[part 6]

look.. reading what you said..

An ordinary person bulldozing the Dome of the Rock causes World War III.

No.. cause I already explained that earlier.. how you go to these muslim guys.. you go.. your origins are from the jewish bible, the old testament.. and they were there first. You build your fuckin gold dome shit in the year 600.. and no.. you gotta go off what their prophecy stuff says, which is, the third temple has to be rebuilt, therefore, to be able to do that, we gotta bulldoze your fuckin gold dome outta here. And they'll be "chill" about it, because it's in their quran.. you know what I mean.. so there won't be no fuckin world war 3 about this bulldozing the gold dome because it'll be them doing it themselves to just clear the damn pad.

I see that you are firmly committed to the belief that the explanation about shared Abrahamic origins and chronological precedence will convince the Muslim world to willingly dismantle the Dome of the Rock.

You are certain that the argument—"The Third Temple prophecy is in the older scripture, and your origins are in that scripture, so you must comply"—will lead to a peaceful, voluntary demolition by the Muslim authorities themselves.

However, as a point of fact based on all historical and religious reality, this argument does not appear in the Qur'an and is not the operational or political reality of the situation.

Here is the final, absolute clarification on why this specific scenario leads to war, not compliance:

The Status Quo: The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are considered the third-holiest sites in Islam, regardless of their date of construction (7th century CE) or the older Jewish temples. The sanctity is derived from the Prophet Muhammad's night journey, as recorded in Islamic tradition.

The Missing Text: There is no verse in the Qur'an or major Islamic tradition that commands Muslims to facilitate the building of the Third Jewish Temple by clearing their own sacred structures. The scriptural and prophetic requirement for the Third Temple is solely a Jewish one.

The Red Line: For the Muslim world, the demolition of their third-holiest site is seen as an attack on Islam itself. The political body responsible for the site (the Jordanian Waqf) and Muslim nations worldwide have stated that any such attempt would be met with armed resistance and is an absolute red line.

The Result: If you, or a leader, were to present this "explanation" to the authorities, they would simply refuse. If any bulldozer or military force then attempted the demolition, it would instantly be interpreted as an invasion and an act of extreme religious hostility, immediately triggering the global conflict—World War III—that the Messiah is specifically meant to prevent.

Therefore, while your logical sequence of explanation is clear, it relies on the unverified premise that Islamic religious and political leaders will interpret their own faith as requiring the destruction of their holy site for the sake of a rival faith's prophecy. This premise is contrary to all modern religious and geopolitical fact.

no I don't think so.. we're gonna figure this shit out.. based on what the jewish bible says.. and the fuckin quran was only started in what... the year 600.. with mohammed getting the download from the angel gabriel. You've got some stuff in there that's from the jewish bible, ok.. they'll understand. Cause they were there first, the jewish guys.. you know what I mean? We'll talk to those muslim and jewish guys about all this. There won't be no fuckin war, ok.. cause it's "abrahamic" all this stuff origins.. lol

I fully grasp the historical point you are stressing: that the Jewish tradition and the prophecies regarding the Temple predate the rise of Islam and the construction of the Dome of the Rock.

You are betting on the shared foundation of the "Abrahamic" religions to serve as the basis for a peaceful negotiation.

However, when discussing these extremely sensitive holy sites, the modern reality of religious identity and political control overrides arguments based purely on historical chronology.

Here is why, from a factual standpoint, your scenario of avoiding war is impossible under current conditions:

Dating the Scriptures: You are correct that the Jewish Tanakh (and its prophecies) was codified centuries before the Qur'an, which began to be revealed to Muhammad around 610 CE.

The Problem of Interpretation: While Islam accepts the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, it views the Qur'an as the final, perfect, and superseding revelation from God. They do not interpret the older Jewish prophecies (like the Third Temple) as a command for them to destroy their own holy sites.

The Dome of the Rock's Status: The structure was completed in 691 CE. It is sacred to Muslims because of the Isra and Mi'raj (Night Journey) and the history of Muslim sovereignty over the area. It is not viewed as a temporary structure; it is considered a permanent, irreplaceable Islamic monument.

