• 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
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.
Speaking of which, this idea just isn't evidenced by Scripture. What they cared about, was that it had become a den of thieves, so of course if Jesus cared, they would have cared.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Speaking of which, this idea just isn't evidenced by Scripture. What they cared about, was that it had become a den of thieves, so of course if Jesus cared, they would have cared.

There is this assumption, from people who don't understand what the New Covenant
is, that if Jesus could have just cleaned up the temple then it would not need to have
been destroyed. There was not going to be a temple in Christian worship (what the
Catholics and Protestants did is not relevant - they just hearken back to the OT.)

Christians did not have symbolic worship. This means they saw the rites, rituals and
practices of the OT symbolized the Christ which was to come. For example, the
sacrifice of animals to take away the sins of the people. Christians saw Jesus as
being this sacrifice "once and for all."

So a temple cleaned up was pointless to Christians - Jesus was their high priest
and there was no more sacrifice.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
There is this assumption, from people who don't understand what the New Covenant
is, that if Jesus could have just cleaned up the temple then it would not need to have
been destroyed. There was not going to be a temple in Christian worship (what the
Catholics and Protestants did is not relevant - they just hearken back to the OT.)

Christians did not have symbolic worship. This means they saw the rites, rituals and
practices of the OT symbolized the Christ which was to come. For example, the
sacrifice of animals to take away the sins of the people. Christians saw Jesus as
being this sacrifice "once and for all."

So a temple cleaned up was pointless to Christians - Jesus was their high priest
and there was no more sacrifice.
You are over generalizing. A Main Temple, for instance, is different, from the smaller Houses of Worship. There are no 'rites & rituals', in the smaller houses of worship. Besides prayer etc.

A Main Temple, thusly differentiated, ie it's totally different, and, in the religious context that you are talking about, you have included everything , (that was not included in modification), instead of delineating what and how, the nature of God adherence, should be promulgated or done, even, this is a very individual sense.

In other words, you say 'OT', when actually, the OT is a collection of books, that have ideas and specifications, it isn't all one author.

•••
What you wrote might be your perspective, however to generalize to 'christians', is a bit much.
•••
Ultimately, spirituality isn't defined by the word christian, nor your ideas concerning what should be, religiously. Something can be a 'better than', outside the context of interpretation, that you have.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
You are over generalizing. A Main Temple, for instance, is different, from the smaller Houses of Worship. There are no 'rites & rituals', in the smaller houses of worship. Besides prayer etc.

A Main Temple, thusly differentiated, ie it's totally different, and, in the religious context that you are talking about, you have included everything , (that was not included in modification), instead of delineating what and how, the nature of God adherence, should be promulgated or done, even, this is a very individual sense.

In other words, you say 'OT', when actually, the OT is a collection of books, that have ideas and specifications, it isn't all one author.

•••
What you wrote might be your perspective, however to generalize to 'christians', is a bit much.
•••
Ultimately, spirituality isn't defined by the word christian, nor your ideas concerning what should be, religiously. Something can be a 'better than', outside the context of interpretation, that you have.

Your grammar is difficult for me.
When we talk about the Jewish temple we shouldn't be concerned
whether it be Solomon's or Hezekiah's or Herod's. That's not
clarifying anything. The "Temple" was the central point of worship,
and it was built around Generic Old Testament principles.
Jesus "walked in the temple" but of course, He couldn't do that -
only the outer court. But it's still "the temple." We understand that.

And here it gets super-complex because Jesus came to "his"
temple while it still stood - as Daniel said. But Jesus disavowed
this temple - not because of the money changers, but because
of His doctrine that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands.

Followers of Jesus did not attend the synagogues and could not
practice Christianity in the temple. They did not meet in homes
out of necessity but out of doctrine.

Not sure if I have addressed your point.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Your grammar is difficult for me.
When we talk about the Jewish temple we shouldn't be concerned
whether it be Solomon's or Hezekiah's or Herod's. That's not
clarifying anything. The "Temple" was the central point of worship,
and it was built around Generic Old Testament principles.
Jesus "walked in the temple" but of course, He couldn't do that -
only the outer court. But it's still "the temple." We understand that.

And here it gets super-complex because Jesus came to "his"
temple while it still stood - as Daniel said. But Jesus disavowed
this temple - not because of the money changers, but because
of His doctrine that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands.

Followers of Jesus did not attend the synagogues and could not
practice Christianity in the temple. They did not meet in homes
out of necessity but out of doctrine.

Not sure if I have addressed your point.
It does get super complex, however at least according to Scripture, it does seem like it mattered, which Temple, it was. So, I can't agree with you, there.

•••
That isn't to say a 'direct inference' can necessarily be drawn from that, however, that is where verse comparison, so forth, is necessary.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
It does get super complex, however at least according to Scripture, it does seem like it mattered, which Temple, it was. So, I can't agree with you, there.

•••
That isn't to say a 'direct inference' can necessarily be drawn from that, however, that is where verse comparison, so forth, is necessary.

