Will Ezekiel's Temple be built in Israel?

[Stephen]

This thread split off from the Ezekiel's Temple is the Word of God (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=49) which deals with the symbolic aspect of the Temple and its relation to the Bible Wheel.

Here we will wrestle with the question of whether or not the Temple is meant to be interpreted "literally", the meaning of the Levitical priesthood in Ezekiel 40-48, whether or not the sacrifices will be reintroduced, and other such matters.

RAM

Stephen's post begins below:

================================

Hi folks!

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". ;)

Why not just accept the plain text, in all its explicit detail? God said there's going to be a new temple in the Holy Land. God said the land is going to be divided amongst the 12 tribes of Israel. Real tribes of real people. God said sacrifice is going to be reinstituted. And guess what? Death is still going to be around, too, when all this is happening.

I think you guys are working way too hard to try and make this fit your own understanding of Scripture. To my mind, it's not the plain text that needs to be adjusted to fit a belief system. It's the other way around. The belief system needs some major overhauling. The deep questions need to be confronted, not sidestepped through claiming everything is a type that needs some dodgy decoding. Things we thought we knew need some serious review, and, where appropriate, need to be discarded.

Yesterday, I posed a question regarding God's new temple from Ezekiel's book. At the time, I had never thought to go looking for an answer myself. Between now and then I did a yahoo search. The first two websites I met came up with answers to my important questions as a Christian. They make a lot more sense to me than this wishy-washy 'spiritualising' caper that attempts to subsume everything into the church. There was a time before the church, and there is going to be a time after the church. We are part of that process, but we are not the be-all and end-all. That's what my whole Bible tells me.

http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTempleEzekielsMillennialTemple.htm
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/templemi.htm

Come on, folks! Please, stop tinting everything through the lens of the church. The explanations that emanate from that viewpoint need so much qualifying that they are, to my mind, untenable, to put it politely. God's salvation plan is a lot bigger than that.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!" :(

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi folks!

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". ;)

Hey Stephen,

Good line! But you know why Freud had to say it. He had a wicked cigar habit and the Freudian implica ... :lol:

But your point is well taken.


Why not just accept the plain text, in all its explicit detail?

God said there's going to be a new temple in the Holy Land.
I couldn't find a verse that where God says their is going to be a new temple in the Holy land. Indeed, the vision starts out without a single statement about anything being built. But then we do find this:

KJV Ezekiel 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 it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.

I never noticed that before. It certainly puts some weight on your side of the scales.

But I can't "just accept the plain text" here if it contradicts the plain text there. In other words, a proper understanding of Scripture will have to make sense overall, on a grand scale, and the idea of a Temple with sacrifices that sound just like what was going on when Jesus first came makes no sense at all in light of the whole Bible.


God said the land is going to be divided amongst the 12 tribes of Israel. Real tribes of real people. God said sacrifice is going to be reinstituted. And guess what? Death is still going to be around, too, when all this is happening.

But Christ is the ONLY sacrifice for sin!

KJV Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:26 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.

It seems like a horrible backwards movement, completely out of harmony with the entire message of Scripture, to suggest that they will go back to types and shadows.


I think you guys are working way too hard to try and make this fit your own understanding of Scripture. To my mind, it's not the plain text that needs to be adjusted to fit a belief system. It's the other way around. The belief system needs some major overhauling. The deep questions need to be confronted, not sidestepped through claiming everything is a type that needs some dodgy decoding. Things we thought we knew need some serious review, and, where appropriate, need to be discarded.
I highlighted your sentiment because I agree with it. Except the idea that our purpose has been dogdy decoding. It is God who established and taught us typology. Christ was typified by the Passover Lamb. It seems impossible that God Himself would ever have his people return to slaughtering lambs. It just doesn't fit with the message of the whole Bible. No dodge here. I'm talking about the plain sense of the plain text.

And that's why your question about Ezekiel's Temple is "curly" as you put it in the other post. You know we aren't just dodging when we have trouble accepting the literal meaning of this vision.


