,

1 Corinthians 3:16
Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

Literally.

The irony, of course, is that it is the Dispensationalist who fails to read the scriptures literally. There are no verses actually stating a third temple of stone will be built. The entire third-temple position is built solely from an inferential reading of scripture, one that denies the verses above have any relevance to the Old Testament prophecies. Despite the fact the New Testament writers are appealing to the Old Testament prophecies when they speak of Christ as the fulfillment of the prophecies Dispensationalism denies it all.

The prophecies spoke of a temple built by God's hands, not human hands. From the very first occasion when God first spoke to David God told David the one who would build His temple would be 1) a descendant of David's, 2) someone God would call His son, and 3) God (see 2 Samuel 7). God also told David the one who would build His temple would be a man of peace whose throne would never end. Despite God telling David to name his sone Jedidiah, David sought to have the prophecy fulfilled in the flesh and named his sone "Solomon," which means peace. Solomon was not a man of peace, and his throne did not endure. That temple was never the temple God intended! In point of fact God prohibited the hewing of stones in any altar built to Him. He prohibited the use of tools to hew such stones. When Solomon built the temple he got half of it correct: he did not use tools to hew the stones, but the stones were hewn.

In other words, the temple of stone, with its altar of hewn stone was ALWAYS an act of disobedience.

Look it up.

Most importantly, when God promised David an unending throne God was speaking of the resurrection. He was speking of the fact His Son would not see decay but would resurrect from the dead.

Acts 2:29-36
Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

The text literally states the oath given to David was about the resurrection. It was literally about the resurrection. The resurrection literally happened. The prophecy was litrally fulfilled.

But Dispensationalists deny it and they play fast and loose with the word, "literally," accusing those who stand literally on the literal reading of Acts 2 (and everything else I just posted) of figurative interpretation, of allegory, or spiritualizing scripture when the fact is the literal reading has Jesus as the rebuilt temple.




Dispensational Premillennialism is an eschatology that was invented less than 200 years ago, mainly by one man, John Darby based on a hermeneutic he also invented. It has become very popular with the development of mass media, but it has never been the historical, the orthodox, nor the mainstream view of most of Christendom and it is not more literal than the eschatological alternatives.


The literal temple is Christ resurrected and enthroned.
 
I think part of this is simply that you are new to the forum and unused to having religious conversations with Jews. You'll get used to us. And welcome to the forum.
Thanks for the welcome, but I have been a member of CARM since 2010. The membership dates get reset whenever a hacker trashes the forum, when CARM gets new servers, or when I take hiatus as a consequence thereof.
 
I'm not saying it is correct because it is popular.
That is in fact what you are doing.
am disproving your claim that it doesn't make sense for both of them to be true.
No, you are not. Nothing has been disproven. It has been disputed, but not disproven.
Umpteen people have no problems believing both at the same time.
That is simply begging the question. A large number of people believing it does not make it true and appeals to such arguments are fallacious.
That doesn't make the two claims proven true. But it does make your claim that they make no sense together to be false.
No, it does not. Lots of people believing something does not make it true.


The fact remains: 1) a temple of the future in which the AoD is to occur was asserted and 2) the AoD was said to have already happened. Those two premises do contradict because if the AoD has already occurred then the temple in which it is yet to occur has already been built and if the temple in which AoD is to occur has yet to be built then the AoD cannot have already happened.

No matter how many people believe differently.
 
Unfortunately, you continue to bring up Christian ideology to me which has nothing to do with me.
rotflmbo!!!!

If what Christians believe is true then it does have something to do with you. Your Jewish beliefs may be different but that does not change the predicate relevance.
I'm Jewish, and not Christian. Your reply is DOA.
I do not care whether you are Jewish or Christian. You're in a Christian forum and if you're going to try to discuss Isaiah 49 with only the Tanakh as your authority then it is not my replies that are DOA. The arrogant foolishness of coming into a Christian discussion forum with that presuppositional set of beliefs and attitudes is DOA. In the future you might amend that "DOA" to say, "dead on me," because it's you upon whom they have no effect and you taking ownership of your position without blaming others is more accurate, functional, and efficacious.

If you are Jew who does not find the New Testament veracious then it will always be you having the problem in this forum.
BTW, it would be nice for you to acknowledge your previous mistake regarding the Hebrew for abomination.
I have yet to see any proof I made any mistake.
Also, it would be best not to clump replies to me with someone else.
Perhaps, but you may have more in common with the Dispensationalists in this thread then you're aware of. Dispensationalism holds there is a discontinuous distinction between Israel and the Church, or between Jews and Christians. They tend to emphasize what we Christians call the Old Testament over the New Testament, and they claim to read the Old Testament literally. They stil look for a third temple of stone to be built, even though there is no verse in Tanakh ever explicitly stating such a thing.