Exact details of the temple is the point of those I believe don't get the point.
God gave the Jews symbols. That's all they were, just symbols. It was the
Pharisees and Sadducees who bickered over technicalities and "omitted
the weightier matters" according to Jesus.
Jesus didn't quibble over whether his temple was strictly as Solomon
built it - he did quibble over God's commandments concerning personal
behavior!

I am reminded of the Jehovah Witnesses who say you can't talk to God
unless you address Him by His name "Jehovah." As their own prophecies
show, they get everything wrong. God doesn't care what we call Him, just
that we DO call upon Him. And Jesus didn't quibble over architectural
aspects of the temple - it was what people did within it that matter to Him.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Exact details of the temple is the point of those I believe don't get the point.
God gave the Jews symbols. That's all they were, just symbols. It was the
Pharisees and Sadducees who bickered over technicalities and "omitted
the weightier matters" according to Jesus.
Jesus didn't quibble over whether his temple was strictly as Solomon
built it - he did quibble over God's commandments concerning personal
behavior!

I am reminded of the Jehovah Witnesses who say you can't talk to God
unless you address Him by His name "Jehovah." As their own prophecies
show, they get everything wrong. God doesn't care what we call Him, just
that we DO call upon Him. And Jesus didn't quibble over architectural
aspects of the temple - it was what people did within it that matter to Him.
Destruction of the Temple, is relevant to prophecy, so whether you find the details important, or not, may not even be very necessary.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
There is this assumption, from people who don't understand what the New Covenant
is, that if Jesus could have just cleaned up the temple then it would not need to have
been destroyed. There was not going to be a temple in Christian worship (what the
Catholics and Protestants did is not relevant - they just hearken back to the OT.)

Christians did not have symbolic worship. This means they saw the rites, rituals and
practices of the OT symbolized the Christ which was to come. For example, the
sacrifice of animals to take away the sins of the people. Christians saw Jesus as
being this sacrifice "once and for all."

So a temple cleaned up was pointless to Christians - Jesus was their high priest
and there was no more sacrifice.
There is a reason why the premise is worded, the way it is.

Because of prophecy, destruction of the Temple, can be, attributed, to the false leader. Since you even read into the text, that Jesus destroyed the Temple, I agree it's very easy to read that into the text, then the question is referring to an unknown, an isn't.

Thusly,
how is Jesus, not, the false leader, since destruction of the Temple, might leave an unknown, there. Added to the fact, the Temple wasn't rebuilt, after the Romans destroyed it, presumably, shortly after the crucifixion.

That is why, any ideas, are welcome in the premise question. Because there may be more than one way, to answer that.

As far as destruction of the Temple is concerned, we both agree, that this can easily be read into the Scripture, as attributed to Jesus. Especially since Jesus is a 'leader', not just a happenstance occurence because of a Roman occupation.

The premise question could have a very basic answer, or more complex. Or, jeshua could be the false leader.

•••
So, it seems there does need to be some sort of explanation , concerning the prophecy, if one believes, that Jesus destroyed the Temple. Those explanations could vary.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
You can leave the 'false' out of that, if you want to. Could just be, the leader who destroys the Temple. So, it isn't even that complicated, one might not want to even justify the destruction of the Temple, at all.

Context there even being, the Temple by account was bad, anyway, a corrupt leadership.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Because of prophecy, destruction of the Temple, can be, attributed, to the false leader.

How can destruction of the temple be attributed to a false leader?
ALL the leaders of Israel at that time were quite wicked people in
one way or another. We read of the Sanhedrin, the Sadducees,
Pharisees, the various Roman governors and Herod's family.
All bag eggs.

To say that Jesus was the false one seems strange. His sin, if
you call it that, was he ushered in the New Covenant - bypassing
many of the Laws of Moses.

I accept that the temple fell because of the Coming Messiah, as
Daniel said, but it didn't fall because this Messiah was a false
prophet.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
How can destruction of the temple be attributed to a false leader?
ALL the leaders of Israel at that time were quite wicked people in
one way or another. We read of the Sanhedrin, the Sadducees,
Pharisees, the various Roman governors and Herod's family.
All bag eggs.

To say that Jesus was the false one seems strange. His sin, if
you call it that, was he ushered in the New Covenant - bypassing
many of the Laws of Moses.

I accept that the temple fell because of the Coming Messiah, as
Daniel said, but it didn't fall because this Messiah was a false
prophet.
I brought that up, here
You can leave the 'false' out of that, if you want to. Could just be, the leader who destroys the Temple. So, it isn't even that complicated, one might not want to even justify the destruction of the Temple, at all.

Context there even being, the Temple by account was bad, anyway, a corrupt leadership.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
There can be incidental parallel, here. One destruction by Jesus, another by someone else. Could be argued if a prophecy refers to Jesus, or it's too different.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
How can destruction of the temple be attributed to a false leader?
ALL the leaders of Israel at that time were quite wicked people in
one way or another. We read of the Sanhedrin, the Sadducees,
Pharisees, the various Roman governors and Herod's family.
All bag eggs.