Yesterday, I posed a question regarding God's new temple from Ezekiel's book. At the time, I had never thought to go looking for an answer myself. Between now and then I did a yahoo search. The first two websites I met came up with answers to my important questions as a Christian. They make a lot more sense to me than this wishy-washy 'spiritualising' caper that attempts to subsume everything into the church.
Them thars strong words, pa'dner. They don't rile me none, but they could ruffle the feathers of some of our more genteel members.

Now we still have a lot of work to do with that whole "replacement theology" thang which does not seem well defined because you yourself admit that Paul refers to the Church as Israel. So I really don't know what you are getting at when you complain about "attempts to subsume everything into the church" since that's exactly what Paul did!

Ephesians 1:20-23 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The church is heir of the world because only those in the house of faith are sons of Abraham:

Romans 4:13 13 ¶ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

It is my contention that True Israel was transformed into the church when Christ came. If you were a physical son of Abraham at the time of Christ, and you rejected the Lord, your spiritual state was no different than any other unbeliever. There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. The wall of separation has been abolished in his flesh by the cross. Its done. I am guessing we still need to hash this one out. Its amazing how interconnected theology really is. Joel and I found that we had to discuss the rapture before we could sort out the Body vs. Bride thing, and now you and I find that we need to sort out the basic relation between the Church and Israel before we can sort out this thing Ezekiel's Temple.


There was a time before the church, and there is going to be a time after the church.
That is a point of major disagreement. I believe the Church will endure until Christ returns.


We are part of that process, but we are not the be-all and end-all. That's what my whole Bible tells me.

http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTempleEzekielsMillennialTemple.htm
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/templemi.htm

I own the Sons to Glory book, and I have his picture of Ezekiel's Temple on page 180 of the Bible Wheel book. He's a great guy. I'll invite him over to the forum, so maybe he can straighten us all out! ;)

What part of his material did you think applies to the question at hand, and how?


Come on, folks! Please, stop tinting everything through the lens of the church.
That's not fair Stephen. We have not yet come close to settling the "replacement theology" issue, so its not like we are obstinately "tinting everything through the lens of the church." We believe that's exactly what the Bible teaches, and we are only trying to be faithful and true to the Word of God.

I understand you are frustrated. I hope "blowing off" a little steam in this thread helped. And I really hope you know that I hear you, but my beliefs are based on a very large and profoundly coherent image of the message of the whole Bible so I can't randomly change one part without another part changing into something else since everything is interconnected and so we have to discuss the whole Bible at once and that aint no task for the faint-hearted! Or the impatient!



The explanations that emanate from that viewpoint need so much qualifying that they are, to my mind, untenable, to put it politely. God's salvation plan is a lot bigger than that.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!" :(

Stephen

And sometimes its not! Just ask Bill Clinton. :p


But seriously, that was a great post Stephen! Very challenging. :thumb: I look forward to working this out with you and our friends .. I know I have a lot to learn about Ezek 40-48.

Thanks!

[Stephen]

Hi Richard,

Yeah, sorry about that straight-shooting talk. When I was out in the city this morning, I was thinking it was really a bit over the top. Someone with the opposite viewpoint to me would be equally justified in throwing my own comments right back at me. By the time I got home and switched on the computer to edit the message before anyone read it, I discovered you'd beaten me there. :o Like the Freudian retort. :lol:

Believe me, I do understand where you're coming from, too. That's why I hear you when you give me a jab in the ribs for being ungracious. Like you, I get the feist rising up in me on occasion, and need to learn that it has its place. This forum is not a place for my feist. So I apologise for that, and take back all unnecessary jibes.

In regards to the physical Israel thing that Ive been pushing, I was lucky enough to hear that message within the first year of my coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, so I didn't have decades of stuff to break down before assimilating it. Oddly enough, it was one of the articles of faith of the fellowship I attended in NZ at the time. Even odder, they hardly ever spoke about it! Why have an article of faith if you're not going to teach it :confused: Anyway, I went asking about it. I still strongly resisted the teaching for the first two years, and only gradually came around. Now, as you can tell, I swear by its veracity ... though admit that it does not impact upon our personal salvation with our Lord. Because of this, I know it is NOT a major issue. However, without this knowledge, the greatness of the OT message is muffled and out of focus.

Regarding the issue of the church remaining until Christ returns, I think you'll find that we are actually in perfect agreement. My position on this also seems to be similar to that taken by Joel, although, like yourself, I don't believe in the rapture followed by a great tribulation of 7 years, or however long it is said to be. The point I wished to make was that there will be a time when the church will have fulfilled its present purpose, and that time will coincide with the Lord's return. Only after that event will we see another phase ushered in in the great salvation plan of God. Very exciting stuff!

A huge part of God's plan for the post-Church age revolves around physical Israel. Physical Israel (of which the Jews are only a small part) has already been pretty much reconstituted, but as yet she hasn't consciously stepped up to her calling. But she will. In fact, she is already unconsciously fulfilling her role (which is basically the same role she was given at Mount Sinai: to make God's name known among the nations). Watch out world when Israel wakes up to who she is! Israel WILL snap out of her blindness one day. Like Joel, that's what I understand Paul's conclusion to be at the end of his lengthy Israel discourse covering Romans, chapters 9 to 11. The church has been grafted in to this great calling. God didn't hack down the olive tree. He didn't plant a new one and call it the church. He grafted the church into the existing olive tree from which some of the branches had been broken off (NB: Great Seal imagery yet again, the olive branch; America is the most important part of physical Israel today). That olive tree is Israel. From my reading, Paul upbraids those in the church who see themselves as replacing Israel: "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee" (Romans 11:18). The error seems to be that the grafted in branch has mistaken itself as being the entire olive tree!

Paul then goes on to teach us that (physical) Israel will remain blind until some unspecified time, probably the return of the Lord Jesus, when God will have mercy on them. He will justify His grace toward them by citing us, the church, as an example of His graciousness (Romans 11:25-32). So we had better not complain at God's graciousness to them when this time comes (physical Israel as a type of the prodigal son). Note, too, Paul is not referring to the church when he uses the word Israel in these particular verses. The church is clearly only a part of Israel.

I don't have all the answers in regard to my position. I'm also learning as I go. I see no conflict in the position I hold. God's Israel always, and preeminently, included a physical element. The church supplements this, being very much a spiritual element. But not at the expense of the physical. That's why I liked what I read in the two links I sent you. They bridge the transition between the Church age and the post-Church age (or Millennial age). They give some really good scriptural cross-references for a new temple and the reinstitution of animal sacrifice, grounding the latter in faith: it is the faith behind the act that makes it righteous rather than the actual animal sacrificed. It retrospectively acknowledges the work of the King, Jesus. It does it in a physical way, because this next phase of God's plan is post-Church, and serves a different purpose (the details of which are for another thread and another time). I enjoy the challenge this interpretation brings to my understanding, probably because it fits easily into the theology that I believe the Bible teaches regarding the 12 tribes. I'm sure Freud would feel easier with that proposition, too :D

I will close with this thought. Jesus Christ is both God and Man, human and divine. He is the only nexus between the two, between heaven and earth. Small wonder that Israel should also be both: the church (divine) and 12 tribes (human); the Body (church) and the Bride (12 tribes?). "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men".

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

PS: Hebrews 7:27 and 9:26 are for us only, the church. In the post-Church age, this offer will be gone, and a new phase will begin. Accepting Jesus' sacrifice will require retrospective faith, embodied in actual animal sacrifice. You were right about this issue being 'curly' for me, but I now accept the reasoning given at the links I provided earlier. However, I still have a lot to learn from these last 8 or 9 chapters of Ezekiel.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Yeah, sorry about that straight-shooting talk. When I was out in the city this morning, I was thinking it was really a bit over the top. Someone with the opposite viewpoint to me would be equally justified in throwing my own comments right back at me. By the time I got home and switched on the computer to edit the message before anyone read it, I discovered you'd beaten me there. :o Like the Freudian retort. :lol:

Believe me, I do understand where you're coming from, too. That's why I hear you when you give me a jab in the ribs for being ungracious. Like you, I get the feist rising up in me on occasion, and need to learn that it has its place. This forum is not a place for my feist. So I apologise for that, and take back all unnecessary jibes.
You be one real mensch there bro!

And ya know, I'm really glad you wrote what you did. It accomplished at least four important functions that I can think of:

It showed you really care passionately about your faith.
It showed you are strong enough to repent publicly.
It showed you listen to others, and care about how they feel.
It showed how easy it is to keep peace on an internet forum even when people hold very different views.Good examples for all of us. Thanks again!


In regards to the physical Israel thing that Ive been pushing, I was lucky enough to hear that message within the first year of my coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, so I didn't have decades of stuff to break down before assimilating it. Oddly enough, it was one of the articles of faith of the fellowship I attended in NZ at the time. Even odder, they hardly ever spoke about it! Why have an article of faith if you're not going to teach it :confused: Anyway, I went asking about it. I still strongly resisted the teaching for the first two years, and only gradually came around. Now, as you can tell, I swear by its veracity ... though admit that it does not impact upon our personal salvation with our Lord. Because of this, I know it is NOT a major issue. However, without this knowledge, the greatness of the OT message is muffled and out of focus.
Its odd, but on the one hand, yes, it is a "peripheral" issue in the sense that we can preach the Gospel without ever mentioning it, and a person can be made right with God through faith in Christ without every hearing of it, so it most definitely is not an "essential doctrine" of the faith.

But on the other hand, it strongly impacts essential doctrines of the faith if we try to follow it through to its full implications. I'm not talking about the idea that America is Manasseh per se, but the idea that Israel did not "become" the Church. In our previous discussion, I thought you agreed that Paul taught the church inherited all the promises, so I feel like we are going back and forth on that issue. In one post you agree that there is no Jew of Greek, and then you say there is (or will be) and then .... Why is it so difficult to get this doctrine nailed down? I'm not talking about it taking a long time to convince me of its veracity, I'm asking why it is so hard to state the doctrine itself?


However, without this knowledge, the greatness of the OT message is muffled and out of focus.
This pretty much sums up my initial resistance. How could there be a greater message than Christ crucified and raised to eternal life? That is why the non-spiritualization of Scripture, to coin a most delightful counter-term, seems to make the message of the OT "muffled and out of focus." It consistently seems to be a retrograde movement back towards types and shadows. We must spiritualize the Bible, for indeed, only the spiritual man can receive its message:

1 Corinthians 2:14 ¶ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How does the idea of "natural Israel" fit into the Bible's message, which it declares to be primarily spiritual?

We must unite to fight the non-spiritualization of Scripture!


The church has been grafted in to this great calling. God didn't hack down the olive tree. He didn't plant a new one and call it the church.
No. I never said anything like that. God didn't plant a new tree. We all know that. But neither did God graft in the "Church." This is the error. You have mistaken the "Church" for the "Gentiles." The Church is made up of Israel (natural sons of Abraham) and Gentiles. It was the Gentiles that were grafted in to the Olive Tree (= Church composed of Jewish Christians) and it was the unbelieving natural sons of Abraham that were broken off.

This is a very important point. The Church initially consisted of natural sons of Abraham who believed the Gospel. Then the Gentiles were grafted into the that Church, called the "Olive Tree". Unbelieving natural sons were "broken off" from God's Olive Tree, which is rooted in Christ, the True Olive Tree.


He grafted the church into the existing olive tree from which some of the branches had been broken off (NB: Great Seal imagery yet again, the olive branch; America is the most important part of physical Israel today).
I think you are "cherry picking" or should we say "olive picking"? What I mean is that the Olive is a symbol on many flags of many different nations, and even groups of nations. For example (http://rosella.apana.org.au/%7Emlb/cranes/symbols.htm):
the United Nations symbol with the world flanked by a wreath of crossed olive branches;
the Great Seal of the USA where the eagle carries in its right talon an olive branch with 13 leaves to represent peace between the original member States (this also appears on the flag of the Virgin Islands);
the flag of the league of Arab States which has an upturned crescent encircled by a gold chain and olive wreath;
the flag of Cyprus which has crossed olive branches beneath a map of the island to represent peace between the Greek and Turkish populations; and
the flag of Eritrea which includes a golden olive wreath and stem, originally inspired by the flag of the United Nations.Ya know Stephen, sometimes an "olive is just an olive." :p



That olive tree is Israel. From my reading, Paul upbraids those in the church who see themselves as replacing Israel: "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee" (Romans 11:18). The error seems to be that the grafted in branch has mistaken itself as being the entire olive tree!
This is the same error exposed above. You have mistaken the Church for the Gentiles. It is easy to see who Paul was "upbraiding."

