@roamingchile - If you want to of course you can do another article from a different perspective, maybe from an insider's view. On location journalism is the best! :) That would be cool to include a photo you took. Definitely send some. When we were there they forbade everyone from taking photos inside the tour of the Institute. Was the temple model in a different place?

That is very interesting! Sometimes I wish it would happen very soon so Jesus would come back while we're still living. 

I used to think rapture. I hope you're right!! 

@roamingchile - Missler's article first caught my attention, but I wanted to include more scripture references than he did. The Jerusalem Post news seems to be the main source.

have you read about the possibility that the site of the holy of holies was actually to the north from the dome of the rock under a small gazebo on the temple mount, the name of which in arabic translates to "dome of the spirit"?  i taught on it a long time ago when we were going through rev.  you can hear it here: http://ukrainemedia.calvaryccm.com/svitlovodsk/revelation/50%20Otkr.%2011_1-2.mp3  it is in russian only though.

Wouldn't any temple that would be built be in fact be paganism and therefore God would not see it as any form of worship? True worship can only be done through Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifice was done away with because of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I have always wondered why Christians would care if there was a temple built since the temple of God is in anyone who places their faith in Jesus and no longer can be built with human hands. And since Jesus said that no one knows the day or hour of His return, not even Him, only God knows, why should we be concerned? Should we not be more involved in witnessing until He does return? If what we believe is true, then we hold the key to eternal life and the greatest message mankind has ever known.

Just my thoughts...

yay! more confirmation of the end times =)...and at the same time, BOOOOOO troubled times ahead =P
seriously though, quite exciting =)

@smile@revelife - @templestream - Be very careful in talking about "dispensations." Much of what is taught today about Daniel, Revelation, and Ezekiel comes from the same minds as those who formed the heretical theology for Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists and has little if anything to do with historical orthodox Christian teaching on when Jesus will return and the end times. In fact, this theology did not occur until after the1830s and we discover that heresies like LDS also use it, thus the term "Latter Day Saint."

The early church fathers taught that the temple was now built in you because of the teaching found in the gospel of John, and the books of Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians. Now least you think I do not know what I am talking about, I am indeed a pastor. Have been one for over 24 years. I am conservative in my theology, I have taught extensively on this subject, and used to own over 150 books, some quite rare, on this subject. What I always suggest is for folks to read the Bible on their own without the distortion of other folk's popular opinions.

Daniel, as does Ezekiel, completely explains itself and leaves no room for far flung theology. Revelation, while at first glance seems confusing, is not. You have to remember that it was a book written to the early churches whereby they would immediately understand its context. For us to go off on speculative searches into the realm of what I call Scriptural fantasy is dangerous. All Scripture must be measured first and foremost by what Jesus taught. And, He related that no one would know when He was to return, not even Himself. And in fact if you read the gospels in the original language you understand that when He related to His followers about the temple's destruction, they and those who sought to kill Him, immediately knew He meant that the temple was going to be destroyed soon after His death and burial, and that He would be the new temple and all of the old law would be fulfilled in Him. This is why they accused Him of blasphemy.

He said He would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days.

Add to this the fact that the temple built during Jesus' lifetime was not sanctioned by God. Herod, a half Jew and an ungodly pagan deviant, built it. The only reason it was even recognized by Jesus was that He saw it as His "Father's house" where His people were supposed to worship God and not exchange money and do business. In fact it was destroyed because the Jews refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

This is why anything other than faith in Christ is paganism. No animal sacrifices or a rebuilt temple will please God. He has been totally satisfied by the obedience of His Son's death on the cross. Do you seriously think God resided there when His Son was walking this earth?

God does not and has never needed a structure of stone. It has always represented a place for folks to worship. Not even the priests could testify to the fact they were truly of Levite lineage during Jesus' day. In fact, they were selected by their service, adherence to the law, and often paid for the privilege with bribes! The High Priest was a thug and his family had controlled the temple and its coffers for decades. Their family was so wealthy that they lived in Rome, held sway in Caesar's court, and helped him build many of the structures he did. Herod had appointed them and they all got rich off the temple tax, the temple exchange for sacrifices, and the ability to pick whom they wanted to be the tax collectors!