And if you're a Jew who believes a third temple will be built then it is incumbent upon you, not me to prove it and to first do so with something actually stated in Tanakh and not a merely inferential reading.

Otherwise, that belief is DOA scripturally, theologically, and logically. It wouldn't matter to what religion anyone holding that belief subscribes.
 
rotflmbo!!!!
I am too.

If what Christians believe is true then it does have something to do with you.
But they're not.

Your Jewish beliefs may be different but that does not change the predicate relevance.
See above.

I do not care whether you are Jewish or Christian. You're in a Christian forum and if you're going to try to discuss Isaiah 49
I wasn't discussing Isaiah 49, nor did I bring it up. We moved in from there.

BTW, this is the Judaism forum.

with only the Tanakh as your authority then it is not my replies that are DOA.
But your replies are. For starters your idea behind abomination was way off. If you can't be honest about that, then you're the one with issues.

The arrogant foolishness of coming into a Christian discussion forum
Hmmm.... this area is a Judaism forum. Check the beam in your eye.

with that presuppositional set of beliefs and attitudes is DOA.
I have my reasons why and support them.

In the future you might amend that "DOA" to say, "dead on me," because it's you upon whom they have no effect and you taking ownership of your position without blaming others is more accurate, functional, and efficacious.
Dead on you, Josheb. Check the beam, Josheb.

If you are Jew who does not find the New Testament veracious then it will always be you having the problem in this forum.
I've had zero issues defending myself.

I have yet to see any proof I made any mistake.
Go back and look. The evidence is there. Try post #235. You made the wrong choice of Hebrews words.

Perhaps, but you may have more in common with the Dispensationalists in this thread then you're aware of. Dispensationalism holds there is a discontinuous distinction between Israel and the Church, or between Jews and Christians. They tend to emphasize what we Christians call the Old Testament over the New Testament, and they claim to read the Old Testament literally. They stil look for a third temple of stone to be built, even though there is no verse in Tanakh ever explicitly stating such a thing.
Well, if Christians believe in a 3rd temple it's because they got it from Jews. The evidence is there.

And if you're a Jew who believes a third temple will be built then it is incumbent upon you, not me to prove it and to first do so with something actually stated in Tanakh and not a merely inferential reading.
Done.

Otherwise, that belief is DOA scripturally, theologically, and logically. It wouldn't matter to what religion anyone holding that belief subscribes.
Yes, your replies are DOA.
 
Last edited:
Joshua was the one who brought Israel into the promised Land.

Jesus gave no covenant at all. He tried to the messiah, but died instead.

You really learned nothing from the new testament while you claimed to be a Christian.Why is that?Did you never read the new testament?
 
And I have a fair amount of disdain for those who deny scripture and accuse others of allegory or "spiritualizing," when the word of God literally states Christ, and his body are the literal temple of God.

Literally.
It looks like you have a hard time understanding the difference between literal and figurative. Literal does not mean "really true." It means the usual or most basic meaning of a word, without allegory, metaphor, etc. Figurative means you are using it as a metaphor for something else which may or may not be similar. The usual, most basic meaning of temple is a house of worship that you build and people go inside. The moment you start saying our bodies are a temple or Jesus is a temple, you have moved into figurative speech, where you are using the building temple as a metaphor for those things.

Please try to keep your answers much shorter. I do this for fun, and when I get really long posts, I usually either ignore them, or skim them quickly. And welcome to the forum.
 
Thanks for the welcome, but I have been a member of CARM since 2010. The membership dates get reset whenever a hacker trashes the forum, when CARM gets new servers, or when I take hiatus as a consequence thereof.
I don't recall you being in this forum, but then perhaps it has just been a while. :)
 
You really learned nothing from the new testament while you claimed to be a Christian.Why is that?Did you never read the new testament?
I studied it in depth. My mom first began reading me the gospels when I was five, and I studied it over the course of my life. I'm now 61, so that's a lot of studying. I find it so presumptuous that Christians simply assume that reading the New Testament is going to swing someone to be a Christian. For me, the more I studied, the LESS inclined I was to Christian beliefs. I finally left Christianity altogether.
 
I studied it in depth. My mom first began reading me the gospels when I was five, and I studied it over the course of my life. I'm now 61, so that's a lot of studying. I find it so presumptuous that Christians simply assume that reading the New Testament is going to swing someone to be a Christian. For me, the more I studied, the LESS inclined I was to Christian beliefs. I finally left Christianity altogether.



