Why the Dome-of-the-Rock is Better than a Re-Built Temple

Why is there no need for a Jewish Temple to replace the Muslim Dome-of-the-Rock?

Well, first of all, the Dome is very pretty, and would make a nice Church some day.

But secondly, the idea that a Jewish Temple must one day (soon) stand in the place of the Muslim Dome of the Rock is a pure superstition. It is founded upon a tradition of the Jews—infused with some imagination—and not upon any command of God’s Word.

With all of the talk and Bible study concerning the Jewish Temple Mount, you would expect the Bible to have much to say about that particular Mount. But most Christians—especially the ones who lecture us most about a coming rebuilt Temple—would certainly be surprised by how little the Bible actually says about that location. Most of what is assured to us today—and what is the subject of geopolitical tension and theological fighting—is founded upon little more than assumptions.

We are told in 2 Chronicles 3:1 that Solomon built the Temple on Mount Moriah, and that this was the location of Ornan’s threshingfloor which David purchased. Today archeological evidence places the site of the Second Temple (Herod’s Temple, the one which stood when Jesus walked the earth) where the golden-domed Mosque now stands. But surprisingly, there is no archaeological proof that the first Temple, Solomon’s Temple, stood on that same location, although there is no evidence of it being anywhere else, either. So, we are left with no proof—biblical or historical—that the current Temple Mount is in the same place as Ornan’s threshingfloor. But this is not the main point of the story.

Before we go further, we should remember that there are actually a series of mountains associated with the city of Jerusalem: Mounts Moriah, Zion, Olives, and a few others that have little or no biblical significance of which we can tell. Mt. Zion is the highest peak, and stands almost half a mile west of the Temple Mount itself, which is Mt. Moriah. Between the two is a considerable valley. Even farther east of the Temple Mount, across an even deeper valley, rises the Mount of Olives which is also higher than Mt. Moriah. From this peak, Jesus and His disciples looked westward upon the Temple, and Jesus declared its pending destruction (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). A picture from the Mount of Olives today reveals the Mosque to the west where the Temple once was, and the clearly much higher ridge of Mt. Zion farther in the western background. Here’s a simple cross-section on Wikipedia illustrating the relationship in size and location of Mt. Zion (left) and the Temple Mount, Moriah.

For the location of the Temple, the Bible tells us Solomon chose Mt. Moriah, “where the Lord had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite” (2 Chron 3:1 ESV). “Appointed” is more properly “prepared,” as the KJV and NAS have it. David not only appointed this place, but actively established, made ready, or set up the site. And why did David establish this as a site for a permanent Temple? Did he have a command from God to do so?

Not really. The story of David and Ornan is told a few chapters earlier in 1 Chronicles 21. God had sent a plague upon the people of Israel as punishment for David numbering the people (1 Chron. 21:1–14). Via the Angel of the Lord, the plague killed 70,000 men. When the Angel reached Jerusalem, God stopped short of destroying the city, and the Angel was stopped at the point of Ornan’s threshingfloor.

Then God sent the prophet Gad to instruct David to go to Ornan’s threshingfloor and set up an altar in that place. This would have been a simple altar of uncut stones and without steps, according to God’s law (Ex. 20:24–26). David obeyed. The altar was eventually set up, David offered sacrifices and prayers to God, and God answered by fire from heaven upon the altar. All said and done, the Angel of the Lord was commanded to sheathe his sword, officially ending the plague upon Israel.

It is important to note all that was required of David, and the purpose for it. David was only required by God to build an altar, not even necessarily to sacrifice on it. And the purpose of the altar was clearly in response to the presence of God’s wrath via the Angel of the Lord and the temporary instance of the plague. There is no indication anywhere that God intended this to be a permanent location, and there certainly is no requirement, commandment, or statute that it should be so.

Ornan, however, was actually willing to donate the whole property to the King for this purpose. David insisted on paying for it. The transaction went down. Therefore, the property legally belonged to David. Since God never indicated any need to dedicate the property to the Lord or a Temple or Priesthood, then we can only assume that for the rest of David’s life, the property legally belonged to the King.

Consequently, it was purely David’s decision—not God’s command—that the Temple be built at the site of Ornan’s (Araunah in 2 Sam. 24) threshingfloor.

