Unreported News, Commentary, Resources and Discussion of Bible Prophecy
Pretzelogical wrote:Hi Abiding!
Idol of Jealousy
Idol worship is the same as worshiping Satan.
...the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the north gate of the inner court, where the seat of the idol of jealousy, which provokes to jealousy, was located.
And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, like the appearance which I saw in the plain.
Then He said to me, "Son of man, raise your eyes now toward the north " So I raised my eyes toward the north, and behold, to the north of the altar gate was this idol of jealousy at the entrance.
The chapter goes on and on and on about every abominable thing being worshiped by the elders of Jerusalem and the women of the temple. If that is not Satan, then what is? -and then, what would be the point of the chapter if it is not about Satan being worshiped in the house of God? This is a very straight-forward passage. Creepy as all get-out! Very easy to see it is Satan.
What is it you see there?
Daniel said nothing about ending sacrifices with the AOD.
Daniel wrote of the end of sacrifices as part of THE covenant which speaks of Christ's blood.
Armies are what Daniel writes about the AOD. And that is how Luke records Jesus' words too.
Am I saying anyting about the word that is not true? If so, please love me enough to rebuke me so that I will not be deceived!
Orange mailman, Pretz, Walrus: I must intervene and say that what is being missed is the fact that the antichrist is doing things that amount to something else. Let me explain. Sometimes we say something while speaking publickly that are rediculous.It is at this moment that someone in the audience says, "he is making an a-- out of himself!" They do not really mean that the speaker has become such an animal, the term is just descriptive.
If this tension is present, than wouldn't Jesus be prophesying of an abomination of desolation at a temple like the one that He prophesied would be destroyed? Certainly the temple would be destroyed, but future generations could still expect an "abomination of desolation" on par with Daniel's prophecies to occur in that exact fashion, at a physical temple. There was no need for Jesus to give a time linear discourse, which may have proved counterproductive to those which heard Him speak of the destruction of the temple but were not believers. That first century which heard Him speak needed to know that He was a prophet of God, and that by their rejection of Him they were bringing judgement upon themselves.
So in leaving the destruction and rebuilding of the temple out of the details, and simply pointing to the abomination of desolation, Jesus could speak apocalyptically, cryptically, but yet be understood by those who knew the prophecies. It would just be out of the understanding of those who were not His true followers. They would have no need to understand that the destruction of the temple would occur, but it would later be rebuilt. They needed to understand the judgement of God and that's why Jesus remained silent about any rebuilding.
Pretzelogical wrote:According to scripture the holy city is the bride of Christ, which is the church:
Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper.
Understanding the church as the holy city, gives meaning to the "great city" against her.
Otherwise, how are buildings now married to the Lamb, instead of us, his bride married to Him? Scripture says we are the temple of God, living stones, pillars, etc. What do you do with those verses when the above verses say the holy city is the bride and wife that comes down out of heaven with the Lamb just as other verses say the saints will do?
Luke 21 is the Temple Discourse while Matthew 24 and Mark 13 contain the Olivet Discourse. They are two separate utterances by the LORD Jesus. So to say that Luke speaks of the abomination of desolation in terms of armies is just not the case.
lambslave wrote:Ken, you are doing some good work. Keep it up. LS
plalgum wrote:The thing is, such a party would have been laughed out of the water a year ago,but now people are begining to take it seriously.After what you stated about a christian type antichrist, this could be a way of it coming about.what says ye.
The Orange Mailman wrote:
You see, there are passages which are to be interpreted symbolically because it is clear that they were meant to be symbolic. Then there are other passages which were meant to be taken literally. When Jesus spoke of the destruction of a literal temple, He was not speaking figuratively. When He spoke about the abomination of desolation, He was referencing Daniel who had prophesied of an abomination at the physical temple which would lead to a desolation at the physical temple.
lambslave wrote:OxBob, Walrus, O.M., Pretz, K.A., et al...What would you think if we had just one day of the year that we took time out to just praise God, and bless eeach other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We necessarily spend a lot of time contending for a position--it might be really a refreshing experience to worship together as one. I hope I haven't 0verstepped myself here. Lambslave.
And my reply is:
There is every reason to believe that Jesus means the temple, the place where God's spirit dwells, the body of Christ. Once a building. Now a people--the church. Acts 2,-Eph 2, 1Cor 13, 1 Peter 2, etc! The AofD will be an attack against the church.LS
The Orange Mailman wrote:You believe that Jesus was speaking of the church being torn down, is that correct?
The Orange Mailman wrote:So Lambslave, you concede that Jesus spoke of the physical temple, but you maintain that the abomination of desolation in a discourse which concerns the physical temple could not be about the physical temple? Is that correct?