11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

14 The sower soweth the word.

15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,

19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
 
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

14 The sower soweth the word.

15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,

19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
From the Book of Mormon
CHAPTER 10

Lehi predicts that the Jews will be taken captive by the Babylonians—He tells of the coming among the Jews of a Messiah, a Savior, a Redeemer—Lehi tells also of the coming of the one who should baptize the Lamb of God—Lehi tells of the death and resurrection of the Messiah—He compares the scattering and gathering of Israel to an olive tree—Nephi speaks of the Son of God, of the gift of the Holy Ghost, and of the need for righteousness. About 600–592 B.C.

1 And now I, Nephi, proceed to give an account upon athese plates of my proceedings, and my reign and ministry; wherefore, to proceed with mine account, I must speak somewhat of the things of my father, and also of my brethren.

2 For behold, it came to pass after my father had made an end of speaking the words of his adream, and also of exhorting them to all diligence, he spake unto them concerning the Jews—

3 That after they should be destroyed, even that great city aJerusalem, and many be bcarried away captive into cBabylon, according to the own due time of the Lord, they should dreturn again, yea, even be brought back out of captivity; and after they should be brought back out of captivity they should possess again the land of their inheritance.

4 Yea, even asix hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a bprophet would the Lord God raise up among the cJews—even a dMessiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.

5 And he also spake concerning the prophets, how great a number had atestified of these things, concerning this Messiah, of whom he had spoken, or this Redeemer of the world.

6 Wherefore, all mankind were in a alost and in a bfallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer.

7 And he spake also concerning a aprophet who should come before the Messiah, to prepare the way of the Lord—

8 Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness: aPrepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing.

9 And my father said he should baptize in aBethabara, beyond Jordan; and he also said he should bbaptize with water; even that he should baptize the Messiah with water.

10 And after he had baptized the Messiah with water, he should behold and bear record that he had baptized the aLamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world.

11 And it came to pass after my father had spoken these words he spake unto my brethren concerning the gospel which should be preached among the Jews, and also concerning the adwindling of the Jews in bunbelief. And after they had cslain the Messiah, who should come, and after he had been slain he should drise from the dead, and should make himself emanifest, by the Holy Ghost, unto the Gentiles.

12 Yea, even my father spake much concerning the Gentiles, and also concerning the house of Israel, that they should be compared like unto an aolive tree, whose bbranches should be broken off and should be cscattered upon all the face of the earth.

13 Wherefore, he said it must needs be that we should be led with one accord into the aland of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered upon all the face of the earth.

14 And after the house of aIsrael should be scattered they should be bgathered together again; or, in fine, after the cGentiles had received the fulness of the dGospel, the natural branches of the eolive tree, or the fremnants of the house of gIsrael, should be grafted in, or hcome to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer.

15 And after this manner of language did my father prophesy and speak unto my brethren, and also many more things which I do not write in this book; for I have written as many of them as were expedient for me in mine aother book.

16 And all these things, of which I have spoken, were done as my father dwelt in a atent, in the valley of Lemuel.

17 And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the awords of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a bvision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God—and the Son of God was the cMessiah who should come—I, Nephi, was ddesirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the eHoly Ghost, which is the fgift of God unto gall those who diligently seek him, as well in times of hold as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.

18 For he is the asame yesterday, today, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.

19 For he that diligently aseeketh shall find; and the bmysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the cHoly Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the dcourse of the Lord is one eternal round.

20 Therefore remember, O man, for all thy doings thou shalt be brought into ajudgment.

21 Wherefore, if ye have sought to do awickedly in the days of your bprobation, then ye are found cunclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever.

22 And the Holy Ghost giveth aauthority that I should speak these things, and deny them not.
 
I am too.


But they're not.


See above.


I wasn't discussing Isaiah 49, nor did I bring it up. We moved in from there.

BTW, this is the Judaism forum.


But your replies are. For starters your idea behind abomination was way off. If you can't be honest about that, then you're the one with issues.


Hmmm.... this area is a Judaism forum. Check the beam in your eye.


I have my reasons why and support them.


Dead on you, Josheb. Check the beam, Josheb.


I've had zero issues defending myself.


Go back and look. The evidence is there. Try post #235. You made the wrong choice of Hebrews words.


Well, if Christians believe in a 3rd temple it's because they got it from Jews. The evidence is there.


Done.


Yes, your replies are DOA.
Thank you for your time.
 
It looks like you have a hard time understanding the difference between literal and figurative.
It looks like you have a difficult time not making things personal and not assuming ignorance on the part of others. We are not proceeding until you've expressed some intent not to repeat this god-forsaken practice. I understand the word "literal" just fine and used it in many different ways, some of them the way Dispies use it.

But perhaps you had a hard time understanding that.
 
She gave you an answer. Jesus was just a man and died as one.
Jesus was more than a man. His birth was a miracle conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Over 300 Scriptures of fulfilled prophecy to prove it. You are in denial. Repent before its to late.
 
Back
Top