The early church, from the second century until around the 1830s, taught that Jesus' admonishment had indeed come true and the temple was destroyed. The Jews were completely scattered, as were the Christians. Jesus would one day return, but no one could know the day or hour and so the church was to be about the business of establishing the kingdom of God until such time as when He does return. There was discussion as to whether things would get worse or better until that time, but as to rebuilding the temple -- that was seen as heresy because it was destroyed for a reason. Several very good books on the historical nature of this are End Time Visions, by Abanes and Last Day Madness, by Demar. I do not agree with everything DeMar writes about, but Abanes does a very good job in laying out the historical arguments and where they come from.

My theology is this: Be about the Lord's business in telling others about Jesus and building His kingdom until He returns. Everything else is just a distraction. When folks begin to judge others by what they believe about Jesus' return, they have just fallen into judgmental sin and "works" instead of grace.

Just my thoughts...

@PastorBlastor - It would take me a whole article to describe why I believe the dispensationalist view. But I found an article on the web which is pretty close to what I believe.

Here are some thoughts: The Tabernacle (Hebrew משכן, mishkan, "residence" or "dwelling place"), according to theHebrew bible/Old Testament, was the portable dwelling place for the divine presence from the time of the Exodus from Egypt through the conquering of the land of Canaan. Its design was made after a “pattern” of “heavenly things” and was given to Moses by God (Heb 8.5). The plan for the first temple was given to David by God’s Spirit: “all that he had by the spirit” (I Chron 28.12) Scriptures describe a temple in heaven: Revelation 7.15,  Revelation 14.17. Although there is no more need for animal sacrifices because of Jesus Christ, I believe that there still is a purpose for a physical temple in Jerusalem for the fulfilment of future prophecy and in heaven for the purpose of worshipping God. I do not believe this equates me with Mormons or JW. They have warped views of Jesus Christ and do not believe He lived as the sinless Word made flesh, God incarnate, and do not believe He was crucified and rose on the third day, etc. Jesus is the foundation of my faith and every true believer's.

Anyhew, according to your interpretation, what do the following verses mean in context? “He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,  and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Rev 13.16-17)

Also, in my article C.I.A. Crucifixions: This isn't Your Father’s World, I would like to know your opinion of the final world kingdom described in Daniel 2 and your opinion as to who the 10 kings are: “According to the interpretation by Daniel, the feet of clay and ten toes mark the final stage of the last world kingdom before Christ returns. Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17.12 further describe “ten horns” and “ten kings.”” If you could write your answer in the comment section of that article I would appreciate it, since it applies specifically to that topic.

 You wrote "Daniel is completely explained by the writer himself and does not even hint that it applies to any end time theology whatsoever." That's interesting because of all the five kingdoms Daniel describes, only one is in the present tense, that's Babylon. All the rest are in the future, including the eternal kingdom Christ finally establishes when he destroys the final rebellious antichrist world system.

The text itself describes its affiliation with the end times: “Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, “My lord, what shall be the end of these things?” And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” (Daniel 12.8.9) Daniel wrote things down that he heard, but didn’t fully understand. He wrote about the “great tribulation” (V1) and other themes but didn’t fully understand what God was showing him. The unfolding of the dispensational understanding is not a new doctrine of salvation or anything heretical, as much as you may want it to be, it is an understanding of the big picture, which has been made clearer by looking back through the chapters of history and by God's enlightening Holy Spirit. We are in "the time of the end" and the truths of Daniel, in a sense, have become “unsealed” by those with open minds to see it, including Darby.

Daniel and Revelation use many of the same symbols. The two books help to inform each other. I would offer that God is the ultimate author of the scriptures and the symbolism and meaning are remarkably continuous throughout the whole Bible. You wrote "To speculate and to go off into Christian fantasy about the kingdoms here is silliness." Daniel does not state it will be a "spiritual only" kingdom that is established but describes in graphic terms as the physical destruction of man's rebellious physical kingdoms. My view seems more literal, yours more speculative. According to your view, Jesus established his "spiritual only" kingdom and that is all the Bible speaks of? Does that mean to you that Armageddon has already happened?

In my opinion there is nothing "silly" about explaining what is written in Revelation 13.16-17. I take it quite literally, a time is coming when each person will be required to have a code and cash money will not be required. No one will be able to buy or sell without this code and allegiance to the world system.