But David himself was not allowed to build a house for God; God forbid him to do so because he had been a man of bloodshed and war (1 Chron. 22:8). Rather, David’s future son would build the house, and “his name shall be Solomon” (1 Chron. 22:9). He would be a man of rest.

As a side note, we could easily assume that God referred to David’s then immediate son Solomon. But remember, when that Solomon was born, it was David who named him Solomon; but God sent the prophet Nathan to give the child a different God-given name, Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12:24–25). God did not see David’s “Solomon” as Solomon, but Jedidiah. Moreover, David’s words to Solomon indicate that the son who would build the Temple and bring peace was yet to be born: “Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of rest” (1 Chron. 22:9). Obviously, as David spoke, his Solomon was already born, alive and listening to his father speak. We are left to conclude that the ultimate Solomon—“peaceable and perfect”—which God promised David was Jesus. In the mean time, Solomon would provide a type of that yet-to-come True Solomon.

When Solomon later built a house to the Lord, he followed through with what his father had already established and prepared (2 Chron. 3:1). Like his father, Solomon had no explicit direction or command from God where to put the Temple, but only directions to build it and how. In addition to having bought the real estate and established it as the site, David also prepared raw materials, construction supplies, organized labor, and secured government clearances, support, and aid for the construction project he put before his son (1 Chron. 22:2–5, 14–19).

The whole project, from conception to completion, was David’s design. The only exception was the pattern for the Temple and its instruments: these God supplied to David (1 Chron. 28:11–19). But of the location of the Temple, God commanded nothing. It was David’s decision.

David decided this location not because he had a command from God or directions from the prophet, but because he was afraid of the Angel of the Lord that had been stationed at Ornan’s threshingfloor. Even though God had accepted David’s sacrifices, the Angel of the Lord had sheathed His sword, and the plague and threat were ended, David nevertheless was afraid.

Meanwhile, the actual priesthood, the tabernacle, and the ark of the covenant were all fifteen miles away in Gibeon (1 Chron. 21:29; 16:37–43). But, “David could not go before it to inquire of God, for he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the Lord” (1 Chron. 21:30). Yet in the very next verse (22:1), we find David declaring of Ornan’s threshingfloor, “Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel.”

So not only did David not have a command from God where to build, but he never even asked God. Afraid to leave the place he was at, he just declared it, unilaterally, the site of God’s House.

Thus the location of Solomon’s Temple was the result of David’s momentary weakness and self-interested convenience.

Many people have argued that the site on Mt. Moriah is significant for the Temple because it is the same spot where Abraham bound Isaac as a sacrifice, and where God provided the substitute. Thus David’s altar was upon the same spot as Abraham’s altar, and thus the Temple belongs there. The proof of this is supposed to be in Genesis 22:2, where God tells Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” But notice here God does not designate “Mount Moriah” as is designated in 2 Chronicles 3:1. Here it only says the “land of Moriah,” which is a general area. Remember that this area, assuming it is the Jerusalem area, has several mountains. In this general area, God promises to reveal to Abraham “one of the mountains” on which to sacrifice. In the rest of the story in Genesis 22, we are never told exactly which one of the mountains God chose. Anyone arguing that it must be Mount Moriah is trying to get away with an argument from silence—a pure assumption unwarranted by the Scripture.

But there is good reason for this silence. God does not want any particular geographic location to become an idol for His people. He wants us to be free from all idolatry, including inordinate attachments to the rituals and rudiments he once commanded. At other times, God has “hidden” certain things in order to prevent idolatry. He would not allow the whereabouts of Moses’ body to be known after his death (Deut. 34:5–6). Similarly, He allowed the ark of the covenant to be lost (contemporary claims notwithstanding), as the Jews had allowed the mere presence of it along with the Temple rituals to become idolatry. Even after the Solomonic Temple was destroyed and the Second Temple rebuilt, the ark was never restored. Thus the writer of Hebrews could not speak of its existence (Heb. 9:5). Likewise, nowhere does Scripture specifically prescribe the location of the alleged Temple Mount. The word “Moriah” only appears in Scripture in two places (Gen. 22:2 and 2 Chron. 3:1), and “Mount Moriah” only the one time, and this latter was David’s choice, not God’s.

