Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock is Hate Speech in Stone; Its removal Urgent

The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is an act of hate and of hate speech by Muslims against Jews and Christians. Neither the US nor Britain would ever allow such an object to be created, nor such a collection of slander to be publicly displayed.

Remember, every bit of that oh-so-pretty Arabic arabesque script on this little shrine dating from AD 691, is a slander-in-stone, posing as a sermon-in-stone, against Christianity which had ruled Jerusalem for centuries under Byzantium prior to the Islamic takeover in the AD 638-40 era. "God has no Son. It is Blasphemy to Say He has Taken a Son." would be the least of what is written there. This Dome is not a mosque, and it is an artifact of pure hatred against Christianity.

It also is an artifact of pure hatred against Judaism, for it occupies and stands upon the holy precincts of the Temples of Solomon and of Herod (first and second Temples)...a dog in the manger as it were, which neither itself worships, nor allows the Jews to worship, God as He ought to be. This building is preventing the Jews from re-establishing the Temple and its sacrifices for the good of all mankind and the peace of the world.

As I understand it, the Dome itself stands over the area reserved solely for Jewish men (court of Israel) in the time of Jesus, including the area of the altar of sacrifice and the "holy" (as opposed to Most Holy) place of the Temple (Bet ha Mikdosh) itself. I believe that the place of the Ark of the Covenant in the Most Holy, however, stands on the western steps leading up to the octagonal Dome structure...

Called by Daniel the "Abomination of Desolation" (loathsome thing), this structure was stated in Dan. 11 and 12 to stand until the indignation (wrath) of God against Israel for its sins was over, but that was to end in 1290 or 1335 years from the construction of same in 691. Thus, its fall is up in 1981 or in 2026, and I think the 1981 date referred to the finding of the Ark in that year...

Since in our liberal times, Westerners are called upon to accomodate every nuance of the sensiblilities of Muslims here in our homelands, perhaps Muslims in return would be willing to see this insult and injury to Judaism and Christianity removed and made away in our day. Perhaps it could be disassembled stone by stone and set up in Mecca, a city only Muslims are allowed to visit, and thus it could do less harm there.

Generally you give a good summary of post-mil thinking, but I think the inherent weakness in that, is shown by the fact that many of their own followers are going over to preterist "realized eschatology" so as to be REALLY insulated against the chance that God might do something crazy, in the Middle East or elsewhere, and so upset their cozy positions and retirement plans, in their lovely steepled buildings, sitting in God's place, taking His place...

I would add just one dissent, though, ...in that you say that pre-mill believers (a term I dislike, for it makes mere literal belief in the OC and in Bible prophecy, a MAJORITY position, sound like something narrow and heretical)...--

You say that persons of my viewpoint teach that the Church has failed/will fail in its purpose or mission on Earth. I do not know of any of us "premills" at all, much less myself, that so believes. The Bible does not teach that the Church will fail, but that its time will run out, it will reach a time when it can no longer serve a purpose, it will have outlived its usefulness--the Church Age will be over. The Church has already (or very nearly) done what it was made to do--to preach the Gospel before all peoples, as a WITNESS. It was nowhere said that this preaching would necessarily everywhere be successful, --the definition of a witness here is to lay something before them, and if they reject it, they are themselves to blame. That is true of the Muslim world.

Many clear scriptures say that the "time of the Gentiles" (Luke 21) will one day end, and that "all Israel shall be saved." Your teaching says that the times of the Gentiles (Rev 11) will never end, that 2200 AD will still be T of G just like 200 AD was, and that Israel will never be restored to her role as the lighthouse of the world. That would be very nice for us, very smug and snug, but the Bible does not support it.

Crystalk,

You said:

All the texts quoted by you including John 3:16 were written many decades later when Gentiles were flocking into the Christian church, and everything you are saying is true with respect to them/us.

The fact that Jesus' words were written down some time after they were spoken doesn't mean that we can disregard them or interpret them to mean what they clearly don't mean. If you believe that the New Testament is the authoritative, divinely-inspired, truthful word of God, then you must take Jesus at his word as it is written. If Jesus told a Jew that he must believe in Jesus to be saved, then that is the way it is.

The message of the New Testament is that Jesus came to save all men, including Jews. God told the Jews hundreds of years in advance through the prophets that their Messiah was coming, and God sent John the Baptist to prepare the way. Jesus went to the Jews first, explained what he was up to and who he was, worked incredible miracles in their presence -- including his own death and resurrection -- to show them that their Savior had come. Still, the Jews had free will, and most rejected him. That they rejected their salvation was an act of their wills and is their error, not God's.

If you built your daughter a house to live in and then decided to build her a bigger, better house, could you be blamed if she refused to come out of the rain, into the new house, and caught a cold?

Regarding your argument that post-millenialism is flawed because some post-millenialists become preterists: this is like saying it's wrong to be a Republican because some Republicans become Libertarians -- an obvious logical fallacy.

And finally, I agree that the Old Covenant's system of sacrifice and ritual was an object lesson and passion play that forshadowed the redemptive act of Christ's crucifixion. But now that this has taken place, there is no more need for foreshadowing. When a new building is being built, it is fun to look at the plans early on, but the plans are nothing compared to the building once it is built. If you want someone to appreciate a building, do you show them the plans or do you show them the building?

Paul says that those who believe in the Son of God are God's temple now, and that we should be as living sacrifices. If anything, we are the object lesson now, and the Holy Spirit will draw people into the kingdom through us. We can facilitate and participate in the Spirit's work most readily if we trust our Lord and take him at his word as he meant it.

You mentioned a couple of verses about the age of the Gentiles coming to an end and all Israel being saved. I feel that both of these will be accomplished when all men believe in Jesus -- we will be unified in Christ and distinctions like Jew and Gentile will be meaningless. Whatever the exact meaning of these verses -- and there are different interpretations of them -- their meaning must not come into conflict with the plainly understood verses like John 3:16, whose meaning is so clear that it is beyond debate.

This has been a great discussion, Chrystalk. I'm starting to feel a little guilty about bumping this thread up to the top, though, so these are my last words here. The last word is yours if you want it!

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.