I noticed you’re literally providing additional commentary without addressing any of the textual points I made. Mind you completely changing the text - nowhere does it say “guardians”, while I supplied the exact Hebrew words that the text was translated from.
You didn’t supply any text/scripture references.
I’m well aware of the narrative.
I’m discussing what the text actually says.
There’s a big difference.
I was building on what you already provided. I'm working from memory on the go and I don't have an agenda.
The way you presented the biblical text was fine in the first half, but you took a jump in the second half and created distinctions which aren't there.
The temples in the old testament had a purpose while the people worshipped in keeping with the Torah. The temple culture became corrupt over time but at inception it was holy, both first and second. The glory of God overflowed it to show he was not contained by it, but still it was the place (the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant) where God met man on ground made holy by blood.
The temples were destroyed when the nation rejected God and turned to idols, just like the other nations were doing. First the presence left, then the infrastructure was destroyed. First temple by Nebuchadnezzar, (ironically king of Babylon... from where Abram was called out). The second temple by Rome, after Jesus presented his body (and by extension the church) as the new temple. The second temple was called "my father's house" by jesus who quoted a psalm about prayer for all nations. Jesus fulfilled Malachi by coming suddenly to his temple and not being recognised. But his vindication as the prophet of Deuteronomy was that he prophesied the temple's destruction as he displaced it. The nation rejected jesus and clung to the temple, that's when it became a target for divine demolition.
For that reason, the so-called third temple is out of sequence, it will be the base for antichrist and have nothing to do with the worship of God... but because the true Third Temple is already here, not because all three temples are evil (just the masonic rothschild one that will be raised up maybe in our lifetime).
That's what I mean by missing the point. You start with a good basis then make a hard turn and make distinctions that aren't there. You're trying to show that YHWH isn't the Father, and that he might actually be evil. This is luciferian doctrine and nothing new, but it is unusual to see someone presenting as a committed Christian arguing this line. I have replied three times now to your notes, challenging if you're heading down the right road with this false distinction or whether perhaps you're into blasphemy territory albeit with good intention. I'm not here to argue indefinitely, three times is sufficient.
God bless 😇