When you take it literally, there is much more to it than just deciding which number is the "number of man." When you look at it in context, both in terms of Revelation and the Bible as a whole, it coincides perfectly with what has been written. A world government is forming, sometimes referred to as the New World Order, documented in many books and spoken on the lips of the most influential politicians today. It is in summation a world system designed to reduce the world's population and control the remaining resources. This is not speculation but documented for anyone with an open mind able to look into this reality. In my opinion, my interpretation of the scriptures is more literal than yours. It matches the real world and the flow of what is happening in history better that what you seem anxious to try and defend.

It's interesting what you wrote: "When folks begin to judge others by what they believe about Jesus' return, they have just fallen into judgmental sin and "works" instead of grace." It is actually you who has the judgmental tone. You are calling my beliefs "silly" and "Christian fantasy." (when the opposite seems actually more true) And so this dialogue is starting to get old fast.

You mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not believe the literal meaning of much of the Bible. E.g., they believe that only 144,000 people will be in heaven, based on Revelation 7.3-8. I believe this account says what it means and means what it says, that during the great tribulation 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel will be sealed by God. What is your interpretation of the 144,000? Are they from the tribes of Israel as the text says or do you have some different explanation, perhaps more inventive than the JW? :)

This is exactly what I meant by "silliness." Not that you are silly. One can patiently explain to those who want to see a theology that did not exist nor was ever part of the church's teaching for over 1800 years, and still you have people who want to defend it rather than discover what has been actually taught and why. I used to be one of those who followed after the latest end time proclivity, that is until I began to investigate it for myself.

If I told you that I had just found a new way of looking at one’s salvation and that it really isn't through Jesus alone, but that if you actually read Jesus' words from a Jewish perspective you would soon discover that a person would have to adhere to doing certain ritualistic things first, you would say I was wrong and probably a Judiazer in disguise. You would know this was a false teaching because the early church taught about it and it was reinforced by later church fathers and writings. However, we can rewrite over a thousand years of church theology concerning the end of time and call it good? I find this incredulous.

What you may not have been taught is the historical fact that most theologians and Biblical scholars before 1950 wrote and taught that Revelation was written before the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. They knew this to be true. Why? No mention of it is found anywhere within the letter itself. And believe me the writer John, a Hebrew by birth, would have mentioned it especially with his references to it over and over again. This is why we know that all the letters of the New Testament were written before the temple’s destruction. In fact there is good historical evidence that John actually died much earlier and that Revelation was indeed written before 90 AD, perhaps around 66 AD. The later date for John's death was not even written about, except by one early church father who lived in the 4th century, and his date was speculative on his part, but all others who wrote about John wrote and taught that John had died sooner. In fact, textual and grammatical evidence shows that Revelation was written before the temple's destruction. Why is this so important? It places what the church has taught about its message back where it belongs. That much of Revelation is speaking about that temple being destroyed and a heavenly temple being built in its place. A heavenly temple that represented the perfection of God in us. It also supports what the church taught for 1800 years about who the actual antichrist was and what the symbolism meant in Revelation and why those who read it in the 1st century understood its message without any assistance or charts. It also shows why the New Testament writers taught that Jesus would return in their lifetime or shortly thereafter. This is why when Rome marched back into Palestine, after leaving very few troops whereby the Jews rose up and defeated some who were left, that the Christians fled in droves from Jerusalem because they knew that Jesus said it would be destroyed because of the Jews unbelief. Rome utterly destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews completely.

We know that much of what is taught concerning the end times in our day and age was utterly condemned by the great preachers and theologians of the day from 1830 until now. That in fact it has only been since the 1950s the latest end time fad has come about because of the concern of nuclear war and the advent of computers and the reestablishment of Israel. This can be laid at the feet of such writers as Tim LaHaye. However, Israel is not a religious nation, never has been since is reinvention. It is pagan hedonistic socialistic society and has struggled because it was forced onto the world by England when no one else wanted the Jews. Now least you think that I do not care about Israel, I do, but not because I think that it is full of God’s chosen people. Christians are God’s chosen people because of Jesus and His nation has been reestablished in us. I care about Israel because of its strategic significance and that it is a symbolic and historical significance. 