Romans 11:17-21 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree [Gentiles], wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches [natural sons of Abraham], take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Paul was warning the Gentiles who had been grafted in to the Church (Olive Tree) that began with believe sons of Abraham not to think they were better "by nature" than the "natural branches" that were cut off.


Paul then goes on to teach us that (physical) Israel will remain blind until some unspecified time, probably the return of the Lord Jesus, when God will have mercy on them. He will justify His grace toward them by citing us, the church, as an example of His graciousness (Romans 11:25-32). So we had better not complain at God's graciousness to them when this time comes (physical Israel as a type of the prodigal son). Note, too, Paul is not referring to the church when he uses the word Israel in these particular verses. The church is clearly only a part of Israel.
Well, the interpretation of Rom 11 is a big project. I personally wouldn't want any fundamental doctrine to rest only on a portion of Scripture that is so highly disputed.


I don't have all the answers in regard to my position.
Heh ... I don't even have all the questions!


I'm also learning as I go. I see no conflict in the position I hold. God's Israel always, and preeminently, included a physical element. The church supplements this, being very much a spiritual element. But not at the expense of the physical. That's why I liked what I read in the two links I sent you. They bridge the transition between the Church age and the post-Church age (or Millennial age).
I will will make a thread to post a review of those links - they will almost certainly take on a life of their own.


They give some really good scriptural cross-references for a new temple and the reinstitution of animal sacrifice, grounding the latter in faith: it is the faith behind the act that makes it righteous rather than the actual animal sacrificed. It retrospectively acknowledges the work of the King, Jesus. It does it in a physical way, because this next phase of God's plan is post-Church, and serves a different purpose (the details of which are for another thread and another time). I enjoy the challenge this interpretation brings to my understanding, probably because it fits easily into the theology that I believe the Bible teaches regarding the 12 tribes. I'm sure Freud would feel easier with that proposition, too :D
You really are doing a good job presenting your point of view. Thanks Stephen.


I will close with this thought. Jesus Christ is both God and Man, human and divine. He is the only nexus between the two, between heaven and earth. Small wonder that Israel should also be both: the church (divine) and 12 tribes (human); the Body (church) and the Bride (12 tribes?). "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men".

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

I see the church as fully "physical" - I don't see anything added by Israel to the picture.


PS: Hebrews 7:27 and 9:26 are for us only, the church. In the post-Church age, this offer will be gone, and a new phase will begin. Accepting Jesus' sacrifice will require retrospective faith, embodied in actual animal sacrifice. You were right about this issue being 'curly' for me, but I now accept the reasoning given at the links I provided earlier. However, I still have a lot to learn from these last 8 or 9 chapters of Ezekiel.

That's an example of the problems caused by this idea. Scripture says nothing about the "offer" of Christ ending at some point in the (near?) future. That just doesn't sit right with me, in any way at all.

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

You make a fair point concerning the olive tree being understood as the Jews, with the branches of unbelief being broken off, and the Gentiles being grafted in. I accept your take on this (sort of, though, in my reading of it, the context dictates the olive tree as being synonymous with Israel, rather than the Jewish church), yet believe it belongs to a metanarrative concerning all Israel (see, for example, Hosea 14:6).

Let me try and state my viewpoint as concisely as I'm able :lol:
(1) God's plan is transmitted via His servant nation, Israel.
(2) Israel is to be understood along the lines of Church (Christians) and State (physical descendants). These themes run concurrently.
(3) Most of the OT prophecies relate to physical Israel, some relate to the Church, and some relate to both.
(4) In relation to point (2), God did not create the Church at the expense of the State (physical Israel). He created it in conjunction with the State.
(5) The Jews are only a small portion of physical Israel. The greater part of physical Israel today is found as the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and a few NW European nations.