Scripture does say where God has chosen to dwell forever, and it is, in fact, in Jerusalem. Psalm 132:13–14 says it plainly: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: this is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.” But this does not require a Jewish Temple to be rebuilt at all, let alone on Mt. Moriah. Even if we presumed to interpret this literally (as we shall see, we should not), and presumed that God’s “dwelling place” indicates a literal Temple, then we should more properly desire a Temple upon the higher peak of Mt. Zion rather than Moriah; for the text says, “the Lord has chosen Zion.” Now, many times, especially in the Psalms, Scripture uses “Zion” to designate the entire city of Jerusalem. But this would rather expand the available real estate rather than narrow it to the so-called Temple Mount: we should then be open to place a Temple anywhere in Jerusalem.

I will summarize all I have said to this point: Scripture nowhere designates the so-called Temple Mount as a necessary place for a Jewish Temple. It never did, God never said it, God never required it, and He does not require it now or anytime in the future.

But many Christians today, swayed by the old dispensational school of theology, believe strongly that the exact location of the Temple Mount, Mt. Moriah, must be the location of a future Jewish Temple. And, of course, the problem is that large golden-domed Al Sakhra Mosque (and actually a second mosque as well, the Al Aqsa, sits within the southern wall of the Temple Mount) sits on that location. Supporters of a rebuilt Temple, therefore, wish for the day that Mosque will be removed. For example, one dispensationalist woman in the video Waiting for Armageddon (see at 1:18ff) is so committed to the claims of that system that she punctuates her tour of the Temple Mount with the exclamation: “There’s no place for that Mosque. It has to be removed.” In the same production, tour guide and dispensational scholar H. Wayne House imposes his belief in a rebuilt Temple via Photoshop: he displays a picture of the tour group with Temple Mount in the background, but has digitally cut out the Dome-of-the-Rock, and spliced in a rendering of the Jewish Temple. Voila! A digitally-answered prayer for a future re-built Jewish Temple on Mt. Moriah.

This prayer bears two parts: 1) that a future Temple must be built, and 2) that it must be built exactly where the Dome sits now.

The first claim often makes reference to Revelation 11:1–2. There John is told to “measure the temple of God.” Dispensationalists assume that this must refer to a Temple that will be built in the future. One reason for this is due to their belief that Revelation was not written until AD 90, when no Jewish Temple was left standing. But this assumption rests on highly fragile footing, surprising considering that so many people are ready to stake an international holocaust on it. But the work of Kenneth Gentry and others on the dating of Revelation has left this “late date” view severely crippled. His book Before Jerusalem Fell has established for decades now that Revelation was much more likely written before AD 70. David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance shows why such a dating allows the book to make much more sense: it mostly pertained to localized events of that time and place. And with an “early date” of AD 66 or 68 or so, it makes sense for John to be told to “measure the temple,” because the Jerusalem Temple was still standing.

Nevertheless, even if we granted that Revelation 11 speaks of a future Temple, it says absolutely nothing about where that Temple must be located. Silence. Anyone who assumes it must be Mt. Moriah, in the place of the Dome-of-the-Rock, is adding to Scripture here in a big way.

So we are absent any—and I mean any—Scripture mandate about where a Temple should have been, or should be located. This is no big deal to a preterist, of course, since he or she would not expect a rebuilt Temple anyway. But it should be quite freeing to a Zionist or a dispensationalist. For these people now no longer have to worry about replacing the Dome-of-the-Rock (perhaps, for my service in providing this illumination, they may desire to send a donation to American Vision). Since the whole complex of mountains called “Zion” is at their disposal, they could biblically, prophetically, start building a Temple tomorrow, or even today.

But, if the Jews want that Mount so badly as to insist on it, they should do what David did: pay fair market value. And if the Muslims don’t want to sell at any price, tough lamb chops. Go somewhere else.

Israel has control over all of Mt. Zion except the Mosque-domed Temple Mount. But Israel doesn’t need this, biblically speaking. So, I have a proposition: every Zionist, Orthodox Jew, Dispensationalist, and Premillennialist who believes there must be a rebuilt Temple ought immediately to start a foundation and a movement to build a Temple anywhere in Jerusalem that Israel already controls. This will hasten the last days and the coming of Jesus Himself!

Of course, failure to do this will be a tacit admission that all of these parties are more interested in bashing Muslims than advancing their own religion. Thus, their motivation to capture the Temple Mount when they don’t really need it will be revealed as pure envy.