To be honest it does not matter to me if anyone truly wants to believe in what you do about the end times because it is not an issue for a person’s salvation. What concerns me is that far too often those who are questioned about what they truly believe, they do not want to hear about what the church has always taught, nor anything that does not jive with their brand of end times theology. I know, it was a struggle for me to listen and to finally discover for myself what is actual historical Christian theology in this area.

Every Pope in modern history has called for some sort of "world political authority." Why? It coincides with their theology that the Catholic (universal) Church is the only church and that one day all other religions will adhere to its authority. But then, so does Islam, LDS, and several other divergent monotheistic groups.

Much of Revelation is symbolic, including many of the numbers used. If we do not see it that way, then we actually have to believe that heaven is a giant “Borg” cube instead of it being a way to say it was perfect. God never intended His word to be hidden or secretive. It is only to those who are lost. Jesus spoke openly as should we. The importance of salvation overshadows any end time beliefs we might want to espouse. If Christians are about the Master’s business, they do not have to worry about anything else. Death has already lost its sting and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. What then should concern you is whether or not you are witnessing and building the kingdom of God now not numbers on your forehead or who is in the latest running for the antichrist.

Just my own thoughts…

Nor will I answer what I think about the 144,000 because that will only persist in another question and then another. This is the "silliness" I refer to and is what has been displayed herein. Your reference to a flat earth makes no sense because what we are writing about has no basis in this but rather in theology. The Bible is first and foremost about God and His plan for the salvation of mankind. And our vain attempts to try and interpret another man's vision given to them by God and make it fit our own proclivity, is the height of arrogance. We really have no idea as to exactly why God used the terms He did, however, He does a pretty good job in explaining it if you care to look.

What if the Jewish witnesses are a representation of the Old and the New Testaments? What if the 144,000 are a representation of all who are saved under the old and new covnenants and not an actual number? What if the abomination that causes desolation has already come during the destruction of Jerusalem when Jewish Zealots killed the temple priests who would not do what they wanted and they installed their own High Priest? (Which, by the way did happen and the Jews called it "the abomination that caused desolation.") What if the actual language where Jesus refers to one man left and another is taken (paralambanō) is actually translated that the one is taken as in being captured? (Which, by the way, is the actual translation of "taken" there and how it is always used in the Greek.) Would this then not make more sense when Jesus is describing that the indeed the temple will be destroyed, literally by the Romans, because of the Jews rejection and betrayal of Him as Messiah? Then those who are left should flee to the hills because some will be taken while others are left by the Romans. (Which did occur.) The destruction of Jerusalem was so horrendous that by the end the Jews were eating their own dead babies. (See Josephus.)

And how can you have a huge worldwide conflict in a valley (Megiddo - the Jezreel Valley) that is only a few miles wide and less than three miles long if you stretch it? But would it not make more sense that this ancient name is often used by the Jews because it brought to mind some sort of conflict because this valley was often the scene of ancient battles, kind of like when they use the term "Sodom and Gemorrah" to refer to ungodliness? (Which they do.) Perhaps the most awful thing a Jew could think of was when Anticus Epiphanes did awful things to the temple and John, who was in the throws of a personal vision, brought this to mind to describe what was going to occur to Jerusalem in a way that made sense to his mind, when the Romans came back? (Which did happen. See above. It is a historical fact that runagade Zealots took the temple over and installed their own priests.) And gosh, what if the Romans besieged Jerusalem for seven years and that the temple was taken over after the first 3 1/2 years, would that fit as well? (Which did happen.)

So then if Revelation was written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem, the most horrendous thing to occur to the Jews of the time, then would this not explain a lot of John's vision to us? And would it not also explain exactly why Christians fled Israel when the Romans returned? Would it not also explain why the early disciples took Jesus' curse as real and that the destruction of Jerusalem was the result of His curse? And does this not also fit why many of the Romans soldiers involved spoke of seeing vast heavenly armies in the clouds over Jerusalem when the temple was burned and how their army suffered from a huge storm that blew up? And that those who witnessed it said that it was the anger of God. (Which all occurred and is testified to by both Hebrew and Roman historians.) Further, this also explains why early Christians saw the destruction of Jerusalem as a wrathful return of Jesus.

Now, if you want to go ahead and explain things in Revelation and such by the theology of modern men, go ahead. But it does not make any difference to me.

Just my own thoughts...