To say that Jesus was the false one seems strange. His sin, if
you call it that, was he ushered in the New Covenant - bypassing
many of the Laws of Moses.

I accept that the temple fell because of the Coming Messiah, as
Daniel said, but it didn't fall because this Messiah was a false
prophet.
That idea will vary by how one considers prophecy.

We do know that Jesus refers to the Temple, in either the time of Jesus, or after Jesus, in Israel. In other words, according to Jesus, the abomination had not occured, earlier, than that.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
That idea will vary by how one considers prophecy.

We do know that Jesus refers to the Temple, in either the time of Jesus, or after Jesus, in Israel. In other words, according to Jesus, the abomination had not occured, earlier, than that.

Essentially, it was Rome who destroyed the Temple.
And it was God who gave them the permission.
Jesus never said HE was going to destroy the temple
or get someone to do so - he was just stating the fact
that the temple would one day be pulled down.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
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

Because first of all, Jesus didn't get rid of the Temple. He predicted its fall. This is consistent with what other prophets were instructed to do, warn the Jews of calamity, with punishment for false prophets being death.

The Temple fell because of the Romans, in about 70 AD, 40 years after Jesus was crucified. What Jesus did reportedly destroy was the Temple curtain. This is an actual difference, as it signified the separation of regular people from the Priest who was allowed to visit God. That God was made accessible to all.

Isaiah 7:14 prophesies a son who shall be called Immanuel. Or literally "God is with us." Back to the discussion of the curtain . What Jesus actually destroyed was a false custom of separating God from his people.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Because first of all, Jesus didn't get rid of the Temple. He predicted its fall. This is consistent with what other prophets were instructed to do, warn the Jews of calamity, with punishment for false prophets being death.

The Temple fell because of the Romans, in about 70 AD, 40 years after Jesus was crucified. What Jesus did reportedly destroy was the Temple curtain. This is an actual difference, as it signified the separation of regular people from the Priest who was allowed to visit God. That God was made accessible to all.

Isaiah 7:14 prophesies a son who shall be called Immanuel. Or literally "God is with us." Back to the discussion of the curtain . What Jesus actually destroyed was a false custom of separating God from his people.
Yes I know that, Jesus isn't really a "prophet". The idea there is just 'leader'.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Because first of all, Jesus didn't get rid of the Temple. He predicted its fall. This is consistent with what other prophets were instructed to do, warn the Jews of calamity, with punishment for false prophets being death.

The Temple fell because of the Romans, in about 70 AD, 40 years after Jesus was crucified. What Jesus did reportedly destroy was the Temple curtain. This is an actual difference, as it signified the separation of regular people from the Priest who was allowed to visit God. That God was made accessible to all.

Isaiah 7:14 prophesies a son who shall be called Immanuel. Or literally "God is with us." Back to the discussion of the curtain . What Jesus actually destroyed was a false custom of separating God from his people.

There is NOTHING in the Book of Isaiah about Jesus.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
There is NOTHING in the Book of Isaiah about Jesus.

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel. By the time He knows enough to reject evil and choose good,
He will be eating curds and honey. For before the boy knows enough to reject evil and choose good,
the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."

It's not Jesus? It's the Jewish nation? This nation will be a "son" and a "boy" and born to a
virgin? (remember "virgin" has many meanings, and no, it's not "young woman" because nearly
EVERY young woman became a mother.) It's a "sign", ie something significant and different.

These verses are even harder to shoehorn into your "Not Jesus but the Jews" theory.
Instead of Jews dying for other Jews and looking down from heaven in satisfaction we have Jews
as a boy (singular) all born to some virgin woman. That's clutching at non-existent straws.

Jesus Himself said Isaiah spoke of Him. In a synagogue Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me;
because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek;
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to them that are bound


THE JEWS WERE OUTRAGED WHEN JESUS SAID GOD DID NOT BRING THIS
MESSAGE TO THEM.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel. By the time He knows enough to reject evil and choose good,
He will be eating curds and honey. For before the boy knows enough to reject evil and choose good,
the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."

It's not Jesus? It's the Jewish nation? This nation will be a "son" and a "boy" and born to a
virgin? (remember "virgin" has many meanings, and no, it's not "young woman" because nearly
EVERY young woman became a mother.) It's a "sign", ie something significant and different.

These verses are even harder to shoehorn into your "Not Jesus but the Jews" theory.
Instead of Jews dying for other Jews and looking down from heaven in satisfaction we have Jews
as a boy (singular) all born to some virgin woman. That's clutching at non-existent straws.

Jesus Himself said Isaiah spoke of Him. In a synagogue Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me;
because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek;
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to them that are bound


THE JEWS WERE OUTRAGED WHEN JESUS SAID GOD DID NOT BRING THIS
MESSAGE TO THEM.

Jesus called the destruction of Jerusalem the "the days of vengeance" (Luke 21:22). The destruction of Jerusalem was an act of God's vengeance and judgment, not Rome's; these would be the days when people were punished for their sins.

Jesus came for the lost Jews.. Isaiah is speaking of Judah.
 
Top