Generally, when a prophet revealed events that would take place beyond the lifetimes of the people he was speaking to, the Lord in this case, or prophets in other cases, often provided a short term partial fulfillment to validate the distant prophecy. This is because He had told the people that if what a prophet said didn't come true, then the people were not to fear him, for he hadn't spoken for the Lord. Deut 18:21-22
While Matthew's ends with the 2nd Coming and is world wide in its focus, Luke's describes the Jewish diaspora and the ensuing control the city by the Gentiles. In short Luke's account has so far been confined to describing events concerning the fall of Jerusalem. He was describing the short term partial fulfillment within the lifetimes of the Lord's audience that validates the total fulfillment at the End of the Age. While I do agree, there are possible future fulfilments to this prophecy,
people must come to terms that what had happened in the ending years of the eartphly Jewish religious system, will be mirrored, or fulfilled in the same typed manner it did for the early Christian church living under the aposate Jewish system, in that the church will become so corrupt once again, that it will accept one/group of religious leader(s) representing Christ falsely and lead many astray, and those that remain faithful such as the disciple and early church apostles, will be persecuted in may ways, mostly as we see in Revelation, is beheading.
Orange, What I think you are missing here is the replacement, or renewal of the covenant, and how it affected the imagery and symbolism of the temple from Old Testament to New Testament. What saints prophesied about the temple(s) in the OT, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the church.
The Orange Mailman wrote:As far as replacement theology, you would have to prove your point because the church did not replace Israel. That's all for now.
to just praise God, and bless eeach other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
The AofD will be an attack against the church.LS
How can you make the distinction?
Because scripture makes that distinction.
But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
It is called an Object Lesson. Jesus used whatever objects were at hand and understood by all to make comparisons to spiritual truths. The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, a pearl of great price...
*See this temple? Let me tell you about a spritual temple, my body. Do you not know you are the body, the temple! You are a living sacrifice. You are poured out like a drink offering. Offer up a sacrifice of praise. Do good works as a spiritual sacrifice, because you are the temple now. Worship in spirit and in truth.*
We are dealing with the same guy in both passages Daniel 11:36 and 2Thess 2:4. In neither place does he build or go into a temple.
Daniel 8:11 says, "the place of His saanctuary was thrown down" it does not say temple as such.
Who is the host of the holy place that is trampled by the transgression that causes horror (abomination of desolation)?
The Orange Mailman wrote:Hi Wall Doctor-
My apologies for the misunderstanding. Walrus used the word "replacement."
The Orange Mailman wrote:But I believe there are different strands within Covenant Theology as well.
The Orange Mailman wrote:Some affirm the future state of the physical nation of Israel, some do not.
The Orange Mailman wrote:My position is officially Historic Pre-Millennialism."
The Orange Mailman wrote:There must be continuity between Israel and the church, although they remain different as far as entities go. Gentiles are saved without having to become Israelites as Acts 15 shows. But the book of Romans affirms a future place for the nation of Israel, Romans 11. The kingdom pictures Gentiles being saved alongside the nation of Israel, see Romans 15:8-12. And Paul believes that there is much value in circumcision, Romans 3:1-2, which is actually a synonym for being a physical Israelite.
The Orange Mailman wrote:But the church is the entity through which God will work throughout all ages, Ephesians 3:21. So I have concluded that when Israel comes to repentance as a nation, that the nation of Israel will actually enter the church. So I see continuity at the second coming as well. I don't see God being done with the church as we enter the Messianic Age.
The Orange Mailman wrote:We as believers in Messiah have repented in advance of the judgement that will immediately precede His earthly rule. We submit to His kingdom rule now, even though the physical aspect of it remains in the future. We show non-believers what the kingdom will look like by acting out His ways in the present. It's the Presence of the Future.
The Orange Mailman wrote:I've come up with a name for my own position. I ascribe to Messianic Kingdom theology.
IamtheWalrus wrote:Is the Woman on the beast the Sovereign Jewish entity, or is it the Christian?
Both are guilty of spiritual genocide, both have the blood of God's ordained on their hands.
This is a big area where I still struggle in throwing off my CT background. I am not saying that Israel as a nation isn't important, but what I am saying is that I've never been able to see it provable from Romans 11. Romans 11 seems to me to be talking about spiritual restoration and not national restoration. Even in Romans 3:9 it says, "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin." To me, the entire context is this idea that God has made a level playing field spiritually and that he calls his Elect out of both jews and gentiles. The advantage spoken of in Romans 3:1-2 is not that they were a nation (which was an advantage) but that they had the oracles of God.
We are to be faithful citizens awaiting our King to take back his territory which has been temporarily relinquished to the enemy.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest”