Temple Mount News

[Mark]

Is there a place for God’s Holy Mountain in Jerusalem?

Asher Frohlich’s painting of “God’s Holy Mountain” (at right) depicts a scene from an imagined future Jerusalem where Islam’s Dome of the Rock stands beside a rebuilt Jewish temple and worshipers of different faiths mingle in the courtyard.



Is this scene too good to come true?

The problem today, in the simplest of terms, stems from the fact that one spot in the heart of the old city of Jerusalem, is sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Jews know it as  the Temple Mount and Muslims call it al-Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). For more about the religious history of the complex, click here.

Today, a gilded dome stands above a rock where Muslims believe Mohammad rose to heaven. It is the same spot where a sanctuary known as the ‘holy of holies’ of two ancient Jewish temples is believed to have been located. Many Jews still pray for the temple to be rebuilt, a step some believe would then herald the return of the Messiah and a time of world peace.

A project launched this week hopes to pave the way, through theological research and debate, to a new outlook that would allow all religions to share the complex. Part of this ”vision” is explained in depth in an entry on the Washington Post Web site.

The group says the initiative is “based on five years of research into the requirements for the precise location of a rebuilt Temple”. Its web site quotes a passage from Jewish law, called Halacha, to argue that a new, nearby location could be chosen to build a third temple, not in the spot traditionally regarded as the correct site but has been occupied by the Dome of the Rock since the 7th century:

“Halachically, it is possible to extend the area of the Temple Mount as noted in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 1:5, Shevu’ot 2:2),” the passage said.  “A possible way of expanding the Temple Mount could be to build an earthen extension in a way that it becomes an integral part of the original mountain (Mount Moriah) and to sanctify that area per the methods described in Maimonides.”

Even if all three monotheistic religions re-examine their theological connections to the site, is it enough to lead to a remapping of the holy complex? Or, as even the project’s director Yoav Frankel acknowledges, would it take “a holy revelation given to an authentic prophet” to realize this vision?

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/19/is-there-a-place-for-gods-holy-mountain-in-jerusalem/

[Mark]

A New Vision for God's Holy Mountain
By Ohr Margalit

Bar-Ilan University in Israel
As the Obama Administration pursues the latest peace initiative in the Mideast amid renewed world hopes, it will ultimately face once again the seemingly intractable issue of the future status of the Temple Mount (Al Haram Al Sharif in Arabic). Situated in the center of Jerusalem, it is the site of the Dome of Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque, sacred to Islam, and also the site of long-held aspirations by Jews for a rebuilt temple as expressed to this day in daily prayers.
Contention about this spot is incongruous given its shared spiritual significance for Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. The Dome stands at the place where all three religions believe that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son before an angel stayed his hand. The Jewish Temple, from the initial consecration address by King Solomon onwards, was always intended to manifest the One God for all, Jew and non-Jew alike, as well as the universal ideal of God's moral order reigning supreme. References in sacred Jewish texts and history to the role of non-Jews in the Temple are numerous and striking.

But this sanctified spot was subsequently tarnished by the destruction of the first and second temples, the latter by the Roman general Titus in the year 70 preceded by deadly infighting of Jew against Jew. In modern times, the Camp David negotiations of 2000 broke down in part over the issue of the Temple Mount, and the second intifada that followed was sparked by a violent incident there. Given the conventional assumption that Jewish law mandates the spot of the Dome as the site of a future rebuilt temple, avoidance of this topic by all mainstream religious bodies is understandable. But it remains a central, if unspoken, obstacle to a peace settlement.
A recent article published in the leading journal of religious law in Israel, Tehumin, however, opens the potential for restoring this now-contentious spot to its original sacred role as God's Holy Mountain, a house of prayer for all people (Isaiah 56:7). Although the arguments are detailed and technical, the main point is that Jewish doctrine regarding the rebuilding of the temple emphasizes the role of a prophet (one deemed authentic by contemporaneous sages) who would have extraordinary authority, including the discretion to specify the temple's precise location, regardless of any diverging Jewish traditions.

