• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How is Yeshua not the false prophet?

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
This question derives from, if Yeshua got rid of the Temple, then how is Yeshua not the false prophet?

This is strange.

However, since it's really Herodian, leadership, then this is even stranger, ie it isn't the original Temple, anyway.

•••
Any clarity, here.

[As a note, any theory can be presented, scriptural or otherwise
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
There is a Bible contradiction, here, it seems. Yeshua does not say he wants to get rid of the Temple, yet, does, at sacrifice. This fulfills the 'false leader', prophecy, yet clearly Jesus isn't, earlier, claiming something other than a good purpose.
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
This question derives from, if Yeshua got rid of the Temple, then how is Yeshua not the false prophet?

This is strange.

However, since it's really Herodian, leadership, then this is even stranger, ie it isn't the original Temple, anyway.

•••
Any clarity, here.

[As a note, any theory can be presented, scriptural or otherwise

Says somewhere in the OT that the Messiah will "come to His temple"
But the temple wasn't something mandated by God - it was requested
by the Israelites, just as they wanted a king.
But the temple served a symbolic purpose.
Who's temple it was wasn't the point.
And having come to His temple the Messiah spoke of its destruction.
And he said that "God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands."
Other than showing respect for the Old Testament law, the early
Christians had no interest in the Temple.
And soon it was swept away.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Says somewhere in the OT that the Messiah will "come to His temple"
But the temple wasn't something mandated by God - it was requested
by the Israelites, just as they wanted a king.
But the temple served a symbolic purpose.
Who's temple it was wasn't the point.
And having come to His temple the Messiah spoke of its destruction.
And he said that "God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands."
Other than showing respect for the Old Testament law, the early
Christians had no interest in the Temple.
And soon it was swept away.
Mark 11:11

Jesus wasn't against the Temple, he was against the false priests, how could it not matter? It clearly mattered. This is where it is strange, one reference to Yeshuah, it says the priests are are bad, then, you have the idea that the Temple was always bad. It's weird how christians never mention Herod, in this context. It was Herods leadership, there is a clear delineation, here.

•••
That aside, you seem to be saying that prophecy of the false leader, was just wrong, or, vague, or what? Need clarification, there.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
if Yeshua got rid of the Temple, then how is Yeshua not the false prophet?
Isaiah 5:3 “Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between me and my vineyard.

Daniel 11:38 But in his place he will honor the god of fortresses. He will honor a god whom his fathers didn’t know with gold, silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things.

Ezekiel 43:9 Now let them put away their prostitution, and the dead bodies of their kings, far from me. Then I will dwell among them forever.


Basically saying God's ambassador here on earth isn't contained by a nation, a temple or by monarchy genealogy...

People make idols out of things that are transitory; we should recognize the Source of our reality is beyond form.

Salvation being only worth 30 pieces of silver removed the protection from the Abrahamic Covenant, which 'got rid of the temple' (Zechariah 11:12-14, Jeremiah 25:29-38).

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Mark 11:11

Jesus wasn't against the Temple, he was against the false priests, how could it not matter? It clearly mattered. This is where it is strange, one reference to Yeshuah, it says the priests are are bad, then, you have the idea that the Temple was always bad. It's weird how christians never mention Herod, in this context. It was Herods leadership, there is a clear delineation, here.

•••
That aside, you seem to be saying that prophecy of the false leader, was just wrong, or, vague, or what? Need clarification, there.

No, Jesus wasn't against the temple.
Just as He wasn't against animal sacrifice.
Nor the role of the High Priest.

But Jesus said He was the temple,
and He was the sacrifice
and He was our "Great High Priest"

and any Christian who worshiped at the worldly or physical altar
had "no right" to enter into this New Covenant.

Not sure what you mean by prophecy of the false teacher.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
No, Jesus wasn't against the temple.
Just as He wasn't against animal sacrifice.
Nor the role of the High Priest.

But Jesus said He was the temple,
and He was the sacrifice
and He was our "Great High Priest"

and any Christian who worshiped at the worldly or physical altar
had "no right" to enter into this New Covenant.

Not sure what you mean by prophecy of the false teacher.
That doesn't quite explain this, however, regardless.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Says somewhere in the OT that the Messiah will "come to His temple"
But the temple wasn't something mandated by God - it was requested
by the Israelites, just as they wanted a king.
But the temple served a symbolic purpose.
Who's temple it was wasn't the point.
And having come to His temple the Messiah spoke of its destruction.
And he said that "God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands."
Other than showing respect for the Old Testament law, the early
Christians had no interest in the Temple.
And soon it was swept away.
That's true. Christians had no interest in the temple. Lots of herodians were jews.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
That doesn't quite explain this, however, regardless.

The question was "if Yeshua got rid of the Temple, then how is Yeshua not the false prophet?"
I hate double negatives.

Jesus, I suppose, DID get rid of the temple. He got rid of the whole Jewish nation.
Jerusalem wasn't back in Jewish hands until 1967.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The question was "if Yeshua got rid of the Temple, then how is Yeshua not the false prophet?"
I hate double negatives.

Jesus, I suppose, DID get rid of the temple. He got rid of the whole Jewish nation.
Jerusalem wasn't back in Jewish hands until 1967.
The scripture speaks of day of vengeance.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The question was "if Yeshua got rid of the Temple, then how is Yeshua not the false prophet?"
I hate double negatives.

Jesus, I suppose, DID get rid of the temple. He got rid of the whole Jewish nation.
Jerusalem wasn't back in Jewish hands until 1967.
Hence the false prophet, so, great, you answered that question.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
A tabernacle or temple is for the purpose of having a meeting place where God and sinful man can meet. Thus it was God who gave to Moses the blueprints for the building of the Tabernacle. (Ex. 25:8-9, 40) (Ex. 26:30) (Ex. 29:42-46)

God gave to David the blueprints for the Temple which Solomon would build. (1 Chron. 28:10-12, 19) And it was David that even founded the place where the Temple would be built. (2 Chron. 3:1)

There is a temple today which is the Church the Body of Christ. We each are living stones wherein dwells the Spirit of God, forming a Temple on earth. (1 Peter 2:5)

Once the Church is gone there will be a Tribulation Temple built, (2 Thess. 2:4)

After the Tribulation there will be a Millennial Temple built. (Ez. 40-48)

After that in the New Heaven and New Earth, there will be no Temple, for there is no longer a need for it. (Rev. 21:22-23)

Even though Herod may have been instrumental in building the Temple of Jesus day, Jesus considered it the house of God and of His Father. (Matt. 21:12-13) Just like the Tribulation Temple will be built at the behest of the anti-christ, but is still called the Temple of God. (2 Thess. 2:4)

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
It is a future occurence, hence the explanation of why Jesus isn't the false king, or false leader. Otherwise, Jesus would, seem to be, that false leader.

Rather, might seem to be. One just wouldn't know, without context.

However Jesus isn't talking about something before Him. Either during, or after, when Jesus was in Israel.
 
Last edited:

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Agreed, it is a future occurence, hence the explanation of why Jesus isn't the false king, or false leader. Otherwise, Jesus would, seem to be, that false leader.

Rather, might seem to be. One just wouldn't know, without context.

However Jesus isn't talking about something before Him. Either during, or after, when Jesus was in Israel.

I didn't say it was just a future occurrence. So, I don't know why you 'agreed'.

I have no idea of what the rest of what you said means. Do you?

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I didn't say it was just a future occurrence. So, I don't know why you 'agreed'.

I have no idea of what the rest of what you said means. Do you?

Good-Ole-Rebel
In other words, obfuscation.You're some type of hack with an attitude problem, so I'm putting you on ignore.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I think there is no reason to think Jesus got rid of the temple. He was not against the temple.
It can be derived from Scripture, that Jesus basically destroyed the Temple, because it was a den of thieves, thusly not worthy to be called God's Holy house.

The destruction of the Temple may not follow an immediate abomination, however.

So, perhaps not, as you say, however not far fetched at all.
 
Top