The Absolute Red Line: The political custodians (Jordan and the Waqf) and Muslim nations have consistently stated that any attempt to remove the Dome of the Rock is an act of war, regardless of the historical arguments. To them, the "Abrahamic origin" argument does not justify the destruction of the third-holiest site of Islam.

In the context of the Jewish Messiah's prophecy, the entire scenario is defined by this outcome:

If the action causes war: The person who ordered it is not the Messiah, as they failed to bring about the era of peace.

If the action is peaceful: The person who achieved it is the Messiah, because they succeeded at the impossible political task.

The only way for your "figure it out" plan to avoid a global conflict is if your explanation carries a form of authority—a moral, spiritual, or political power—that is so overwhelming it compels all parties to willingly and peacefully comply. In traditional Jewish thought, that level of unique, world-altering authority is precisely what is attributed only to the Messiah himself.

they'll be chill about it, man.. ok.. trust me

I recognize that you have a firm belief that a diplomatic explanation based on historical and Abrahamic origins would result in a peaceful resolution where Muslim authorities would willingly dismantle the Dome of the Rock. You are convinced they would "be chill about it."

However, because this conversation is about providing information grounded in the geopolitical and religious facts surrounding one of the world's most volatile sites, I cannot affirm that your scenario would avoid a violent conflict.

For the purpose of continuing the discussion on the Jewish Messiah's role, the critical point is this:

The Success is the Proof:

In traditional Jewish prophecy, the true sign of the Messiah's unique and necessary authority is his ability to accomplish the rebuilding of the Temple without causing global war.

The prophecy doesn't just list tasks; it sets an impossible standard. The difficulty in persuading the Muslim world is the very reason why the Messiah is deemed necessary. If any ordinary human could simply talk their way into it, there would be no need for a prophetic figure.

We can proceed with the understanding that for the Jewish Messiah to be real, he must succeed at this step where all current logic dictates catastrophic failure.

[continued in part 7]

[part 6]

look.. reading what you said..

An ordinary person bulldozing the Dome of the Rock causes World War III.

No.. cause I already explained that earlier.. how you go to these muslim guys.. you go.. your origins are from the jewish bible, the old testament.. and they were there first. You build your fuckin gold dome shit in the year 600.. and no.. you gotta go off what their prophecy stuff says, which is, the third temple has to be rebuilt, therefore, to be able to do that, we gotta bulldoze your fuckin gold dome outta here. And they'll be "chill" about it, because it's in their quran.. you know what I mean.. so there won't be no fuckin world war 3 about this bulldozing the gold dome because it'll be them doing it themselves to just clear the damn pad.

I see that you are firmly committed to the belief that the explanation about shared Abrahamic origins and chronological precedence will convince the Muslim world to willingly dismantle the Dome of the Rock.

You are certain that the argument—"The Third Temple prophecy is in the older scripture, and your origins are in that scripture, so you must comply"—will lead to a peaceful, voluntary demolition by the Muslim authorities themselves.

However, as a point of fact based on all historical and religious reality, this argument does not appear in the Qur'an and is not the operational or political reality of the situation.

Here is the final, absolute clarification on why this specific scenario leads to war, not compliance:

The Status Quo: The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are considered the third-holiest sites in Islam, regardless of their date of construction (7th century CE) or the older Jewish temples. The sanctity is derived from the Prophet Muhammad's night journey, as recorded in Islamic tradition.

The Missing Text: There is no verse in the Qur'an or major Islamic tradition that commands Muslims to facilitate the building of the Third Jewish Temple by clearing their own sacred structures. The scriptural and prophetic requirement for the Third Temple is solely a Jewish one.

The Red Line: For the Muslim world, the demolition of their third-holiest site is seen as an attack on Islam itself. The political body responsible for the site (the Jordanian Waqf) and Muslim nations worldwide have stated that any such attempt would be met with armed resistance and is an absolute red line.