This article considers the scenario of a holy revelation given to an authentic prophet that the temple be rebuilt on the current or an extended Temple Mount in peaceful proximity to the Dome, Al Aqsa Mosque, and nearby Christian shrines. According to Jewish law, the article concludes, such a prophetic mandate would then be binding. It would also be in keeping with the words of the 12th Century Jewish sage Maimonides that Christianity and Islam are part of God's ultimate plan "to direct the entire world to worship God together." Interestingly, Theodore Herzl, the preeminent secular Zionist, detailed the same vision for a rebuilt temple in peaceful proximity to Islamic and Christian shrines on what he called "the holy region of mankind."
While compromise is admirable in the pursuit of peace, a rebuilt temple according to this vision would be nothing of the kind. It would be the radical fulfillment of God's original mandate to the Jewish people and of the original purpose of the Temple, to manifest the One God to the world. This would be more powerfully accomplished with Christian and Muslim shrines nearby along with the pilgrims that visit them. At the very same time, with a rebuilt Temple in peaceful proximity, Allah would be more powerfully manifested in the Dome and in the Al Aqsa Mosque, and likewise for God, the Prince of Peace, in surrounding churches. All would occur simultaneously because the world would then understand and embrace the prophecy of Zechariah 14:9, "On that day, God will be One and His Name One."

These initial findings and the painting of this vision will be presented at a launching event on June 18 in Jerusalem, sponsored by the Interfaith Encounter Association. This event will be preceded by a separate panel discussion among distinguished rabbis, sheikhs and Christian clergy about this prophetic verse. We hope that among other potential ultimate developments, ensuing dialogue and study can further the understanding that Jews, Muslims and Christians were put together in the Mideast not to acquiesce in conflict instigated by tyrants throughout history but to fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah 14:9.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/06/a_new_vision_for_gods_holy_mountain.html

[Mark]

Jerusalem launches debate on sharing holiest site

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Espousing a dream of harmony that may stretch credibility among even the most fervent believers in dialogue among the great religions, clerics in Jerusalem launched a project on Thursday aimed at finding a way to share the city's holiest, and most fought over, site.

Even the Jewish religious scholar promoting it acknowledges it might need divine intervention before a peaceful remapping of the area where Muslims built the 7th century Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque on the site of the biblical Jewish Temple.

"We offer this vision for a long and deep discussion, and of course want to continue with a parallel research from other religions," said Yoav Frankel, director of the project promoting a vision of "God's Holy Mountain" (http://www.godsholymountain.org).

Invitations to Thursday's launch conference depict a sunlit imagined future for the area Jews call Temple Mount. Happy Muslims and harp-playing Jews mingle between the Dome of the Rock and a new Temple, as Christians walk over from the nearby Sepulchre Church, traditional site of Jesus's resurrection.

The project, headed by Jewish members of the Interfaith Encounter Association (http://www.interfaith-encounter.org) encourages all three faiths to re-examine the complex and perhaps foster a new theological outlook, making room for all to worship there.

DIVINE INTERVENTION?

But Frankel conceded it may take more than debate of Jewish law, or halacha, to alter centuries of tradition in favor of a compromise by which Jews would agree to build a temple nearby, not in the spot traditionally regarded as the correct site -- right where the Dome has stood since the 7th century.

"Regular halachic discussion will not be powerful enough," Frankel said, referring to the need for a "holy revelation" to make such a shift possible in Jewish tradition.

Known to Arabs as the Haram al-Sharif, or Noble Sanctuary, and also respected by Christians and Jews who believe that the Dome covers a rock where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son to God, the compound in Jerusalem's Old City has been the cause of bloodshed, from ancient times to today.

It still lies at the heart of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and sovereignty over the holy sites remains a sticking point in international efforts to draft a final peace settlement.

Not even all members of the interfaith group, which is dedicated to religious coexistence, favor the new project, which does not address political issues of whether Israel or Palestinians -- or both, or neither -- should control the city.

Muslim cleric Abdullah Darweesh, who was to speak at the official project launch on Thursday, said all "holy Christian and Islamic sites should be under Arab sovereignty."

Islam teaches that Mohammad rose to heaven from the rock under the Dome. Muslim clerics who run the compound have been wary of Jewish encroachment into the site since Israel captured the Old City and the rest of Arab East Jerusalem in a 1967 war.

A visit there in 2000 by Ariel Sharon, a right-wing Israeli politician who later became prime minister, helped spark a Palestinian uprising that became known as the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Since the Second Temple was destroyed under Roman rule in AD 70, Jews have prayed at the Western Wall, part of the ruins.

Many Orthodox Jews believe they must not set foot on the Temple Mount itself for fear of treading on the now unknown site of the inner sanctum. Some groups, however, call for Israel to seize the site and rebuild the temple, a step some believe would then herald the return of the Messiah and a time of world peace.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55H3U220090618

[Mark]

How do We Understand the Vision of the Future Temple as Described in the Book of Ezekiel?

According to the great sages of Israel, it is a positive commandment for the people of Israel to rebuild the Holy Temple conforming to the dimensions, characteristics and attributes of the Second Temple. Thus, although there were differences between the First and Second Temples, and vast differences between both of these and the vision of Ezekiel - it is the details of the Second Temple that are binding upon Israel for all time. This is why the majority of the Temple Institute's work and research, both in artistic representation as well as actual Temple restoration, centers on the aspects of the Second Temple.

These details and dimensions are clearly described in the Mishneh of Tractate Middot (literally, "attributes" or "measures") of the Babylonian Talmud. This tractate also includes the dimensions and layout of the Temple Mount, and discusses many matters applicable to both the Holy Temple and the Mount.

In his introduction to this tractate, the great sage Maimonides writes that its purpose is to preserve all the details of the Second Temple. This, he states, is "because when the time comes to rebuild, care should be taken to preserve these details and rebuild the Temple in the exact same manner... because it was built with Divine Inspiration. Thus the verse states, 'All this, said he, is put in writing by the hand of the L-rd who instructed me, all the works of this pattern' (II Chron. 28:19)."

"The structure of Solomon's temple is explained in the book of Kings," Maimonides states further. "When the Second Temple was originally constructed in the time of Ezra, it was built as a combination of the First Temple built by King Solomon, but including certain aspects of the things mentioned by Ezekiel, (in chapters 40-43, which were said with regard to the future Temple), as well. Herod razed the structure built by Ezra, and rebuilt it completely anew. Our sages stated: 'Whoever has never seen the building built by Herod, has never seen a beautiful building in his life'." Moreover, writes Maimonides, although the Temple that will be built in the future is written in the book of Ezekiel, it remains unexplained and unclear."

Many aspects of the Temple described by Ezekiel are difficult to comprehend, since that vision contains elements of prophetic insight which, in our generation, we do not have the spiritual or intellectual capacity to understand. For example, according to the prophecy of Ezekiel, the structure of the Third Temple will necessitate vast topographical changes in the environs of the Jerusalem. This Temple will differ drastically in size from its predecessors. According to Ezekiel's measurements, the new Temple will be so large that it will occupy the entire area of the city of Jerusalem. Ezekiel's prophecy explains that both the Temple Mount and the Mount of Olives will be enlarged and expanded in the future.

Despite the uncertainties that we temporarily face in understanding the elements of Ezekiel's prophetic revelation, we can still appreciate the fact that this prophet's teaching was part of a larger, broader tradition that he received from the earlier prophets.

Thus, it should be noted when the Second Temple was erected, its builders incorporated a number of components that were based on Ezekiel's prophecy. Everything that they were able to understand from Ezekiel's words, they included in the structure of the Second Temple.

These details include, for example, the permanent closure of the southern gate (44:2); the chambers of the Women's Court ("the courts of the incense" - 46:21); and the width of the altar (3:1).

All of those details from Ezekiel's prophecy that were not explained in the Second Temple era, remain sealed until that time when "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of G-d, as the waters that cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9). In the future, we shall be enlightened with a higher level of spiritual awareness and consciousness, and at that time we will have the ability to perceive the deeper meaning of all those portions of Ezekiel's vision that had heretofore been inaccessible. Until that time, it is the Second Temple's attributes that must be upheld when rebuilding the Temple. Most importantly, Israel's Divine obligation to rebuild the Holy Temple remains a constant and unchanging factor in the nation's life, throughout every generation.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/future_temple.htm

[Mark]

Why Not Rebuild the Tabernacle First?

Israel is obligated to rebuild the Holy Temple: this commandment applies in every generation.

Given the difficulties and obstacles involved in rebuilding the Holy Temple today in its proper place - Mount Moriah, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - some wonder why Israel does not first rebuild the Tabernacle, at least as a temporary plan, until such time as circumstances permit the Temple to be rebuilt properly.

Firstly, let us understand that on a conceptual level, the Tabernacle and the Temple are one idea... not two separate commandments. The commandment of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary, that I will dwell among them" (Ex. 24:8), before being actualized in its permanent location, was first fulfilled through the traveling Tabernacle - a miniature version of the Holy Temple in modest form. But there were also differences between the Tabernacle, as described in the Torah, and the structure of the Temple, as explained in Tractate Middot. There were also differences between the First and Second Temples.