Such a motivation may be masked by arguments about the special significance of the actual rock beneath that Dome—being the rock on which Abraham meant to sacrifice Isaac, or David stood, etc.—but we have already seen how none of these arguments has merit. To insist on these positions is to declare oneself in the service of the traditions of men, or ancient Jewish superstitions. Ironically, to do this puts the Christian or Jew on no better grounds than the Muslims who occupy that rock now, clinging to the superstition that Mohammed ascended to heaven from than spot.

Why trade one superstition for another? Especially with the risk of bloodshed and war, which cost David the privilege of building a Temple to begin with?

There is no biblical reason that any Temple should ever stand (or ever should have stood) upon Mt. Moriah. If anything, it should be upon Mt. Zion, taken either as the particular peak named Zion—a half-mile West of Mt. Moriah—or as anywhere in the general area of Jerusalem. To insist on anything more specific is to trade the dictates of Scripture for superstition.

I say let the Dome-of-the-Rock stand. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it would be non-Christian and unbiblical to call for its replacement by a Jewish Temple. Rather, in due time, Christ reigning from his current throne will spread the Gospel and subdue all His enemies—even the Muslim and Jewish enemies. He will bring them into the Church—His body—the only True Temple and Dwelling Place of God. Even Zion has been “spiritualized,” if you will—revealed to be fulfilled in the person of the Ascended Christ: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant” (Heb. 12:22–24). (Was the writer of Hebrews really guilty of “spiritualizing” the text?!)

What is Zion but the Spirit-Indwelt people of God? What is the Temple except these same Indwelt people of God? To trade this truth for any stack of concrete blocks on any hill is to trample the Son of God underfoot and slap God in the face.

Someday, even Muslims and Jews will be converted and understand this truth. Some dispensationalists may see it, too. When that day comes, that beautiful golden-domed Mosque may just make a very pretty church.

Before then, I would hate to see it spoiled with the worthless blood of bulls and goats, and the idolatrous incantations of would be Sadducees (Heb. 9).

[this is when the Anti Christ will make the peace treaty with Israel]:

This is the big assumption in the gappers theory, he refers to “antichrist” (otherwise unrecognizable in the text).

On the other hand, if “he” refer to Messiah the prince, then go gap is necessary. Of course, all the futurist theories come tumbling down.

Let's look at the Daniel 9:24-27 and get the context:

(24) Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

This verse gives us the context for the passage. Daniel is told that a period of 70 weeks are determined for completing six things:

1) to finish transgression
2) to make an end of sins,
3) to make reconciliation for iniquity,
4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5) to seal up the vision and prophecy,
6) to anoint the most Holy.

The question we must answer is, have all these things taken place, i.e., have they all been fulfilled, or is something still left? In short, from the requirements in verse 24 is there any reason to posit an as-yet-future 70th week?

(25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Messiah will come after the first 69 weeks. During this time the Temple will be rebuilt. I think most folks are in agreement on that one.

(26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Again, after the 69 weeks Messiah will be "cut off," and the "people of the prince who shall come" will cause destruction to some upon Jerusalem and the Temple. And it will be a total desolation! How long after the 69th week? Just because the reference is immediate, that does not mean the timing is also immediate. Does the structure of this verse require us to place the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the 70th week? I don't believe it does.

(27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I believe this verse relates directly to everything that has gone before. The "he" refers to Messiah the prince. That is the natural relationship between verses 26 and 27. Jesus "confirms" the New Covenant in His blood during this one week period. Jesus was sacrificed as the basis for the covenant in "the midst of the week." Jesus caused the sacrifices to cease by virtue of His sacrifice once-for-all. Jesus dealt with sin on the cross. He paid the penalty for the sins of His people. The Temple veil was ripped in two from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51). We know that Jesus' ministry lasted about 3-4 years. If we include the early apostolic ministry, especially the ministry to the Jews in Judea (the early chapters of the book of Acts), we have another 3-4 years. You might note that the severe persecution which arose in Judea against the church effectively ended the ability of the early disciples to evangelize their Jewish brethren (cf. Acts 8:1; 11:19). This was the end of the so-called 70th week.

It is not clear that the last portion of verse 27 is a reference to the actual timing of the "abomination of desolation," or whether the prophecy is simply claiming that during the 70th week the determination is made that there will be an "abomination." Certainly, we know the Jews sealed their own fate, and hence brought on the "abomination of desolation," by the actions against Messiah in AD33. Note the last phrase of verse 27: "and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." The determination was made, but the actual "pouring" was delayed. This delay gave the apostles an opportunity to preach the good news to many Jews living in Jerusalem and Judea prior to their destruction.

I believe it is an unnatural interpretation of Scripture to require a future Temple be built so that a future "abomination" can occur. Jesus predicted the "abomination" in Matthew 24:15, and according to the parallel passage in Luke 21 we know that that abomination referred to the armies of Titus which surrounded the city in AD70 (at least that's the way the Christians in Jerusalem before AD70 understood it). It's plain from Jesus' interpretation of Daniel 9 that He understood it to be speaking of events that would fall upon "this generation," and He warned His disciples to be prepared.

I believe it is incorrect interpretation to separate the first 69 weeks of the Daniel 9 prophecy from the 70th week by an unknown period of time. There is no reason to do so since all the conditions of the 70 weeks have been fulfilled.

I believe all the conditions of Daniel 9:24 were satisfied in the continuous time period, mostly during the 70th week. Therefore, Daniel's entire prophecy is a matter of history.

The comments are worse

“I am surprised you did not mention the excerpt in the Talmud that states that Jesus is being tormented by burning in boiling semen, because excrement was too good for him. Just sickening. I am sorry, I do not remember the exact reference, but I do remember Gary North used that reference in his book, “The Judeo-Christian Tradition”
There is no citation as it is BS. North was regurgitating an old lie and cannot cite the text, as it makes a mockery of the claim. The text specifically refers to someone else. http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html

“Oh yes, and let’s not forget the wonderful Orthodox Jews that openly oppose Zionism. Here is a quick list of the websites I am aware of: http://www.nkusa.org/ http://www.ijsn.net/ http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ It would be an utter contradiction to call these Jews “anti-Semitic.”
The commenter is too stupid to see the irony. He is promoting a group of Jews who support a Talmudic ruling imposed by the Romans over the Torah on Israel, to say he is not an antisemite for regurgitating lies about the Talmud. FAIL. PS. Go see Ron Lewenberg's comments there. Smart guy, handsome too.

>> How do you come to that conclusion and what should we think if it doesn’t happen?<<

I believe that when Jesus said “this generation” He was talking about the people that would see the events He described in earlier verses. He did not mean the Apostles He was speaking to at that moment. From Psalms and other places I suggest that a generation means 70 possibly 80 years. So from the regathering of the Jews in Israel in 1948 it would be that generation that would see the events He was talking about. With current events being what they are it is well within the realm of possibility that Russia (Gog), Iran, Turkey and other Mid East Countries will attack Israel. It says in Ezek that God will protect Israel and totally destroy those that attacked her.

What if I am wrong? LOL I will realize that I missed something in interpretation. I’m not trying to set dates but am simply expressing an opinion based on how I interpret prophesy.

I suppose that I could ask a similar question to those who differ with me. What will they think if Israel is attacked and all those that came against her are destroyed utterly?

Then you could move on to the work of Pentecost, Walvoord, Ryrie, MacArthur, Scofield and Wuest.

Why? Their brand of heresy was developed in the mid 1800s and has gone over several iterations and redevelopments so that Scofield and Ryrie don't have much in common. Is it eight dispensations, seven, four or three? Your guys can't agree, so do we have to refute each one? In fact, your team has gotten beaten down so much that we now have a new form of Dysfunctionalism called "Progressive" which borrows more and more from orthodox eschatological doctrines because so much of Dysfunctionalism is at odds with Scripture.

In a desperate and uncivil act, MacArthur invited a number of amill/post-mil theologians over to his seminary and proceeded to insult them. There are quite a number of refutations of his "Why all self respecting Calvinists should be Dispensationalists" screed, so much so that I have had to revisit my opinion of the integrity of John MacArthur - is his pride bigger than his zeal for truth?

Of course, everything I happen to believe comes from a plain, literal, normative reading of Scripture...

Actually it doesn't. It comes from profound arrogance and raw ignorance that leads you to think that you are smarter and better educated in the Scriptures than thousands of years of theologians that precede you. You must believe that you are a better Biblical scholar than Edwards, Owens, Luther, Henry, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Augustine, Aquinas, Warfield and ST writers such as Calvin, Hodge, Reymond and Berkhof.

I submit that you haven't spent even 1/100th of 1% of the time studying Scriptures, learning the languages, or studying the notes, comments and lectures that any of the aforementioned men of God have spent in their devotion to knowing and communicating the Word of God.

I can name drop as easy as you.

Agreed. It would be ironic, however, if they are arguing over what was really the western wall of the Roman legionary camp rather than that of the Temple.

I hear you. The Dome sits on the ground of Fort Antonio. Apparently our self-described "literalists" don't have any faith in their own hermeneutic.

Mark 13:2 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Then they point to the Wailing Wall and claim that it is the site of the Temple. Last time I checked, the wall in question was quite high with stones stacked up one upon another. So the Premillennial Dysfunctionalists are in a bit of a dilemma, either our LORD lied and got the prophecy wrong (which has its own prophetical interpretation problems inherent in that idea), the "literal" approach doesn't apply in what is plainly a statement to be read literally, or that site is not the temple site.

I pick the last option. The temple area is that torn up spot just south of the current Done of the Rock.

It most certainly is! It is at that time that the Jewish Nation finally accepts Jesus as the Messiah and is reconciled to God.

That is amazingly naïve.

I thought you folks were "Free Willers". How exactly does this hating Jesus Christ and Christians for several centuries end with an abrupt about-face, and where is this mechanism described in Scripture? Last time I checked, faith comes by hearing, and hearing of the Word of God and as I continued to check, Dysfunctionalists have agreed to stop evangelizing the "Jewish Nation" because many believe that it is no longer necessary.

It’s the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel

I assume that you have never read Paul's letter to the Galatians, nor to Rome nor to the Corinthians. Because in those letters, Paul is pretty clear about how the NT "Israel of God" is made up of both Gentiles and Jews - this is the mystery foretold by the Prophets. Besides, I have yet to hear one of you Dysfunctionalists actually point to the specific "covenant with Israel" that you folks keep alluding to.

and ushers in the exile of Satan

Satan is already bound, how else do you think that the Gospel has managed to reach the whole world? Method:Mark 3:23-27; Lk 11:20-22 Predicted: Rev 20:2-3; Delegated: Mt 18:18; Executed: Acts 1:7-8

Its rather clear actually
1. The world will devolve rather rapidly into a One World System of Government helped by a conglomerate of religions which will become a one world religion.

Clear? Only in the myriads of Prophecy books written in the last few decades. There is ZERO reference to this in Scripture. Furthermore, Dysfunctionalists seem to adore the idea of a failure Christ:

Fails to save everyone
Fails to lead a successful earthly government
Fails to prevent an earthly one-world-government

I tend to believe that when God dispersed the people of Nimrod at Babel because they formed a one-world-government, that His command and eternal will didn't have sunset language. Dysfunctionalists believe in a fickle and incompetent God that can't even manage His own Creation.

God will draw Russia, Iran, Turkey and other Mid East Countries into an attack on Israel. The next day, Damascus will have been totally destroyed, the dome of the rock Mosque will be also have been destroyed as well as all the troops which attacked Israel. The devastation will almost wipe out all of Islam’s leadership and influence in the world.

What happened to China? I thought you fools believed that China would muster a foot-army of over 200,000,000 men who would somehow travel several thousand miles of the most harsh and inhospitable terrain to die in the valley of Armageddon. Where are any of these countries you list in any BIBLICAL prophecy? Where is Islam? Where is the Dome of the Rock? Who said that Fort Antonio is the temple site? This is 100% rubbish made up by delusional fools whose "bible" is the New York Times and the Washington Post. Those countries you listed have a hard enough time not killing themselves let alone make designs on Israel. Who do you propose will lead this rag-tag bunch into battle? Exactly how will Russian speaking troops lead/follow Persians? Turks? Farsi is not Arabic and neither are Slovak languages. Indonesia is NOT in the Middle East yet hosts the largest concentration of Muslims. What happens to them? Afghanistan people have a reasonably strong claim to being one of the lost tribes, but they are Muslim. What happens to these ethnically Jewish Muslims? Do you people even spend a second conducting a feasibility or sanity test on this lunacy that you cook up?

6. Christ will return at the end of the seven years and destroy anyone who aligned themselves with the Anti Christ, exile Satan to the bottomless pit and set up a reign on earth which will last 1000 years after which Satan will be released for a short period then will be cast into the fiery pit for eternity.

I can write challenges to this dreck all night long, but one thing in particular disturbs me more than any other, and that is you have the glorified Jesus Christ who currently reigns VICTORIOUSLY in heaven step off of that throne, immerse Himself in a sin-filled world, profaning His glory, subjecting resurrected, glorified and perfected saints dwell shoulder-to-shoulder with mortal reprobates and the wicked who somehow conceal their hatred for an oblivious Christ for exactly 1000 years so that they can then overthrow our LORD under the power of Satan. In the meantime our LORD who is our High Priest is supposed to make blood animal sacrifices in the Holy of Holies in this new Temple to WHO? Wasn't the cross good enough for you? For 1000 years you have the Creator God, Redeemer and Lamb return to beggardly things to satisfy this Jewish bloodlust of yours?

The blasphemy in that scenario shows utter contempt for Christ and His Holiness, denying His once-and-for-all sacrifice, claiming that God Himself will be the abomination of desolation by leading reprobates and the redeemed in temple blood sacrifices, that I can't break bread with anyone who holds that depraved and demonic view.

My larger point is that I don’t necessarily consider polemics to be evil or a dirty word much like modern day PC evangelicals do.

(parenthetically, I agree with you on this.)

A century ago, as part of their sophisticated and far-sighted campaign to take over America by "capturing the robes," the unitarian socialists targeted the largest and most Biblically faithful denomination in America, the Presbyterian Church. In New England, the Unitarians at least had the decency to take the cross off the steeple and replace it with a weather vane when they took over a congregational church. In this campaign, however, they embraced the "false flag" concept. The "liberals" used Christian words secretly packed with socialist private meanings.

The Presbyterians lost their denomination -- along with the resources painfully accrued over the centuries by the sacrifices of God's people -- because they were too "nice" to fight. They politely declined to hold heresy trials, and un-ordain (defrock) preachers and teachers who held their ordination vows in contempt. It was too much work to fight the covert operation one apostate at a time -- so they ignored the elephant in the living room until the "liberals" were strong enough to defrock J. Gresham Machen for preaching the Virgin Birth.

At this point in history, fortune-telling[1] is not (yet) considered to be heresy. Horrible false doctrine, yes, which cripples those who embrace it. But not as egregious as denying the inerrancy of Scripture, or the literal final physical return of Christ and the general resurrection of the dead. Granted, the fortune-tellers twist / wrest Scripture "like a rubber nose." But these are still, for the most part, brothers and sisters in Christ. We can disagree violently with their denigration of our Lord's Kingdom majesty, power, purpose, and presence -- then take communion with them. They are mistaken people, not evil people, not enemies of Christ, and not our own enemies.

[1] I will not apologize for using that term. What else should I call the practice of predicting the future, or those who claim the power of predicting the future? It's a plague upon God's people that renders us stupid, and unable to learn from our mistakes. It's a heinous sin against God's people that robs them of their courage, their manhood, their hope, their stamina, and their children.

>>How do you see the events of Isaiah 17 fitting with Ezekiel 38-39?<<

There is no Biblical indication of the time of the destruction of Damascus but it must happen in the future because Damascus is the longest continuously inhabited city in the world to date. It has never in recorded history been destroyed.

That being said, I don’t think the Destruction of Damascus is during the battle of Armageddon because there will still be flocks that inhabit the cities around it and indications are that life goes on in the region.

That leaves the battle of Ezek 38-39 which will be devastating to those that come against Israel. One can easily envision Damascus being destroyed during that battle as well as the Dome Mosque. The Mosque during the initial attack on Israel and Damascus during the counter defense which the Bible indicates will be more by God’s hand then by Israel itself.

I clearly confess that both the timing of the destruction of Damascus and the Mosque is purely conjecture on my part but both must be destroyed for prophecy to be true. Damascus because it is clearly prophesied in Isaiah and the Mosque because the third Temple must be build in Jerusalem and I would say that no one can believe that God would allow the Mosque and the Temple to both exist in Jerusalem.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.