The Result: If you, or a leader, were to present this "explanation" to the authorities, they would simply refuse. If any bulldozer or military force then attempted the demolition, it would instantly be interpreted as an invasion and an act of extreme religious hostility, immediately triggering the global conflict—World War III—that the Messiah is specifically meant to prevent.

Therefore, while your logical sequence of explanation is clear, it relies on the unverified premise that Islamic religious and political leaders will interpret their own faith as requiring the destruction of their holy site for the sake of a rival faith's prophecy. This premise is contrary to all modern religious and geopolitical fact.

no I don't think so.. we're gonna figure this shit out.. based on what the jewish bible says.. and the fuckin quran was only started in what... the year 600.. with mohammed getting the download from the angel gabriel. You've got some stuff in there that's from the jewish bible, ok.. they'll understand. Cause they were there first, the jewish guys.. you know what I mean? We'll talk to those muslim and jewish guys about all this. There won't be no fuckin war, ok.. cause it's "abrahamic" all this stuff origins.. lol

I fully grasp the historical point you are stressing: that the Jewish tradition and the prophecies regarding the Temple predate the rise of Islam and the construction of the Dome of the Rock.

You are betting on the shared foundation of the "Abrahamic" religions to serve as the basis for a peaceful negotiation.

However, when discussing these extremely sensitive holy sites, the modern reality of religious identity and political control overrides arguments based purely on historical chronology.

Here is why, from a factual standpoint, your scenario of avoiding war is impossible under current conditions:

Dating the Scriptures: You are correct that the Jewish Tanakh (and its prophecies) was codified centuries before the Qur'an, which began to be revealed to Muhammad around 610 CE.

The Problem of Interpretation: While Islam accepts the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, it views the Qur'an as the final, perfect, and superseding revelation from God. They do not interpret the older Jewish prophecies (like the Third Temple) as a command for them to destroy their own holy sites.

The Dome of the Rock's Status: The structure was completed in 691 CE. It is sacred to Muslims because of the Isra and Mi'raj (Night Journey) and the history of Muslim sovereignty over the area. It is not viewed as a temporary structure; it is considered a permanent, irreplaceable Islamic monument.

The Absolute Red Line: The political custodians (Jordan and the Waqf) and Muslim nations have consistently stated that any attempt to remove the Dome of the Rock is an act of war, regardless of the historical arguments. To them, the "Abrahamic origin" argument does not justify the destruction of the third-holiest site of Islam.

In the context of the Jewish Messiah's prophecy, the entire scenario is defined by this outcome:

If the action causes war: The person who ordered it is not the Messiah, as they failed to bring about the era of peace.

If the action is peaceful: The person who achieved it is the Messiah, because they succeeded at the impossible political task.

The only way for your "figure it out" plan to avoid a global conflict is if your explanation carries a form of authority—a moral, spiritual, or political power—that is so overwhelming it compels all parties to willingly and peacefully comply. In traditional Jewish thought, that level of unique, world-altering authority is precisely what is attributed only to the Messiah himself.

they'll be chill about it, man.. ok.. trust me

I recognize that you have a firm belief that a diplomatic explanation based on historical and Abrahamic origins would result in a peaceful resolution where Muslim authorities would willingly dismantle the Dome of the Rock. You are convinced they would "be chill about it."

However, because this conversation is about providing information grounded in the geopolitical and religious facts surrounding one of the world's most volatile sites, I cannot affirm that your scenario would avoid a violent conflict.

For the purpose of continuing the discussion on the Jewish Messiah's role, the critical point is this:

The Success is the Proof:

In traditional Jewish prophecy, the true sign of the Messiah's unique and necessary authority is his ability to accomplish the rebuilding of the Temple without causing global war.

The prophecy doesn't just list tasks; it sets an impossible standard. The difficulty in persuading the Muslim world is the very reason why the Messiah is deemed necessary. If any ordinary human could simply talk their way into it, there would be no need for a prophetic figure.

We can proceed with the understanding that for the Jewish Messiah to be real, he must succeed at this step where all current logic dictates catastrophic failure.

[lol.. end of conversation for now.. lol]