There is a distinct relationship between the Tabernacle of the desert, and the Holy Temple which stands in Jerusalem. In order to illustrate why the Temple was preceded by the Tabernacle, the rabbis of the Talmud utilized a parable:

"Rabbi Judah the Prince arranged for his son to marry. The Rabbi agreed to provide for his son's livelihood for twelve years, so that the latter would be able to continue with his holy studies unhindered. At the end of this period the marriage would take place. When the son was introduced to his betrothed, he was quite pleased, and said 'Let the wedding take place in six years, instead.' But later, when the youth had occasion to see his bride a second time, he said 'Let us have the wedding now! And then I shall go and continue with my studies.'

The boy was afraid that his father would be annoyed with him, on account of his efforts to bring forward the date of the wedding. But Rabbi Judah told him: 'My son! On the contrary! Why, you have acted just as G-d Himself did! For at first, the Torah states (Ex. 5:7): 'You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance... in the Sanctuary, G-d, which Your hands have established.' (This means that when the Jews will enter into the Promised Land, they will then build the Temple). But afterwards Scripture suddenly states: 'And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary, that I will dwell among them' (Ex. 24:8) - meaning now, in the desert (Ketubot 62:B).

This anecdote of Rabbi Judah the Prince helps us to understand the connection between the Temple and the earlier Tabernacle.

The main objective of the commandment to build the Temple is to establish it on Mount Moriah, the Temple Mount. Nevertheless, on account of G-d's love for the Jewish people - just as the anxious groom of the story wants to go ahead and marry his bride as soon as possible, so too, the Holy One sought to bring forward the time of His intimacy with His chosen people.

Therefore, He commanded them to erect a temporary, traveling Tabernacle of gold-plated cedar wood until the fixed Temple in Jerusalem would be built, so that He could be close to Israel during this intermediary period until they entered into the land.

The Tabernacle and the Temple are not two separate entities; in reality they are one and the same. This idea is emphasized even more emphatically by the commentators and scholars who point out that by comparison, the measurements of the Temple in Jerusalem reflect those of the Tabernacle. For example: the area of the Tabernacle was ten cubits by thirty; the Temple stood at twenty cubits by sixty. The idea is that although the Tabernacle's measurements were relatively small - small enough to enable it to travel conveniently through the desert - still, along general lines of comparison the two structures follow the same pattern of design.

But once the Holy Temple was erected in its permanent, pre-designated location in Jerusalem, the era of the Tabernacle officially came to a close... and the Tabernacle, for all practice and purpose, became as ancient history for Israel. New factors came into being, which irrevocably altered the previous situation: The altar of the Temple was established on its designated spot, the place on which Isaac had been bound by his father Abraham. And the Sanctuary itself was erected on "shoulder" of Mount Moriah, in keeping with the verse "He shall dwell between his shoulders" (Deut. 33:12) This is the spot which had been chosen by G-d since the very beginning of time; it was David and Samuel who clarified that it was indeed this spot, the "threshing floor of Aravna the Jebusite" (II Samuel 24:18) that G-d had chosen to rest His presence for all time. From the time that the first Holy Temple was built by King Solomon, there would be no going back to the Tabernacle.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/rebuild_the_tabernacle.htm

[Mark]

Can Third Temple be built without destroying Dome of the Rock?

 new Jewish interfaith initiative launched last week argues building the Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem would not necessitate the destruction of the Dome of the Rock.

"God's Holy Mountain Vision" project hopes to defuse religious strife by showing that Jews' end-of-days vision could harmoniously accommodate Islam's present architectural hegemony on the Temple Mount.

"This vision of religious shrines in peaceful proximity can transform the Temple Mount from a place of contention to its original sacred role as a place of worship shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians," said Yoav Frankel, director of the initiative.

The Interfaith Encounter Association at the Mishkenot Sha'ananim's Konrad Adenauer Conference Center in Jerusalem is sponsoring the program, which includes interfaith study and other educational projects.

According to Islamic tradition, the Dome of the Rock, built in 691, marks the spot where Muhammed ascended to Heaven.

But according to Jewish tradition, Mount Moriah, now under the Dome of the Rock, is where the Temple's Holy of Holies was situated.

Until now Jewish tradition has assumed that destruction of the Dome of the Rock was a precondition for the building of the third and last Temple.

However, in an article that appeared in 2007 in Tehumin, an influential journal of Jewish law, Frankel, a young scholar, presented a different option.

His main argument is that Jewish doctrine regarding the rebuilding of the Temple emphasizes the role of a prophet.

This prophet would have extraordinary authority, including the discretion to specify the Temple's precise location, regardless of any diverging Jewish traditions.

