"And besides this reference, the New Testament clearly defined what this temple is, and at times it is also defined as the Christian:
It is the latter that confuses many since the context includes the entire frame of time from the inception of the church to Christ finally coming down to rule it. Until interpreters can fathom a heavenly temple, then they can expound. Ezekiel predicts Christ’s new order, which, unlike the old order, is permanent and so is the temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices are spiritually applied (1 Pet. 2:5) but this is in regards to actual substance."
I may consider giving my own comments on what the references that Shoebat gives above, but I will comment generally on the 4 he quotes. No Non-Catholic denies that the body of Christ is the temple of God, as I have pointed out, it is debatable whether or not the temple in Ezekiel is a literal temple, I am of the position that there is one. Let's say for arguments sake that the temple is a literal one, Christ being the temple now would not refute the concept of a literal temple in the Millennial Reign.
An acknowledgement of a future literal temple is not a repudiation of Christ's body of the temple if you take into consideration the Millennial Reign, not in the sense of a-millenial, but in the sense of pre-millenial. I am not contentious with my a-millenial brothers in Christ just to clarify.
"It is for this reason, that the mystery of Communion is also the literal presence of Christ. There is no escape, since even the temple had the Shekinah Glory of God literally residing in the temple, in the tabernacle, upon the ark of the covenant, and so will this be through communion which without this “grain offering” we have “an abomination of desolation” as Daniel said and is why the devil hates the Eucharist and has many virgins without oil follow a lie."
Eucharistic Transubstantiation is not a grain offering in the slightest, the Eucharist wasn't even there in the days of Daniel, Moreover, the 10 virgins were not prepared for Christ's coming and got very lax in their service, hence why they are shut out.
See my comments on Joel regarding the grain and drink offerings: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-abomination-of-desolation-response_20.html
"The old tabernacle, or any earthly tabernacle for that matter, can never be established since it was a type and shadow of “heavenly things” as described in Hebrews 8 which settles the issue for it needs no explanation:
What “will soon disappear” means what it says, it will go away, never to re-appear again, no matter who tries and is why Israel today has no temple since its destruction in 70AD. These modern interpretations will cause many to miss the Antichrist and like the virgins without oil, they are caught off guard when the Bridegroom commeth to defeat him. Everything in these false interpretations is setting up the lazy servant and the five virgins with no oil to fall. This is why apostolic-succession churches like Orthodox Russia to these become “Gog and Magog” and is why the (Catholic) is made “harlot” and “Antichrist”; where the “seven mountains” are literal mountains in Vatican instead of being Muslim kingdoms. This is why, the real Gog and Magog (literal Turkey), is given a clean bill as an “ally of the U.S”. This is why wine is symbolized and grape juice is consumed instead. This is why sacrifice is undermined and works is frowned upon, and Christ’s sacrifice is sold for non-sacrificial easy believism; there is where we find a definite segregation between the lazy and the prudent, the virgins with oil and without, the sheep from the goats. It all makes perfect sense. It is a crucial question as to why so many err and always allegorize literals and literalize allegories where at times evil is made holy and holy is made evil."
Completely missing the fact that once again, the temple's nature in Ezekiel is debatable, The big question is, do your points withstand scrutiny? Why assert you understand end times with such confidence?
And what do you mean by Easy Believism? Biblical Protestants do not accept easy believism as a viable option. Are you trying to imply that some how Protestants and other non Catholic groups hold to an easy believism?
For that matter, The destruction of the temple fits in with what Jesus said in the chapters where he mentions the abomination of desolation.
See my paper on Daniel 9 for my comments on that passage: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-daniel.html
"The gist of the Book of Hebrews is regarding the temple which is this new covenant, the covenant with the church, both Jew and Gentile, and will eventually include the whole house of Israel upon Christ’s return as Ezekiel covers in his theme from beginning to end. He was speaking of the church including the end of days and the coming of the Lord. There can never be another covenant with the house of Israel; does God make null and void the new covenant? Impossible. "
Putting aside who the covenant was made with as I feel that is a different topic, how does the Book of Hebrews refute a literal temple in the context of Ezekiel? We'll see if the Lord Wills in the next part.