What is "This Generation?" [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

whirlwind

02-06-2011, 07:58 AM

Twospirits

02-06-2011, 11:21 AM

Whirlwind wrote,

Matthew 24:32-35 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.

Hi Whirlwind, question, how do you see the Olivet Discourse played out?

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

02-06-2011, 12:08 PM

The phrase, "this generation," is tossed back and forth between preterist and futurist. How did Christ explain what is meant?

Matthew 24:32-35 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.

He instructs us to....Learn a parable of the fig tree. That is the key to knowing who "this generation" is. Those of that generation will see all things spoken of in that chapter come to pass and...know that the end is very close. Among them are...the end of the world/age and the sign of His coming.

Where is the parable of the fig tree taught?

There are so many errors in this interpretation it seems best to list them by number:

1) There is no mention of any "tree" in the Parable of the Good and Bad Figs in Jeremiah! So right off the bat, you've got it wrong. Jeremiah teaches nothing about any "Parable of the Fig Tree." It is the "Parable of the Good and Bad Figs" which is an entirely different topic. Jesus said nothing about the quality of any figs in his parable.

2) The prophecy in Jeremiah 24 was given during the Babylonian exile and God's promise to return them to the land of Judah was fulfilled and recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This is the most common error amongst Futurists. They ignore the context, and hence, the meaning, of the prophecies that have been fulfilled. The really pathetic fact is that the text explicitly states this and yet the Futurists just ignore it as if we literally blind!
Jeremiah 24:5 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good. 6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up
The Lord God Almighty explicitly declared that he is talking about those sent into Babylon in the 6th century BC, and his promise was fulfilled when he raised up Cyrus and let the Jews return. Your application of this passage to the future is absurd in the extreme. It is false and misleading.

3) There is nothing in the "Parable of the Fig Tree" that suggests the meaning was contained in the kind of tree. Indeed, the parallel passage in Luke directly contradicts your interpretation because it speaks not only of a "fig" tree, but of "all trees."
Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Note also that there is no mention of any "parable of the fig tree."

The meaning of the parable is quite plain and obvious. Just as we know summer is near when trees (in general) begin to put forth leaves, so the first century Christians would know when the destruction of the Temple was near when the events Christ predicted began to happen.

4) There is nothing in the context of the "Parable of the Trees" that would change the meaning of "this generation" into something other than the meaning it has everywhere else in the NT, namely, the first century generation to whom Christ spoke. The attempt to force a false meaning onto these words is just another word game characteristic of all futurists who must deny what the Bible actually states in order for their theories to work. The Futurist arguments on this point are exceedingly weak, even by the low Futurist standards. See, for example, my article Refutation of "Ten Reasons 'This Generation' Doesn't Mean My First Century Audience (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1275).

5) You made another false application to future Israel when you highlighted the prophecy that says "and they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart." The NT confirms that this prophecy was indeed about Israel, specifically the faithful remnant of Israel who were the first members of the Church. It is fulfilled in the Church, the body of all believers:
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
There is only ONE "people of God."

Bottom Line: Your entire interpretation is fundamentally flawed on multiple points. It has no merit whatsoever.

All the best,

Richard

whirlwind

02-06-2011, 12:38 PM

Hi Whirlwind, question, how do you see the Olivet Discourse played out?

God bless---Twospirits

When the disciples asked about the end of the world....

Matthew 24:3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?

His first warning was....

24:4-5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Many come in His name, saying they are Christian...perhaps even belieivng they are. But they deceive many. Deception IS the great tribulation. He tells us there are wars, nations and kingdoms fighting, famine, earthquakes, etc. That is always part of this world...it is not a sign of the end but their increase is "the beginning of sorrows."

The part that pertains to us, showing us our destiny as His elect is....

24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for My name's sake.

That is NOW,TODAY....we are here speaking, teaching, writing for His name's sake. That is our destiny as part of the many "two witnesses." (two groups of witnesses). It is important to know that the affliction and killing is spiritual. Have some witnessing for Him been literally killed? Yes and more will but overall we wage a spiritual battle. The killing is figurative....as in being banned from a forum, thrown out of a church group, families laughing at your teaching, etc.

24:15-18 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

We are given to see, understand, certain things at certain times. I now see the above as....when we see/understand that the abomination is no more than false prophets standing among God's children, standing "in the holy place," then...get out of Dodge! Leave their deception behind.

His watchmen are "on the housetop" warning and they should not go back into their house to listen to anything being said. Rather...hear the Word of the Lord. And, we as His watchmen better be fully prepared...wearing our linen garments of righteousness because there will be no going back.

24:19-20 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

That refers to those impregnated with Satan's deception and nursing along his vile religion. The winter reference I believe is...not to be taken out of season, to wait and be His firstfruit properly matured. In other words, don't line up to be raptured away.

24:21-22 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The great tribulation is a time of great deception. The time has been shortened to the last five months of this age. It's gonn'a be a doozy. The only way to be kept from his "hour of temptation," is by knowing how it's going to happen. Knowing he'll be here in place of the Savior.

24:23-25 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before.

24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

And then....the wrath is spilled. The end of the age...as predicted when He sat on the mount of Olives looking toward the buildings of the temple.

Bless you too TwoSpirits. :)

.

whirlwind

02-06-2011, 01:02 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-06-2011, 01:08 PM

I'm truly sorry you don't see what is written...truly.

If it were "written" you would not need to constantly revert to word games and twisting and denial of what is written.

I know what sanity is. I know how to establish truth and falsehood. And I know that you are refusing to discuss things rationally because the Bible directly contradicts your Futurist speculations.

Very sad indeed.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-06-2011, 03:27 PM

5) You made another false application to future Israel when you highlighted the prophecy that says "and they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart." The NT confirms that this prophecy was indeed about Israel, specifically the faithful remnant of Israel who were the first members of the Church. It is fulfilled in the Church, the body of all believers:
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
There is only ONE "people of God."

Bottom Line: Your entire interpretation is fundamentally flawed on multiple points. It has no merit whatsoever.

All the best,

Richard
Again....truly sorry.

The thing I'm sorry about is that you reject what is written without any explanation or justification. The Bible clearly shows that those prophecies were fulfilled in the Church which began with the faithful remnant of Israel that believed in Messiah.

CWH

02-07-2011, 04:56 AM

There are so many errors in this interpretation it seems best to list them by number:

1) There is no mention of any "tree" in the Parable of the Good and Bad Figs in Jeremiah! So right off the bat, you've got it wrong. Jeremiah teaches nothing about any "Parable of the Fig Tree." It is the "Parable of the Good and Bad Figs" which is an entirely different topic. Jesus said nothing about the quality of any figs in his parable.

2) The prophecy in Jeremiah 24 was given during the Babylonian exile and God's promise to return them to the land of Judah was fulfilled and recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This is the most common error amongst Futurists. They ignore the context, and hence, the meaning, of the prophecies that have been fulfilled. The really pathetic fact is that the text explicitly states this and yet the Futurists just ignore it as if we literally blind!
Jeremiah 24:5 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good. 6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up
The Lord God Almighty explicitly declared that he is talking about those sent into Babylon in the 6th century BC, and his promise was fulfilled when he raised up Cyrus and let the Jews return. Your application of this passage to the future is absurd in the extreme. It is false and misleading.

3) There is nothing in the "Parable of the Fig Tree" that suggests the meaning was contained in the kind of tree. Indeed, the parallel passage in Luke directly contradicts your interpretation because it speaks not only of a "fig" tree, but of "all trees."
Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Note also that there is no mention of any "parable of the fig tree."

The meaning of the parable is quite plain and obvious. Just as we know summer is near when trees (in general) begin to put forth leaves, so the first century Christians would know when the destruction of the Temple was near when the events Christ predicted began to happen.

4) There is nothing in the context of the "Parable of the Trees" that would change the meaning of "this generation" into something other than the meaning it has everywhere else in the NT, namely, the first century generation to whom Christ spoke. The attempt to force a false meaning onto these words is just another word game characteristic of all futurists who must deny what the Bible actually states in order for their theories to work. The Futurist arguments on this point are exceedingly weak, even by the low Futurist standards. See, for example, my article Refutation of "Ten Reasons 'This Generation' Doesn't Mean My First Century Audience (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1275).

5) You made another false application to future Israel when you highlighted the prophecy that says "and they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart." The NT confirms that this prophecy was indeed about Israel, specifically the faithful remnant of Israel who were the first members of the Church. It is fulfilled in the Church, the body of all believers:
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
There is only ONE "people of God."

Bottom Line: Your entire interpretation is fundamentally flawed on multiple points. It has no merit whatsoever.

All the best,

Richard

Is the fig tree not Israel? and the figs not Jews? See for yourself:

The word "fig" is mentioned in the Scriptures sixty-four times. THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD-Jere 24:5. We see the word "figs," being used to represent the Jews that are carried away.

THE LORD SHOWED ME, AND, BEHOLD, TWO BASKETS OF FIGS...ONE BASKET HAD VERY GOOD FIGS, EVEN LIKE THE FIGS THAT ARE FIRST RIPE: AND THE OTHER BASKET HAD VERY NAUGHTY FIGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE EATEN, THEY WERE SO BAD. THEN SAID THE LORD UNTO ME, WHAT SEEST THOU, JEREMIAH? AND I SAID, FIGS; THE GOOD FIGS, VERY GOOD; AND THE EVIL, VERY EVIL, THAT CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL. AGAIN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME, SAYING, THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD. FOR I WILL SET MINE EYES UPON THEM FOR GOOD, AND I WILL BRING THEM AGAIN TO THIS LAND: AND I WILL BUILD THEM, AND NOT PULL THEM DOWN; AND I WILL PLANT THEM, AND NOT PLUCK THEM UP. AND I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW ME, THAT I AM THE LORD: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD: FOR THEY SHALL RETURN UNTO ME WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART. AND AS THE EVIL FIGS, WHICH CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL-Jere 24:1-8. The word "figs" is used here eight times denoting the Jews.

NOW IN THE MORNING AS HE RETURNED INTO THE CITY, HE HUNGERED. AND WHEN HE SAW A FIG TREE IN THE WAY, HE CAME TO IT, AND FOUND NOTHING THEREON, BUT LEAVES ONLY, AND SAID UNTO IT, LET NO FRUIT GROW ON THEE HENCEFORWARD FOR EVER. AND PRESENTLY THE FIG TREE WITHERED AWAY-Mt 21:18,19; ref Mk 11:12-14,20,21. The fig tree withered away, as it was producing no fruit. It may be noted that the word "fig" here represents Israel, and the word "tree" represents nation.

The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. Nevertheless, the nation of Israel was reborn and will fulfill God’s mission during the Tribulation.

See my post which I have discussed with Carrie a few months ago:

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Now, what does "fig tree" means? what does "twigs get tender and leaves come out" means? what does "summer is near" means? If you can understand what it means then, you will understand what "this generation" was He talking about.

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

The fig tree and all the trees represent the nation Israel and all the other countries. Now, Israel gain its independence in 1948 and there are many countries that gained their independence during those times after WW2. This is the period in which people began to realize the fallability of the colonial powers and they fought to gain their independence....India, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. Please see the long list of nations that gain indepedence after WW2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...f_independence

Many Blessings to all.

TheForgiven

02-07-2011, 09:10 AM

Is the fig tree not Israel? and the figs not Jews? See for yourself:

The word "fig" is mentioned in the Scriptures sixty-four times. THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD-Jere 24:5. We see the word "figs," being used to represent the Jews that are carried away.

Yes, using Jeremiah's context, the "Figs" represented the inhabitants of Israel who were "good" figs, being carried away; and this happened.

THE LORD SHOWED ME, AND, BEHOLD, TWO BASKETS OF FIGS...ONE BASKET HAD VERY GOOD FIGS, EVEN LIKE THE FIGS THAT ARE FIRST RIPE: AND THE OTHER BASKET HAD VERY NAUGHTY FIGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE EATEN, THEY WERE SO BAD. THEN SAID THE LORD UNTO ME, WHAT SEEST THOU, JEREMIAH? AND I SAID, FIGS; THE GOOD FIGS, VERY GOOD; AND THE EVIL, VERY EVIL, THAT CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL. AGAIN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME, SAYING, THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD. FOR I WILL SET MINE EYES UPON THEM FOR GOOD, AND I WILL BRING THEM AGAIN TO THIS LAND: AND I WILL BUILD THEM, AND NOT PULL THEM DOWN; AND I WILL PLANT THEM, AND NOT PLUCK THEM UP. AND I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW ME, THAT I AM THE LORD: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD: FOR THEY SHALL RETURN UNTO ME WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART. AND AS THE EVIL FIGS, WHICH CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL-Jere 24:1-8. The word "figs" is used here eight times denoting the Jews.

Notice how "figs" represented both the good and the bad of Israel. So both represented the "figs", yet one was good to the taste, and the other bad. But this does not support your interpretation of Matthew 24, "see the fig tree" and the "all the trees" per Luke's account.

NOW IN THE MORNING AS HE RETURNED INTO THE CITY, HE HUNGERED. AND WHEN HE SAW A FIG TREE IN THE WAY, HE CAME TO IT, AND FOUND NOTHING THEREON, BUT LEAVES ONLY, AND SAID UNTO IT, LET NO FRUIT GROW ON THEE HENCEFORWARD FOR EVER. AND PRESENTLY THE FIG TREE WITHERED AWAY-Mt 21:18,19; ref Mk 11:12-14,20,21. The fig tree withered away, as it was producing no fruit. It may be noted that the word "fig" here represents Israel, and the word "tree" represents nation.

That is a false inference caused by the preconceived Futurist idea. This was a miracle that caused the Fig tree to whither, thus representing Israel of the flesh (most anyways). But not all Israel were considered Israel; like bad figs, they were caused to whither. The "remnant" of Israel were carried away into the Gentile nations to preach the Gospels; thus, they represent the good Figs if you wish to apply Jeremiah's prophesy as an example. But the passage above taken from the New Testament need not be a prophesy of Israel's rebirth (Israel of the flesh). As we've seen in Revelation on another Thread, that Israel (of the flesh) was no longer to be found. Only the Israel of God would prove to be victorious, which consists of men of all races. Hence, no racial separation or discrimination is tolerated in the Israel of God; the one that bears good fruit. So your position of a regrowth or regathering of Israel of the flesh is fundamentally flawed, leaving you to infer conclusions from a false premises.

The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. Nevertheless, the nation of Israel was reborn and will fulfill God’s mission during the Tribulation.

Cow dung. This is soooo unscripted.

See my post which I have discussed with Carrie a few months ago:

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

You ignore the plain comparison of the text. The growth of the figs means that summer is near; beautiful days of nourishment and growth. Just as the summer approaching, given by signs of Spring, so too when they saw the things mentioned involving the temple's destruction (per the Context of Matthew 24), they would know that those events and His Parasouia was right at the door.

The mistake you're making is that you ignore nearly all of Matthew 24, and limit "these things" as the figs trees growth. THIS is caused by your preconceived idea of a regathering of Israel of the flesh, which contradicts Revelation, as well as the New Testament passages from St. Paul who taught that the Israel that is blessed by God is the Israel of Christ Jesus, who is Israel. What you are promoting is fleshly based Israel that is no warranted in the New Testament; that was the Old Covenant my friend.

Now, what does "fig tree" means? what does "twigs get tender and leaves come out" means? what does "summer is near" means? If you can understand what it means then, you will understand what "this generation" was He talking about.

The fig tree is simply an example of the signs for Spring. It was the kingdom of Christ (The Church) that brought forth the Spring; that is, the Spring to life. But the Church would not be completed until the destruction of the first temple was completed.

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Nope, all wrong. There is no rebirth of fleshly Israel. Not one single verse teaches this. There is only the Israel of God.

The fig tree and all the trees represent the nation Israel and all the other countries. Now, Israel gain its independence in 1948 and there are many countries that gained their independence during those times after WW2. This is the period in which people began to realize the fallability of the colonial powers and they fought to gain their independence....India, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. Please see the long list of nations that gain indepedence after WW2:

No it did not! You guys are so bluntly blind. Are they independent? Is Israel their nation even to this day? They are plagued with homosexuality, and many other sins. The land you refer to as Israel is considered blasphemy compared to the Church. They do not have independence with their Palestinian occupation, and the citizens who currently reside there are not biologically Israel. They are nothing more than remnants of a European nation, mixed with Arabic blood, serving as tour-guides of an ancient land formerly known as Israel.

It totally amazes me how stubborn some members can be. Choew ignores context, and instead tries to combine passages from scripture to contradict the rest of scripture. God never promised an eternal Israel based on flesh. God did promise a new and better covenant, which was seeded by Christ, and flourished as the Summer by God. His insistence on Matthew 24 referring to Israel of the flesh being reborn, totally contradicts the other Gospels which teach of the same thing, AND he ignores the predictions of Christ involving the temple's destruction. It's as though he isolates Matthew's example of the Fig Tree from the rest of Matthew 24, as though Jesus were telling the Apostles a sign of the world's end or something.

Matthew 24 must be taken in its entirety, and not limited to a single verse of the "Fig Tree".

I used to believe as he does, but I was set free from the constant barrage of false predictions. 1948 was 63 years ago, and that's a very long time. And since that time, there is absolutely no indication of a regathering of biological Israel.

There is no biological Israel of the flesh, and there will never again be a biological Israel of the flesh. This goes against the nature of the Church.

Joe

Silence

02-07-2011, 10:11 AM

For what it's worth, I have a few thoughts about the fig tree that differ from what most people talk about when discussing this topic and thought I would mention them to see what you all think.

When I first read the parable of the fig tree as a young christian, I was reminded of Adam and Eve making garments of the leaves to cover themselves. At the time it struck me as odd that they would use fig leaves, since we had a fig tree in our back yard and the leaves had little "hairs" all over them that would make you itch if your skin touched them. I don't know if all fig trees have leaves like that, but another oddity I noticed is how fast fig leaves dry out and crumble to bits once they are pulled off the tree. Both of these characteristics make them an unlikely choice to be used for a covering. As I thought more about the parable Jesus spoke, and about other passages mentioning fig trees, I came to believe that the fig tree was not representative of Israel as a whole, or of Judah and the Jews, it seems to be more representative of the temple with all of it's religious activity that gave people a sense of being "covered". Kind of like Adam and Eve with their fig leaves. The passage in Jeremiah about the basket of figs actually begins with a reference to the temple in v.1. Joel 1 has a reference to the fig tree withering along with "all the trees" in a context with a lot of references to the temple. The parable in Matthew 21 is also surrounded with references to the temple. The fruit Jesus was looking for from this "fig tree" was for it to be "a house of prayer for all nations" (21:13), healing of the blind and lame (21:14) and praises to the Lord (21:15 -16). The temple system in Jerusalem never produced these fruits. It also "withered away from the roots". Jesus also linked the withering of the fig tree to "this mountain" being cast into the sea" according to the faith of those who would speak to it that way. This seems to be symbolic of the survivors of the Jewish nation (kingdom of the Jews) being taken away captive after the fall of Jerusalem. As that began to happen they took refuge under the "fig tree" and it was not enough to cover them.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-07-2011, 10:28 AM

The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. Nevertheless, the nation of Israel was reborn and will fulfill God’s mission during the Tribulation.

Wasn't the first century tribulation sufficient? I mean their entire country was desolated, a million were killed, and the rest taken away as slaves or dispersed into foreign countries. If that was not the "time of Jacob's trouble" nothing could be. And besides, Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jerusalem and the Temple and we know that happened in 70 AD. And it is confirmed again by the normal meaning of "this generation." Why would anyone reject all this mutually confirming evidence and choose to believe futurist speculations that have no supporting evidence and have always been wrong? I dont' get it. What's the motivation?

Now, what does "fig tree" means? what does "twigs get tender and leaves come out" means? what does "summer is near" means? If you can understand what it means then, you will understand what "this generation" was He talking about.

It's all very plain and simple. It means that when the events that Jesus spoke about began to be seen, like the leaves on a tree in springtime, then know that the destruction of the first century temple would soon follow. Remember, the entire Olivet Discourse is an answer to the question "WHEN will all these things happen?". The "all these things" referred to Christ's statement that the first century Temple would be destroyed. This proves he was talking about the first century, and it is confirmed by his explicit statement that the events would happen during the lifetime of the first century generation to whom he spoke.

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

That's total speculation. There is nothing in the text talking about the emergence of a secular "state of Israel" two thousand years in the future! The meaning of the leaves coming out is clearly explained in the text as analogous to "all these things" that Christ had just finished saying! You are ignoring the words of Christ and substituting your own. Christ said the "leaves" represent the occurrence of the events mentioned earlier in the prophecy. None of those events had anything to do with the modern secular state of Israel.

All the best,

Richard

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

02-07-2011, 11:31 AM

I've gleaned that the 'trees' were symbolic of nations. Thus it could be that the 'fig tree' was that of national israel which produced both good and bad figs. Similar to the idea of a select sweet grape within the cluster in Isaiah 65. But we then recall that just before his sealing of the new covenant with his blood; the fig tree was cursed to never produce fruit again. Surely this has symbolic meaning as figs are commonly grown. We also recall that Jesus said at the same time period [just before the cross] that their house (the fig tree) was left unto themDESOLATEreferring to the house of the Pharisees.

I believe that the pushing of the leaves of the fig tree, was representing that when those signs were coming on them that the destruction and their time of escape was just around the corner.

But as others have written and I agree, the pushing of the leaves of the 'desolate' fig tree [Israel] was when the leaders pushed back against Roman rule.
After Nero's death, the other nations, referred to as 'all the trees', also pushed against Rome and among each other. This was the brief time of the civil wars and 'nation against nation, I.E. nation against itself.

Thus, even if 'the fig tree' can be shown to be representative of the house of Israel, the pushing of its leaves were still within that generation and were to be a sign of the close occurance of the coming armies to end the age.

All those things occured within that generation and need not to be repeated; nor is there any prophetic principle for their repetition.

Edward Goodie

02-07-2011, 12:26 PM

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Wow! What a line of cow dung...

Do you know what solstice means? The four seasons begin on these. For the ENTIRE Northern hemisphere they are March 21, June 21, Sept 21, and Dec 21.

And you believe no one from 1948 in this United Nations establishment which is referred to as Israel has not passed away???

Edward Goodie

02-07-2011, 12:38 PM

Jeremiah 24:4-7 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good. For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. And I will give them an heart to know Me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart.

As was previously mentioned, the bolded portion was fuflilled in the church:

2 Corinthians 6:16 - And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

When people come into the church via the Lord Jesus they have a changed heart. Surely, you would not doubt this. Your Jeremiah passage is also saying that "they" would return unto HIM with their whole heart.

THIS RETURN UNTO HIM WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE!

Biblical restoration unto the land, in every instance, demanded that repentance FIRST be required. Such is not the case with your United Nation's Israel. They are NOT practicing old covenant religion because the temple is absolutely mandatory for that to even happen. They are Talmudicists - not even close to the old covenant religion. They don't even know who the Levites should be even if they had a temple because those genealogies were destroyed in the destruction (annihilation) of the temple wayyyyyyyyyy back in 70 AD.

What you have in the Middle East is an unbelieving group of people, practicing a non-old-covenant religion, and persecuting Palestinian Christians (along with others).

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

02-07-2011, 01:47 PM

There is a pretty thorough discourse on 'this generation' here. (http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?34934-PART-1-Series-on-quot-This-Generation-quot&p=1038564#post1038564)

CWH

02-07-2011, 06:59 PM

Wow! What a line of cow dung...

Do you know what solstice means? The four seasons begin on these. For the ENTIRE Northern hemisphere they are March 21, June 21, Sept 21, and Dec 21.

And you believe no one from 1948 in this United Nations establishment which is referred to as Israel has not passed away???

Yes and cow dung are good for fertilzers and fuel!

Precisely, summer starts in June 21 in the Northern Hemisphere and it is round the corner right?

And you believe all those who witnessed the independence of Israel were all dead? This generation who witnessed the independence of Israel does not only mean those in Israel but all throughout the world in 1948.....And was God there to witness the independence of Israel? Of course, if you still believe that Jesus is now still reigning in heaven and in control of every human affairs on earth...or...do you think Jesus is reigning and enjoying himself in heaven, oblivious to what is happening on earth?

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-07-2011, 07:23 PM

And you believe all those who witnessed the independence of Israel were all dead? This generation who witnessed the independence of Israel does not only mean those in Israel but all throughout the world in 1948.....And was God there to witness the independence of Israel? Of course, if you still believe that Jesus is now still reigning in heaven and in control of every human affairs on earth...or...do you think Jesus is reigning and enjoying himself in heaven, oblivious to what is happening on earth?

The independence of Israel, the independence of Israel, the independence of Israel!!!