Frankel considers the scenario of a holy revelation given to an authentic prophet that the Temple be rebuilt on the current or an extended Temple Mount in peaceful proximity to the dome and other houses of prayer such as the Aksa Mosque and nearby Christian shrines.

However, both Muslims and Jews have expressed opposition to the initiative.

Sheikh Abdulla Nimar Darwish, founder of the Islamic Movement in Israel, said it was pointless to talk about what would happen when the mahdi, the Muslim equivalent of the messiah, would reveal himself.

"Why are we taking upon ourselves the responsibility to decide such things?" Darwish said in a telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post. "Even Jews believe that it is prohibited to rebuild the Temple until the messiah comes. So what is there to talk about.

"The mahdi will decide whether or not to rebuild the Temple. If he decides that it should be rebuilt, I will go out to the Temple Mount and help carry the rocks."

Darwish warned against any attempt to rebuild the Temple before the coming of the mahdi.

"As long as there is a Muslim alive, no Jewish Temple will be built on Al-Haram Al-Sharif [the Temple Mount]. The status quo must be maintained, otherwise there will be bloodshed."

In contrast, Baruch Ben-Yosef, chairman of the Movement to Restore the Temple, made it clear that the Temple had to be built where the Dome of the Rock presently stands.

"Anybody who says anything else simply does not know what he is talking about," he said. "A prophet does not have the power to change the law which explicitly states the location of the Temple."

Ben-Yosef also rejected the idea that rebuilding of the Temple had to be done by a prophet.

"All you need is a Sanhedrin," he said.

Mainstream Orthodox rabbis have opposed attempts to rebuild the Temple since the Mount came under Israeli control in 1967.

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel even issued a decree prohibiting Jews from entering the area due to ritual purity issues.

However, several grassroots organizations such as the Movement to Restore the Temple, and maverick rabbis, including Rabbi Israel Ariel, head of the capital's Temple Institute and a leading member of the revived Sanhedrin led by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, have called to take steps to renew the sacrifices on the Temple Mount and rebuild the Temple.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184891155&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Mark]

We dont need a Temple.

Jesus offered his body and his blood, as the final sin offering for all people for all eternity.

The Sign At The Cross
One of the signs which accompanied Christ's sacrificial death, took place in the inner sanctum of the house of animal sacrifice: "Behold the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" (Mtt 27:51).

The interior of the temple proper was divided into two holy places. The part nearest the entrance was called the sanctuary or holy place. Here were kept a sacred lampstand, a table for ceremonial bread, and an altar for incense. A second area was called the Holy of Holies or the Most Holy Place.

This inner room once contained a golden censer for incense and a mysterious box called the ark of the covenant containing souvenirs from the wilderness wanderings: the stone tablets, Aaron's rod which budded, and a golden pot of manna. Upon this ark was placed a mercy seat, a kind of altar, with sculptured winged cherubs of hammered gold at each end.

Only the high priest could venture into this holiest place, and that only once a year with the blood of animal sacrifice for atonement. This Most Holy Place was closed off by an enormous curtain.

The Temple in the Time of Christ
The temple of Jesus's day was new. Solomon's temple had long ago been destroyed by the Babylonians. It was rebuilt under great stress in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah with the help of Darius king of Medopersia. However it was inferior to Solomon's temple and the one Ezekiel saw in visions. Centuries later, about twenty years before Jesus came, work commenced to replace this temple with the magnificent structure still being completed at the time the disciples of Jesus admired it and Jesus ironically but accurately foretold its destruction (Mtt 24:1-2).

Later, at our Lord's crucifixion, the great curtain veiling the Holiest place was torn from top to bottom. The room now visible through the rend in the veil was bare, its irreplacable artifacts lost in antiquity. That made more poignant the rend in the veil.

Short of letting the earthquake demolish the temple completely then and there, God could not have given the Jews a clearer sign. Christ had opened the way into the Holiest Place; the temple, its priesthood, and its blood sacrifices were now defunct. The final sin offering had been made. God did not destroy the temple then. He gave the Jews time to make a voluntary end to sacrifice and offering, and to recognise the death of his beloved Son instead as the final sacrifice for sins.

 
  The High Priest’s Prophecy
The one man who had been allowed to enter the Holiest Place through the curtain was Caiaphas the high priest. As this temple chief beheld the torn curtain, did he forget that only days ago he himself had spoken under the spirit of prophecy to the Pharisees who were plotting to kill Jesus? "You know nothing, nor do you consider it expedient that one man should die for the people" (Jhn 11:47-53 18:14).

Caiaphas himself had later challenged Jesus, "I adjure you by the living God that you tell us if you are Christ the Son of God." When Jesus acknowledged that he was, Caiaphas had yelled "Blasphemy!" (Mtt 26:57,63-66). When Caiaphas later found the temple's curtain had been torn at the very hour Jesus died upon the cross, why did Caiaphas not reconsider? Why did he not declare an end to the law of Moses and to animal sacrifice?

 
  The Day Of Pentecost
Some weeks later another sign attracted the attention of all Jerusalem, at the very time devout Jews from every nation were visiting the city for special services at the temple. On that day, miraculously speaking the various languages of the pilgrims, the apostles proclaimed the gospel of Jesus. They said that the death of Jesus was according to God's predetermined plan. They proclaimed forgiveness of sins by repentance and baptism into Christ's death. A great many responded, and the first church of Christ, three thousand strong, actually met daily in the temple buildings while the message of Christ's sacrifice was explained.

 
  Sacrifices Continued
Nevertheless, the worship of the temple went on, with hardly a hiccup. It went on even after it was made clear to Jewish people far and wide that the one man who could die for the people had done so. It went on even after his perfect sacrifice was made once and for all. Jesus offered his body and his blood, as the final sin offering for all people for all eternity. From that time animal sacrifice should have stopped.

Animal sacrifices should have ceased the day Jesus died when Caiaphas ought to have realised what his own prophecy meant. It should have ceased the day Jesus's tomb was found empty and falsehood was needed to explain it away. It should have ceased the day Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit from heaven upon Jerusalem. But no. The bloody slaughter of animals went on for another generation. It continued until it ceased perforce, when the temple was destroyed by Rome in AD70.

 
  The One Main Question
The foregoing brings us to one simple but important question: Was it God's will that animal sacrifices continue from the cross until AD70? Or was it rather rebellion against God's will? Did God feel pleased with any animal sacrifice offered in the temple after Jesus was crucified? Or did animal sacrifice become an abomination in God's sight?

Were anyone's sins forgiven through the blood of animals slaughtered in the temple after Jesus laid down his life and shed his own precious blood? Or was it now rather a sin to offer animal blood to God? Did animal sacrifices push sins back to the cross like they had formerly pushed sins forward?

Why Ask The Question?
Those who hold certain views, about the significance of events in Jerusalem AD70, and those who hold certain views about the change of covenants, will suggest that animal sacrifices still held good for some people after the crucifixion and up till the end of them in AD70. Others will say that the cessation of animal sacrifices was unfortunate, and that Jesus himself will restore the practice for a thousand years.

Yet Christ was the final sin offering and his death atoned for sins once and for all. He put an end to the offering of beasts as a legitimate act of worship and atonement.

 
  Daniel’s Prophecy
Daniel prophesied that, after the Messiah was cut off, God would confirm a covenant with many for one week (not a literal week). In the middle of that week, God would "put a stop to sacrifice" with an abomination of desolation (Dan 9:26-27 11:31 12:11). Jesus linked this prophecy with the destruction of the temple(Mtt 24:15) which came to pass in AD70.

The destruction of the temple occurred about the middle of a seventy-year period (possibly the final week of Daniel's seventy weeks) when God was confirming the new covenant or gospel. This confirmation was in the form of miraculous signs and gifts of the Holy Spirit (Heb 2:3-4 Mrk 16:20).

Some people hold the view that while the covenant was being confirmed, it was not fully and exclusively in force; therefore God allowed the old covenant to continue in effect for the sake of a generation of Jews who did not readily accept the gospel.

The Cross Abolished Animal Sacrifice
The idea that God continued the first covenant and its animal sacrifices in order to establish the second covenant and the sacrifice of Christ, is not the Hebrew writer's position. He says that Jesus "takes away the first that he might establish the second" (Heb 10:4-10). Who will you believe? Those who say that God continued to recognize animal offerings, or the inspired writer who says God had abolished them?

Some will reply that there is no question of whether Christ abolished animal sacrifice. Of course he did. The question is when. They will say not at the cross, but in AD70 at the destruction of Jerusalem. But the Hebrew writer says it was when Jesus came to do God's will in offering his body once for all.

In the following verses he makes it perfectly clear that the sacrifices still being offered in the temple were "no longer any offering for sin" because Christ had offered "one sacrifice for sins for all time" (Heb 10:11-22).

Who will you believe? Those who say animal sacrifices still made atonement, or the inspired writer who says they were no longer any offering for sin?

 
  The Final Sin Offering
When Jesus Christ died upon the cross, he laid down his life for all mankind. The animal sacrifices of the Patriarchal and Mosaical ages were effective only because they looked forward to the true sacrifice. Once the Son of God came and surrendered himself, all other sacrifices ceased to be efficacious.

The Passover observed just before Jesus was crucified, should have been the last act of Jewish temple worship involving flesh and blood slaughtered and shed for atonement. The only sacrifice offered after that should have been the offering of the precious body and blood of our Lord.

http://members.datafast.net.au/sggram/f135.htm

[Mark]

Sheikh Abdulla Nimar Darwish, founder of the Islamic Movement in Israel, said it was pointless to talk about what would happen when the mahdi, the Muslim equivalent of the messiah, would reveal himself.

"Why are we taking upon ourselves the responsibility to decide such things?" Darwish said in a telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post. "Even Jews believe that it is prohibited to rebuild the Temple until the messiah comes. So what is there to talk about.

"The mahdi will decide whether or not to rebuild the Temple. If he decides that it should be rebuilt, I will go out to the Temple Mount and help carry the rocks."

Darwish warned against any attempt to rebuild the Temple before the coming of the mahdi.

"As long as there is a Muslim alive, no Jewish Temple will be built on Al-Haram Al-Sharif [the Temple Mount]. The status quo must be maintained, otherwise there will be bloodshed."

In contrast, Baruch Ben-Yosef, chairman of the Movement to Restore the Temple, made it clear that the Temple had to be built where the Dome of the Rock presently stands.

"Anybody who says anything else simply does not know what he is talking about," he said. "A prophet does not have the power to change the law which explicitly states the location of the Temple."

Ben-Yosef also rejected the idea that rebuilding of the Temple had to be done by a prophet.

"All you need is a Sanhedrin," he said.

These are some very interesting words. I find it also interesting all the talk now of "a prophet" that would make some official declaration. Both the Jews and Muslims are looking for a person to tell them what to do about the Temple Mount. Can you say "false prophet"?

And we have the article about the Ark, which its claimed has been in Axum Ethiopia, being announced any day in Rome, of all places. I've felt for years that the biggest key to the temple is the ark issue. It's THE most important part of temple worship, and I can't see a temple without it, or one they claim is real. Wouldn't that be an abomination? A fake ark in the Holy of Holies!

If the Roman Catholic Church and Israel announce the Ark, I don't see how a new temple could be refused. Some kind of deal no doubt would be made, and we know what deal that most likely would be!

[Kilika]

Exactly. By Levitical law, temple worship is not legal without the Ark. Technically, Jews have been violating their own religion ever since the veil was rent, and especially from 70ad when the temple was destroyed. That's according to the law. We know we are no longer under the law, but grace, yet Jews not only have rejected the Messiah, but aren't even worshipping their own religion correctly without the temple.

It is interesting that there is talk of some prophet. Indeed, I suspect that leads to the False Prophet, who'll be the one to promote the Antichrist.

A fake ark would qualify in my mind as an abomination. Then you have the Antichrist declare himself god in the Holy of Holies. For all of that to take place, I'm not seeing how a third temple wouldn't be built.

They also have to have the proper builders of the correct tribes, as well as the correct tribes for the temple service. There may be builders that are Freeemasons, but I dont' see Masons building it., not openly. Of course that would be an abomination as well if the builders are not of the correct tribes. It would violate the law and taint the temple, if we were still under the law.

If they produce an ark, I agree the roar for a new temple would be defening.

[Evadinggrid]

The Ark is kept in Ethiopa, its not displayed to the public.

Officialy its location is in Axum, and called "Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion", where the Ethiopain Emperors was tradditionaly crowned.

Here is what Wiki says, note racist whites, humanists etc... are in total denial. Its straight out of the Old Testament and goes back to King Solomon. While many dismiss this, if you actually dig deeper its a highlky credible account. Although its doubtful the Ark is inside Axum, its more likely to be kept under lock and key some were else... And no, they ain'nt gonna tell nobody, and they don't feel any modern need to prove anything to secular white men.

Ark of the Covenant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion

St. Mary of Zion claims to contain the original Ark of the Covenant. According to tradition, the Ark came to Ethiopia with Menelik I after visiting his father King Solomon. Only the guardian monk may view the Ark[1], in accordance with the Bible accounts of the dangers of doing so for non-Kohanim. This lack of accessibility, and questions about the account as a whole, has led foreign scholars to express doubt about the veracity of the claim. The guardian monk is appointed for life by his predecessor before the predecessor dies. If the incumbent guardian dies without naming a successor, then the monks of the monastery hold an election to select the new guardian. The guardian then is confined to the chapel of the Ark of the Covenant for the rest of his life, praying before it and offering incense. Agreeing with ancient sources about a magnificent light emitted from the Ark, the History Channel in a 2008 special claimed that many of the guardian monks have died in short time, mostly with cataracts having formed in their eyes.[2]


Of course they have to try to debunk the notion that somebody could actualy be desceneded from King Solomon, remember some want to describe King David as a myth as opposed to actual history.

Menelik I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menelik_I

Menelik I (originally named Ebna la-Hakim, Arabic: Ibn Al-Hakim, "Son of the Wise"), first Jewish Emperor of Ethiopia, is traditionally believed to be the son of King Solomon of ancient Israel and Makeda, Queen of Sheba.[1] He ruled around 950 BC, according to traditional sources.[2][3] Tradition credits him with bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Ethiopia, following a visit to Jerusalem to meet his father upon reaching adulthood. According to the Kebra Nagast, King Solomon had intended on sending one son of each of his nobles and one son each of each temple priest with Menelik upon his return to his mother's kingdom. He is supposed to have had a replica made of the Ark for them to take with them. Upon the death of Queen Makeda, Menelik assumed the throne with the new title of Emperor and King of Kings of Ethiopia.

According to legend, he founded the Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia that ruled Ethiopia with few interruptions for close to three thousand years (and 225 generations later ended with the fall of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974). However, the medieval incarnation of the Solomonic dynasty didn't come into power until 1270, claiming descent from the Kings of Aksûm, while their predecessors, the Zagwe dynasty, were said to not be of "the house of Israel" (i.e. of Solomon and Menelik). The claims of descent of the Aksûmite Kings preceding the Zagwe dynasty are uncertain, though early pagan inscription denote the King as "son of the unconquerable [god] Mahrem" (translated in Greek as Ares), while medieval Ethiopian sources ascribe them a similar claim of descent. This is consistent with the earliest records that testify that one half of Ethiopians followed the laws of Moses, while the other half worshipped pagan gods.

I sincerly doubt they would ever let the real Ark leave Ethiopa, and please note that the evil ones having been trying to recover it since the days of the Knights Templar . . . There motives being less than pure there efforts have failed.

[existenchristau]

So whats your own personal view on the matter then Dok do you think the temple is meant to be literally rebuilt or merely a spiritual metaphor.
 Personally I am  amillennnialists so i dont believe that the temple is suppose to be literally rebuilt nor do i believe in any rapture!. I believe premill christians think the temple should be rebuilt  because they have been fooled into thinking the false messish or maitreya whom will also sit in the temple is actually Christ this is where i think many christian premill believers are going to be fooled into accepting the maitreya as Christ!.Also keep in mind that Lucifer is suppose to be the Light bringer as many christians seem to associate light with Good and Darkness with evil i can see many christians falling for the idea that lucifer/maitreya being Christ on his second return mistakenly as more and more feasible.

[Mark]

So whats your own personal view on the matter then Dok do you think the temple is meant to be literally rebuilt or merely a spiritual metaphor.
 Personally I am  amillennnialists so i dont believe that the temple is suppose to be literally rebuilt nor do i believe in any rapture!. I believe premill christians think the temple should be rebuilt  because they have been fooled into thinking the false messish or maitreya whom will also sit in the temple is actually Christ this is where i think many christian premill believers are going to be fooled into accepting the maitreya as Christ!.Also keep in mind that Lucifer is suppose to be the Light bringer as many christians seem to associate light with Good and Darkness with evil i can see many christians falling for the idea that lucifer/maitreya being Christ on his second return mistakenly as more and more feasible.

Personally and Biblically, i believe a new Temple will be built, and sacrifices will continue anew. You cannot have the abomination that causes desolation without a Temple. Jesus spoke of it as future, John wrote it was still future. It hasnet happened yet. And in order for it to happen you have to have a Temple.

I do agree with you that many Christians will be fooled by the coming end times deceptions that are about to take place. You can already see them starting. And it is God that allows the deception, that is why we have to be knowledgeable about what is to soon take place, and how the enemy will pull it off. You are also forgeting how the Queen of Heaven will play a major part in the end times scenario.