Talk:Third Temple/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contradiction

How can something be both non-existent and sacred? If it doesn't exist then it certainly isn't sacred. If it is sacred then it must exist. I think the opening of this article need some revision. -Acjelen 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole page needs revision. It presents some fundamentalist nuts as if they were very significant. -Mordac 19:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Fundamentalists, just nuts who mix racist politics with a religion they are uncomfortable with and aren't even considered worthy of marriage by the real Jewish fundamentalists who hold that Jews are not permitted to set foot on the Temple mount or their soul will be cut off from the Jewish people unless they can find a red heifer to burn and mix with water, at which point they can go up there; and that the Temple will descend fully built from heaven and the doors that miraculously sank deep into the Earth before it's distruction will ascend and hang themselves. 88.153.0.6 18:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This Talk page is for discussion of the article, not the merits of the underlying issues or the religious beliefs involved. Please keep it real. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The merits of the underlying issues have to be discussed to improve the article. Parts of Ezekiel, particularly the last 8 or 9 chapters are difficult because they talk about sacrifices to be made in the millennium, something Christ did for one and all time (hence the issue). In fact, I would like to see the article address that issue/conflict to a much greater degree with as many views as possible posted along with the issues/problems associated with those views. Also, the work that has been done on this issue in past centuries. 65.87.185.73 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)tc

---

This article states that Christians believe three things must occur before Christ returns.

1) Israel reinstated 2) Temple rebuilt 3) Not, as the article states, a sacrifice be made in the temple, but specifically, the antichrist using the building for his own worship

To take it one step further - Russian Orthodox Christians believe that the hebrew Messiah is in fact anti-christ himself... With respect, Ko Soi. PS. Love your fellow man, not your fellow jew, boys and girls. Selection based on nationality/religious affiliation is not a healthy choice! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.95.2 (talk • contribs)

Please use the Talk pages to discuss the encyclopedia. Thank you. --Shirahadasha 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

"It has long been held that the Dome of the Rock stands in the place where the Second Temple was, but it has recently been pointed out that it stood near the Dome of the Rock, which would be the spot of the Outer Court." - this sentence makes no sense. What is it supposed to say? --Zero 13:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentance also assumes somthing that is not necesarrily fact. There are three suggested positions for the location of the holy of holies in the second temple: the north, central, and south views. The central view is still very popular and has significan scholarly support, and puts the holy of holies directly under the dead center of the dome of the rock. Thanatosimii 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Source should be added for this comment

"A small Jewish family temple built along the lines of the first Jewish temple in which offerings are (as of 2001) regularly made exists in Berks County Pennsylvania today." Despite all I have read about Judaism and controverses over the Third Temple, I have never heard anything about this. Offering a source, link, citation, or whatnot would be best if it is to be believed. I could not verify this information via searches on Yahoo! or Google either. Kitabparast 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of it and do not really believe it since they don't have the real ark of the covenent. I will believe it when I see it. :) Arlen22 (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest renaming

Third Temple rather than The Third Temple. Reasons:

• Other article is "Second Temple"
• Text in bold is "Third Temple"
• If the is optional, it should not be part of the title
• Correct categorization by letters

I could not do it. Perhaps someone else? gidonb 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Done in 2007 Arlen22 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Body as Temple

The article is on beliefs about a physical structure associated priests, levites, sacrifices, etc., in a specific religion, not on the generic concept of "Temple". Christian views about the rebuilding of a Jewish temple in Jerusalem are relevant; Christian doctrines involving a general Christian concept of temple (as in the body is a temple) are not. It would be relevant to say that Christianity believes (if it does believe) that concepts of a physical temple have been superseded by other concepts, but a stand-alone paragraph about a "temple of the body" appears to be about an entirely different religious concept. --Shirahadasha 09:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The provision of a general framework indicating the basis for Christian thought that will affect thinking on the third temple. As a result of your prompting, I have given the section some more thought and have expanded it to provide a better introductory flow into the various perspectives on this topic within Christianity. J.christianson 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Two comments about the "Protestant View" section:

1) This subsection seems odd:

However, in contrast to both the dominant Protestant view and the view of many dispensationalists just mentioned, many evangelicals (especially those who call themselves Messianic) believe that there will be a full restoration of the sacrificial system in Ezekiel's temple and that it will be more than just a memorial of the cross. These sacrifices, according to this Messianic view, will be just as expiatory as those under the Mosaic Law. According to that view, while the so-called Antichrist will put an end to the sacrificial system during the Tribulation (Dan. 9:27, 11:31, 12:11), the arrival of the true Messiah will inaugurate the building of Ezekiel's Temple (see Ezekiel 40-44). This view holds that the Prince of Israel (the human descendant of David who will rule in the Kingdom) will provide the regular sacrifices (Ezek. 45:17), including sin offerings for himself and the people (Ezek. 45:22). In this view the Prince of Israel is parallel in many ways to the hoped-for messiah of traditional Judaism. Also, this view (like Orthodox Judaism) looks for and encourages both the rebuilding of the Third Temple and the resumption of animal sacrifices. It sees no conflict between claiming Christ as the final sacrifice for sin and at the same time participating in animal sacrifices for sin in the temple of the Messianic Kingdom, since the sacrifice of Christ brings spiritual cleansing, while animal sacrifices have dealt and will deal only with the cleansing of the flesh. While this view shares much in common with dispensationalism, it is at its core not dispensationalist.

Such a view, if it does exist (sources?) is a tiny minority position, and does not represent the position of any church I've ever encountered, which is not to say that the paragraph above is *wrong*; just that I'm surprised by it, having been in and among evangelicals of all stripes for several decades. Sources, please?

2) This sentence,

most believe that the new covenant (spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31-34) is marked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and that, as such, the body is the temple.

is not exactly incorrect, but not fully characteristic of Protestant thought. The basic mainstream thought is that Christ himself is the new temple (John 2.19) and that believers, as a part of the "body of Christ" (meaning the church), are part of the temple as well (2 Cor 6.16; Eph. 2.19 - 22; 1 Pet. 2.4 - 5). So it's not individual physical bodies that are in view, but people as part of a single body. You might see Robertson's Christ of the Covenants, ch. 13, but that's not the best reference. Vos's Systematic Theology probably has a section on it; I can look for it if it would be helpful.

If no-one objects, I'll edit this section.

jrcagle 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to Christian thought containing the sentence "most believe that the new covenant (spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31-34) is marked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and that, as such, the body is the temple" is a representative view endorsed by Scripture (as seen in the quoted text) and is not designed to present either a Protestant or Catholic perspective, as those are dealt with in more detail in the appropriate subsections. Paul is quite explicit in this matter and the fact that the larger body has Christ as its head does not negate the individual nature of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and reference to each believer being a vessel or temple. As such, in its current form it provides a basis for which the different views within Christianity regarding the significance of a Third Temple can be built upon. J.christianson 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm trying to get at a "both-and" issue here: without denying the force of 1 Cor 6, it is nevertheless the case that a *much more dominant* idea in Protestant -- and I believe also Catholic and Orthodox -- theology is that the whole church is seen as the final temple. This seems to be a much larger Biblical theme than the notion that we are each individual temples. I guess it needs further research. jrcagle 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the topic (and what the Temple signifies) it makes an important distinction between going to a temple to worship, to sacrifice or to be in God's presence, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (through which we can do all things). Whilst Christians may take this perspective for granted, it is likely to be a foreign concept to many, as can be seen here;

Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. (John 4:20-21,23 NASB)

The primacy is on an individual level - belief, faith, baptism by the spirit (circumcision of the heart), salvation - which brings the believer into the body of Christ (usually referred to as the church). You are more than welcome to expand the introductory section to include the points you have mentioned, but the caution is as a result of an awareness that some sects make claims tying salvation to the "Church" (organisation). J.christianson 11:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As to point number 1: the paragraph sounds similar to the doctrinal position put forward by branches of Messianic Judaism (those that accept Jesus/Yeshuah) - this is alluded to by reference to sacrifices in the Ezekiel temple. Perhaps you could give the paragraph its own sub-heading ("Messianic view") and tag it with {{specify}} to request sources. J.christianson 08:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be, but Google isn't giving up any such info. I'm getting a lot of hits explaining that the *lack* of construction of the third temple is the reason that Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah ... but nothing about Messianic Jewish hope in a third temple. I will follow your suggestion and tag it with a request for sources. jrcagle 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I located a patchwork of supporting material, but nothing that contained all aspects presented in as complete and concise a form as what is included in the article here.

Ah yes, the perceived failure of Christ to fulfill the role of the expected Davidic king, generally countered with Maschiach ben Yosef (Christ at his First coming) and Maschiach ben David (Christ at his Second coming). How do you interpret Acts 1:6-7?

This isn't a complete answer to your question, but I would relate the question in Acts 1.6 to the question in Matt. 24.3 || Mark 13.4, and Jesus' enigmatic answer in Acts 1.7 - 8 with his answer in Matt. 24.4 - 14, esp. v. 14 || Mark 13.5 - 13, esp. v. 10. That is to say that in Acts 1, Jesus is launching the proclamation of the kingdom, which is the reign of the Davidic king: reigning now (Rom. 1.3, 4; Mark 1.14 - 15; Col. 2.10, 3.1), but not yet reigning in the fullness of his future kingdom (Rev. 21). Was that your question, though?

jrcagle 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Which plan is supposed to be implemented by Temple Institute etc.?

Those Jewish organizations who want to rebuild it, do they want to follow Solomon's plan or Ezekiel's? -- 212.63.43.180 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They follow the Talmud, generally as interpreted by Maimonides, which is generally based on Solomon's plan through the lens of oral tradition, eyewitess accounts of the Second Temple compiled shortly after its destruction, and subsequent interpretations, Best, --Shirahadasha 20:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Section

After 6 months to obtain sources, removing the following passage to Talk as indicated. Best, Shirahadasha 20:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Messianic view

However, in contrast to both the dominant Protestant view and dispensational perspective, some evangelicals who call themselves Messianic believe that there will be a full restoration of the sacrificial system in Ezekiel's temple. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is seen as providing only spiritual cleansing, and not cleansing of the flesh--hence the need for expiatory animal sacrifice. Although the so-called Antichrist will put an end to the sacrificial system during the Tribulation (Dan. 9:27, 11:31, 12:11), the arrival of the Messiah will inaugurate the building of Ezekiel's Temple (see Ezekiel 40-44). The Prince of Israel from the David's lineage will provide regular sacrifices (Ezek. 45:17), including sin offerings for himself and the people (Ezek. 45:22). This parallels with Orthodox Judaism, which also seeks to rebuild the Third Temple and resume the animal sacrifices.

Rosicrucian Fellowship view

Hi! Is there any reliable-source evidence that this religious group's view on the subject is independently notable? If there is, would it be possibile to supply sources? If this represents a "tiny minority view" which lacks independent notability it is subject to deletion under WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Subsections for deletion

Several subsections don't seem to have any evidence of a connection with the subject. For example, the, Temple at Leontopolis and the Rosicrucian Fellowship Temple don't seem to have anything to do with the subject of a rebuilt third temple in Jerusalem. The intention of this article isn't to include every building called a "Temple". Any objections to deleting material that's not focused on the rebuilding a Temple in Jerusalem following the destruction of the Second Temple? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving the following section to the talk page for discussion. The reason is not that they are unverifiable or insignificant, it's that other buildings in existence when the Second Temple was in existence aren't "ancient attempts at rebuilding" and hence don't seem to be within the article's scope. They each warrant articles in their own right. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: We already have articles on both subjects, a section in Land of Onias#Jewish Temple at Leontopolis which seems to be a better fit for the Leontopolis content, and the Qumran article which is a better fit for speculation about a Jewish temple at Qumran. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Temple at Leontopolis

Sometime in the second century BCE, a Jewish temple was constructed at Leontopolis in the Egyptian nome of Heliopolis; it was closed by Rome in 74CE. The earliest reference to it is in Josephus, writing shortly after its closure. Later rabbinic sources mention Leontopolis, but do not describe the temple; and allusions to it may be found in various other texts. The temple was built by Onias IV, the son of High Priest Onias III. The temple was built to imitate that in Jerusalem, with the key differences that it resembled a tower (probably as a traditional symbolic reflection of the Jerusalem temple), and that the seven-branched Menorah was replaced by a single, golden, hanging lamp (probably representing the sun: due to being in Heliopolis, city of the sun). The building of this temple was justified by reference to Isaiah, and stood in opposition to Jerusalem.

Possible Temple at Qumran

Scholarship is divided over the question of a temple at Qumran, the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most scholars favour the general emphasis in the community's literature on a spiritualisation of temple imagery to encompass the group with its 'sacrifice' of strict moral behaviour. Some, however, point to archaeological evidence particularly of burnt animal bones comparable to finds at Leontopolis, and the discovery of what may be an altar stone, in support of the existence of a Jewish temple probably operating along similar lines to that of Onias. This school, including S.H. Steckoll, also draws on somewhat sparse textual evidence of a sacrificial cult at Qumran, in the Damascus Document and in Josephus' Antiquities (which depends on the community's identification with Essenism). The question of a Qumran temple essentially reduces to whether or not the marginal evidence of such cultic activities is considered compatible with the undisputed emphasis on spiritualisation.

Organizations involved

Trimmed list to remove non-notable ones. Revava was left as notable. See [1]. The other organizations left in have Wikipedia articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Request that the "Hal Lindsey" view be deleted or rolled into the Dispensational Evangelical view. It's already referenced there, and Lindsey's view is probably the most influential upon them anyway; also makes for more consistent categorization, with groups' beliefs described, not individuals. 67.244.100.28 (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispensational Evangelical view soapbox?

Critics of Dispensationalism note that the theory makes the Third Temple a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ, and that many Evangelicals in the United States support arms sales and military aid to Israel in the belief that these actions will help Israel rebuild its temple and thus bring about the End Times. However, some dispensationalists believe that the Anti-Christ will enable the Third Temple to be built at the initial stages of his reign, thus allowing for the Rapture to occur first. Critics say the actions of Evangelical Christians in Israel and Palestine, which includes providing material support for Jewish settlers in formerly Jordanian lands, builds dangerous tension in the region[9]. Such groups are often referred to as Christian Zionists.

This paragraph bothers me. While I fully accept and understand that these statements are very true, and I agree that Zionist visions result in increased tension in the Middle East that I do not approve of, I feel this is an entirely inappropriate place for this information to be. This paragraph isn't addressing criticism of the belief itself but criticism of the ethics of those who hold this belief. If this were criticism on why this belief is not theologically correct it would make sense here, but this is not the place to critique (un)ethical choices made by those that hold this belief. I just feel like this is more an offense of the soapbox rules than an effort to provide legitimate information about the topic. Does anyone else have an opinion? KhalfaniKhaldun 06:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one replied to my comment with any objections in the last five days, I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph. As an aside: the reference really wasn't a valid reliable source, anyway. KhalfaniKhaldun 06:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Last line of dispensational evangelical view

I don't believe that this line is correct, especially in making the general statements about the Roman Catholic Church, the mainline protestants, and many evangelical pastors. Also, there is no source here. Please comment on this if you think it is defensible, or add a source if it is to stay in here. --Phd_jp 17:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheist view?

Would that be relevant to this article? 70.116.76.173 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)