What are you talking about Cheow? The Bible doesn't say a single word about the "generation" that would see foundation of the modern secular state of Israel.

It seems like you've gotten so wrapped up in you Futurism that you have forgotten that most of your ideas are not taught in the Bible.

And besides, that "generation" will soon be dead, proving once and for all that ALL THE FUTURIST TEACHERS who based their predictions on the "generation" alive in 1948 were WRONG WRONG WRONG again. But that won't matter will it? They all just make up more unbiblical speculations and sell them until they are proven wrong again. And on it goes ... endless mockery of God and the Bible.

CWH

02-08-2011, 06:40 AM

The independence of Israel, the independence of Israel, the independence of Israel!!!

What are you talking about Cheow? The Bible doesn't say a single word about the "generation" that would see foundation of the modern secular state of Israel.

It seems like you've gotten so wrapped up in you Futurism that you have forgotten that most of your ideas are not taught in the Bible.

And besides, that "generation" will soon be dead, proving once and for all that ALL THE FUTURIST TEACHERS who based their predictions on the "generation" alive in 1948 were WRONG WRONG WRONG again. But that won't matter will it? They all just make up more unbiblical speculations and sell them until they are proven wrong again. And on it goes ... endless mockery of God and the Bible.

AD 70, AD 70, AD 70, AD 70.....

Jesus came invisibly, Jesus came invisibly, Jesus came invisibly......

millennium = 40 years, millennium =40 years, millennium = 40 years.....

no second coming, no second coming, no second coming.....

sin never ends, sin never ends, sin never ends.....

also create mockery of God and the Bible.

Many Blessings.

TheForgiven

02-08-2011, 07:14 AM

I figured sense the topic "This Generation" should be discussed on this thread, I'll post my question for Cheow and Whirlwind here.

I'm going to give this another shot. It appears the both Cheow and Whirlwind are in a Matthew 24 comfort zone; they are both focusing entirely on the end of the age, while neglecting the other information in Matthew 24. So I will now appeal to Luke. They seem to forget that Luke and Mark describe the same events as Matthew covered.

Whirlwind has stated that Christ never predicted the destruction of the temple. I'd like to quote Luke's account:

Luke 19:
41 Now as He drew near [TO JERUSALEM], He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.'

Here we see Jesus weeping over Jerusalem as He drew near to her. He then states in tears that because they did not recognize Him, they would be left to destruction. He shows/predicts that Jerusalem would be embanked on every side, leveled to the ground, its inhabitants to include their children, LEAVING NO STONE LEFT UPON ANOTHER".

The literal translation is:

and they shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone

Now Whirlwind will state that the wailing wall is part of the temple and is therefore proof that Luke 19 wasn't fulfilled in the first century. Of course he willfully ignores the historical fact that Jerusalem was embanked on every side by the Romans; Jerusalem did suffer the loss of its men, women, and children; and Jerusalem was left "figuratively speaking" with no stone upon another. As Richard pointed out, this is merely a figure of speech. But Whirlwind has a false idea that every single stone related to the temple or even the city (Jerusalem) must have every single stone torn down. Thus, until such a thing takes place, he will insist that Jerusalem and its temple has not yet been destroyed.

If that is the case, then I'll leave it to whirlwind or anyone else on his side to answer this simple and honest question.

AS JESUS APPROACHED JERUSALEM, AS IT WAS IN THE FIRST CENTURY, WAS HE WEEPING FOR 1ST CENTURY JERUSALEM, OR A FUTURE JERUSALEM?

This is important because this all ties in with "this generation". Cheow and Whirlwind will insist that "this generation" in Matthew 24 is referring to the generatin Christ wept for. They beleive that "this generation" is the generation alive for the so called "rebirth of Isarel" in 1948. If this were true, then as my question asks, who was Christ weeping for?

Joe

whirlwind

02-08-2011, 08:49 AM

I figured sense the topic "This Generation" should be discussed on this thread, I'll post my question for Cheow and Whirlwind here.

I'm going to give this another shot. It appears the both Cheow and Whirlwind are in a Matthew 24 comfort zone; they are both focusing entirely on the end of the age, while neglecting the other information in Matthew 24. So I will now appeal to Luke. They seem to forget that Luke and Mark describe the same events as Matthew covered.

Why are we focusing on the end of the age? What did the disciples ask Him about? "The sign of Thy coming," and "the end of the world/age." That is the reason we are focusing on it. He goes on in the chapter to tell us what will happen.

Whirlwind has stated that Christ never predicted the destruction of the temple. I'd like to quote Luke's account:

Please provide the quote where Jesus said the temple would be destroyed.

Luke 19:
41 Now as He drew near [TO JERUSALEM], He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.'

Here we see Jesus weeping over Jerusalem as He drew near to her. He then states in tears that because they did not recognize Him, they would be left to destruction. He shows/predicts that Jerusalem would be embanked on every side, leveled to the ground, its inhabitants to include their children, LEAVING NO STONE LEFT UPON ANOTHER".

The literal translation is:

and they shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone

Now Whirlwind will state that the wailing wall is part of the temple and is therefore proof that Luke 19 wasn't fulfilled in the first century. Of course he willfully ignores the historical fact that Jerusalem was embanked on every side by the Romans; Jerusalem did suffer the loss of its men, women, and children; and Jerusalem was left "figuratively speaking" with no stone upon another. As Richard pointed out, this is merely a figure of speech. But Whirlwind has a false idea that every single stone related to the temple or even the city (Jerusalem) must have every single stone torn down. Thus, until such a thing takes place, he will insist that Jerusalem and its temple has not yet been destroyed.

The buildings of the temple were destroyed yet Jerusalem stands as does the temple....forever!

If that is the case, then I'll leave it to whirlwind or anyone else on his side to answer this simple and honest question.

AS JESUS APPROACHED JERUSALEM, AS IT WAS IN THE FIRST CENTURY, WAS HE WEEPING FOR 1ST CENTURY JERUSALEM, OR A FUTURE JERUSALEM?

All Jerusalem and by that I mean all of those making up His holy city...all of us. We are His city, we are Jerusalem...

This is important because this all ties in with "this generation". Cheow and Whirlwind will insist that "this generation" in Matthew 24 is referring to the generatin Christ wept for. They beleive that "this generation" is the generation alive for the so called "rebirth of Isarel" in 1948. If this were true, then as my question asks, who was Christ weeping for?

Joe

For His children that are misled.

.

Rose

02-08-2011, 08:57 AM

Why are we focusing on the end of the age? What did the disciples ask Him about? "The sign of Thy coming," and "the end of the world/age." That is the reason we are focusing on it. He goes on in the chapter to tell us what will happen.

Please provide the quote where Jesus said the temple would be destroyed.

The buildings of the temple were destroyed yet Jerusalem stands as does the temple....forever!

All Jerusalem and by that I mean all of those making up His holy city...all of us. We are His city, we are Jerusalem...

For His children that are misled.

.
Hi Whirlwind,

You said: "The buildings of the temple were destroyed ", but I thought there was still one stone standing upon another? :confused2: Oh, no! I think I'm getting confused...:dizzy:

Also, I think I missed an important point....what exactly was the reason the stones were suppose to come down in the first place...:confused:

Blessings,
Rose

Edward Goodie

02-08-2011, 11:55 AM

The buildings of the temple were destroyed yet Jerusalem stands as does the temple....forever!

I am glad that you admit that the temple was destroyed. Progress is being made.

[QUOTE=whirlwind;27701]All Jerusalem and by that I mean all of those making up His holy city...all of us. We are His city, we are Jerusalem...[quote]

I take back that progress statement. In order for you to believe that, you would have to agree that when "Jesus drew nigh to Jerusalem" that He was actually approaching the holy people.

But I must admit, you are somewhat close in what you said. You just picked the wrong Jerusalem. Paul puts it this way:

Galatians 4:25-26 - For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

It is the NEW JERUSALEM which represents the people of God. The old Jerusalem (first century) was representative of the old covenant which was in bondage...

It is the New Jerusalem which is the city that even the OT faithful were looking forward to (Hebrews 11:10, 16, and especially Hebrews 12:22)

Written to Hebrew BELIEVERS:

Hebrews 12:22 - But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels

The bride of Christ, the church is representative of the NEW JERUSALEM:

Revelation 21:2 - And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:9-10 - And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

What you have done is to give old Jerusalem the status of the New Jerusalem.

Edward Goodie

02-08-2011, 12:00 PM

There is a pretty thorough discourse on 'this generation' here. (http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?34934-PART-1-Series-on-quot-This-Generation-quot&p=1038564#post1038564)

Wow! That is the best documentation of "This Generation" that I have ever seen! What magnificance! What exegesis!

:winking0071:

whirlwind

02-08-2011, 12:30 PM

Hi Whirlwind,

You said: "The buildings of the temple were destroyed ", but I thought there was still one stone standing upon another? :confused2: Oh, no! I think I'm getting confused...:dizzy:

Also, I think I missed an important point....what exactly was the reason the stones were suppose to come down in the first place...:confused:

Blessings,
Rose

The buildings were destroyed Rose but....one stone remains standing upon another. Why?

If we are every confused or miss an important point...we go to His Word:

Matthew 24:2-3 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?

.

whirlwind

02-08-2011, 12:40 PM

I am glad that you admit that the temple was destroyed. Progress is being made.

:winking0071: Silly Wabbit...trix are for kids.

I repeat....The buildings of the temple were destroyed. The temple stands.

All Jerusalem and by that I mean all of those making up His holy city...all of us. We are His city, we are Jerusalem...

I take back that progress statement. In order for you to believe that, you would have to agree that when "Jesus drew nigh to Jerusalem" that He was actually approaching the holy people.

Yes indeed!

But I must admit, you are somewhat close in what you said. You just picked the wrong Jerusalem. Paul puts it this way:

Galatians 4:25-26 - For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

It is the NEW JERUSALEM which represents the people of God. The old Jerusalem (first century) was representative of the old covenant which was in bondage...

It is the New Jerusalem which is the city that even the OT faithful were looking forward to (Hebrews 11:10, 16, and especially Hebrews 12:22)

Presently, living in Jerusalem, are many that believe they are of the holy city and...they aren't...at least yet.

Written to Hebrew BELIEVERS:

Hebrews 12:22 - But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels

The bride of Christ, the church is representative of the NEW JERUSALEM:

Revelation 21:2 - And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:9-10 - And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

What you have done is to give old Jerusalem the status of the New Jerusalem.

Some of us are of the Holy city now...some not. Some of us dwell in heaven now...some not. Some are still earth dwellers while others have been translated into His kingdom while living in a flesh body.

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son:

.

Brother Les

02-08-2011, 12:43 PM

Whirlwind
The buildings were destroyed Rose but....one stone remains standing upon another. Why?

If we are every confused or miss an important point...we go to His Word:Matthew 24:2-3 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What does Youngs LITERAL Translation say?

Matthew 24 (Young's Literal Translation)

Matthew 24
1And having gone forth, Jesus departed from the temple, and his disciples came near to show him the buildings of the temple, 2and Jesus said to them, `Do ye not see all these? verily I say to you, There may not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.'

3And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'

There 'May Not Be' one stone left on an other...

The question also asked "What is The Sign of Your Presence

And of the Full End of The Age

What "AGE" is to End when the Stones of the MosaicTemple Cultus Complex is thrown down. It can be no other 'AGE' except the Mosaic AGE/[I]World.

You state to 'Go to His Word'.... it is best to go to the Hebrew and Greek....

whirlwind

02-08-2011, 12:53 PM

What does Youngs LITERAL Translation say?

Matthew 24 (Young's Literal Translation)

Matthew 24
1And having gone forth, Jesus departed from the temple, and his disciples came near to show him the buildings of the temple, 2and Jesus said to them, `Do ye not see all these? verily I say to you, There may not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.'

3And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'

There 'May Not Be' one stone left on an other...

The question also asked "What is The Sign of Your Presence

And of the Full End of The Age

What "AGE" is to End when the Stones of the MosaicTemple Cultus Conplex is thrown down. It can be no other 'AGE' except the Mosaic AGE/[I]World.

You state to 'Go to His Word'.... it is best to go to the Hebrew and Greek....

I agree...it is best.

Do they say anything anywhere anytime about "the Mosaic Temple Celtus Conplex?" Do they say anything about the "stones of the Mosaic Temple Cultus Complex?"

Nope...didn't see it.

You are placing that there and it isn't there. It is the end of the world/age or...the full end of the age. Soon but not yet and certainly not in 70AD.

.

Brother Les

02-08-2011, 12:57 PM

Are you ten years old? Because you sound and type like a confused little child.

Rose

02-08-2011, 02:09 PM

The buildings were destroyed Rose but....one stone remains standing upon another. Why?

If we are every confused or miss an important point...we go to His Word:
Matthew 24:2-3 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world? .

"one stone remains standing upon another. Why? "

Yes, that was my question that YOU DIDN'T ANSWER!

Could you please give me your answer to that question without just quoting a verse....:signthankspin:

Blessings,
Rose

whirlwind

02-08-2011, 02:32 PM

"one stone remains standing upon another. Why? "

Yes, that was my question that YOU DIDN'T ANSWER!

Could you please give me your answer to that question without just quoting a verse....:signthankspin:

Blessings,
Rose

So no one would mistake an event, such as the 70AD event, as being what was being taught by Christ. And yet....it still is.

.

whirlwind

02-08-2011, 02:33 PM

Are you ten years old? Because you sound and type like a confused little child.

I don't understand your confusion. It's pretty obvious to me. But, to each his own. :)

.

Rose

02-08-2011, 02:58 PM

So no one would mistake an event, such as the 70AD event, as being what was being taught by Christ. And yet....it still is.

.

Say what? :confused: :dontknow: :confused2:

Is that your interpretation?

Rose

Brother Les

02-08-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:
Whirlwind
The buildings were destroyed Rose but....one stone remains standing upon another. Why?

If we are every confused or miss an important point...we go to His Word:Matthew 24:2-3 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What does Youngs LITERAL Translation say?

Matthew 24 (Young's Literal Translation)

Matthew 24
1And having gone forth, Jesus departed from the temple, and his disciples came near to show him the buildings of the temple, 2and Jesus said to them, `Do ye not see all these? verily I say to you, There may not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.'

3And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'

There 'May Not Be' one stone left on an other...

The question also asked "What is The Sign of Your Presence

And of the Full End of The Age

What "AGE" is to End when the Stones of the MosaicTemple Cultus Complex is thrown down. It can be no other 'AGE' except the Mosaic AGE/World.

You state to 'Go to His Word'.... it is best to go to the Hebrew and Greek....
__________________
Brother Les

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WW

Originally Posted by Rose
"one stone remains standing upon another. Why? "

Yes, that was my question that YOU DIDN'T ANSWER!

Could you please give me your answer to that question without just quoting a verse....

Blessings,
Rose

So no one would mistake an event, such as the 70AD event, as being what was being taught by Christ. And yet....it still is.

The Youngs Literal Translation destroys your argument. You keep repeating the mantra of one stone on an other of a retaining wall. Several have made points about this retaining wall and you disregard that. I have shown you that 'Youngs Literal Translation' there may not be (but there may be) one stone on an other and you disregard that. You are not on a solid footing to defend against these points of "[I]So no one would mistake an event, such as the 70AD event".

Do you look for 2/3s of the Israelis of the World to die at your believed future end of The Age? Is this end of the Age in your minds eye, the New Covenant?

Gil

02-08-2011, 05:01 PM

Howdy Joe,

I remember talking a long time ago about some stones.
Stones worn thin over a long period of time, as stones worn and polished
washing down a turbulent stream or river. The peoples of one succeeding generation to another stacked one atop another from Adam in the garden to the last Adam in the flesh, Jesus, the promised seed that was of Adam in the garden. Prior to his becoming first as Jesus Christ.
Through Christ would there be new stones with Jesus Christ being the corner stone upon which the Body was to be built.

The stones were seen as people ,unrelated to the stones that made up the walled city.Though the walled city would also come crashing down.

The Spirit of life is our Rock.

It was during a discussion I had about the breast plate worn by the Priests with the inserted precious stones that represented the twelve tribes of Israel.
They were as important as their standards.
In Revelation it speaks of the patriarchs who represented the peoples of each tribe and the stone which represented their tribe of people.

some stones:

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Matthew 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
Matthew 3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings [are here]!
Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
1 Corinthians 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away:

Gil > some may say that these stones are the tablets but they are the people who are the stones.

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Gil > What happened to the Great walled city Jerusalem and her Temple?
It was within the sum total of her people, of all her generations, that led to the destruction of all that was once embodied within their walled city and Temple that brought on its and their collapse as a people and a Nation.

Gil > in fact all of chapter 18:

Revelation 18:12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

Revelation 18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

Revelation 21:19 And the foundations of the wall of the city [were] garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;

Etc. all Rev.21:

It is not about ,what are the physical Walls, Temple, gates ,foundations, buildings but of the real Peoples and Deities who lived in and around its structures.

The Body of Christ is handed down to us by real living people of another time.
They handed down their Pneuma/Psuche/Psyche which was raised from the
scrape heap of the earth and handed it to us on a spiritual platter.
Thanks to the work of the Father and his Son in their time and
the continued work of the Living Spirit in post AD 70 time.

The Last generation was of the generations that came forth of their parents Adam and Eve. The generation of the birth of Jesus ,through the interim and would end in AD70.
The flip/flop generation that seen BC pass from view and bring AD into the era of time.

Gil

----------------------

Whirlwind,
Quote: [All Jerusalem and by that I mean all of those making up His holy city...all of us. We are His city, we are Jerusalem...]

Gil > No were not. Old Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven were both within a Hebrew /Jewish setting.
New Jerusalem is within a mental/spiritual setting.
The Body of Christ was in it's infancy of being formed. It is within
the B of C but is not the Body of Christ.

Gil
---------------

TheForgiven

02-08-2011, 05:11 PM

Great and inspiring post Gil.
:congrats:

Keep up the great work.

Joe

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 05:17 AM

Say what? :confused: :dontknow: :confused2:

Is that your interpretation?

Rose

There is no interpretation. When He explains then He explains.

He tells us when the end of the world/age is as well as the sign of His coming...as asked by His disciples. None of which happened in 70AD.

He explained...we need only accept what is written.

.

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 05:28 AM

-----------------

The Youngs Literal Translation destroys your argument. You keep repeating the mantra of one stone on an other of a retaining wall. Several have made points about this retaining wall and you disregard that. I have shown you that 'Youngs Literal Translation' there may not be (but there may be) one stone on an other and you disregard that. You are not on a solid footing to defend against these points of "So no one would mistake an event, such as the 70AD event".

:lol: My argument has not been touched and you know it. Why? Because it is written. Because they are His Words, not mine.

Do you look for 2/3s of the Israelis of the World to die at your believed future end of The Age? Is this end of the Age in your minds eye, the New Covenant?

Oh gosh...here we go with covenants again.

No, I don't look for 2/3 of Israelis to die. I look for many, many, Christians to spiritually die because they continue to ALLOW themselves to be misled.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.

The "many" are believers...misled believers.

.

TheForgiven

02-09-2011, 05:49 AM

Oh gosh...here we go with covenants again.

No, I don't look for 2/3 of Israelis to die. I look for many, many, Christians to spiritually die because they continue to ALLOW themselves to be misled.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.

The "many" are believers...misled believers.

Does that somehow, or for some reason, exclude you?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. The folks on the Bible wheel forum are here to discuss the topics you care to discuss. But in every single case, you provide nothing but personal opinions against the posters, and yet offer absolutely no scriptural support to back your ideas. Then you take this passage out of its context and state what is not even in the text; you're also VERY guilty of "interpreting" certain passages out of its context; a common problem with Futurist and Historicists.

And I'm growing tired of you stating that you're letting the word speak for itself, yet you constantly take things out of context. I could understand the difficulty in debating Prophesy, such as Revelation, as that is perhaps the most difficult book to debate. But the Gospels are not tough by any means, save a few passages which use symbolic or metaphoric language.

Now lets get back to the discussion of "this generation". That's what the thread is about.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough

02-09-2011, 10:18 AM

The "many" are believers...misled believers.
Does that somehow, or for some reason, exclude you?

Zing! Bang! Bingo! :hysterical:

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. The folks on the Bible wheel forum are here to discuss the topics you care to discuss. But in every single case, you provide nothing but personal opinions against the posters, and yet offer absolutely no scriptural support to back your ideas. Then you take this passage out of its context and state what is not even in the text; you're also VERY guilty of "interpreting" certain passages out of its context; a common problem with Futurist and Historicists.

Zing! Bang! Bingo! BOOM!

:bricks: <== Whirlwind's theories crushed by stones falling from the Temple in 70 AD

And I'm growing tired of you stating that you're letting the word speak for itself, yet you constantly take things out of context. I could understand the difficulty in debating Prophesy, such as Revelation, as that is perhaps the most difficult book to debate. But the Gospels are not tough by any means, save a few passages which use symbolic or metaphoric language.

Now lets get back to the discussion of "this generation". That's what the thread is about.

Joe
Excellent post Joe! Your missive is a missile, and a ballistic one at that! Thanks for taking a stand and clearly stating the truth.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

02-09-2011, 10:24 AM

:lol: My argument has not been touched and you know it. Why? Because it is written. Because they are His Words, not mine.

Dude, you really need to quit blaming God for your erroneous interpretations.

You are making all Christians look like demented fools.

You exalt yourself above every other person who interprets the Bible differently than you. And you do this blatantly, without even a pretext of using logic. You simply state your private interpretation and then claim it is what "His Words" really "mean" without providing any evidence or even response to all the proofs that you are wrong. Case in point: I have repeatedly asked you to answer one simple question, and you have used every twisted rhetorical technique you could find to avoid answering it. So let's try again:

WHY DID JESUS PREDICT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE BUILDINGS IF THEIR DESTRUCTION IN 70 AD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PROPHECY?

It's a nice, simple, straightforward question that any man with a direct line to "God's Interpretation" should have no problem answering. So please do so.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

02-09-2011, 10:29 AM

There is no interpretation. When He explains then He explains.

He tells us when the end of the world/age is as well as the sign of His coming...as asked by His disciples. None of which happened in 70AD.

He explained...we need only accept what is written.

At least you are partially correct. Christ did make it very clear that the buildings of the Temple would be destroyed, and his words came to pass in 70 AD as everyone knows. Even you have to admit these facts.

And you also have to admit that the "world" of the first covenant age ended in the first century. Therefore history confirms the fulfillment of his great prophecy.

Let us be thankful to the Lord that he made his word so plain and simple that even a child could understand it!

And yes, yes, yes! Let us accept what is written!

Rose

02-09-2011, 10:30 AM

There is no interpretation. When He explains then He explains.

He tells us when the end of the world/age is as well as the sign of His coming...as asked by His disciples. None of which happened in 70AD.

He explained...we need only accept what is written.

.

How can we accept what is written if we don't first interpret its meaning? :confused:

When a person explains what something means, we have to interpret what that person is saying in order to understand what they are talking about, the same holds true for the words written in the Bible....we have to be able to interpret them before we can understand and accept them.

Blessings,
Rose

TheForgiven

02-09-2011, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by whirlwind
There is no interpretation. When He explains then He explains.

He tells us when the end of the world/age is as well as the sign of His coming...as asked by His disciples. None of which happened in 70AD.

He explained...we need only accept what is written.

This is called an "inference" based on preconceived expectations. Your idea of His "coming" results in a conflict with the text.

Joe

Twospirits

02-09-2011, 11:10 AM

TheForgiven wrote,

This is called an "inference" based on preconceived expectations. Your idea of His "coming" results in a conflict with the text.

In all fairness Joe, your statement works both ways, preterists as well as futurists. This is seen in our debate on Revelation. :D

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

02-09-2011, 11:19 AM

In all fairness Joe, your statement works both ways, preterists as well as futurists. This is seen in our debate on Revelation. :D

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry

You are absolutely correct, especially in the case of a symbolic book like Revelation. But I don't think there is any "two ways" about the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy of the destruction of the Temple buildings in 70 AD. Do you?

Also, it should be noted that Whirlwind is the one claiming the asymmetry. He says everyone else "interprets" the Bible and he is the only one who doesn't. Joe, and Rose and I have been trying to help him see that we all interpret Scripture. He denies this.

All the best,

Richard

Twospirits

02-09-2011, 11:41 AM

Ram wrote,

Hey there Henry

You are absolutely correct, especially in the case of a symbolic book like Revelation. But I don't think there is any "two ways" about the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy of the destruction of the Temple buildings in 70 AD. Do you?

Also, it should be noted that Whirlwind is the one claiming the asymmetry. He says everyone else "interprets" the Bible and he is the only one who doesn't. Joe, and Rose and I have been trying to help him see that we all interpret Scripture. He denies this.

Ya I know I've been listening/watching. Whirlwind, we all use the word of God as the final word, but we have to come to an "interpretation" of what we see the word to mean, there is no other way. Then we hold to what we have come to interpret and believe (a position). This is what Ram and others are trying to get you to see---

By the way, Whirlwind I forgot to mention that I hold to the futurist position. I believe not all prophecy is fulfilled.

God bless--- Twospirits

Brother Les

02-09-2011, 12:20 PM

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 12:41 PM

Ya I know I've been listening/watching. Whirlwind, we all use the word of God as the final word, but we have to come to an "interpretation" of what we see the word to mean, there is no other way. Then we hold to what we have come to interpret and believe (a position). This is what Ram and others are trying to get you to see---

My "good friend" Ram wrote....

You are absolutely correct, especially in the case of a symbolic book like Revelation. But I don't think there is any "two ways" about the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy of the destruction of the Temple buildings in 70 AD. Do you?

Also, it should be noted that Whirlwind is the one claiming the asymmetry. He says everyone else "interprets" the Bible and he is the only one who doesn't. Joe, and Rose and I have been trying to help him see that we all interpret Scripture. He denies this.

A few things to consider are....one, he no longer tells us Christ prophesied of the destruction of "the temple." He is now properly saying it was the buildings of the temple....BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.

Another consideration is, I NEVER said "everyone else interprets the Bible" while saying that I don't....NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!! Allow me to quote what my "good friends" that are "trying to help" me haven't yet seen/understood.

Originally Posted by Rose No, Whirlwind I did not misread what you wrote. EVERYTHING that is written is subject to human interpretation. There is not a word written in any book on the planet, that is not subject to interpretation by a human being.

Blessings,
Rose

Whirlwind wrote.....
Many people do interpret but that doesn't mean it needed to be. So, I repeat....."Actually, it's not at all subject to any interpretation." And, it's not. The stones stand. They cannot be interpreted away. We see them on the news all the time.

I stand by that. Jesus Himself told us that there would be a time when "not one stone upon another" would be "here," which is where the "buildings of the temple" are. They still stand. That is what cannot be interpreted to mean something else. It is what it is...one huge wall of stones standing one upon another. There still being there isn't up for grabs...they stand. What can be interpreted is the meaning of the stones for they are symbolic of more than rocks. But, those they are symbolic of also still stand...for a time.

By the way, Whirlwind I forgot to mention that I hold to the futurist position. I believe not all prophecy is fulfilled.

God bless--- Twospirits

I am aware of that......:thumb: :D

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 12:45 PM

Zing! Bang! Bingo! :hysterical:

Zing! Bang! Bingo! BOOM!

:bricks: <== Whirlwind's theories crushed by stones falling from the Temple in 70 AD

Care to name one? And remember, for I have said this before....because you don't agree doesn't mean diddly.

.

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 12:52 PM

This is called an "inference" based on preconceived expectations. Your idea of His "coming" results in a conflict with the text.

Joe

Preconceived? A conflict with the text?

Matthew 24:1-3 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and His disciples came to Him for to shew Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What conflict with the text are you speaking of? The end of the world/age or the sign of His coming or the one stone upon another? And by the way....you didn't see any interpretation nor did you see any of my words. You see THE WORDS OF THE LORD. Deal with them!

.

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 01:00 PM

At least you are partially correct. Christ did make it very clear that the buildings of the Temple would be destroyed, and his words came to pass in 70 AD as everyone knows. Even you have to admit these facts.

I'm glad you now ADMIT it is the "buildings of the temple," and NOT the temple, as you have been saying over and over and over again.... under discussion. :)

And you also have to admit that the "world" of the first covenant age ended in the first century. Therefore history confirms the fulfillment of his great prophecy.

The world didn't end nor did the age end in 70AD. The buildings of the temple had nothing to do with either.

Let us be thankful to the Lord that he made his word so plain and simple that even a child could understand it!

And yes, yes, yes! Let us accept what is written!

I wait for your acceptance of that very thing "dear friend."

.

Brother Les

02-09-2011, 01:05 PM

Whirlwind
I stand by that. Jesus Himself told us that there would be a time when "not one stone upon another" would be "here," which is where the "buildings of the temple" are. They still stand. That is what cannot be interpreted to mean something else. It is what it is...one huge wall of stones standing one upon another. There still being there isn't up for grabs...they stand. What can be interpreted is the meaning of the stones for they are symbolic of more than rocks. But, those they are symbolic of also still stand...for a time.

Your words have reinforce what I said on another thread. Yes, the 'stones' are more than just ,mere rocks. They represent the Foundation of the Old Mosaic Cultus World Covenant Marriage of Death and all of the elements of that 'world'. As The Hebrew writer stated, as long as the Tabernacle (and you see that represented by the 'Wailing Wall' stones) was Standing, it Had Standing. ie every Jot and Tittle of The Law and Prophets were in Full Force for 'Israel' and her prosylites. And it is only 'Israel' that can recieve the New Covenant Blessings of Marriage as His Church (Body).

]

Originally Posted by whirlwind

I quoted HIS WORDS...you must come to terms with them.

A) You quote 'words' from one version of the Bible and disregard others (Youngs).

B) You have not proven that those 'stones' from the 'wailing Wall', that are over 100 yards from where Harods Temple stood, are in fact the same 'stones' that Jesus was indicating over 2,000 years ago to come down.

C) If those are the 'Stones' that have not been pulled down from one on top of an other, then those worshiping at The Wailing Wall are the only rightful and only Heirs (as Israel) to the New Covenant Promises, proclaimed to be given at 'The End of The Age'.

D) If you stand by 'the stones still standing', then 'the Stones' Still Have the Standing of why they were to come down. You may disregard the Stone Temple of the Mosaic Cultus Age, but you can not disregard the Sinia Betrothal of the Mosaic Age. That World/Age has never ended and never will as long as 'The Stones' (of The Temple and its' complex) still stand.

E) You are Dead in your Sins and will never gain Righteousness and go straight to Sheol at your physical death, because the way to the Holy of Holies are still closed to you, because 'the stones' (in your paradygm) are still upon one another. The Blood of The Lamb covers all Sins, but only the Election are raised from the Sheol/Hell/Paradise at The End of The Age and this is only the Election Remnent of Israel and it prosylites. If you do not worship at the 'Wailing Wall' then you are no 'Prosylite' and are of no part of 'Israel', under the 'stones' prophecy paradiym. From dust you came and to dust you shall go, but never to the Holy of Holies and to The Face of Jesus/YHWH
__________________
Brother Les

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 01:13 PM

Your words have reinforce what I said on another thread. Yes, the 'stones' are more than just ,mere rocks. They represent the Foundation of the Old Mosaic Cultus World Covenant Marriage of Death and all of the elements of that 'world'. As The Hebrew writer stated, as long as the Tabernacle (and you see that represented by the 'Wailing Wall' stones) was Standing, it Had Standing. ie every Jot and Tittle of The Law and Prophets were in Full Force for 'Israel' and her prosylites. And it is only 'Israel' that can recieve the New Covenant Blessings of Marriage as His Church (Body).

It is good to agree on some things even if not all. I don't see them as you do Brother Les. They, to me, are false prophets, antichrists, still standing among God's children while they deceive.

.

Twospirits

02-09-2011, 01:18 PM

BL wrote,

But what is your 'take' (at this time) on the 'one stone on another' verse and the view point of the 'Wailing Wall'?

My "take" doesn't matter here, its you and others vs. Whirlwind's position that matters in this discussion of what was and was not fulfilled concerning "the buildings of the temple." :winking0071:

God bless---Twospirits

TheForgiven

02-09-2011, 01:33 PM

Preconceived? A conflict with the text?
Matthew 24:1-3 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and His disciples came to Him for to shew Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?
What conflict with the text are you speaking of? The end of the world/age or the sign of His coming or the one stone upon another? And by the way....you didn't see any interpretation nor did you see any of my words. You see THE WORDS OF THE LORD. Deal with them!

Gotcha! You went EXACTLY where I thought you would go. Now compare Matthew’s account with that of Luke’s, and you will see that Luke's account is no different than Matthew's.

Luke 21: 5-6 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, 6 “These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

Luke and Matthew make absolutely NO mention of the foundation, western wall, outer court, or any other place EXCEPT the temple and its decorations. The Apostles were showing Christ the beautiful decorations and stones ON THE TEMPLE. The wailing wall is not part of the temple; furthermore, it may not even be Jewish. Studies of this wall are currently showing that the wailing wall was a wall built by Hadrian for the Roman Fort Antonia, which was used to keep the Barbarians out. Plus, the wailing wall was never considered a Jewish site until the 16th century. Lastly, the location of the wailing wall was used by Christians for more than 1000 years as a trash dump. It wasn’t until the 16th century that secular Jews moved the location of prayer to the wailing wall, and all based on a false premise.

At any rate, your “inference” that “one stone upon another” must mean every aspect of Jerusalem's buildings does not match the subject matter of the Temple Stones and its decoration. You’re usurping an interpretation (non-written interpretation) that the “wailing wall” is part of the temple, but that is not what the Apostles were looking at. Jesus only responded to what they were looking at, but you’re inferring that Jesus was referring to everything (structure) around them. THAT is an inference based on an opinion with no factual basis.

You are dead wrong, and it’s crazy to assume that the temple hasn’t been destroyed because of a wall that:

1. Has nothing to do with Herods temple
2. Was never even part of the Apostles discussion
3. Was not looked at, or admired by the Apostles
4. Never made “DIRECT” mentioning by Christ

So your theory is nothing more than a loop-hole attempt to excuse the 70AD significance of the temple’s destruction. It’s as though you’ve rejected any Biblical significance of the horrible events of 70AD.

Weird is all I can say…very weird.

Joe

Brother Les

02-09-2011, 01:35 PM

My "take" doesn't matter here, its you and others vs. Whirlwind's position that matters in this discussion of what was and was not fulfilled concerning "the buildings of the temple." :winking0071:

God bless---Twospirits

I had an idea that you would say something to that effect. If I searched hard enough I am sure I will find your leanings on the subject, but as of now we will leave as it is.

We are all 'Preterists' (past fulfillment) to a degree, but where that degree line is, is shifting as our paradiyms change.

Blessings Henry.

Tomret

02-09-2011, 02:07 PM

A few things to consider are....one, he no longer tells us Christ prophesied of the destruction of "the temple." He is now properly saying it was the buildings of the temple....BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.

Since anytime the destruction of the 'temple' was mentioned you countered with the true temple still stands, it became necessary to specifically designate the physical stone temple. That's the reason we use 'buildings of the temple' from the verses or 'man made' or 'physical,' etc. But, the 'buildings of the temple' WERE the component parts of the temple. There was no temple with a bunch of outbuildings scattered about the mount. There were the inner/outer courts, porches, men's court, women's court, baths, holy of holies etc. Those were the 'buildings of the temple.'

Twospirits

02-09-2011, 02:10 PM

BL wrote,

I had an idea that you would say something to that effect. If I searched hard enough I am sure I will find your leanings on the subject, but as of now we will leave as it is.

We are all 'Preterists' (past fulfillment) to a degree, but where that degree line is, is shifting as our paradiyms change.

Les, I have told you where I stand on the Discourse on the AV forum, remember? I just didn't want to get into "my position" at this time. At this time it is Whirlwind's position the readers want to hear from, not mine.

God bless---Twospirits

Rose

02-09-2011, 02:25 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-09-2011, 02:41 PM

At least you are partially correct. Christ did make it very clear that the buildings of the Temple would be destroyed, and his words came to pass in 70 AD as everyone knows. Even you have to admit these facts.I'm glad you now ADMIT it is the "buildings of the temple," and NOT the temple, as you have been saying over and over and over again.... under discussion. :)

I never have and never will "admit" such a ridiculous falsehood. You are directly contradicting the hundreds of verses in the Bible that call the physical Temple building made of stones by human hands the "Temple." We need but one verse to settle this issue:
1 Kings 6:7 And the temple, when it was being built, was built with stone finished at the quarry, so that no hammer or chisel or any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built.
Your refusal to admit this simple an incontrovertible fact demonstrates with total and finality the falsehood of your claims.

So now that you have been absolutely refuted by the Holy Bible, will you answer my question?

WHY DID JESUS PREDICT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE BUILDINGS IF THEIR DESTRUCTION IN 70 AD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PROPHECY?

Thanks!

Richard

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 03:00 PM

When a person sees words written on a page the first thing that has to be done is to interpret what those words mean, and as has been shown over and over again on this Forum, the very same words in the very same text are interpreted to mean something entirely different to each person who's interpreting them.

There is no such thing as THE WORDS OF THE LORD! Every word you see is one that was written by a human, and is being interpreted by a human!

Blessings,
Rose

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 03:10 PM

Gotcha! You went EXACTLY where I thought you would go. Now compare Matthew’s account with that of Luke’s, and you will see that Luke's account is no different than Matthew's.

Luke 21: 5-6 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, 6 'These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.'

Luke and Matthew make absolutely NO mention of the foundation, western wall, outer court, or any other place EXCEPT the temple and its decorations. The Apostles were showing Christ the beautiful decorations and stones ON THE TEMPLE. The wailing wall is not part of the temple; furthermore, it may not even be Jewish. Studies of this wall are currently showing that the wailing wall was a wall built by Hadrian for the Roman Fort Antonia, which was used to keep the Barbarians out. Plus, the wailing wall was never considered a Jewish site until the 16th century. Lastly, the location of the wailing wall was used by Christians for more than 1000 years as a trash dump. It wasn’t until the 16th century that secular Jews moved the location of prayer to the wailing wall, and all based on a false premise.

At any rate, your 'inference' that 'one stone upon another' must mean every aspect of Jerusalem's buildings does not match the subject matter of the Temple Stones and its decoration. You’re usurping an interpretation (non-written interpretation) that the 'wailing wall' is part of the temple, but that is not what the Apostles were looking at. Jesus only responded to what they were looking at, but you’re inferring that Jesus was referring to everything (structure) around them. THAT is an inference based on an opinion with no factual basis.

Matthew 24:1-4 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Please read His Words. They need no explaining. I will add the following verse...take heed!

24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

You are dead wrong, and it’s crazy to assume that the temple hasn’t been destroyed because of a wall that:

1. Has nothing to do with Herods temple
2. Was never even part of the Apostles discussion
3. Was not looked at, or admired by the Apostles
4. Never made 'DIRECT' mentioning by Christ

So your theory is nothing more than a loop-hole attempt to excuse the 70AD significance of the temple’s destruction. It’s as though you’ve rejected any Biblical significance of the horrible events of 70AD.

Weird is all I can say…very weird.

Joe

The end of the world/age, the sign of His coming and the stones one upon another HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 70 AD. And ask yourself...do the "beautiful stones and donations" mentioned in Luke as adorning the temple have anything to do with stones "one upon another?"

Accept His Words or accept those of man but remember....take heed that no MAN deceive you.

.

whirlwind

02-09-2011, 03:15 PM

Since anytime the destruction of the 'temple' was mentioned you countered with the true temple still stands, it became necessary to specifically designate the physical stone temple. That's the reason we use 'buildings of the temple' from the verses or 'man made' or 'physical,' etc. But, the 'buildings of the temple' WERE the component parts of the temple. There was no temple with a bunch of outbuildings scattered about the mount. There were the inner/outer courts, porches, men's court, women's court, baths, holy of holies etc. Those were the 'buildings of the temple.'

I continue to say the true temple stands. Your use of "buildings of the temple" is the proper use as it is what is written. Jesus DID NOT say the temple.

The buildings of the temple were all things seen by Christ as He sat upon the mount of Olives. All the "things" you have listed which includes the foundation upon which they were constructed were the buildings of the temple.

.

TheForgiven

02-09-2011, 04:17 PM

Matthew 24:1-4 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Please read His Words. They need no explaining. I will add the following verse...take heed!

Isn't it ironic how you ignored Luke's account all together, and are instead relying on the phrase "buildings" in Matthew's account. Weren't they all asking the same thing?

5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations

Luke shows that the Apostles were speaking of the temple itself, in how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations.

Now take a look at Mark's account:

1 Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!”

They were just in the temple, and as they were walking out of the temple, it is then that the disciples remarked of the very same things that Mathew and Luke record; the stones and construction of the temple that THEY JUST WALKED OUT OF; the western wall (of the first century temple complex) was not even visible from where they were standing. Even so, the wall that exists today is not Jewish.

You are going far beyond what is written. AND YOU STILL have not answered the fact that the wailing wall was never part of Herod's temple. That was a wall built by Hadrian which made up the western side of Ft. Antonias. You have not done your home work.

And trust me bro. When it comes to deception, you certainly fit the shoes of the false witness. :lol: You confidently assert with no proof, not validity, and no common sense that the temple Jesus spoke of, walked out of, wept over, to still be standing.

Perhaps you'd be interested to know why secular Jews in the 16th century chose this wall as the place of prayer. You'd be shocked!

The Christians who resided in that region used this wall, built by the Romans, as a trash dump site.

You are more than deceived bro; you are out of this world. :lol:

And you still have not answered Richards question, which you keep avoiding.

I'm awaiting your answer as well.

Joe

TheForgiven

02-09-2011, 04:22 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-09-2011, 04:34 PM

I continue to say the true temple stands. Your use of "buildings of the temple" is the proper use as it is what is written. Jesus DID NOT say the temple.
Oh be he said the western wall????? :hysterical:

Unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable.

It's obvious you're still ignoring Luke's account, which specifically mentions THE TEMPLE.

Joe
Ha! You got that right Joe! It's amazing to watch Whirlwind use every possible trick to suppress the truth of God's Word, especially since he declared in another thread (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27843&postcount=64) that "I accept His Word in all things...that is the only way." Oh yeah baby ... that's about as believable as his argument against the Christ's prediction of the destruction of the Temple:

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Christ explicitly referred to the TEMPLE when he said "As for these which you behold." Note also that there is no mention of any stones not part of the Temple. The plain meaning of the text is clear and incontrovertible, and it just happens to contradict the "word of Whirlwind." No surprise there!

Richard

Rose

02-09-2011, 04:35 PM

I continue to say the true temple stands. Your use of "buildings of the temple" is the proper use as it is what is written. Jesus DID NOT say the temple.

The buildings of the temple were all things seen by Christ as He sat upon the mount of Olives. All the "things" you have listed which includes the foundation upon which they were constructed were the buildings of the temple.

.

Hi Whirlwind,

Did you know that in order to have "buildings of the temple" there must have been a Temple? Otherwise, they would be called buildings of some other structure, not the temple. You can't have it both ways.

Blessings,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

02-09-2011, 04:42 PM

Hi Whirlwind,

Did you know that in order to have "buildings of the temple" there must have been a Temple? Otherwise, they would be called buildings of some other structure, not the temple. You can't have it both ways.

Blessings,
Rose
Yes, Rose, I'm sure he knows that! But it's completely irrelevant because the Bible NEVER uses the word "Temple" to describe the the stupid pile of rocks called the Temple! Never! Not once! Here, let me prove it to you:

1 Kings 6:7 And the temple, when it was being built, was built with stone finished at the quarry, so that no hammer or chisel or any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built.
Hope that helps you understand the "mind" of Whirlwind.

Tomret

02-09-2011, 07:36 PM

I continue to say the true temple stands. Your use of "buildings of the temple" is the proper use as it is what is written. Jesus DID NOT say the temple.

I didn't suggest the true temple doesn't stand. Matthew wrote "buildings of the temple." Mark wrote of the "great buildings" of the temple they had just exited. Luke summed those phrases with the word "temple." Luke was not an eyewitness, but might be compared to a modern highly conscientious investigative reporter.

(NASB) Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Since Luke was much closer to the event than you, and since his account was based on what he learned directly from the eyewitnesses, I'll have to take his word over yours.

The buildings of the temple were all things seen by Christ as He sat upon the mount of Olives. All the "things" you have listed which includes the foundation upon which they were constructed were the buildings of the temple.

From that vantage point He would have had a view not only of the buildings of the temple, but also retaining and city walls, surrounding homes, and other more distant structures, yet He only said the stones of the "buildings of the temple" (aka temple) would be thrown down. The "things" were component structures (buildings) of the temple which did sit upon a foundation. All that was surrounded by a wall, which was not a foundation as you like to claim. It was a wall.

CWH

02-09-2011, 07:59 PM

Welcome whirlwind to this forum:welcome:. I believe it is a divine whirlwind that brought him to this forum and it has caused a whirlwind in my head after reading this thread. making my hewd goes round and round. I think I finally understand what whirlwind is trying to say:

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.
3. It doesn't matter whether the current western wall is the original wall of the Temple or not (which is debatable) as it is still used as in worship to God by the Christians and the Jews and it still stands at the original site of the original Temple.
4. Since the wailing wall is used in worship to God and is standing at the original site of the Temple, it is still consider as part of the original Temple worshipping an invisible temple of God i.e. Jesus on the temple Mount. And as such the stones or building of the "original Temple" still stands. And only when this wailing wall of the "original temple" is destroyed with no stones upon another will the end comes.
5, let's imagine Jesus talking to us today just as He talked to his apostles opposite the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago, "you see the beautiful Dome of the Rock with itas golden Dome, the Aqsa mosque with their religious treasures and donations, the wailing wall standing on my invisible temple? These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.'

Is that correct? I hope I am not adding to the confusion.

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-09-2011, 08:42 PM

TheForgiven

02-10-2011, 05:27 AM

Welcome whirlwind to this forum. I believe it is a divine whirlwind that brought him to this forum and it has caused a whirlwind in my head after reading this thread. making my hewd goes round and round. I think I finally understand what whirlwind is trying to say:

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.
3. It doesn't matter whether the current western wall is the original wall of the Temple or not (which is debatable) as it is still used as in worship to God by the Christians and the Jews and it still stands at the original site of the original Temple.
4. Since the wailing wall is used in worship to God and is standing at the original site of the Temple, it is still consider as part of the original Temple worshipping an invisible temple of God i.e. Jesus on the temple Mount. And as such the stones or building of the "original Temple" still stands. And only when this wailing wall of the "original temple" is destroyed with no stones upon another will the end comes.
5, let's imagine Jesus talking to us today just as He talked to his apostles opposite the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago, "you see the beautiful Dome of the Rock with itas golden Dome, the Aqsa mosque with their religious treasures and donations, the wailing wall standing on my invisible temple? These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

Is that correct? I hope I am not adding to the confusion.

Many Blessings.

I'd say you're probably right Cheow, with regards to what Whirlwind is trying to propose. Of course, his position would not fit Matthew 24, nor Luke 21, primarily because the Apostles, when admiring the temple buildings, were not focused on a spirit aspect of the temple; they were thinking entirely physical, as in "things". Jesus responded by telling them that "these things which you see", thus being seen at that time, and not a future time, would be brought down, with no stone being left unturned.

Did this happen? Yes, it did.

But Whirlwind's only reason for rejecting every stone being unturned in the first century is because he believes that the wailing wall is a testament to the failure of every stone being unturned. This idea is flawed for two solid reasons:

1. The Wailing Wall is not part of the temple; it's just a wall that surrounded the temple complex, and is not connected to the temple itself.

2. The Wailing Wall has not been proven to be 1st century genuine; this wall was built by the Romans in the 2nd century, on Fort Antonia, during the Roman/Barbarian wars.

So for whirlwind to take the only physical evidence, the Wailing Wall, as his only reason for rejecting the 1st century destruction of the temple, is a fallacy which contradicts the other events of Matthew 24; those events tie in together with the destruction.

Lastly, there's no such thing as a destruction of a spiritual temple from God; and this was not even alluded to in Matthew 24, nor Luke 21. Thus, this should not even be discussed.

In summary, Whirlwind is resting his position on a 16th century Jewish Myth of the Wailing Wall. That's certainly not something I'd be willing to share in.

Joe

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 05:47 AM

Oh be he said the western wall????? :hysterical:

Unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable.

It's obvious you're still ignoring Luke's account, which specifically mentions THE TEMPLE.

Joe

No. He didn't say the western wall nor did He say the wailing wall. He did say that He was sitting on the mount of Olives gazing toward the "buildings of the temple" which is on the western side. Please don't ignore that.

And, your mention of the Luke account wasn't overlooked. It was answered in post 166 but you missed it. I replied.....

The end of the world/age, the sign of His coming and the stones one upon another HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 70 AD. And ask yourself...do the "beautiful stones and donations" mentioned in Luke as adorning the temple have anything to do with stones "one upon another?"

.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 06:05 AM

Isn't it ironic how you ignored Luke's account all together, and are instead relying on the phrase "buildings" in Matthew's account. Weren't they all asking the same thing?

5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations

Luke shows that the Apostles were speaking of the temple itself, in how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations.

Now take a look at Mark's account:

1 Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, 'Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!'

They were just in the temple, and as they were walking out of the temple, it is then that the disciples remarked of the very same things that Mathew and Luke record; the stones and construction of the temple that THEY JUST WALKED OUT OF; the western wall (of the first century temple complex) was not even visible from where they were standing. Even so, the wall that exists today is not Jewish.

Okay, let's "take a look at Mark's accout."

Mark 13:1 And as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples saith unto Him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

Where is "here?" What are the buildings and stones being spoken of? The buildings of the temple...all of it. And, Jesus replied....

13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Not building (singular) but buildings (plural). All the buildings would be thrown down AND not "one stone upon another," would be left. When? What was the time frame in which this would take place? And, Jesus replied....

13:3-6 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

His first comment, when answering them about the time of His coming was....about deception, about men in His name, men saying they are of Christ, Christians deceiving many. One of the deceptions would be about the time when "shall these things be."

So His disciples (of which we are included) would not be deceived...He told them plainly, clearly, succintly....not "one stone upon another" would be standing when the end of the world/age arrived.

You are going far beyond what is written. AND YOU STILL have not answered the fact that the wailing wall was never part of Herod's temple. That was a wall built by Hadrian which made up the western side of Ft. Antonias. You have not done your home work.

Oh but I have done my homework. You have been misled.

And trust me bro. When it comes to deception, you certainly fit the shoes of the false witness. :lol: You confidently assert with no proof, not validity, and no common sense that the temple Jesus spoke of, walked out of, wept over, to still be standing.

Perhaps you'd be interested to know why secular Jews in the 16th century chose this wall as the place of prayer. You'd be shocked!

The Christians who resided in that region used this wall, built by the Romans, as a trash dump site.

You are more than deceived bro; you are out of this world. :lol:

And you still have not answered Richards question, which you keep avoiding.

I'm awaiting your answer as well.

Joe

It's been answered. It has not been avoided. :)

.

TheForgiven

02-10-2011, 06:29 AM

No. He didn't say the western wall nor did He say the wailing wall. He did say that He was sitting on the mount of Olives gazing toward the "buildings of the temple" which is on the western side. Please don't ignore that.

I’m sorry my friend, but He did not say that. According to Luke, they were walking out of the temple, and it was then that the Apostles remarked about the beautiful stones and decorations of the Temple. It was then that Jesus exclaimed, “Do you see all these things….the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another”. As for the Mount of Olives, that’s where they stopped, and it was then that the Apostles privately asked, “when shall this happen, and what is the sign that these things will take place…”; these questions were asked in response to Christ’s exclamation, “Not one stone shall be left upon another”.

Therefore, the Mount of Olives is not where they admired the buildings, nor was this the area where Jesus said, “Do you see all these things?” The Mount of Olives is where they went to after departing the temple, and THAT’S when the Apostles asked Him the questions.

And, your mention of the Luke account wasn't overlooked. It was answered in post 166 but you missed it. I replied.....
The end of the world/age, the sign of His coming and the stones one upon another HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 70 AD. And ask yourself...do the "beautiful stones and donations" mentioned in Luke as adorning the temple have anything to do with stones "one upon another?"

Do the beautiful stones and donations have anything to do with the temple? Of course it does! Why wouldn’t I believe that? Is there something written there that I’m not seeing? Or are you merely going beyond what is written? In Matthew 23, Jesus points out how a little old woman gave all that she had, being worth than ½ of an American penny. The Apostles remarked how the beauty of the Temple could not have been accomplished without the gifts from the rich. THAT is why Jesus stated that the time would come that the gifts from the rich that contributed to the beauty of the temple, would all come to nothing [paraphrasing]. In my opinion, Christ was trying to show how the wealth from the rich that went to the temple, should have gone to help the old woman who gave all that she had. She, and those like her, were more important that the physical constructs of a man-made temple. James alludes to this in his writing, denoting how the Jews who failed to pay good wages, would rot in their clothes; their money testifying against them [paraphrasing].

Without the donations and gifts from the rich, the beauty of the temple itself would not have been possible. The Temple was a fascination to the Romans, as well as past Empires who conquered Jerusalem. It’s attraction is what kept Jerusalem’s interest alive, and the Jews knew it. That’s why they took great pride, care, and joy to up-keeping the temple; it was their entire livelihood. 70AD turned all of that around, and most of them threw themselves into the flames as the Temple burned to their agony. Thus, as Jesus predicted, the beautiful stones and decorations that made up their very livelihood, had been tossed to the flames; every stone and decoration of the temple had been brought down. No stone was left un-turned as the Roman soldiers sought for melted gold and silver through the burnt rubble/remains of what used to be called “the Temple of God”.

Christ came with the clouds and fulfilled what the Jews ignored, and accused Jesus of Blasphemy:

Matthew 26:
And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?”

It totally blows my mind away how Futurists today do not even understand what the Pharisees understood. The coming of God in clouds is an Old Testament phrase. Jeremiah chapter 7 uses this very same language. After Jesus tells the Pharisees that He is the Son of God, and that they would see Him sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven, they knew exactly what he was talking about. Thus, because only GOD comes with the clouds (speaking of war and destruction), then Jesus was in essence, declaring Himself to be God. Their response was “WHAT BLASPHEMY!” Jesus was being charged for Blasphemy for making Himself equal to God by claiming to later come in the clouds of Heaven, and by sitting at the right hand of power. This came true in 70AD, when Jesus came in the power of heaven, and the clouds that engulfed all Israel, left Jerusalem totally destroyed; the temple and its treasury came to nothing.

On a side note, I've got to say something. In a very big way, you remind me of Henry. Both you and Henry like to smother your discussions with mystery, instead of being straight forward, because you think that somehow being mysterious makes you some kind of philosophical Prophet. I don’t mean to be rude to either of you, but this tactic is absurd, and does not belong in a debating environment. I’ve studied God’s word for years, and even to this day, after 30+ years as a student, I’m still learning awesome things, yet by no means do I claim to know it all. But when I see folks such as yourselves, acting too mysterious and refusing to answer questions because you try likening yourself to Christ’s allegorical nature, I grow sickened to my stomach in total disgust.

This is a forum for debating. None of us are perfect. But please answer all questions directly, without the Apostolic mysticism. Richard asked you the same questions more than three times, and you STILL have not answered it! And please refrain from comments, "No interpretation is required....." Simply replying to what is written IS NOT answering a question. When you offer an interpretation, it must be backed with contextual sources; more specifically, prove your interpretation to be within its context as I have done above.

With the best of sincerety,

Joe

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 06:42 AM

I didn't suggest the true temple doesn't stand. Matthew wrote "buildings of the temple." Mark wrote of the "great buildings" of the temple they had just exited. Luke summed those phrases with the word "temple." Luke was not an eyewitness, but might be compared to a modern highly conscientious investigative reporter.

I didn't imply that you don't understand the true temple stands. I know you do. Sorry if I didn't properly state it.

As Luke's writings, along with all others, were Divinely inspired, then there is a reason for the differences being shown. They are clues for us to search out.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

(NASB) Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Since Luke was much closer to the event than you, and since his account was based on what he learned directly from the eyewitnesses, I'll have to take his word over yours.

I don't ask you to take my word Tom...ever. It is His Word we discuss and anything I say, or you say, must be documented in His Word.

From that vantage point He would have had a view not only of the buildings of the temple, but also retaining and city walls, surrounding homes, and other more distant structures, yet He only said the stones of the "buildings of the temple" (aka temple) would be thrown down. The "things" were component structures (buildings) of the temple which did sit upon a foundation. All that was surrounded by a wall, which was not a foundation as you like to claim. It was a wall.

From a couple of sites when Googling "wailing wall."

The Wailing Wall or Western Wall is the remains of the great Jewish temple, which had stood for close to 500 years. Herod began rebuilding and adding on to the temple in approximately 19 B.C.E., and the total work was not finished until fifty years later. The temple itself was destroyed by the Romans only a few years after its completion, circa 70 C.E.

The Western Wall in the midst of the Old City in Jerusalem is the section of the Western supporting wall of the Temple Mount which has remained intact since the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple (70 C.E.). It became the most sacred spot in Jewish religious and national consciousness and tradition by virtue of its proximity to the Western Wall of the Holy of Holies in the Temple, from which, according to numerous sources, the Divine Presence never departed. It became a center of mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Israel's exile, on the one hand, and of religious - in 20th century also national - communion with the memory of Israel's former glory and the hope for its restoration, on the other. Because of the former association, it became known in European languages as the "Wailing Wall".

It is part of the buildings of the temple. It is "one stone upon another."

.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 06:48 AM

Twospirits

02-10-2011, 07:46 AM

TheForgiven wrote,

On a side note, I've got to say something. In a very big way, you remind me of Henry. Both you and Henry like to smother your discussions with mystery, instead of being straight forward, because you think that somehow being mysterious makes you some kind of philosophical Prophet. I don’t mean to be rude to either of you, but this tactic is absurd, and does not belong in a debating environment. I’ve studied God’s word for years, and even to this day, after 30+ years as a student, I’m still learning awesome things, yet by no means do I claim to know it all. But when I see folks such as yourselves, acting too mysterious and refusing to answer questions because you try likening yourself to Christ’s allegorical nature, I grow sickened to my stomach in total disgust.

Hey Joe, your statement about me is uncalled for, if you've got a problem with the way Whirlwind corresponds that's one thing, but don't accuse me of being “mysterious” and using it as a “tactic” on my part because that's simply not true. I always answered as clearly as possible and “always with scripture” in “all my posts!” I never refused to answer any of your questions, but you have!! It's not my fault if YOU didn't understand me at times and took it to be a tactic and “mysterious” on my part. If that's how you felt and still feel, then put me on your ignore list and that will end your stomach problems!! Okay?

God bless---Twospirits

TheForgiven

02-10-2011, 07:58 AM

Hey Joe, your statement about me is uncalled for, if you've got a problem with the way Whirlwind corresponds that's one thing, but don't accuse me of being 'mysterious' and using it as a 'tactic' on my part because that's simply not true. I always answered as clearly as possible and 'always with scripture' in 'all my posts!' I never refused to answer any of your questions, but you have!! It's not my fault if YOU didn't understand me at times and took it to be a tactic and 'mysterious' on my part. If that's how you felt and still feel, then put me on your ignore list and that will end your stomach problems!! Okay?

God bless---Twospirits

I have never refused to answer your questions. I gave you answers that you did not agree with. Now when you asked questions like "when did we see....", yes I sometimes ignored those because answers to those questions would be nothing more than inferences from my perspective, and it would not prove nor disprove anything.

Now as our debates progressed, and I voiced my dislike with your indirect approach to answering questions, you began to answer questions directly, but it still wasn't enough. I had to find your website to discover what you honestly believed, and how your beliefs contradicted the tactics you were using against Preterism.

At any rate, if you were insulted, then I apologize for appearing to insult you. As for my response to the mysterious way you originally answered questions, I simply voice my dislike to this approach, but more so towards Whirlwind as this point.

Please accept my apologies.

Joe

TheForgiven

02-10-2011, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock
Welcome whirlwind to this forum. I believe it is a divine whirlwind that brought him to this forum and it has caused a whirlwind in my head after reading this thread. making my hewd goes round and round. I think I finally understand what whirlwind is trying to say:

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.
3. It doesn't matter whether the current western wall is the original wall of the Temple or not (which is debatable) as it is still used as in worship to God by the Christians and the Jews and it still stands at the original site of the original Temple.
4. Since the wailing wall is used in worship to God and is standing at the original site of the Temple, it is still consider as part of the original Temple worshipping an invisible temple of God i.e. Jesus on the temple Mount. And as such the stones or building of the "original Temple" still stands. And only when this wailing wall of the "original temple" is destroyed with no stones upon another will the end comes.
5, let's imagine Jesus talking to us today just as He talked to his apostles opposite the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago, "you see the beautiful Dome of the Rock with itas golden Dome, the Aqsa mosque with their religious treasures and donations, the wailing wall standing on my invisible temple? These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

Is that correct? I hope I am not adding to the confusion.

Many Blessings.
Actually Cheow Wee Hock, your insight is greater than mine. Thank you for your wisdom and sharing the revelation you have been given.

May our Father continue to bless you abundantly.....Whirlwind

A divine whirlwind? :eek: I'd be very careful with my choice of words Cheow. If whirlwind is speaking the truth, then you might be correct. But sense it is obvious he is not speaking the truth, as all of us have proven thus far, then his presence here is far from divine intervention.

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.

OMG! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13. What does the body of Christ (temple) have to do with Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13? Now we know that Jesus concluded His explanation to the Apostles about the coming Kingdom, which actually began at Pentecost, and was culminated in 70AD, AFTER the destruction of the temple. The dome of the rock, wailing wall, etc. all have absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. So in what way does this make his insights divine? In case you haven't seen it, the Discovery Channel has a show on a few months back that suggested the same possibility, that God is permitting the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians to live there in an attempt to unite all the races. The problem with this idea is that it promotes individualism, and not Christianity. Serving God outside of Christ gets you nowhere. Now I would agree that it may be possible for Muslims or Jews who reside near the Dome of the Rock to become "exposed" to Christianity, and from there gain salvation; that idea I can accept. Other than that, your suggestions of what Whirlwind is trying to say has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

All you're really doing is complementing him because he's a Futurist. If you have to "TRY" to understand what he's saying, then it's quite clear that he hasn't been answering our questions directly, thus proving my point that he attempts to portray an Angel of light, when he's nothing more than a spirit of confusion, much like a literal "whirlwind".

Joe

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 08:10 AM

Yes, Rose, I'm sure he knows that! But it's completely irrelevant because the Bible NEVER uses the word "Temple" to describe the the stupid pile of rocks called the Temple! Never! Not once! Here, let me prove it to you:

1 Kings 6:7 And the temple, when it was being built, was built with stone finished at the quarry, so that no hammer or chisel or any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built.
Hope that helps you understand the "mind" of Whirlwind.

The buildings of the temple were built with stone...one stone upon another. Did the Lord dwell in the buildings of the temple? Did the Lord ask Solomon to construct the buildings of the temple? No. He tells us where He dwells....

1 Kings 6:13 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel.

Several times I have quoted one of the following verses but feel it is now necessary to quote the entire passage. Perhaps it will help you understand the mind of Whirlwind and why I agree with the written Word of God and know that 70AD was not the fulfillment of a prophecy of the end of the world/age.

Acts 7:47-48 But Solomon built Him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what house will ye build Me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things? Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

He dwells in those that have been translated into heaven, into the "kingdom of His dear Son." That translation takes place while we walk the earth.

Please see what is written.

.

TheForgiven

02-10-2011, 08:22 AM

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 08:35 AM

I’m sorry my friend, but He did not say that. According to Luke, they were walking out of the temple, and it was then that the Apostles remarked about the beautiful stones and decorations of the Temple. It was then that Jesus exclaimed, 'Do you see all these things….the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another'. As for the Mount of Olives, that’s where they stopped, and it was then that the Apostles privately asked, 'when shall this happen, and what is the sign that these things will take place…'; these questions were asked in response to Christ’s exclamation, 'Not one stone shall be left upon another'.

And...is one stone left upon another? Yes indeed they are.

Therefore, the Mount of Olives is not where they admired the buildings, nor was this the area where Jesus said, 'Do you see all these things?' The Mount of Olives is where they went to after departing the temple, and THAT’S when the Apostles asked Him the questions.

And that is where He explained when all these things would come to their end. The sign of His coming. The end of the world. It hasn't happened yet. A clue for those that remain deceived by those that come in His name is.....One stone stands upon another.

Do the beautiful stones and donations have anything to do with the temple? Of course it does! Why wouldn’t I believe that? Is there something written there that I’m not seeing? Or are you merely going beyond what is written? In Matthew 23, Jesus points out how a little old woman gave all that she had, being worth than ½ of an American penny. The Apostles remarked how the beauty of the Temple could not have been accomplished without the gifts from the rich. THAT is why Jesus stated that the time would come that the gifts from the rich that contributed to the beauty of the temple, would all come to nothing [paraphrasing]. In my opinion, Christ was trying to show how the wealth from the rich that went to the temple, should have gone to help the old woman who gave all that she had. She, and those like her, were more important that the physical constructs of a man-made temple. James alludes to this in his writing, denoting how the Jews who failed to pay good wages, would rot in their clothes; their money testifying against them [paraphrasing].

Without the donations and gifts from the rich, the beauty of the temple itself would not have been possible. The Temple was a fascination to the Romans, as well as past Empires who conquered Jerusalem. It’s attraction is what kept Jerusalem’s interest alive, and the Jews knew it. That’s why they took great pride, care, and joy to up-keeping the temple; it was their entire livelihood. 70AD turned all of that around, and most of them threw themselves into the flames as the Temple burned to their agony. Thus, as Jesus predicted, the beautiful stones and decorations that made up their very livelihood, had been tossed to the flames; every stone and decoration of the temple had been brought down. No stone was left un-turned as the Roman soldiers sought for melted gold and silver through the burnt rubble/remains of what used to be called 'the Temple of God'.

Christ came with the clouds and fulfilled what the Jews ignored, and accused Jesus of Blasphemy:

Matthew 26:
And the high priest answered and said to Him, 'I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!' 64 Jesus said to him, 'It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.' 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, 'He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?'

It totally blows my mind away how Futurists today do not even understand what the Pharisees understood. The coming of God in clouds is an Old Testament phrase. Jeremiah chapter 7 uses this very same language. After Jesus tells the Pharisees that He is the Son of God, and that they would see Him sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven, they knew exactly what he was talking about. Thus, because only GOD comes with the clouds (speaking of war and destruction), then Jesus was in essence, declaring Himself to be God. Their response was 'WHAT BLASPHEMY!' Jesus was being charged for Blasphemy for making Himself equal to God by claiming to later come in the clouds of Heaven, and by sitting at the right hand of power. This came true in 70AD, when Jesus came in the power of heaven, and the clouds that engulfed all Israel, left Jerusalem totally destroyed; the temple and its treasury came to nothing.

The destruction seen in 70AD was not "Jesus coming in the power of heaven." The temple stands. Jerusalem is not destroyed. Jesus dwells in His clouds but He hasn't yet returned to stand on the mount of Olives. And...one stone stands upon another.

On a side note, I've got to say something. In a very big way, you remind me of Henry. Both you and Henry like to smother your discussions with mystery, instead of being straight forward, because you think that somehow being mysterious makes you some kind of philosophical Prophet. I don’t mean to be rude to either of you, but this tactic is absurd, and does not belong in a debating environment. I’ve studied God’s word for years, and even to this day, after 30+ years as a student, I’m still learning awesome things, yet by no means do I claim to know it all. But when I see folks such as yourselves, acting too mysterious and refusing to answer questions because you try likening yourself to Christ’s allegorical nature, I grow sickened to my stomach in total disgust.

Try some Pepto...:yo:

This is a forum for debating. None of us are perfect. But please answer all questions directly, without the Apostolic mysticism. Richard asked you the same questions more than three times, and you STILL have not answered it! And please refrain from comments, "No interpretation is required....." Simply replying to what is written IS NOT answering a question. When you offer an interpretation, it must be backed with contextual sources; more specifically, prove your interpretation to be within its context as I have done above.

With the best of sincerety,

Joe

My words have been proven....now it is up to you to see what is written.

.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 08:38 AM

You're not telling us anything we don't already know. God does not dwell in temples made of brick and stone; he dwells within us and this is the reality of His Kingdom that came more than 2000 years ago. Why do you discuss this to us as though we don't know this? :confused: And what does this have to do with Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13? Jesus was merely telling them that the temple they grew up with, that was made of Stone, was going to be destroyed. What's so difficult about this to you? I'm beginning to wonder if anyone here should even consider taking you seriuos. :confused:

Joe

No Joe. That is the reality that has always been. He NEVER dwelt in the buildings of the temple. For that reason, the pile of rubble seen in 70AD cannot be used as a marker, as preterist insist upon doing, for the end of the world.

.

Rose

02-10-2011, 08:43 AM

The buildings of the temple were built with stone...one stone upon another. Did the Lord dwell in the buildings of the temple? Did the Lord ask Solomon to construct the buildings of the temple? No. He tells us where He dwells....
1 Kings 6:13 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel. Several times I have quoted one of the following verses but feel it is now necessary to quote the entire passage. Perhaps it will help you understand the mind of Whirlwind and why I agree with the written Word of God and know that 70AD was not the fulfillment of a prophecy of the end of the world/age.
Acts 7:47-48 But Solomon built Him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what house will ye build Me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things? Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.He dwells in those that have been translated into heaven, into the "kingdom of His dear Son." That translation takes place while we walk the earth.

Please see what is written.

.

Oh, no....:eek:<warning,warning,warning>:eek: we have Biblical confusion!

Exo.25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Lev.16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

Jos.22:9 Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession be unclean, thenpass ye over unto the land of the possession of the LORD, wherein the LORD'S tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us: but rebel not against the LORD, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar beside the altar of the LORD our God.

1 Kings 6:7 And the temple, when it was being built, was built with stone finished at the quarry, so that no hammer or chisel or any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built.

Psalm 9:11 Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

Psalm 135:21 Blessed be the LORD out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem. Praise ye the LORD.

Could God have dwelt among his people, and in the Temple made of stone....oh, and also in heaven all at the same time?

Blessings,
Rose

TheForgiven

02-10-2011, 08:50 AM

Okay, let's "take a look at Mark's accout."

Mark 13:1 And as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples saith unto Him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
Where is "here?" What are the buildings and stones being spoken of? The buildings of the temple...all of it. And, Jesus replied....

'Here' is outside of the temple. If you are inside of a house, and you walk out, as soon as you turn around, you are looking at the house. Now if you walked several hundred or thousand feet from coming outside of your house, you are then looking at the entire neighborhood. This appears to be what you’re suggesting is that, although the Apostles were pointing out the Temple decorations and its construction, you believe that Jesus expanded on this by stating 'the buildings' as representing the entire 'neighborhood', figuratively speaking; by this I mean the entire temple complex. Thus, you are 'INFERING' to us that Jesus was not just speaking about the temple, but the entire temple complex. But within the context alone, as you quote above from Mark 13, in conjunction to Luke 21, it is clear they were not looking at the 'neighborhood', but the temple building itself. Otherwise, Luke’s account would not match Matthew or Marks if we are to assume that 'the buildings' did not just include the temple, but every connecting structure of the temple. But as I have just shown, they were just INSIDE of the temple, and as they walked OUT OF THE TEMPLE….Get that? THEY WERE WALKING OUT OF THE TEMPLE, thus indicating that the temple is what they were talking about. For if the entire complex and all of its buildings were called 'the temple', then how could they have walked out of it? They would in essence still be within the temple.

Thus the 'buildings and stones being spoken of' were of the temple itself, just as Luke describes. The outer-courts, the foundation, the gates and its walls, etc. were not in discussion here, as you would have is believe because of the wailing wall theory.

13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Not building (singular) but buildings (plural). All the buildings would be thrown down AND not "one stone upon another," would be left. When? What was the time frame in which this would take place? And, Jesus replied....

Yes, this we know, but it’s how you’re 'INTERPRETING' the phrase 'these great buildings' as the entire temple complex; the text is not suggesting that. The main point of their discussion was the temple and its decorations which constitutes a 'building'. You are also defining 'buildings' is the entire temple complex, as though the entire temple complex must be left without one stone upon another. On a side note, we believe this happened as there is no physical, genuine evidence of any stones from the 1st century temple; only a 16th century myth based on a former trash-dump site used by Christians from what was formerly in the area of the western wall of Fort Antonia.

13:3-6 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
His first comment, when answering them about the time of His coming was....about deception, about men in His name, men saying they are of Christ, Christians deceiving many. One of the deceptions would be about the time when "shall these things be."

So His disciples (of which we are included) would not be deceived...He told them plainly, clearly, succintly....not "one stone upon another" would be standing when the end of the world/age arrived.

Yep, and that happened; there were many deceivers that were gone out into the world. John attests to this in his own letter when he denotes how it was the last hour. But there is much more to it than that. Jesus also stated that they would be dragged from counsel to counsel, and from city to city, and that some of them would be persecuted and killed. Did this happen? Yep it sure did, thus giving us proof that 70AD was on its way. He also said that nation would rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. Did this happen? Of course it did. Rome and all its surrounding nations were in a huge state of turmoil, to also include Jerusalem. He also said that earth quakes, and famines would occur. Did this happen? Yet, it did. Samaria and many other regions, to also include Israel, were struck with plagues and diseases that killed thousands. Not to mention the famine that hit Jerusalem when they were embanked, JUST as the Lord predicted; this led to women eating their own children.

All of these things happened as the Lord predicted, thus leading to the 'buildings of the temple' being brought down; not one stone was left un-turned.

The burden of proof rests upon you, that your only source for rejecting 70AD relevance to Matthew 24 rests on a single wall; the wailing wall. IS THIS WALL 100% Jewish built for Herod’s temple.

Joe

TheForgiven

02-10-2011, 08:56 AM

No Joe. That is the reality that has always been. He NEVER dwelt in the buildings of the temple. For that reason, the pile of rubble seen in 70AD cannot be used as a marker, as preterist insist upon doing, for the end of the world.

Yes, you are correct, although He did manifest Himself in Solomon's temple until Solomon sinned. But that isn't the point. This has nothing to do with Matthew 24, and you've yet to explain your connection of this topic (God dwelling in temples) with that of Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13.

If you're only point is that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD did not mark the "end of the Age", then obviously there is a problem. Because the end of the age would happen immediately after the distress of those days (Matthew 24), and after the destruction of Jerusalem; it all happens in one sequence of events, from the persecution of the Apostles, to God avenging their persecution upon the same Harlot that crucified Jesus on the cross, resulting in their utter and complete destruction in 70AD.

On a side note, can you please explain why Luke and Mark did not include the phrase "end of the Age", yet they received the same set of answeres as Matthew?

Joe

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 09:50 AM

Oh, no....:eek:<warning,warning,warning>:eek: we have Biblical confusion!

Exo.25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Lev.16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

Jos.22:9 Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession be unclean, thenpass ye over unto the land of the possession of the LORD, wherein the LORD'S tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us: but rebel not against the LORD, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar beside the altar of the LORD our God.

1 Kings 6:7 And the temple, when it was being built, was built with stone finished at the quarry, so that no hammer or chisel or any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built.

Psalm 9:11 Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

Psalm 135:21 Blessed be the LORD out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem. Praise ye the LORD.

Could God have dwelt among his people, and in the Temple made of stone....oh, and also in heaven all at the same time?

Blessings,
Rose

Rose, where was the ark of the covenant in the above passages? Was it in a temple made of stone?

He does dwell IN Zion and He does dwell IN Jerusalem. They are His temple...for they are His children.

.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 09:55 AM

'The burden of proof rests upon you, that your only source for rejecting 70AD relevance to Matthew 24 rests on a single wall; the wailing wall. IS THIS WALL 100% Jewish built for Herod’s temple.

Joe

It is hardly the only reason to reject that misguided doctrine. I am focusing on it as it is the one preterist use to "prove" their point when...as has been shown...it cannot be used if one is honest with oneself.

Doing that is a decision each of us are required to reach in this flesh age. It is the age of our being proven. Will we be deceived...or will we accept His Words?

.

Twospirits

02-10-2011, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Whirlwind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
Hi Whirlwind, question, how do you see the Olivet Discourse played out?

God bless---Twospirits

When the disciples asked about the end of the world....

Matthew 24:3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?

His first warning was....

24:4-5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Many come in His name, saying they are Christian...perhaps even belieivng they are. But they deceive many. Deception IS the great tribulation. He tells us there are wars, nations and kingdoms fighting, famine, earthquakes, etc. That is always part of this world...it is not a sign of the end but their increase is "the beginning of sorrows."

The part that pertains to us, showing us our destiny as His elect is....

24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for My name's sake.

That is NOW,TODAY....we are here speaking, teaching, writing for His name's sake. That is our destiny as part of the many "two witnesses." (two groups of witnesses). It is important to know that the affliction and killing is spiritual. Have some witnessing for Him been literally killed? Yes and more will but overall we wage a spiritual battle. The killing is figurative....as in being banned from a forum, thrown out of a church group, families laughing at your teaching, etc.

24:15-18 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

We are given to see, understand, certain things at certain times. I now see the above as....when we see/understand that the abomination is no more than false prophets standing among God's children, standing "in the holy place," then...get out of Dodge! Leave their deception behind.

His watchmen are "on the housetop" warning and they should not go back into their house to listen to anything being said. Rather...hear the Word of the Lord. And, we as His watchmen better be fully prepared...wearing our linen garments of righteousness because there will be no going back.

24:19-20 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

That refers to those impregnated with Satan's deception and nursing along his vile religion. The winter reference I believe is...not to be taken out of season, to wait and be His firstfruit properly matured. In other words, don't line up to be raptured away.

24:21-22 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The great tribulation is a time of great deception. The time has been shortened to the last five months of this age. It's gonn'a be a doozy. The only way to be kept from his "hour of temptation," is by knowing how it's going to happen. Knowing he'll be here in place of the Savior.

24:23-25 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before.

24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

And then....the wrath is spilled. The end of the age...as predicted when He sat on the mount of Olives looking toward the buildings of the temple.

Bless you too TwoSpirits.

Whirlwind, please correct me if I'm wrong. By your post here I take it to mean you see the entire Olivet Discourse (Matthew, Mark and Luke) as being future in fulfillment to our day because of what we see "still standing" in Jerusalem today. That this Discourse is not related whatsoever to the fall of Jerusalem and the buildings of the temple in 70 A.D. That what Jesus prophesies here in the Discourse is meant to be "an end of the age" fulfillment. Is this correct?

God bless---Twospirits

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 10:13 AM

Yes, you are correct, although He did manifest Himself in Solomon's temple until Solomon sinned. But that isn't the point. This has nothing to do with Matthew 24, and you've yet to explain your connection of this topic (God dwelling in temples) with that of Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13.

If you're only point is that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD did not mark the "end of the Age", then obviously there is a problem. Because the end of the age would happen immediately after the distress of those days (Matthew 24), and after the destruction of Jerusalem; it all happens in one sequence of events, from the persecution of the Apostles, to God avenging their persecution upon the same Harlot that crucified Jesus on the cross, resulting in their utter and complete destruction in 70AD.

The end of the world/age happens at the end of the world/age. When the seventh trumpet sounds this age ends. It didn't happen in 70AD. The harlot hasn't yet faced the wrath of the Lord.

On a side note, can you please explain why Luke and Mark did not include the phrase "end of the Age", yet they received the same set of answeres as Matthew?

Joe

That's an interesting question. I believe He did mention it but not in the same manner (as end of the age.) For instance, in the account given in Mark....

Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

13:19-20 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom He hath chosen, He hath shortened the days.

13:23-26 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

We are to "endure to the end." 70AD wasn't the end. The world has seen a great deal of affliction, including the 70AD event but....the final affliction will be much worse, but in a different way. It is deception. Great deception.

We are among those He has called and chosen. We are the "stars of heaven" and some of us "shall fall." What causes the fall from heaven? Deception.

So, this account is as the one in Matthew and the world/age ends when we "see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."

.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 10:33 AM

Whirlwind, please correct me if I'm wrong. By your post here I take it to mean you see the entire Olivet Discourse (Matthew, Mark and Luke) as being future in fulfillment to our day because of what we see "still standing" in Jerusalem today. That this Discourse is not related whatsoever to the fall of Jerusalem and the buildings of the temple in 70 A.D. That what Jesus prophesies here in the Discourse is meant to be "an end of the age" fulfillment. Is this correct?

God bless---Twospirits

Yes, that is correct. The literal destruction in 70AD was a type, an example, of what will occur spiritually.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

However, when you say "standing in Jerusalem today," I see that spiritually too.

Is Islam (in the literal Jerusalem) part of this? Yes, but the greater part is the deception of those standing among us, "standing in Jerusalem." We are His holy city and in our midst now are the antichrists pretending to be of us. They stand at pulpits, they speak from our televisions, they teach on forums, they write books...deceiving all that will allow it. The abomination stands in the holy place.

And THAT IS INTERPRETATION. :lol:

.

Twospirits

02-10-2011, 10:48 AM

Whirlwind wrote,

Yes, that is correct. The literal destruction in 70AD was a type, an example, of what will occur spiritually.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

However, when you say "standing in Jerusalem today," I see that spiritually too.

Is Islam (in the literal Jerusalem) part of this? Yes, but the greater part is the deception of those standing among us, "standing in Jerusalem." We are His holy city and in our midst now are the antichrists pretending to be of us. They stand at pulpits, they speak from our televisions, they teach on forums, they write books...deceiving all that will allow it. The abomination stands in the holy place.

And THAT IS INTERPRETATION. :lol:

Thank you, that's what I thought you were trying to get across to the readers. Now maybe we can make some headway. I agree that a good part of the prophecy is about "a falling away" and great "deceit" when "the abomination stands in the holy place."

And yes, I also agree that you have given an interpretation :lol: :signthankspin:

God bless---Twospirits

TheForgiven

02-10-2011, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by TheForgiven
Yes, you are correct, although He did manifest Himself in Solomon's temple until Solomon sinned. But that isn't the point. This has nothing to do with Matthew 24, and you've yet to explain your connection of this topic (God dwelling in temples) with that of Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13.

If you're only point is that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD did not mark the "end of the Age", then obviously there is a problem. Because the end of the age would happen immediately after the distress of those days (Matthew 24), and after the destruction of Jerusalem; it all happens in one sequence of events, from the persecution of the Apostles, to God avenging their persecution upon the same Harlot that crucified Jesus on the cross, resulting in their utter and complete destruction in 70AD.The end of the world/age happens at the end of the world/age. When the seventh trumpet sounds this age ends. It didn't happen in 70AD. The harlot hasn't yet faced the wrath of the Lord.

Yes we know it happens when it happens. The problem is WHEN these things take place. Sense it is obvious from the plain meaning of the text, WIHTIN CONTEXT, the things that took place happened in their life-time. Now Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 make no mention of a Harlot. Now I understand your position that the Harlot is not the Apostates in the first century, but that is another discussion. Right now, we’re discussing Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 with regards to the destruction of city of Jerusalem and the temple. Jesus gave answers to the following questions:

1. When will the destruction of the temple be?
2. What will be the sign of His Parasouia to fulfill those events (Matthew 24:15 Abomination of Desolation) and of the ages end?

[Daniel’s Prophesy states that the Messiah destroys the temple and city with the ruler who was to come]
All of the signs include:
1. Wars and rumors of wars
2. Nation rising against each other
3. Famines, pestilences, earth quakes

All of these events indicate something is about ready to be born; they are figuratively speaking, birth pains.

4. Apostles delivered to Tribulation, hated for His Name’s sake (Jesus).
5. Many will be offended, and betray one another.
6. Increased Lawlessness
7. Greed for money
8. Kingdom preached to all the inhabited Nations
9. Abomination that sets up the Desolation of Jerusalem (leads to Destruction of the temple)
10. Christians flee (historically to Mt. Pella)
11. Famine and starvation during the Desolation of Jerusalem [women eating their own young to survive]
12. False Messiah’s and false Prophets
13. Greatest Tribulation Jews ever faced
14. Tribulation ends, sun is darkened, moon has no light, and the SIGN of the Parasouia appears in the sky
15. Son of Man comes in clouds of judgment (Temple is destroyed / Daniel’s Prophesy is fulfilled).
16. Gathering of His elect
17. END OF THE AGE

In my opinion, every single event described here happened from 30AD to 70AD, from the Apostles initial ministry at Pentecost, to the destruction of Jerusalem as foretold by the Prophet Daniel in 70AD, leading up to the ages end. I’d be interested to know which of the above events did not happen in the first century, and please explain.

On a side note, can you please explain why Luke and Mark did not include the phrase "end of the Age", yet they received the same set of answers as Matthew?

Joe
That's an interesting question. I believe He did mention it but not in the same manner (as end of the age.) For instance, in the account given in Mark....

Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

13:19-20 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom He hath chosen, He hath shortened the days.

13:23-26 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

We are to "endure to the end." 70AD wasn't the end. The world has seen a great deal of affliction, including the 70AD event but....the final affliction will be much worse, but in a different way. It is deception. Great deception.

We are among those He has called and chosen. We are the "stars of heaven" and some of us "shall fall." What causes the fall from heaven? Deception.

So, this account is as the one in Matthew and the world/age ends when we "see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."

That was Jesus who spoke of “the end” and not Luke. Verse 13 is the response from Jesus. Thus, as I’ve indicated, neither Luke nor Mark ask when the age would end? There’s a reason why, and that’s because to them, the destruction of the temple all involved the Parasouia of the Messiah, who would destroy Daniel’s city, people, and temple, and usher in an new age.

Joe

Brother Les

02-10-2011, 11:27 AM

Whirlwind
Yes, that is correct. The literal destruction in 70AD was a type, an example, of what will occur spiritually.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Once again your timelines are 'Jacked'...... The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that the ends of the 'World' (Mosaic World) were coming upon them. The Temple destruction could not be an 'example to the Corinthians they knew nothing of its' destruction because it was decades in THEIR future.In Reading 1 Corinthians 10 we can see who Paul is reffering to as to whom 'The Examples happened to and What those examples were'.

1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

Jesus Christ was with Their Fathers, giving Their Fathers Spiritual meat and Spiritual drink as they Walked through the Wilderness of the Sinai Desert.

You are only fooling yourself in reading into Scripture a paradiym that you hope for, but time after time you stumble for not seeing the context or the timeline.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 11:37 AM

Thank you, that's what I thought you were trying to get across to the readers. Now maybe we can make some headway. I agree that a good part of the prophecy is about "a falling away" and great "deceit" when "the abomination stands in the holy place."

And yes, I also agree that you have given an interpretation :lol: :signthankspin:

God bless---Twospirits

I used to see a future time when the abomination would stand there, in the time of the great tribulation. I now see that verse as the abomination being here now. Actually, I see the abomination as our own carnal nature.

Am I right? I dunno'. Is the abomination of desolation our "old man" that must be crucified in order to have Him dwell in us?

Many thoughts to be pondered as one meditates.....

Psalm 63:6 When I remember thee upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches.

.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 11:53 AM

Once again your timelines are 'Jacked'...... The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that the ends of the 'World' (Mosaic World) were coming upon them. The Temple destruction could not be an 'example to the Corinthians they knew nothing of its' destruction because it was decades in THEIR future.

Mosaic world is written somewhere? Nope...can't find it.

In Reading 1 Corinthians 10 we can see who Paul is reffering to as to whom 'The Examples happened to and What those examples were'.

1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

Jesus Christ was with Their Fathers, giving Their Fathers Spiritual meat and Spiritual drink as they Walked through the Wilderness of the Sinai Desert.

He feeds us today and "my cup runneth over."

Psalm 23:5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

The examples Paul wrote of are for the end of days....didn't happen in 70AD. Hold onto your hat Brother Les for...He cometh quickly.

You are only fooling yourself in reading into Scripture a paradiym that you hope for, but time after time you stumble for not seeing the context or the timeline.

I have stumbled many times in my life but I have not yet stumbled on KNOWING the end didn't happen in 70AD.

.

Brother Les

02-10-2011, 11:56 AM

I used to see a future time when the abomination would stand there, in the time of the great tribulation. I now see that verse as the abomination being here now. Actually, I see the abomination as our own carnal nature.

Am I right? I dunno'. Is the abomination of desolation our "old man" that must be crucified in order to have Him dwell in us?

Many thoughts to be pondered as one meditates.....

Psalm 63:6 When I remember thee upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches.

.

The Abomination (that makes desolate) could only be in the Holy Place. This can only be in the Holy of Holies of Harods Temple. This Abomination was the murder (blood spilt in the Holy of Holies) of all of the Temple Priests by the Edomean Army that was inside the Jerusalem wall during the Jewish Wars.

Brother Les

02-10-2011, 12:13 PM

whirlwind
Mosaic world is written somewhere? Nope...can't find it.

That was The Age of The Law that Jesus Christ was born under and Died Under. that was 'The World' and Covenant that was waxing old and fading away.

He feeds us today and "my cup runneth over."

Psalm 23:5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over

Are you King David? he is the one who wrote the 23rd Psalm, about himself.

I have stumbled many times in my life but I have not yet stumbled on KNOWING the end didn't happen in 70AD.

Your impression of what and when is the 'End' is to be, is in error. This is why I think that you can not move beyond the mindset of a 10 years old. I know that it is ingrained in your mind and you are blind to the hermeneutical understanding of Scripture.

You are not the 'First person' subject of the NT, you (we) are 2,000 years beyond that. What was written to 'them' (first Century) would be false letters and false Hope, for they all believed and understood that 'the time of The End' (the Bible never says End of Time) was upon their Generation and it was. If it was not for the First Century Peoples then Jesus Christ and His Apostles were lying to them from the Books of Acts to Revelation. by Jesus and the Apostles lying to their First Century Audience, then it conveys the facts forward that none of the words in the NT or OT are believable for anything.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 12:19 PM

The Abomination (that makes desolate) could only be in the Holy Place. This can only be in the Holy of Holies of Harods Temple. This Abomination was the murder (blood spilt in the Holy of Holies) of all of the Temple Priests by the Edomean Army that was inside the Jerusalem wall during the Jewish Wars.

The abomination is in the holy place.....the holy place is not nor ever has been the buildings of the temple:

Deuteronomy 26:19 And to make thee high above all nations which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as He hath spoken.

Psalm 86:2 Preserve my soul; for I am holy: O thou my God, save Thy servant that trusteth in thee.

1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Leviticus 11:44-45 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

He is still bringing us out of the land of Egypt today Brother Les. Egypt is symbolic of the world and it's carnal pleasures. He asks us to leave it behind....

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 12:29 PM

That was The Age of The Law that Jesus Christ was born under and Died Under. that was 'The World' and Covenant that was waxing old and fading away.

Are you King David? he is the one who wrote the 23rd Psalm, about himself.

:lol: No...I'm not king David or the queen of Sheba. But, He feeds me Brother Les. I sit at His table each day.

Your impression of what and when is the 'End' is to be, is in error. This is why I think that you can not move beyond the mindset of a 10 years old. I know that it is ingrained in your mind and you are blind to the hermeneutical understanding of Scripture.

Oh gosh, and we were getting on so well. Did you have to add the "10 years old?" :lol:

You are not the 'First person' subject of the NT, you (we) are 2,000 years beyond that. What was written to 'them' (first Century) would be false letters and false Hope, for they all believed and understood that 'the time of The End' (the Bible never says End of Time) was upon their Generation and it was. If it was not for the First Century Peoples then Jesus Christ and His Apostles were lying to them from the Books of Acts to Revelation. by Jesus and the Apostles lying to their First Century Audience, then it conveys the facts forward that none of the words in the NT or OT are believable for anything.

I believe each Word. He didn't lie to them or us. 70AD is a false belief.

.

Brother Les

02-10-2011, 12:32 PM

Whirlwind
70AD is a false belief.

Do you know what the 70AD 'belief' is?

Oh gosh, and we were getting on so well. Did you have to add the "10 years old?"

What age do you want me to put on for one who can only drink milk and is not to the point of eating meat?

Twospirits

02-10-2011, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Whirlwind

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Les
The Abomination (that makes desolate) could only be in the Holy Place. This can only be in the Holy of Holies of Harods Temple. This Abomination was the murder (blood spilt in the Holy of Holies) of all of the Temple Priests by the Edomean Army that was inside the Jerusalem wall during the Jewish Wars.

The abomination is in the holy place.....the holy place is not nor ever has been the buildings of the temple:

Deuteronomy 26:19 And to make thee high above all nations which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as He hath spoken.

Psalm 86:2 Preserve my soul; for I am holy: O thou my God, save Thy servant that trusteth in thee.

1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Leviticus 11:44-45 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

He is still bringing us out of the land of Egypt today Brother Les. Egypt is symbolic of the world and it's carnal pleasures. He asks us to leave it behind....

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

The biblical meaning of the Abomination of Desolation:

By definition, the Abomination of Desolation is something abhorrent to God that will bring to ruin or to devastation.

When we study and search the Bible comparing scripture with scripture, we find that in almost all instances where the Hebrew word translated abomination (shiqquwts) is found, it is dealing in some way with “God's people falling away or forsaking him to serve the gods of the heathen nations.” In other words, it clearly illustrates the spiritual idolatry of the Lord's people in turning away from him to serve false gods. It is in this context that we find that the disgusting (abominable) thing that God hates is his people going after false gods. It is this abomination that will leave them in ruin (desolate). There are many scriptures with examples of this abomination. 2 Chron. 15:8; 1 Kings 11:5; Jer. 7:30,31; Lev. 26:30-32.

"Desolation" is the judgment that God decrees upon his people who go after the false gods or idols of the unbelievers. And that Hebrew word translated "desolation" is (shamem), the exact same word used in Daniel's prophesy of the “abomination that makes desolate.” It means “to be brought to ruin.” This abomination of God's people going after false gods brings his judgment that would leave them destitute or destroyed. The Biblical precedent is set in Leviticus, and is carried out all through the scriptures. This principle is not only seen in Old Testament testimony, it continues into the New Testament. Abomination standing in God's house will make it a forsaken place deprived of God's blessings. (1st Cor. 3:10-13; 2 Thess. 2:3).

God bless---Twospirits

Tomret

02-10-2011, 01:47 PM

As Luke's writings, along with all others, were Divinely inspired, then there is a reason for the differences being shown. They are clues for us to search out.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

(NASB) Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Since Luke was much closer to the event than you, and since his account was based on what he learned directly from the eyewitnesses, I'll have to take his word over yours.

I don't ask you to take my word Tom...ever. It is His Word we discuss and anything I say, or you say, must be documented in His Word.

By comparing the synoptics we find in Luke a clue to clarify "buildings of the temple" and "great buildings." After his careful investigation based on what he had received from the eyewitnesses, he used the word "temple." Have another look:

(NASB) Luke 21:5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."

No walls, outbuildings, tool sheds, etc. Obviously the Word accepts "temple" as all inclusive of the phrases Matthew and Mark used. Preterists and most futurists accept this, but your private interpretation of Matthew and Mark force you to reject the plain explanation (clue) given by Luke.

From a couple of sites when Googling "wailing wall."

The Wailing Wall or Western Wall is the remains of the great Jewish temple, which had stood for close to 500 years. Herod began rebuilding and adding on to the temple in approximately 19 B.C.E., and the total work was not finished until fifty years later. The temple itself was destroyed by the Romans only a few years after its completion, circa 70 C.E.

The Western Wall in the midst of the Old City in Jerusalem is the section of the Western supporting wall of the Temple Mount which has remained intact since the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple (70 C.E.). It became the most sacred spot in Jewish religious and national consciousness and tradition by virtue of its proximity to the Western Wall of the Holy of Holies in the Temple, from which, according to numerous sources, the Divine Presence never departed. It became a center of mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Israel's exile, on the one hand, and of religious - in 20th century also national - communion with the memory of Israel's former glory and the hope for its restoration, on the other. Because of the former association, it became known in European languages as the "Wailing Wall".

It is part of the buildings of the temple. It is "one stone upon another."

Do you accept those as unbiased and authoritative sources, especially considering the part in red? I've also found some that claim the measurements arriving at the exact location of the mount are wrong. These of course are those that say the exact location is NOT under Muslim control, thus the 3rd temple can be built now! I previously cited the 1st century eyewitness Josephus Wars 7.1.1 which included:

... Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. ...

As a devout Jew he had no bias to support any Christian - and certainly no Preterist - position. According to him it was part of a city wall that was left. No mention of any part of the temple or the mount retaining wall left standing. Of course, we can't be certain that city wall is what remains today. The links Joe gave could offer some insight if that city wall was subsequently destroyed after Josephus time. As for the 1st century temple and mount retaining wall, there are no stones upon another that were not thrown down.

I know you won't consider any possibility that you are wrong, I post mainly for the many inactive readers of this forum. Having come full circle on this sub-topic, I'll just encourage all to study these things through keeping the 1st century relevance in mind.

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 04:45 PM

Do you know what the 70AD 'belief' is?

What age do you want me to put on for one who can only drink milk and is not to the point of eating meat?

Oh Brother Les, I think you have had some pretty hefty rib eyes served to you. Bon ape'tit.

:D

whirlwind

02-10-2011, 04:53 PM

The biblical meaning of the Abomination of Desolation:

By definition, the Abomination of Desolation is something abhorrent to God that will bring to ruin or to devastation.

When we study and search the Bible comparing scripture with scripture, we find that in almost all instances where the Hebrew word translated abomination (shiqquwts) is found, it is dealing in some way with 'God's people falling away or forsaking him to serve the gods of the heathen nations.' In other words, it clearly illustrates the spiritual idolatry of the Lord's people in turning away from him to serve false gods. It is in this context that we find that the disgusting (abominable) thing that God hates is his people going after false gods. It is this abomination that will leave them in ruin (desolate). There are many scriptures with examples of this abomination. 2 Chron. 15:8; 1 Kings 11:5; Jer. 7:30,31; Lev. 26:30-32.

"Desolation" is the judgment that God decrees upon his people who go after the false gods or idols of the unbelievers. And that Hebrew word translated "desolation" is (shamem), the exact same word used in Daniel's prophesy of the 'abomination that makes desolate.' It means 'to be brought to ruin.' This abomination of God's people going after false gods brings his judgment that would leave them destitute or destroyed. The Biblical precedent is set in Leviticus, and is carried out all through the scriptures. This principle is not only seen in Old Testament testimony, it continues into the New Testament. Abomination standing in God's house will make it a forsaken place deprived of God's blessings. (1st Cor. 3:10-13; 2 Thess. 2:3).

God bless---Twospirits

That is fascinating! So, I may well be seeing this correctly.

The abomination of desolation could be our own carnal nature standing in God's house...not recognizing or admitting that it is our own self that needs to change. Therein we see the foolish virgins as well as those He will tell...."get away, I never knew you."

Thank you Twospirits...this was a keeper. :yo:

Rose

02-10-2011, 05:54 PM

Rose, where was the ark of the covenant in the above passages? Was it in a temple made of stone?

He does dwell IN Zion and He does dwell IN Jerusalem. They are His temple...for they are His children.

.

Hi Whirlwind,

I knew you were going to answer in that manner...:winking0071:

1. Where was the ark of the covenant in the above passages? In the verse I quoted below it is clearly seen that first God instructs the Jews to make a mercy seat of pure gold, then put two cherubim of gold to cover the mercy seat, and it is between those cherubim above the mercy seat, that God's presence dwells and he communes with his people.
Exo.25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof...20) And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be....22) And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

2. Was it in a temple made of stone? As you well know the first Tabernacle was not made of stone, but rather it was made of cloth, animal skins, and wood....it still being a house of God made by human hands.

3. He does dwell IN Zion and He does dwell IN Jerusalem. They are His temple...for they are His children. Are you saying that in Old Covenant times God dwelt in the hearts of men in the same manner as in New Covenant times?

Blessings,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

02-10-2011, 06:58 PM

Yes, that is correct. The literal destruction in 70AD was a type, an example, of what will occur spiritually.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.However, when you say "standing in Jerusalem today," I see that spiritually too.

Is Islam (in the literal Jerusalem) part of this? Yes, but the greater part is the deception of those standing among us, "standing in Jerusalem." We are His holy city and in our midst now are the antichrists pretending to be of us. They stand at pulpits, they speak from our televisions, they teach on forums, they write books...deceiving all that will allow it. The abomination stands in the holy place.

And THAT IS INTERPRETATION. :lol:

.
I'm glad you admitted that it is an interpretation! Unfortunately, it does not cohere with your other interpretations. You deny that the Bible made any prophecies about the "destruction of 70 AD" so there is nothing "written for our admonition" relating to it. Therefore, "destruction of 70 AD" is not a Biblical type of anything.

And besides that, your interpretation is pure speculation. It has no foundation in Scripture.

Tomret

02-10-2011, 07:35 PM

That is fascinating! So, I may well be seeing this correctly.

The abomination of desolation could be our own carnal nature standing in God's house...not recognizing or admitting that it is our own self that needs to change. Therein we see the foolish virgins as well as those He will tell...."get away, I never knew you."

Thank you Twospirits...this was a keeper. :yo:

Where in the book of Daniel do we find all that?

CWH

02-11-2011, 03:20 AM

A divine whirlwind? :eek: I'd be very careful with my choice of words Cheow. If whirlwind is speaking the truth, then you might be correct. But sense it is obvious he is not speaking the truth, as all of us have proven thus far, then his presence here is far from divine intervention.

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.

OMG! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13. What does the body of Christ (temple) have to do with Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13? Now we know that Jesus concluded His explanation to the Apostles about the coming Kingdom, which actually began at Pentecost, and was culminated in 70AD, AFTER the destruction of the temple. The dome of the rock, wailing wall, etc. all have absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. So in what way does this make his insights divine? In case you haven't seen it, the Discovery Channel has a show on a few months back that suggested the same possibility, that God is permitting the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians to live there in an attempt to unite all the races. The problem with this idea is that it promotes individualism, and not Christianity. Serving God outside of Christ gets you nowhere. Now I would agree that it may be possible for Muslims or Jews who reside near the Dome of the Rock to become "exposed" to Christianity, and from there gain salvation; that idea I can accept. Other than that, your suggestions of what Whirlwind is trying to say has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

All you're really doing is complementing him because he's a Futurist. If you have to "TRY" to understand what he's saying, then it's quite clear that he hasn't been answering our questions directly, thus proving my point that he attempts to portray an Angel of light, when he's nothing more than a spirit of confusion, much like a literal "whirlwind".

Joe

Just to ask a question, are we all here in this BW forum by design or by chance? I would say by design not by chance; you think God don't know we are here debating on His words? See the verses :

Luke 12: 2 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 3 What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

8 “I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

All you're really doing is complementing him because he's a Futurist.Are' not preterists doing the same with their fellow preterists, complementing them for their posts....let's not be biased.

Although I do believe that every stone of the Temple have been thrown down but the end is yet to come and it did not happened in AD 70, I must complement whirlwind for his new perspective which have never cross my mind. To me. the destruction of the temple was the start of the Christian age and the disapora of the jews and this is what I believe is the preterist's term for end of the Mosaic Covenant and the start of the New Covenant. I will certainly shelve whirlwind's new perspective and not condemn him as what the preterists here are doing....do not judge a brother just because his perspective is different from yours:nono:....or YOU be judged.

Thanks whirlwind.

Many Blessings.

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 05:49 AM

I'm glad you admitted that it is an interpretation! Unfortunately, it does not cohere with your other interpretations. You deny that the Bible made any prophecies about the "destruction of 70 AD" so there is nothing "written for our admonition" relating to it. Therefore, "destruction of 70 AD" is not a Biblical type of anything.

And besides that, your interpretation is pure speculation. It has no foundation in Scripture.

:lol:

Brother Les

02-11-2011, 07:20 AM

Cheow
Just to ask a question, are we all here in this BW forum by design or by chance? I would say by design not by chance; you think God don't know we are here debating on His words?

If we are here at this place and time by pure design, and not by reason and deduction of Free Will, then we are all hyper-Calvinists. Your life already being laid out with no imput of your own. This would make this NO debate only useless static.

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 08:29 AM

Hi Whirlwind,

I knew you were going to answer in that manner...:winking0071:

I hope so Rose...it's what I have been saying for some time now.

1. Where was the ark of the covenant in the above passages? In the verse I quoted below it is clearly seen that first God instructs the Jews to make a mercy seat of pure gold, then put two cherubim of gold to cover the mercy seat, and it is between those cherubim above the mercy seat, that God's presence dwells and he communes with his people.
Exo.25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof...20) And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be....22) And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

First....God didn't "instruct the Jews" as I believe you are meaning. God instructed Israel....all twelve tribes. The Levitical priests, one of the tribes (Levi) were those in charge of the holy things.

In the passage you quoted it is written, "And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony."

2. Was it in a temple made of stone? As you well know the first Tabernacle was not made of stone, but rather it was made of cloth, animal skins, and wood....it still being a house of God made by human hands.

I do "well know" that He has never dwelt in a temple made with hands. How do I well know it...He tells me that very thing.

Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

3. He does dwell IN Zion and He does dwell IN Jerusalem. They are His temple...for they are His children. Are you saying that in Old Covenant times God dwelt in the hearts of men in the same manner as in New Covenant times?

Blessings,
Rose

Yes.

Exodus 29:45-46 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.

.

Rose

02-11-2011, 09:32 AM

I hope so Rose...it's what I have been saying for some time now.

First....God didn't "instruct the Jews" as I believe you are meaning. God instructed Israel....all twelve tribes. The Levitical priests, one of the tribes (Levi) were those in charge of the holy things.

In the passage you quoted it is written, "And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony."

I do "well know" that He has never dwelt in a temple made with hands. How do I well know it...He tells me that very thing.
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,Yes.
Exodus 29:45-46 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God..

Oh, you foolish man! You well knew my intent when I said God instructed the Jews (humans) to construct the mercy seat, and meet with Him in the Tabernacle....:nono:

THE POINT BEING THAT GOD MET, AND COMMUNED WITH PEOPLE IN A HOUSE MADE WITH HANDS.

You keep quoting from Acts 7:48....so, what it appears is going on is a direct contradiction of Scripture; in some places the prophets say God dwelt in a house made with hands, and in another place it says those prophets were wrong, because God does not dwell in a house made with hands...which is it?
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

So, either the Bible is wrong, or your interpretation of it is wrong...:p

Blessings,
Rose

P.S. I said dwell IN THE HEARTS, not among the people, BIG DIFFERENCE!

CWH

02-11-2011, 09:40 AM

Oh, you foolish man! You well knew my intent when I said God instructed the Jews (humans) to construct the mercy seat, and meet with Him in the Tabernacle....:nono:

THE POINT BEING THAT GOD MET, AND COMMUNED WITH PEOPLE IN A HOUSE MADE WITH HANDS.

You keep quoting from Acts 7:48....so, what it appears is going on is a direct contradiction of Scripture; in some places the prophets say God dwelt in a house made with hands, and in another place it says those prophets were wrong, because God does not dwell in a house made with hands...which is it?
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

So, either the Bible is wrong, or your interpretation of it is wrong...:p

Blessings,
Rose

P.S. I said dwell IN THE HEARTS, not among the people, BIG DIFFERENCE!

Watch what you are saying! :

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Many Blessings to all.:pray:

Rose

02-11-2011, 10:49 AM

Watch what you are saying! :

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Many Blessings to all.:pray:

Shame on you Cheow...:nono: abusing, and twisting Bible verses in such a manner. When someone is acting in a foolish way it is perfectly appropriate to call them on it. Jesus, Himself did it in the parable of the Foolish Virgins, so for you to use a Bible verse to reprimand me with is a very "foolish" thing to do...:p

Blessings,
Rose

Twospirits

02-11-2011, 10:56 AM

Whirlwind wrote,

That is fascinating! So, I may well be seeing this correctly.

The abomination of desolation could be our own carnal nature standing in God's house...not recognizing or admitting that it is our own self that needs to change. Therein we see the foolish virgins as well as those He will tell...."get away, I never knew you."

Thank you Twospirits...this was a keeper.

I don't know if you quite understand so I'll expand on this a bit more as I have come to study the meaning of "THE abomination of desolation."

The abomination of desolation (or more correctly, the desecrating sacrilege) can only be committed by God's true priests. In the NT the body of Christ (1 Peter 2:5,9) are considered the Lord's “priests,” and no other.

We are a temple considered holy by the Lord, and it is not to be defiled lest God judge and destroy him.

1 Cor. 3:17, “If any man defile the temple (#3485; “naos”) of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”

2 Cor. 6:16, “And what agreement hath the temple (#3485; “naos”) of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Eph. 2:20-21, “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple (singular) in the Lord.”

Abomination standing in God's house will make it a forsaken place deprived of God's blessings. This is what 2 Thess. 2:3-4 speaks of.

1 Peter 4:17, “For the time that judgment (is come) that judgment must begin (2 Thess. 2:7; mystery of iniquity) at the house of God (singular); and if (it) first (begin) at us, what shall the end (be) of them that obey not the gospel of God?”

God bless---Twospirits

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 10:58 AM

Oh, you foolish man! You well knew my intent when I said God instructed the Jews (humans) to construct the mercy seat, and meet with Him in the Tabernacle....:nono:

Jews are human and others are not?

THE POINT BEING THAT GOD MET, AND COMMUNED WITH PEOPLE IN A HOUSE MADE WITH HANDS.

Rose, the subject has been God "dwelling" in a temple.

You keep quoting from Acts 7:48....so, what it appears is going on is a direct contradiction of Scripture; in some places the prophets say God dwelt in a house made with hands, and in another place it says those prophets were wrong, because God does not dwell in a house made with hands...which is it?
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

NOWHERE is it written that God dwelt in a house made with hands. That is the point of this discussion.

So, either the Bible is wrong, or your interpretation of it is wrong...:p

Blessings,
Rose

The Bible isn't wrong, and as I am not interpreting this...I am not in error. So, that leaves......?

P.S. I said dwell IN THE HEARTS, not among the people, BIG DIFFERENCE!

Do you then believe that God would dwell with those that didn't have Him in their hearts? That He would dwell with those that only honored Him with their lips...and not their heart? I don't. I see many that believe He dwells in them and...He isn't there. So, when it is written that He would dwell among them then...yes, He was in their hearts.

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 11:07 AM

NOWHERE is it written that God dwelt in a house made with hands. That is the point of this discussion.

That is absolutely false. Jesus said:

Matthew 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

Christ was speaking about the stone Temple made with hands. If God did not "dwell" in that Temple, then of whom was Christ speaking when he referred to "him that dwelleth therein"?

CWH

02-11-2011, 11:08 AM

Shame on you Cheow...:nono: abusing, and twisting Bible verses in such a manner. When someone is acting in a foolish way it is perfectly appropriate to call them on it. Jesus, Himself did it in the parable of the Foolish Virgins, so for you to use a Bible verse to reprimand me with is a very "foolish" thing to do...:p

Blessings,
Rose

As a rule of the thumb, even if someone looks or seem foolish such word should not be mentioned because the Bible says so. I don't reprimand you alone but also Mad Mick, the Forgiven as well; it is done out of concern. When Jesus did work during a Sabbath and the Pharisees reprimand Him, Jesus said, it is ok because He is Lord of the Sabbath. God said in His commandment, "Do not kill" but yet instruct His people to kill the enemies...men, women and children. It's ok for God to do so because He knows what He is doing is right but for humans, not so. His ways and thoughts are higher than ours.

I don't abuse or twist Bible verses...it's in the eyes of the beholder. And I NEVER use the word "Fool" in any forum or to anybody.

Many Blessings.

Rose

02-11-2011, 11:15 AM

Jews are human and others are not?

Rose, the subject has been God "dwelling" in a temple.

NOWHERE is it written that God dwelt in a house made with hands. That is the point of this discussion.

Do you not think that "meeting", and "communing", is the same as DWELLING?

Of course God's permenant dwelling place was in heaven, but He dwelt in the Temple made with hands when He communed with His people.
Exo.25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof...20) And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be....22) And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims WHICH are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

The Bible isn't wrong, and as I am not interpreting this...I am not in error. So, that leaves......?

Do you then believe that God would dwell with those that didn't have Him in their hearts? That He would dwell with those that only honored Him with their lips...and not their heart? I don't. I see many that believe He dwells in them and...He isn't there. So, when it is written that He would dwell among them then...yes, He was in their hearts.

.

If God dwelt in the hearts of people under the Old Covenant then there would have been no need for Him to pour out His Holy Spirit on the hearts of men in the New.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 11:16 AM

So, either the Bible is wrong, or your interpretation of it is wrong...:p
The Bible isn't wrong, and as I am not interpreting this...I am not in error. So, that leaves......?

Once again pride raises it's ugly head and Whirlwind denies that he interprets the Bible. When will this farce end? Will he ever be able to admit the simplest of truths? Not only does whirlwind "interpret" the Bible, he interprets it in ways that are foreign to the entire body of Biblical commentary written since the first century!

Think about this folks! Whirlwind statement that God never "dwelt" in physical Temple Solomon build in Jerusalem directly contradicts the Biblical testimony and every scholar who has ever written on this subject!

Furthermore, he directly contradicts the entire typological basis for the identification of the Church as the Temple of God:
Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
If God did not "dwell" in Solomon's Temple, then Solomon's Temple would not be a "TYPE" of the Church! This is trivial stuff, yet it is impossible to even discuss any of it in a rational way with Whirlwind because he refuses to speak clearly without twisting words.

I think maybe I have misunderstood Whirlwind. It may be that he is not doing this "deliberately." It is possible that his thoughts are as twisted as his posts, and that he simply can't help it. If so, all I can say is "God help him."

Richard

PS: I explained to Whirlwind that he was incorrectly interpreting the world "dwell" to mean "contain" and showed him that this is the explanation given in Scripture, but he did not understand.

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 11:33 AM

I don't know if you quite understand so I'll expand on this a bit more as I have come to study the meaning of "THE abomination of desolation."

:lol: I thought I would get a reaction and that this was what you were seeing but...I'm seeing something else from your post.

The abomination of desolation (or more correctly, the desecrating sacrilege) can only be committed by God's true priests. In the NT the body of Christ (1 Peter 2:5,9) are considered the Lord's 'priests,' and no other.

We are a temple considered holy by the Lord, and it is not to be defiled lest God judge and destroy him.

1 Cor. 3:17, 'If any man defile the temple (#3485; 'naos') of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.'

2 Cor. 6:16, 'And what agreement hath the temple (#3485; 'naos') of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'

Eph. 2:20-21, 'And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.'

Abomination standing in God's house will make it a forsaken place deprived of God's blessings. This is what 2 Thess. 2:3-4 speaks of.

1 Peter 4:17, 'For the time that judgment (is come) that judgment must begin (2 Thess. 2:7; mystery of iniquity) at the house of God; and if (it) first (begin) at us, what shall the end (be) of them that obey not the gospel of God?'

God bless---Twospirits

My thoughts....

We cannot be God's true priests and abide in His holy temple, where He walks in us, abides in us...unless we recognize that judgment "first begins with us." (see all the above verses for confirmation ) So then, when I read the following it allows me to see....

11 Thessalonians 2:1-7 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

It is written to us "let no man deceive you," so the subject is...us individually and being gathered to Him. We cannot allow ourselves to be deceived "by any means" AND we will not be gathered "except there come a falling away first!"

To me, the falling away is falling away from our old nature of sin. Or...that "man of sin be revealed the son of perdition." We must reveal that man to ourselves before we can crucify him. Until then we are just playing church. We "sitteth in the temple of God," believing He dwells in us when....He doesn't.

Iniquity is at work in each and every one of us and must be "revealed in his time," to be priests of God. In other words, "he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." We letteth iniquity work. We control our destiny.

God bless you too....Whirlwind

.

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 11:35 AM

That is absolutely false. Jesus said:

Matthew 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

Christ was speaking about the stone Temple made with hands. If God did not "dwell" in that Temple, then of whom was Christ speaking when he referred to "him that dwelleth therein"?

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

.

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 11:39 AM

Do you not think that "meeting", and "communing", is the same as DWELLING?

No.

Of course God's permenant dwelling place was in heaven, but He dwelt in the Temple made with hands when He communed with His people.
Exo.25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof...20) And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be....22) And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims WHICH are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

If God dwelt in the hearts of people under the Old Covenant then there would have been no need for Him to pour out His Holy Spirit on the hearts of men in the New.

Rose

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

.

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 11:46 AM

Once again pride raises it's ugly head and Whirlwind denies that he interprets the Bible.

No, Whirlwind wrote....

The Bible isn't wrong, and as I am not interpreting this...I am not in error. So, that leaves......?

Think about this folks! Whirlwind statement that God never "dwelt" in physical Temple Solomon build in Jerusalem directly contradicts the Biblical testimony and every scholar who has ever written on this subject!

Does it directly contradict God? No, it doesn't.

This is trivial stuff, yet it is impossible to even discuss any of it in a rational way with Whirlwind because he refuses to speak clearly without twisting words.

Some may not be able to understand..that doesn't mean anything is twisted...simply not yet open to some.

Richard

PS: I explained to Whirlwind that he was incorrectly interpreting the world "dwell" to mean "contain" and showed him that this is the explanation given in Scripture, but he did not understand.

There is much I still have to understand. You will find that I am very selective on who teaches me.

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 11:53 AM

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

.
That proves my point. The Temple made with hands would not have been a type of the Church (spiritual Temple) if God had not dwelt in it. Why do you not understand this elementary Biblical fact?

Now you claim you do not interpret the verse that says God "dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:24). I say you do. You are claiming that the word "dwell" in this verse has the same meaning as in all other verses. That is "interpretation." And in this case, it is false interpretation. I have explained this to you in great detail, and showed this very idea is taught in Scripture in this post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27730&postcount=220), but you gave no intelligent response, as seen here (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27735&postcount=222). Here is what I wrote - please note the red text:

Hey there Whirlwind,

That was one of the best attempts yet to find a way to support one of your theories from Scripture. Well done! :thumb:

But it is, of course, quite trivial to prove your argument false. We just need to look at what is written:
Exodus 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. 20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. 21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. 22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
God explicitly declares that he would meet with Moses from between cherubim fashioned by Moses for the mercy seat of the ark. God spoke to Moses from between these physcial cherubim atop the ark while they wandered through the wilderness, and this is the topic of Psalm 80:1 which speaks of God as the Shepherd of Israel who guided them through the wilderness by speaking to Moses from between the Cherubim atop the ark which he had made:
Psalm 80:1 Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.
And of course, we know that Christ spoke of God dwelling in the Temple made of stone:
Matthew 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
This verse directly contradicts your assertions. And indeed, every verse confirms every other verse relating to this question, except the one verse that you place above all others concerning the fact that God is not actually "contained" within a temple made with hands. That is the error that verse addresses. It does not void all the other verses that say God's presence "dwelt" in the Temple. This is your error. You take things too literally, and this causes many contradictions in your interpretations of Scripture. The funny thing is that this issue was already dealt with in the very verse in which God says he would dwell in the temple made with hands:
1 Kings 8:11 So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD. 12 Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. 13 I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever. ... 27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
This verse clarifies that God is not "contained" in a limited location, even as it declares that he did "dwell" in the Temple. We see exactly the same tension by the fact that God dwelt "in Christ" who is the True Temple. This is not a contradiction except to minds hampered by excessive literalism, which, but the way, is a very fallacious way of reasoning that ignores the true meanings of words.

So I think I have found the source of your confusion. God ordained the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant to be types of the things in heaven. Thus, just as God "dwells" in heaven, so also he is said to "dwell" "between the cherubim" above the ark. Now a super-fundamentalist ultra-literal mind might find this impossible to comprehend and so refuse to accept that the language of the True Temple is also used in the description of the typological earthly copy, the "shadow." This diagnosis seems pretty likely since you have demonstrate great confusion over the earthly Temple vs. the spiritual Temple. Indeed, you have pressed this confusion so far that you refuse to refer to the earthly Temple as the "Temple" without qualification, which is an absurdity of extraordinary magnitude given that the Bible frequently refers to the earthly Temple with no such qualification.

This is the error of your interpretation of Acts 17:24. It is true that God never "dwelt" in Temples made of hands in the sense of being contained in them. But it is false to say that God did not dwell in the Temple in the sense of making himself available to commune with the priests and to represent his presence in Israel.

And there is one more point. When Paul declared that God does not dwell in temples made of hands, he was speaking after God had abandoned the physical Temple. So your whole argument falls apart on this point as well.

Bottom Line: You are interpreting that Scripture, and you are interpreting it incorrectly, which is why your interpretation leads to contradictions with other passages.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 12:00 PM

Do you not think that "meeting", and "communing", is the same as DWELLING?
No.

Here is Strong's definition of the Greek word that Whirlwind fails to understand:
2730 katoike,w katoikeo {kat-oy-keh'-o}
Meaning: 1) to dwell, settle 1a) metaph. divine powers, influences, etc., are said to dwell in his soul, to pervade, prompt, govern it 2) to dwell in, inhabit 2a) God is said to dwell in the temple, i.e. to be always present for worshippers
The fact that Whirlwind denies "interpreting" Acts 17:24 indicates that he is fundamentally ignorant in the grossest possible way. He does not even admit that words have different meanings dependent upon context. Yet he presents his interpretations as "not interpretations" even as he denies the plain interpretation as it has been understood by students of Scripture for nearly 2000 years. This is a vast, swelling arrogance unlike anything I have ever seen.

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 12:14 PM

That proves my point. The Temple made with hands would not have been a type of the Church (spiritual Temple) if God had not dwelt in it. Why do you not understand this elementary Biblical fact?

You have yet to prove a point.

Now you claim you do not interpret the verse that says God "dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:24). I say you do. You are claiming that the word "dwell" in this verse has the same meaning as in all other verses. That is "interpretation." And in this case, it is false interpretation. I have explained this to you in great detail, and showed this very idea is taught in Scripture in this post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27730&postcount=220), but you gave no intelligent response, as seen here (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27735&postcount=222). Here is what I wrote - please note the red text:

Again, you fail to see what is written.

This is the error of your interpretation of Acts 17:24. It is true that God never "dwelt" in Temples made of hands in the sense of being contained in them. But it is false to say that God did not dwell in the Temple in the sense of making himself available to commune with the priests and to represent his presence in Israel.

:lol:

And there is one more point. When Paul declared that God does not dwell in temples made of hands, he was speaking after God had abandoned the physical Temple. So your whole argument falls apart on this point as well.

Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

What prophet would that be and...when was it written?

Bottom Line: You are interpreting that Scripture, and you are interpreting it incorrectly, which is why your interpretation leads to contradictions with other passages.

Please read what is written with greater care.

.

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 12:19 PM

Here is Strong's definition of the Greek word that Whirlwind fails to understand:[INDENT]2730 katoike,w katoikeo {kat-oy-keh'-o}
Meaning: 1) to dwell, settle 1a) metaph. divine powers, influences, etc., are said to dwell in his soul, to pervade, prompt, govern it 2) to dwell in, inhabit 2a) God is said to dwell in the temple, i.e. to be always present for worshippers

And...what temple would that be? The one made with hands? No, not according to the Bible.

The fact that Whirlwind denies "interpreting" Acts 17:24 indicates that he is fundamentally ignorant in the grossest possible way. He does not even admit that words have different meanings dependent upon context. Yet he presents his interpretations as "not interpretations" even as he denies the plain interpretation as it has been understood by students of Scripture for nearly 2000 years. This is a vast, swelling arrogance unlike anything I have ever seen.

The fact that you fail to read with understanding shows that you are simply ready to throw stones at a child of God. This isn't a good thing...tread carefully.

.

Twospirits

02-11-2011, 12:33 PM

Ram wrote,

This is the error of your interpretation of Acts 17:24. It is true that God never "dwelt" in Temples made of hands in the sense of being contained in them. But it is false to say that God did not dwell in the Temple in the sense of making himself available to commune with the priests and to represent his presence in Israel.

And there is one more point. When Paul declared that God does not dwell in temples made of hands, he was speaking after God had abandoned the physical Temple. So your whole argument falls apart on this point as well.

Richard, when do you see God abandoning the temple if I may ask?

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 12:42 PM

You have yet to prove a point.

Whirlwind posts another lie. Why am I not surprised?

Again, you fail to see what is written.

Whirlwind posts another meaningless one-line denial without any evidence whatsoever. Why am I still not surprised?

:lol:

Whirlwind now surpasses his previous meaningless one-line denials by posting a smiley as if it were a rational response to a biblical argument. I am now beginning to feel a bit of surprise. There appears to be no "bottom" to they abyss of Whirlwind's mind.

And there is one more point. When Paul declared that God does not dwell in temples made of hands, he was speaking after God had abandoned the physical Temple. So your whole argument falls apart on this point as well.
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

What prophet would that be and...when was it written?

Wow ... just when I thought Whirlwind totally incapable of any rational response, he surprises me! It was a good try, but unfortunately he misinterpreted the verse. He thought the phrase "as saith prophet" refers to the preceding statement when in fact it refers to the statement that follows:

Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
The words following "as saith the prophet" are a direct quote from Isaiah 66:1. The words preceding it are not found anywhere in the Old Testament.

The fact that Whirlwind did not understand this point is evident by his question. He did not quote the words that were the subject of "as saith the prophet." On the contrary, he incorrectly implied that the words preceding it were the subject.

Bottom Line: You are interpreting that Scripture, and you are interpreting it incorrectly, which is why your interpretation leads to contradictions with other passages.
Please read what is written with greater care.

.
Dude, I doubt there has ever been anyone who has read your words with greater care. I say this because if anyone had, you would not be repeating the same elementary errors here on my forum, would you?

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 12:59 PM

Once again pride raises it's ugly head and Whirlwind denies that he interprets the Bible.
No, Whirlwind wrote....

The Bible isn't wrong, and as I am not interpreting this...I am not in error. So, that leaves......?

Hey there Whirlwind,

I know that you do not think you are interpreting that verse. That is your error. All words require interpretation. That's why I posted the different definitions of the Greek word translated as "dwell." If you wrongly interpret the words of the Bible, then you will often encounter apparent contradictions in Scripture. Case in point, God did not "dwell" in the Temple made of hands in the sense of being "contained" within the Temple like a human would be, but he did "dwell" in the Temple made with hands in the sense that he was available to his people there. You have not given any reason to reject this explanation. And more importantly, this explanation demonstrates that the verse must be interpreted. You really really need to quit denying that you are interpreting the Bible!

Think about this folks! Whirlwind statement that God never "dwelt" in physical Temple Solomon build in Jerusalem directly contradicts the Biblical testimony and every scholar who has ever written on this subject!
Does it directly contradict God? No, it doesn't.

Whirlwind posts another one-line denial without any evidence, explanation, or biblical support. Why am I not surprised?

This is trivial stuff, yet it is impossible to even discuss any of it in a rational way with Whirlwind because he refuses to speak clearly without twisting words.
Some may not be able to understand..that doesn't mean anything is twisted...simply not yet open to some.

How could anyone understand? You don't even try to explain your own words! You write one liners and simply say "IS NOT" and think anyone could understand you?

PS: I explained to Whirlwind that he was incorrectly interpreting the world "dwell" to mean "contain" and showed him that this is the explanation given in Scripture, but he did not understand.
There is much I still have to understand. You will find that I am very selective on who teaches me.

Great. We are all in the same boat. We are all trying to understand, that is, to correctly interpret what the Bible is saying. To make an progress, we need to seek mutual understanding with each other, so we can see the plain facts that are the REALITY of what the Bible actually states, and then we can pin-point the "hard passages" that are not so clear and that require much more difficult interpretation. Until we agree to work together on this, we will make no progress.

That's why it is important for you to explain how you arrived at your interpretations. Merely asserting that you are just "accepting what the Bible says" without any interpretation is false. It is not even a possibility because the Bible is written in ambiguous human language, which also has been translated, and it was written in a culture from 2000 years ago of which we have no direct knowledge. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that can be understood without interpretation. Absolutely nothing.

Do you understand this fact yet?

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 01:00 PM

Wow ... just when I thought Whirlwind totally incapable of any rational response, he surprises me! It was a good try, but unfortunately he misinterpreted the verse. He thought the phrase "as saith prophet" refers to the preceding statement when in fact it refers to the statement that follows:

Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
The words following "as saith the prophet" are a direct quote from Isaiah 66:1. The words preceding it are not found anywhere in the Old Testament.

Isaiah was indeed the prophet telling us that God doesn't dwell in a temple made with hands. Rather, He tells us where He dwells....

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool: where is the house that ye build unto Me? and where is the place of My rest?

Do you hear the irony in that statement? God dwells in heaven and yet man builds a house for Him, as if the Lord needed us to? So, where your statement was....

Originally Posted by RAM
And there is one more point. When Paul declared that God does not dwell in temples made of hands, he was speaking after God had abandoned the physical Temple. So your whole argument falls apart on this point as well

....we see that the prophet Paul was quoting was declaring this before the physical temple was destroyed in 70AD.

The fact that Whirlwind did not understand this point is evident by his question. He did not quote the words that were the subject of "as saith the prophet." On the contrary, he incorrectly implied that the words preceding it were the subject.

Perhaps it's best to allow others to read it themselves.....

Isaiah 66:1-2 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool: where is the house that ye build unto Me? and where is the place of My rest? (2) For all those things hath Mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word.

.

TheForgiven

02-11-2011, 01:12 PM

Richard, when do you see God abandoning the temple if I may ask?

God bless---Twospirits

Hi Henry. I hope you don't me answering this question. I honestly do not know, but I believe the last time God may have dwelt within a man-made temple was prior to the destruction of Solomon's temple. I could be wrong, but even after the 1st temple was destroyed, and the 2nd temple rebuilt, I honestly don't recall God placing His glory within the 2nd temple, perhaps due to the Arch of the Covenant never being recovered after the Babylonian invasion. At any rate, the fact that He discontinued dwelling in man-made temples was Him trying to prove a point. The picture was this, in my opinion, that a sinful or unclean temple, God will evade or destroy; this picture also applies to a Christian. If a Christian laps back into falsehood, and soils his garment, the glory of God will depart his temple (body).

This is my opinion, and so I could be wrong.

What do you think?

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 01:15 PM

Isaiah was indeed the prophet telling us that God doesn't dwell in a temple made with hands. Rather, He tells us where He dwells....
Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool: where is the house that ye build unto Me? and where is the place of My rest?Do you hear the irony in that statement? God dwells in heaven and yet man builds a house for Him, as if the Lord needed us to? So, where your statement was....

That's right. Solomon spoke of this when he built the Temple for God to dwell in:
1 Kings 8:10 And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, 11 So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD. 12 Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. 13 I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever. 27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
Solomon is saying that God would dwell in the Temple in the sense of being present to his people, but he would not dwell in the Temple in the sense of being contained within it. I've explained this to you at least three times and you have not given any intelligent response as yet. Do you now understand why your interpretation of Acts 17:24 is wrong? If not, why not? You need to show why the word "dwell" is not being used in two different senses in these two different passages.

....we see that the prophet Paul was quoting was declaring this before the physical temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Of course! The presence of God left the Temple when the veil was torn.

Perhaps it's best to allow others to read it themselves.....
Isaiah 66:1-2 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool: where is the house that ye build unto Me? and where is the place of My rest? (2) For all those things hath Mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word..
There you go again! Claiming that any modern person should be able to interpret an English translation of a 2000 year old text written in Koine Greek! Man, when are you going to learn???? You have yet to admit that there are multiple meanings to the word "dwell" including metaphorical meanings.

I am absolutely stunned that you have been studying the Bible for many years and yet you are absolutely ignorant of the most basic principles of Biblical hermeneutics. This is why all your interpretations are just your own private imagination. They have essentially nothing to do with what is actually written in the Bible.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 01:17 PM

Richard, when do you see God abandoning the temple if I may ask?

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry,

Good question. The best answer seems to be when the veil was torn. Some folks believe it was when Christ said "Your house is left to you desolate" but I think that was just a statement that they were on a one-way course to judgment, not that it happened at that moment (since nothing actually happened but Christ speaking to them).

What is your opinion?

Great chatting,

Richard

Twospirits

02-11-2011, 02:38 PM

Ram wrote,

Hey there Henry,

Good question. The best answer seems to be when the veil was torn. Some folks believe it was when Christ said "Your house is left to you desolate" but I think that was just a statement that they were on a one-way course to judgment, not that it happened at that moment (since nothing actually happened but Christ speaking to them).

What is your opinion?

I tend to lean towards the answer Joe gave concerning God's presence not existing “in” the 2nd temple.

The Forgiven wrote,

Hi Henry. I hope you don't me answering this question. I honestly do not know, but I believe the last time God may have dwelt within a man-made temple was prior to the destruction of Solomon's temple. I could be wrong, but even after the 1st temple was destroyed, and the 2nd temple rebuilt, I honestly don't recall God placing His glory within the 2nd temple, perhaps due to the Arch of the Covenant never being recovered after the Babylonian invasion. At any rate, the fact that He discontinued dwelling in man-made temples was Him trying to prove a point. The picture was this, in my opinion, that a sinful or unclean temple, God will evade or destroy; this picture also applies to a Christian. If a Christian laps back into falsehood, and soils his garment, the glory of God will depart his temple (body).

This is my opinion, and so I could be wrong.

What do you think?

I agree with much of what you say. I am of the opinion that after the destruction of Solomon's temple and the 2nd temple was rebuilt we do not see God's presence returning to dwell in it. But the last time we see the presence or “glory of the Lord is in Ezekiel's vision. Ezek. 11:23, “And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which (is) on the east side of the city.”

And in Ezekiel's vision of the measuring of a temple in Ezek. 43:4-7.

“And the glory of the Lord came into* the house by the way of the gate whose prospect (which faces) toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled* the house. And I heard (him) speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne*, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever,---.” We see here the glory of the Lord came into* the house, and the glory of the Lord filled* the house, and henceforth it would be where he would dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. (Ezek. 43:9).

Then we have Christ's first Advent.

John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt (#4637, “skenoo”) among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

That's how I see it.

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 03:08 PM

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 03:19 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 03:42 PM

Hummm .... that makes pretty good sense. But what about these words from Christ?
Matthew 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
How could Christ speak of "him that dwelleth therein" if God no longer dwelt therein?

All the best,

Richard
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

You're joking, right?

I'm mean, we all know that it would be impossible for you to confuse the physical temple mentioned by Jesus in Mat 23:21 with the spiritual temple mentioned in 1 Cor, right?

Doh! :doh:

.
.
.
.

So . . . we all now see that you are still under the delusion that you are not "interpreting" the text if you merely quote it. That is absurd. YOU KNOW you are deliberately implying that the temple in Mat 23.21 is NOT referring to the physical temple when you post the verses from 1 Corinthians. That, my friend, is a deliberate INTERPRETATION of the TEXT.

Will you please GROW A BRAIN already?

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 03:50 PM

You're joking, right?

I'm mean, we all know that it would be impossible for you to confuse the physical temple mentioned by Jesus in Mat 23:21 with the spiritual temple mentioned in 1 Cor, right?

Doh! :doh:

.
.
.
.

So . . . we all now see that you are still under the delusion that you are not "interpreting" the text if you merely quote it. That is absurd. YOU KNOW you are deliberately implying that the temple in Mat 23.21 is NOT referring to the physical temple when you post the verses from 1 Corinthians. That, my friend, is a deliberate INTERPRETATION of the TEXT.

Will you please GROW A BRAIN already?

If I was interpreting you would have seen my interpretation written along with the Scripture I quoted....you only saw Scripture.

Your question was...

"But what about these words from Christ?

Matthew 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

How could Christ speak of "him that dwelleth therein" if God no longer dwelt therein?

Your answer is found in the verses quoted, the un-interpreted verses.

It isn't me confusing the physical and spiritual. There is only one temple...always has been only one temple to our Father and it has always been spiritual.

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 04:09 PM

whirlwind

02-11-2011, 04:50 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 05:12 PM

That is not correct. You were implying that the text you quoted was RELEVANT to the question at hand. And the only way it could be relevant is if you meant to imply that Jesus was talking about the spiritual temple in Mat 23.21. That is a false interpretation.

Your refusal to admit this point is just plain stupid.
Richard....He answered your question. There is no interpretation. He tells you where He dwelleth, where He has always dwelleth.

No "He" didn't.

You wrested his words our of their context and posted them in the context of Mat 23:21 to imply that Christ was speaking of the spiritual temple when in fact he was speaking of the physical Temple. Anyone who can read knows that Christ was talking about the physical Temple in Mat 23:21.

It is your interpretation. Nothing could be more obvious.

Tomret

02-11-2011, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Twospirits
I don't know if you quite understand so I'll expand on this a bit more as I have come to study the meaning of "THE abomination of desolation."

:lol: I thought I would get a reaction and that this was what you were seeing but...I'm seeing something else from your post.

My thoughts....

We cannot be God's true priests and abide in His holy temple, where He walks in us, abides in us...unless we recognize that judgment "first begins with us." (see all the above verses for confirmation ) So then, when I read the following it allows me to see....

11 Thessalonians 2:1-7 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

It is written to us "let no man deceive you," so the subject is...us individually and being gathered to Him. We cannot allow ourselves to be deceived "by any means" AND we will not be gathered "except there come a falling away first!"

To me, the falling away is falling away from our old nature of sin. Or...that "man of sin be revealed the son of perdition." We must reveal that man to ourselves before we can crucify him. Until then we are just playing church. We "sitteth in the temple of God," believing He dwells in us when....He doesn't.

Iniquity is at work in each and every one of us and must be "revealed in his time," to be priests of God. In other words, "he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." We letteth iniquity work. We control our destiny.

God bless you too....Whirlwind

.

Repeating my question from my post 109 about your view of the AoD. Where in the book of Daniel do we find all that?

Richard Amiel McGough

02-11-2011, 07:10 PM

It isn't me confusing the physical and spiritual. There is only one temple...always has been only one temple to our Father and it has always been spiritual.

There you go again! Making up your own doctrines and claiming they are from God. Show us where the Bible teaches that there "always has been only one temple to our Father and it has always been spiritual."

I'll save you the time. You can't.

whirlwind

02-12-2011, 06:00 AM

I tend to lean towards the answer Joe gave concerning God's presence not existing 'in' the 2nd temple.

I agree with much of what you say. I am of the opinion that after the destruction of Solomon's temple and the 2nd temple was rebuilt we do not see God's presence returning to dwell in it. But the last time we see the presence or 'glory of the Lord is in Ezekiel's vision. Ezek. 11:23, 'And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which (is) on the east side of the city.'

Ezekiel 10:1-4 Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne. And He spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight. Now the cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled the inner court. Then the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the LORD's glory.

The cherubims and the throne of the Lord were not in the temple. When they appeared they went as far as the threshold and His glory brightened the court while the cloud filled the house.

After He instructed the "man in linen" who wasn't Christ, then....

10:18-19 Then the glory of the LORD departed from off the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubims. And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight: when they went out, the wheels also were beside them, and every one stood at the door of the east gate of the LORD's house; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.

The throne, the cerubims and...the glory of the Lord that had just arrived, and had never dwelt in the temple, "departed from off the threshold of the house."

Then the spirit teaching Ezekiel showed him those in the temple and what they do.....

11:1-2 Moreover the spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the LORD's house, which looketh eastward: and behold at the door of the gate five and twenty men; among whom I saw Jaazaniah the son of Azur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes of the people. Then said He unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city:

11:22-23 Then did the cherubims lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above. And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.

And in Ezekiel's vision of the measuring of a temple in Ezek. 43:4-7.

'And the glory of the Lord came into* the house by the way of the gate whose prospect (which faces) toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled* the house. And I heard (him) speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne*, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever,---.' We see here the glory of the Lord came into* the house, and the glory of the Lord filled* the house, and henceforth it would be where he would dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. (Ezek. 43:9).

He will dwell IN THE TEMPLE, in the midst of the children of Israel forever...for only His temple is there at that time. The time frame being the millennium. We are the temple He measures.

Then we have Christ's first Advent.

John 1:14, 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt (#4637, 'skenoo') among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.'

That's how I see it.

God bless---Twospirits

He dwells in His temple today and we today can behold His glory.

2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

.

whirlwind

02-12-2011, 06:06 AM

No "He" didn't.

You wrested his words our of their context and posted them in the context of Mat 23:21 to imply that Christ was speaking of the spiritual temple when in fact he was speaking of the physical Temple. Anyone who can read knows that Christ was talking about the physical Temple in Mat 23:21.

It is your interpretation. Nothing could be more obvious.

He has never dwelt in a physical temple. He has taught in the physical as well as the spiritual and it is the spiritual in which He abides.

For the verses I quoted to be considered interpretation then having one given would be required. There was none. There was no wresting. You asked a question....He answered.

.

whirlwind

02-12-2011, 06:33 AM

Repeating my question from my post 109 about your view of the AoD. Where in the book of Daniel do we find all that?

My apologies. I saw your question and forgot to go back to answer it.

Matthew 24:14-15 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

To "see" is to "understand." When we understand the abomination of desolation Daniel taught of, I believe, is to understand the abomination within our selves caused by the desolator/Satan......

Daniel 11:30-31 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate

12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

The abomination we commit when we, believing ourselves to be followers of Christ, act/react in ways that are abominations to His ways. The words we choose to use, the thoughts we allow ourselves to think, the actions we do, the things we listen to...watch....read. Are they abominations to Him? They are choices we make.

So, I see our own nature as the abomination until we crucify it...allowing Him to dwell in us. However, there is one that shall be "set up." He is the one that "maketh desolate." He is the one that deceives God's children.

.

Twospirits

02-12-2011, 09:44 AM

Whirlwind wrote,

Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
I tend to lean towards the answer Joe gave concerning God's presence not existing “in” the 2nd temple.

I agree with much of what you say. I am of the opinion that after the destruction of Solomon's temple and the 2nd temple was rebuilt we do not see God's presence returning to dwell in it. But the last time we see the presence or “glory of the Lord is in Ezekiel's vision. Ezek. 11:23, “And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which (is) on the east side of the city.”

Ezekiel 10:1-4 Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne. And He spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight. Now the cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled the inner court. Then the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the LORD's glory.

Whirlwind wrote,
The cherubims and the throne of the Lord were not in the temple. When they appeared they went as far as the threshold and His glory brightened the court while the cloud filled the house.

Agreed.

After He instructed the "man in linen" who wasn't Christ, then....

10:18-19 Then the glory of the LORD departed from off the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubims. And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight: when they went out, the wheels also were beside them, and every one stood at the door of the east gate of the LORD's house; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.

Whirlwind wrote,
The throne, the cerubims and...the glory of the Lord that had just arrived, and had never dwelt in the temple, "departed from off the threshold of the house."

Agreed.

Then the spirit teaching Ezekiel showed him those in the temple and what they do.....

11:1-2 Moreover the spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the LORD's house, which looketh eastward: and behold at the door of the gate five and twenty men; among whom I saw Jaazaniah the son of Azur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes of the people. Then said He unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city:

11:22-23 Then did the cherubims lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above. And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.

Twospirits wrote,

And in Ezekiel's vision of the measuring of a temple in Ezek. 43:4-7.

“And the glory of the Lord came into* the house by the way of the gate whose prospect (which faces) toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled* the house. And I heard (him) speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne*, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever,---.” We see here the glory of the Lord came into* the house, and the glory of the Lord filled* the house, and henceforth it would be where he would dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. (Ezek. 43:9).

Whirlwind wrote,

He will dwell IN THE TEMPLE, in the midst of the children of Israel forever...for only His temple is there at that time. The time frame being the millennium. We are the temple He measures.

Whirlwind, you see this time frame as being the millennium. Okay, do you see this house as a literal house to be built or do you see it as spiritual as do many futurists and preterists? I ask because you say "we are the temple he measures." Do you mean "we are" what is being measured here in Ezekiel?

God bless---Twospirits

whirlwind

02-12-2011, 11:35 AM

Whirlwind wrote,

Agreed.

Agreed.

Whirlwind, you see this time frame as being the millennium. Okay, do you see this house as a literal house to be built or do you see it as spiritual as do many futurists and preterists? I ask because you say "we are the temple he measures." Do you mean "we are" what is being measured here in Ezekiel?

God bless---Twospirits

I see it as spiritual. Now, don't ask what the cubits, etc. are symbolic of because....I don't know. :)

.

Twospirits

02-12-2011, 12:08 PM

Whirlwind wrote,

Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
Whirlwind wrote,

Agreed.

Agreed.

Whirlwind, you see this time frame as being the millennium. Okay, do you see this house as a literal house to be built or do you see it as spiritual as do many futurists and preterists? I ask because you say "we are the temple he measures." Do you mean "we are" what is being measured here in Ezekiel?

God bless---Twospirits

Whirlwind wrote,
I see it as spiritual. Now, don't ask what the cubits, etc. are symbolic of because....I don't know.

Yes, as I said many do, futurists and preterists alike, but Ezek. 43: 18 tells us that this house would be built:

Ezek. 43:18, “And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make* (Asah) it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.”

6213. asah *
do, make
Original Word: עָשָׂה
Transliteration: asah
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-saw')
Short Definition: accomplish

Here he gives the ordinances of the alter "when they shall make it." This means literally to be built. If so, then it stands to reason so must also the house be built as well, why else all these detailed and exact measurements? In Ezek.43:11 he tells Ezekiel to write all the instructions down "that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them." It seems to me that all these detailed instructions are not to be seen as a spiritual structure but a physical one as Ezek. 43:18 teaches. Its hard to imagine here that all this detailed measuring is to simply be a spiritual temple that is made up of "people."

Some food for thought---

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

02-12-2011, 12:33 PM

If I was interpreting you would have seen my interpretation written along with the Scripture I quoted....you only saw Scripture.

That is not correct. You were implying that the text you quoted was RELEVANT to the question at hand. And the only way it could be relevant is if you meant to imply that Jesus was talking about the spiritual temple in Mat 23.21. That is a false interpretation.

Your refusal to admit this point is just plain stupid.
Richard....He answered your question. There is no interpretation. He tells you where He dwelleth, where He has always dwelleth.

Hey there Whirlwind,

I know you do not understand what I have shown you, but please try again. Your tactic is a mere word trick designed to justify your assertion that you are "not interpreting" if you refrain from openly stating your interpretation when you quote Scripture. That trick is false and misleading. Indeed, it is delusional and you have become the victim of your own rhetorical trick. I have shown this to you many times, but you have not been willing (or able) to see. So let me try again.

Christ spoke of the physical temple and "him that dwelleth therein":
Mat 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
You think that this is impossible because it contradicts your interpretation of Acts 17:24:
Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
So you "resolve" this "contradiction" by posting two verses from 1 Corinthians to imply that Jesus was really talking about the spiritual temple in Matthew 23:21:
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
You posted those verses as an answer to Matt 23:21. Your intent is perfectly clear. You were implying that the temple in Matt 23:21 is a reference to the spiritual, not the physical temple. This is your interpretation. Did God give any interpretation? No. Did God say that the physical temple in Matthew 23:21 is really the spiritual temple in 1 Corinthians? No. You "said" it when you posted those verses in response to Matthew 23:21. You did it all.

The simple fact is that the "spiritual temple" would not be a typological fulfillment of the physical temple if there had not been a physical temple to serve as a type. And just as God "dwelt" in the physical temple, so now he "dwells" in the spiritual temple. If he did not "dwell" in the physical temple, then it would not be a type for the Body of Christ at all.

