I almost stopped there on my motorcycle ride through there this summer, but I was 99% sure my bike would be gone by the time I got out of there.

It's ok OP, now that they have finally decided how to pronounce "temple" versus "synagogue" like it had a -ma- in the middle pronounced to-MAH-to rather than to-MAY-to LOL, at least they didn't blur the answer to the third temple. At least I don't think.

One of the reasons you might have questions is there's some um, "repetition" in the Scriptures. Almost like the Good Lord thought we was all deaf. Or stupid or something, LOL. I've taken the liberty of finding a secular but funny comedic interlude to illustrate why our Lord felt it necessary to repeatedly send prohpets forward into the gap with the same messages, apparently, over and over.

The "good part" starts around 3:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dpMwXueD8Q

Because we don't listen is an understatement.

So anyway. You want to know how the movie ends, right? Go all the way to the back of "the Book" get a peek at the ending, right? Sorry to disappoint you my friend, don't hardly work that way. You'll just have to come along for the ride with the rest of us. You'll have to provide your own snacks of course, and no, you can't borrow my hankie.

One problem I've seen is some take certain passages out of context. Sometimes that "works" and other times, that verse is the middle part or the end(s) of something larger. Verses make up chapters, chapters make up a particular book. I like to think of the Old Testament as a history lesson and the New Testament as not only that, but more of a glimpse of what is to come. Almost a warning in some places. The Gospels in the New Testament weren't just written by the Apostles. Acts was written by John Mark = St Mark, not John the Apostle. Acts was written by Luke who was a physician friend of Paul. Leastways, that's what I read about that in some other book.

The Bible is a compilation of writings by many different people. The repetition mentioned above was in addition to those first hand accounts of say, the events leading up to the Crucifixion. (If you haven't seen Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ with James Caviezel, you really should) The differing viewpoints I think, give the stories within depth.

One of my good friends recently sent me a thing on William Tyndale. He was burned at the stake in 1536 for believing in the forgiveness of sins and the mercy offered in the gospels was enough for salvation. Tyndale's early works was translating the scriptures into English and other languages. the King James version is mostly based on his works. It was King Henry the Eighth who later required every parish in England to make a copy of the English Bible available to its parishioners.

I use this website for some things
https://www.biblegateway.com/
It lists well over a hundred versions of "The Bible" and had a pretty good search tool to find specific verses/topics.
I've also been using Bing as a search engine, seems to be okay for this too.
It has occurred to me that one reason for some 'confusion' for lack of a better term, is how the Bible came to be. It wasn't just one but written by many different people at different times. Men who were as imperfect as we are. Then passed down through the ages, translated from one language to another where context and even words for things get blurred a bit...perhaps.

You are not alone OP, actually neither are the rest of you. We all have questions. I find comfort in the fact that they are the same questions I've been looking for answers to. God Bless, Y'all.

you should have man...they didn't steal my current gen Navigator L and I stayed the night.

The funny part is, you’ve been arguing with a Jew by blood. My Jewish great grandparents on my mother’s side came over from Germany in the 30’s. I have more than a passing interest in Judaism.

It’s been rather enjoyable listening to you flounder and nitpick telling me what my people do and do not do and how wrong you are.

Dude, you are completely wrong. On Saturday around the ENTIRE Jewish world going to worship is ALWAYS called going to temple. Nobody says we're going to synagogue. Like, literally no one.

Talk about confident ignorance- you are the prime example. You are taking what are clearly metaphors and turning them into literal, physical things, while simultaneously taking what are quite clearly literal things and turning them into metaphors.

You should act like George Castanza- whatever your instincts and understandings are, do the opposite.

Emm, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. They all still call it going to temple, the same way Christians would say we're going to church. Nobody says we're going to synagogue. I don't know where you people get your information, but it's obviously not from Jews.

If you can't see that in many of your examples the freaking name is "TEMPLE XYZ", then maybe it's time to reconsider how intelligent you assume you are. I just...just don't know what to say.

This is utterly false.

“Around the world” Jews do not uses the term “Temple”.

Again, that is mostly a term used by the Reform movement. Which is mostly modern and mostly American.

The vast majority of Ashkenazi Jews outside of the Us say “Shul”

Oy vey....

Very nice.

OP check out the Temple Mount Institute website. I'm no scholar but like keeping up with their work. As I understand it the Sanhedrin has been reconstituted, the Jews actually now have approved Red Heifers that I believe were bred in America. Also all the Temple instruments are ready and the Priesthood has a training program. Interesting time to be alive.

Must. Not. Post. Video.

That's just the yiddish word for school, which now is synonymous with going to temple. It's meaning is still temple in every sense of the word.

Since yididish didn't exist in the time of Christ, the point doesn't even matter to begin with.

But getting into other languages with this crowd is just way above the reading level.

Ok, to everyone making the frankly dumb argument about "synagogue" vs temple as if it has any bearing whatsoever...

I'll make this even clearer- IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER. The word synagogue is NEVER used in the Bible except in English, Greek, and modern translations. The only term is Hebrew beyt knesset, which means "house of assembly" or "hekyal" which means temple in Aramaic.


Re-read that part above. Now re-read it again since. Now again. Maybe after three times it will sink in.


The entire argument is not only wrong, it's a red herring (intentional or not, I'm guessing it's just plain ignorance on the part of people who brought it into the conversation).

Let's move on, because it really, really it a moot point with no bearing on the third temple argument.

Frankly the lack of basic etymological implications of "Christians" trying to make arguments using English translation is not very logical.

The issue is what people call it.

Your claim is false.

It doesn’t matter if people understand Yiddish. The term is still “Shul” for the Ashkanazi Orthodox the world over. Again, “Temple” is generally not a term used outside the US and in the US usually only by the Reform.