Comment: actually...you do

(See in situ)


actually...you do

the bottom line is...people are under the impression that the temple needs to be rebuilt, because in Revelations there is a temple that where it says, "to go measure [it]." However, the measured temple in Revelations is the same temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. Read Kenneth Gentry on the dating of Revelation. I've become convinced in wasn't written post AD 70, but shortly before it. So the temple doesn't actually need to be rebuilt to be destroyed, because it existed at the time of the writing, the writing was referencing the existing temple, and has already been destroyed in conformity with scripture. Jesus said he would destroy the temple and he did, both literally and spiritually.

The current dispensational thought is completely unbiblical. It's based on assumptions and guesses. It was created by John Darby in the 1800's and we have to be more careful when a theology just recently comes out.

I'm basing my comment off a type of preterism, which was around before Darby and in my personal opinion the view of the early church and I think a lot of preterist and maybe even non-preterist would agree to that to a degree. I'm not a full preterist, but am one nonetheless. Basically, I feel if you truly go over the Word and compare the word against itself, you can start to see the argument for preterism being much more persuasive. Especially in light of historical fact, with wars, famines, natural disasters, etc. It makes much more sense in that light. Review historical writings such as Josephus and understand the scripture in context of the time it was written and the culture/political environment surrounding it and I feel it becomes more evident.

We don't need to support Israel.