I really hope that you now can see that you have been implicitly interpreting Scripture when you quote one verse in response to another verse.

You chose those verses because they said what you wanted to imply.

You chose those verses because they fit your interpretation.

Well .. I guess that's the best I can do. Even if you don't understand, I'm sure some others will, and so become free from the delusion that their own personal opinions and interpretations are really the opinions and interpretations of God Himself.

All the very best,

Richard

whirlwind

02-12-2011, 01:25 PM

Whirlwind wrote,

Yes, as I said many do, futurists and preterists alike, but Ezek. 43: 18 tells us that this house would be built:

Ezek. 43:18, 'And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make* (Asah) it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.'

6213. asah *
do, make
Original Word: עָשָׂה
Transliteration: asah
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-saw')
Short Definition: accomplish

Here he gives the ordinances of the alter "when they shall make it." This means literally to be built. If so, then it stands to reason so must also the house be built as well, why else all these detailed and exact measurements? In Ezek.43:11 he tells Ezekiel to write all the instructions down "that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them." It seems to me that all these detailed instructions are not to be seen as a spiritual structure but a physical one as Ezek. 43:18 teaches. Its hard to imagine here that all this detailed measuring is to simply be a spiritual temple that is made up of "people."

Some food for thought---

God bless---Twospirits

All the "detailed measurements" do make me question literal or spiritual but spiritual still wins for me. As I said, I don't yet understand what they refer to but I don't think it is literal. For instance, in that same chapter describing the millennial temple....

Ezekiel 43:18-23 And He said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto Me, to minister unto Me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering. And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.

Sacrifice, blood, killing...in order to cleanse the altar??? He told us....

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

Paul tells us....

Hebrews 9:11-14 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

9:19-20 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

9:24-25 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that He should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

His sacrifice, from the foundation of the world to the end of the world, has put away sin. Will literal sacrifices, literal sprinkling of blood from rams, goats and sheep again be required in the millennium?

I think not, therefore I see the temple written of in Ezekiel as a spiritual temple. So, to me, the house that shall be built refers to people. The righteous (those not of the first resurrection) will be taught during the millennium by the man child (priests). That, I believe, is the house that shall be built.

.

.

Tomret

02-12-2011, 01:59 PM

My apologies. I saw your question and forgot to go back to answer it.

Matthew 24:14-15 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

To "see" is to "understand." When we understand the abomination of desolation Daniel taught of, I believe, is to understand the abomination within our selves caused by the desolator/Satan......

Daniel 11:30-31 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate

12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

The abomination we commit when we, believing ourselves to be followers of Christ, act/react in ways that are abominations to His ways. The words we choose to use, the thoughts we allow ourselves to think, the actions we do, the things we listen to...watch....read. Are they abominations to Him? They are choices we make.

So, I see our own nature as the abomination until we crucify it...allowing Him to dwell in us. However, there is one that shall be "set up." He is the one that "maketh desolate." He is the one that deceives God's children.

.

Thanks for the reply.

It has been shown that Paul confirmed fulfillment of Mt 24:14 and parallels in his time, but whirlwind rejects fulfillments as THE fulfillment.

Futurists remove Dan 11 from its historical context and apply it to yet future events. Some skeptics aware of the intertestamental history charge that Daniel's prophecy so precisely matches that history that it had to have been written after the fact! There's much to be gleaned from Dan 11 but not from the futurist perspective. For those interested check out the podcasts here http://thepodcast.org/category/then-and-now/. The 2 part Dan 11 study begins with the 10-3-10 episode and concludes with the 10-24-10 episode which includes a pdf program notes document. The following episode deals with Dan 12. The entire series is very informative.

Note especially whirlwind's last 2 paragraphs, according to him the 'we' that he has said are the true temple, are also the abomination. :eek: I know the stones of the true temple are not perfect, but we are practicing.

(NASB) 1 John 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;

whirlwind

02-12-2011, 02:23 PM

Thanks for the reply.

It has been shown that Paul confirmed fulfillment of Mt 24:14 and parallels in his time, but whirlwind rejects fulfillments as THE fulfillment.

Indeed I do reject it. :)

Futurists remove Dan 11 from its historical context and apply it to yet future events. Some skeptics aware of the intertestamental history charge that Daniel's prophecy so precisely matches that history that it had to have been written after the fact! There's much to be gleaned from Dan 11 but not from the futurist perspective. For those interested check out the podcasts here http://thepodcast.org/category/then-and-now/. The 2 part Dan 11 study begins with the 10-3-10 episode and concludes with the 10-24-10 episode which includes a pdf program notes document. The following episode deals with Dan 12. The entire series is very informative.

Note especially whirlwind's last 2 paragraphs, according to him the 'we' that he has said are the true temple, are also the abomination. :eek: I know the stones of the true temple are not perfect, but we are practicing.

(NASB) 1 John 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;

There are various stages of "we." Some of the we are the temple and others....are not. Some shall never be.

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-12-2011, 02:45 PM

It has been shown that Paul confirmed fulfillment of Mt 24:14 and parallels in his time, but whirlwind rejects fulfillments as THE fulfillment.
Indeed I do reject it. :)

Tomret statement is true. Neither you nor anyone on the planet has ever refuted the evidence that proves his point. This means that you reject the word of God without reason, and with a smile! :eek:

Twospirits

02-12-2011, 03:58 PM

Whirlwind wrote,

All the "detailed measurements" do make me question literal or spiritual but spiritual still wins for me. As I said, I don't yet understand what they refer to but I don't think it is literal. For instance, in that same chapter describing the millennial temple....

Ezekiel 43:18-23 And He said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto Me, to minister unto Me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering. And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.

Sacrifice, blood, killing...in order to cleanse the altar??? He told us....

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

Paul tells us....
Hebrews 9:11-14 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

9:19-20 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

9:24-25 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that He should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

The verse says, 'These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.' Now if it is to be made in the future, post NC times, there would be no need for blood sacrifices when it would be made, for two reasons. First and foremost Christ's all atoning blood sacrifice of Himself. Second, there is no longer a physical Levitical seed of Zadok to minister to God these blood sacrifices. But there is a representation of a NC priesthood that ministers to God, the body of Christ. They are seen in 1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10.

'Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.'

I think not, therefore I see the temple written of in Ezekiel as a spiritual temple. So, to me, the house that shall be built refers to people. The righteous (those not of the first resurrection) will be taught during the millennium by the man child (priests). That, I believe, is the house that shall be built.

I personally don't believe in the teaching of the millennium, a 1000 year earthly reign with Christ on earth, but I see you do. In any case, the sacrifices seen in Ezekiel are not literal but spiritual offerings, with Christ as the Atoner and High Priest. And in my view the detailed measurements given are to be seen as a physical structure said to be built as Ezek. 43:18 teaches.

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

02-12-2011, 04:52 PM

I personally don't believe in the teaching of the millennium, a 1000 year earthly reign with Christ on earth, but I see you do. In any case, the sacrifices seen in Ezekiel are not literal but spiritual offerings, with Christ as the Atoner and High Priest. And in my view the detailed measurements given are to be seen as a physical structure said to be built as Ezek. 43:18 teaches.

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry,

We agree on this point! It is good to find points of agreement. :thumb:

All the best,

Richard

Tomret

02-12-2011, 05:38 PM

Indeed I do reject it. :)

The nerve of that Paul! Too bad you weren't around to tell him what Jesus really meant.

There are various stages of "we." Some of the we are the temple and others....are not. Some shall never be.

Various stages = are...are not ? I hear there's an opening for a replacement for Robert Gibbs. Interested?

whirlwind

02-13-2011, 05:43 AM

The nerve of that Paul! Too bad you weren't around to tell him what Jesus really meant.

Your idea of what Paul meant and...what Paul meant are not necessarily the same. Your question was....

"Originally Posted by Tomret
It has been shown that Paul confirmed fulfillment of Mt 24:14 and parallels in his time, but whirlwind rejects fulfillments as THE fulfillment. "

My answer of "indeed I do," isn't rejecting Paul's writings. It is rejecting your ideas of what the fulfillment was.

Various stages = are...are not ? I hear there's an opening for a replacement for Robert Gibbs. Interested?

No, the position would be better filled with a preterist...one that doesn't understand "one stone upon another," and the "end of the world." I don't qualify for that.

.

Tomret

02-13-2011, 07:35 AM

Your idea of what Paul meant and...what Paul meant are not necessarily the same. Your question was....

"Originally Posted by Tomret
It has been shown that Paul confirmed fulfillment of Mt 24:14 and parallels in his time, but whirlwind rejects fulfillments as THE fulfillment. "

My answer of "indeed I do," isn't rejecting Paul's writings. It is rejecting your ideas of what the fulfillment was.

I offered a fairly detailed analysis showing Paul used the same Greek words for earth, world, nations, and creation that Jesus used to declare Jesus' commands fulfilled, to which you replied:

"Have all souls yet been born in the world? If not then has the world yet heard?"

Here's your chance to expand on that and offer your own analysis as to how Jesus really meant every soul that would ever be born on the planet. How would that even be possible with many thousands of new births every day? Do you envision a time when all procreation will stop for a time?

Twospirits

02-13-2011, 07:58 AM

Ram wrote,

Hey there Henry,

We agree on this point! It is good to find points of agreement. :thumb:

I posted my position on where I stand here: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1733 on page 15; post #146. I'll post it here for the readers:

In short, the position I hold is similar to an Amil-futurist. I hold that there is no literal 1000 year reign with Christ on earth during that time. That this timely reign of Christ is “heavenly” (Rev. 20:4-6), and occurs during the church age. Contrary to Amils who see the time as symbolic, I believe the “time given” to be a literal length of time, though no man can know its exact beginning and end. This reign continues until—1Cor. 15:25., then Rev. 20:7,8,9; 1 Cor. 15:24 and 2 Peter 3:10-13 occurs.

I do not believe in an "individual anti-christ, nor an individual false prophet" who will deceive the world. I do not believe there is to be a rebuilt temple and re-instituted sacrifices in Jerusalem. Nor do I believe there is to be a great war where a third of mankind is destroyed, and two thirds of Jews perish. Where the remnant of the Jews will then turn to Christ. That is the whole nation of Israel turn to Christ. (Though I wish that were true!). Where then after these things are fulfilled, Christ comes to reign over the world in Jerusalem where animal sacrifices continue throughout the millennium. Where after the millennium Satan is loosed to again cause destruction on the earth, before the eternal state comes in. I reject those teachings.

Dispensationalists believe that the land Covenant of Abraham "From the River Euphrates to the River Egypt" was never fulfilled, but will be either shortly before Christ comes or in the millennial age. I disagree. The Land Covenant was fulfilled during the time of Joshua, if not certainly in the time of David and Solomon. I believe what Rev. 16:15 states will occur, “Behold, I come as a thief (suddenly, quickly and unexpectedly). Blessed (is) he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” In short it will be like the days of Noah, much like today, they did/do “their thing” (2 Peter 3:3-4)), The end of the age and the coming of Christ will come totally unexpectedly.

God bless---Twospirits

whirlwind

02-13-2011, 08:45 AM

I offered a fairly detailed analysis showing Paul used the same Greek words for earth, world, nations, and creation that Jesus used to declare Jesus' commands fulfilled, to which you replied:

"Have all souls yet been born in the world? If not then has the world yet heard?"

Here's your chance to expand on that and offer your own analysis as to how Jesus really meant every soul that would ever be born on the planet. How would that even be possible with many thousands of new births every day? Do you envision a time when all procreation will stop for a time?

I do envision that time. It will stop forever.

Mark 12:24-25 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

When this world/age ends (when there is not "one stone upon another") :D all flesh and blood is gone. All are in spirit. All are in incorruptible bodies. They/we are angelic spiritual beings. Some of those angels are immortal, others not but all are incorruptible...at least through the time of teaching...the millennial age with no influence from Satan.

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

John 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

To be "born again," properly translated is...born from above. All souls must be born from above (our souls leave heaven and are born on earth). Or, to put it another way, be "born of water." We must be physically born from the birth process (the bag of waters.) And, in order to be of His kingdom we must also be born of the Spirit.

Even Christ went through this process. The fallen angels didn't. They by-passed the born from above/of waters part. Consequently, they are eternally damned.

3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

All souls are to go through this process, this flesh life, this time of being proven...to see if we do or do not put on immortality. At some point, soon I think, all souls that were ever created will have been born. After that, no more being "given in marriage." Why? For there shall be no need for man and woman to be separate in order to produce children. We are, once again, both male and female in one body as we were in the previous age.

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-13-2011, 04:04 PM

I'm reposting this because Whirlwind has failed to respond, despite the fact that I have directed her to this post a number of times in our various conversations. I hope she will respond with some rationality. She is getting more and more "hysterical" in her posts, making false accusations and sometimes responding with nothing but smileys - a sort of perverse degradation of her habit of responding with nothing but uninterpreted quotes from Scripture (the topic of the post below).

If I was interpreting you would have seen my interpretation written along with the Scripture I quoted....you only saw Scripture.

That is not correct. You were implying that the text you quoted was RELEVANT to the question at hand. And the only way it could be relevant is if you meant to imply that Jesus was talking about the spiritual temple in Mat 23.21. That is a false interpretation.

Your refusal to admit this point is just plain stupid.
Richard....He answered your question. There is no interpretation. He tells you where He dwelleth, where He has always dwelleth.

Hey there Whirlwind,

I know you do not understand what I have shown you, but please try again. Your tactic is a mere word trick designed to justify your assertion that you are "not interpreting" if you refrain from openly stating your interpretation when you quote Scripture. That trick is false and misleading. Indeed, it is delusional and you have become the victim of your own rhetorical trick. I have shown this to you many times, but you have not been willing (or able) to see. So let me try again.

Christ spoke of the physical temple and "him that dwelleth therein":
Mat 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
You think that this is impossible because it contradicts your interpretation of Acts 17:24:
Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
So you "resolve" this "contradiction" by posting two verses from 1 Corinthians to imply that Jesus was really talking about the spiritual temple in Matthew 23:21:
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
You posted those verses as an answer to Matt 23:21. Your intent is perfectly clear. You were implying that the temple in Matt 23:21 is a reference to the spiritual, not the physical temple. This is your interpretation. Did God give any interpretation? No. Did God say that the physical temple in Matthew 23:21 is really the spiritual temple in 1 Corinthians? No. You "said" it when you posted those verses in response to Matthew 23:21. You did it all.

The simple fact is that the "spiritual temple" would not be a typological fulfillment of the physical temple if there had not been a physical temple to serve as a type. And just as God "dwelt" in the physical temple, so now he "dwells" in the spiritual temple. If he did not "dwell" in the physical temple, then it would not be a type for the Body of Christ at all.

I really hope that you now can see that you have been implicitly interpreting Scripture when you quote one verse in response to another verse.

You chose those verses because they said what you wanted to imply.

You chose those verses because they fit your interpretation.

Well .. I guess that's the best I can do. Even if you don't understand, I'm sure some others will, and so become free from the delusion that their own personal opinions and interpretations are really the opinions and interpretations of God Himself.

All the very best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

02-13-2011, 04:15 PM

I posted my position on where I stand here: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1733 on page 15; post #146. I'll post it here for the readers:

In short, the position I hold is similar to an Amil-futurist. I hold that there is no literal 1000 year reign with Christ on earth during that time. That this timely reign of Christ is 'heavenly' (Rev. 20:4-6), and occurs during the church age. Contrary to Amils who see the time as symbolic, I believe the 'time given' to be a literal length of time, though no man can know its exact beginning and end. This reign continues until—1Cor. 15:25., then Rev. 20:7,8,9; 1 Cor. 15:24 and 2 Peter 3:10-13 occurs.

Wow - I completely agree ... except I don't know anything about the "until" since I can't see how to separate the events of the verses you cite from the ones that were clearly fulfilled in 70 AD. That's what forces Full Preterism. It is NOT a "presupposition" or a "starting point." It is a conclusion that seems forced by Scripture if we are to assume that Scripture is consistent. Partial Preterists are just saying they can't figure it out, and that's OK. I can't really either. I just do the best I can and keep away from the ambiguous aspects that require too much speculation.

I do not believe in an "individual anti-christ, nor an individual false prophet" who will deceive the world. I do not believe there is to be a rebuilt temple and re-instituted sacrifices in Jerusalem. Nor do I believe there is to be a great war where a third of mankind is destroyed, and two thirds of Jews perish. Where the remnant of the Jews will then turn to Christ. That is the whole nation of Israel turn to Christ. (Though I wish that were true!). Where then after these things are fulfilled, Christ comes to reign over the world in Jerusalem where animal sacrifices continue throughout the millennium. Where after the millennium Satan is loosed to again cause destruction on the earth, before the eternal state comes in. I reject those teachings.

Wow. We seem to be in complete agreement. Amazing!

Dispensationalists believe that the land Covenant of Abraham "From the River Euphrates to the River Egypt" was never fulfilled, but will be either shortly before Christ comes or in the millennial age. I disagree. The Land Covenant was fulfilled during the time of Joshua, if not certainly in the time of David and Solomon.

Wow. Again, total agreement!

I believe what Rev. 16:15 states will occur, 'Behold, I come as a thief (suddenly, quickly and unexpectedly). Blessed (is) he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.' In short it will be like the days of Noah, much like today, they did/do 'their thing' (2 Peter 3:3-4)), The end of the age and the coming of Christ will come totally unexpectedly.

God bless---Twospirits
I don't share that belief ... or any of your beliefs about the futurist interpretation of Revelation. I believe the Olivet Discourse is a "Little Apocalypse" and that it is fully and profoundly integrated with the book of Revelation.

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

02-14-2011, 10:56 AM

I have moved the very promising conversation with Henry to a new thread called The Great Divide between Preterism and Futurism (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2074).

Tomret

02-14-2011, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Tomret

I offered a fairly detailed analysis showing Paul used the same Greek words for earth, world, nations, and creation that Jesus used to declare Jesus' commands fulfilled, to which you replied:

"Have all souls yet been born in the world? If not then has the world yet heard?"

Here's your chance to expand on that and offer your own analysis as to how Jesus really meant every soul that would ever be born on the planet. How would that even be possible with many thousands of new births every day? Do you envision a time when all procreation will stop for a time?

I do envision that time. It will stop forever.

Mark 12:24-25 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

When this world/age ends (when there is not "one stone upon another") :D all flesh and blood is gone. All are in spirit. All are in incorruptible bodies. They/we are angelic spiritual beings. Some of those angels are immortal, others not but all are incorruptible...at least through the time of teaching...the millennial age with no influence from Satan.

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Your answer to my last question is a non-answer. Those passages are AFTER the last trump, AFTER the resurrection, AFTER the end which Jesus said would follow the gospel being preached to the world, which Paul declared fulfilled in the 1st century.

Let's see if you did any better with my first question:

John 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

To be "born again," properly translated is...born from above. All souls must be born from above (our souls leave heaven and are born on earth). Or, to put it another way, be "born of water." We must be physically born from the birth process (the bag of waters.) And, in order to be of His kingdom we must also be born of the Spirit.

Even Christ went through this process. The fallen angels didn't. They by-passed the born from above/of waters part. Consequently, they are eternally damned.

3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

All souls are to go through this process, this flesh life, this time of being proven...to see if we do or do not put on immortality. At some point, soon I think, all souls that were ever created will have been born. After that, no more being "given in marriage." Why? For there shall be no need for man and woman to be separate in order to produce children. We are, once again, both male and female in one body as we were in the previous age.

Nope. You avoided the context of the question and quoted a passage about spiritual birth. My questions were in context of your questions which were in context of when the gospel was/would be spread to the world. You evade context and put forth distractions because you cannot offer your own analysis as to how Jesus really meant every person that would ever be born on the planet.

whirlwind

02-14-2011, 01:35 PM

Your answer to my last question is a non-answer. Those passages are AFTER the last trump, AFTER the resurrection, AFTER the end which Jesus said would follow the gospel being preached to the world, which Paul declared fulfilled in the 1st century.

If you see that from his words then you don't understand what Paul wrote....

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul wrote his epistles to all that he is a minister to...he is a minister to me and to you. So, continue in the faith as he instructs all of us.

Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Let's see if you did any better with my first question:

Nope. You avoided the context of the question and quoted a passage about spiritual birth. My questions were in context of your questions which were in context of when the gospel was/would be spread to the world. You evade context and put forth distractions because you cannot offer your own analysis as to how Jesus really meant every person that would ever be born on the planet.

You asked...."Do you envision a time when all procreation will stop for a time?" I replied that yes...it will stop forever and gave you detailed SCRIPTURE to reinforce that belief. Why would you want "my analysis" when I offer His Words? A point will be reached where all souls He has created will be born in the flesh.

.

Tomret

02-15-2011, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Tomret
Your answer to my last question is a non-answer. Those passages are AFTER the last trump, AFTER the resurrection, AFTER the end which Jesus said would follow the gospel being preached to the world, which Paul declared fulfilled in the 1st century.

If you see that from his words then you don't understand what Paul wrote....

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

My reply above was in response to your quoting Mk 12:24-25 and 1 Co 15:51-54 to claim procreation will stop so the gospel can reach every yet unborn soul. Since you answered my last question first, I used color coding and "first" and "last" to reference your answers to my questions to eliminate confusion, yet here you don't even seem to know what you are responding to. Or, you aren't confused, and are deliberately injecting confusion.

Paul wrote his epistles to all that he is a minister to...he is a minister to me and to you. So, continue in the faith as he instructs all of us.

Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Thanks for providing Paul's confirmation of fulfillment of this:

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Paul did not write TO us, His epistles are preserved FOR us. You refuse to accept that record

Let's see if you did any better with my first question:

Nope. You avoided the context of the question and quoted a passage about spiritual birth. My questions were in context of your questions which were in context of when the gospel was/would be spread to the world. You evade context and put forth distractions because you cannot offer your own analysis as to how Jesus really meant every person that would ever be born on the planet.

You asked...."Do you envision a time when all procreation will stop for a time?" I replied that yes...it will stop forever and gave you detailed SCRIPTURE to reinforce that belief. Why would you want "my analysis" when I offer His Words? A point will be reached where all souls He has created will be born in the flesh.

That was your reply to my last question not my first. Go back and look at the color code and the words "first" and "last." You seem to have a severe reading comprehension problem - which explains a lot! As for your reply to my first question, Jn 3:3-5 and your comments that you offered had absolutely nothing to do with that question. In fact, NOTHING in your reply had ANYTHING to do with the specific topic at hand.

I challenged you to give your analysis because I know you can't possibly give one, as you have just demonstrated. His Words that you offered are totally unrelated to my questions about your claim that Mt 24:14 and parallels apply to every person that would ever be born in the flesh. I added red emphasis to Mk 12:24-25 and 1 Co 15:51-54 that you provided to show they were clearly speaking of POST resurrection, NOT about people that would be born in the flesh. But, you just deny, deny, deny and flat out pervert the Word you claim to be a gifted revealer of.

whirlwind

02-15-2011, 10:27 AM

My reply above was in response to your quoting Mk 12:24-25 and 1 Co 15:51-54 to claim procreation will stop so the gospel can reach every yet unborn soul. Since you answered my last question first, I used color coding and "first" and "last" to reference your answers to my questions to eliminate confusion, yet here you don't even seem to know what you are responding to. Or, you aren't confused, and are deliberately injecting confusion.

I'm not saying procreation stops so the gospel can reach anyone. I'm saying that in the next age there is no need of procreation nor will there be any. Flesh and blood is forever gone when this age ends! No more male/female. No more births.

Thanks for providing Paul's confirmation of fulfillment of this:

You're welcome....are you "in the world," are you one of "every creature under heaven?" If the answer is yes then Paul has written to us.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Paul did not write TO us, His epistles are preserved FOR us. You refuse to accept that record

Well, one of us is refusing to see and accept. :)

That was your reply to my last question not my first. Go back and look at the color code and the words "first" and "last." You seem to have a severe reading comprehension problem - which explains a lot! As for your reply to my first question, Jn 3:3-5 and your comments that you offered had absolutely nothing to do with that question. In fact, NOTHING in your reply had ANYTHING to do with the specific topic at hand.

It had everything to do with it.

I challenged you to give your analysis because I know you can't possibly give one, as you have just demonstrated. His Words that you offered are totally unrelated to my questions about your claim that Mt 24:14 and parallels apply to every person that would ever be born in the flesh. I added red emphasis to Mk 12:24-25 and 1 Co 15:51-54 that you provided to show they were clearly speaking of POST resurrection, NOT about people that would be born in the flesh. But, you just deny, deny, deny and flat out pervert the Word you claim to be a gifted revealer of.

They are related Tom...your confusion is because you can't come to terms with the time frame.

.