These are the very basic ground rules that I believe in. From them, the entire Bible story is to be understood, from start to finish. Therefore, I hold the following to be true in respect of prophecy:
(a) Physical Israel existed before the Church age; exists during the Church age; and will exist after the Church age is wound up at the Lord's return.
(b) Physical Israel is not the Church, although it provides the conditions in which the Church is able to flourish and evangelise. (In answer to your query, this is precisely what physical Israel adds to the picture). Hence, the two themes running concurrently, as at point (2), above.
(c) The Church is not physical Israel, although millions of people are part of both groups. The Church is the spiritual arm of Israel.
(d) God uses both spiritual and physical Israel - Church and State - to make His message known to the nations.
(e) Jesus will have mercy on physical Israel when he returns.

That's where I'm coming from in a nutshell. Bible prophecy fits seamlessly onto that template, without the need to have to reduce everything to type / antitype. It also grounds the Church age as being but one phase in a bigger plan. The Church age is not the final phase. The Church will be part of Christ in the Millennial age, ruling over physical Israel (for example, Matthew 19:28). There will be a new temple at this time, along with all the other detailed stuff spoken of at the end of Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel, Isaiah etc and so on and so forth. And, even then, the Millennial age must itself also come to an end. After that, the Consummation.

What a marvelous plan the Lord God has for us!

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

PS: I hear your point re the olive branch. Please note, however, that this symbol was not given in a vacuum. It is to be understood alongside all the many other Israelite symbols in the Great Seal, a combined witness. When we look at some very specific prophecies, and at American history and heritage, the case becomes so strong that one ends up asking just how much proof do we need, short of God standing before our faces and confirming it directly! And if America is, indeed, (the chief part of ) reconstituted Israel, what are the implications of that? What does it tell us about God? How does it impact on our understanding of prophecy?
PSS: In your magnificent article on the Great Seal, the verse you quote at the top comes from Psalm 33:12 (rather than Psalm 133:12). A most poignant choice of verse, Richard! If you read down to verse 18, you will further note the "eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him". What is this, if not physical Israel?!!!

[White]

Very interesting points and counter points -

Here is another :
Romans Chapters 9-11
Present time 9/11 meaning THE 9/11
Amos 9:11
Psalm 119:119 Hebrew reads from right to left
Just to name a few -

Romans 11:32 : GOD has shut up all in disobedience that HE might show MERCY to all. None of us really exactly understand GOD'S PLAN but we all are "disobedient" in some ways and therefore HE will show MERCY to all when HIS PLAN is revealed as HE HAS PLANNED IT FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME, with the House of JUDAH (JEWS) accepting Y'SHUA as Mashiach and the House of ISRAEL (Christians) following in the footsteps of Y'SHUA - see also ISAIAH 2:2-5, Ezekiel 37:15-28, Jeremiah 31:31-34 etc. etc.
May we look forward to the greatest of all times, when ISAIAH 19:25 unites the three major religions as it states:

"Egypt my people, Assyria, the work of my hands, Israel my inheritance", translated as follows according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and my close and intimate walk with Y'SHUA/JESUS for the last 18 years:
EGYPT (Arabs/Muslims/Islam = with Y'SHUA in the heart of all) MY people,
ASSYRIA (Christians) the work of MY hands (MY arms are stretched out with compassion, come to ME, then I'll fill your Heart with Passion, but first you must come to ME, because I love you unconditionally (by HIS death on the cross), and ISRAEL (present day Israel representing the Jews/Judah) MY inheritence - leading and teaching with Y'shua in the heart of all. Amen!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard!

You make a fair point concerning the olive tree being understood as the Jews, with the branches of unbelief being broken off, and the Gentiles being grafted in. I accept your take on this (sort of, though, in my reading of it, the context dictates the olive tree as being synonymous with Israel, rather than the Jewish church), yet believe it belongs to a metanarrative concerning all Israel.

Let me try and state my viewpoint as concisely as I'm able :lol:

You actually are doing really well being concise! It helps a lot.

I'll try to do the same.


(1) God's plan is transmitted via His servant nation, Israel.
I disagree. God's plan WAS transmitted in the past via His servant nation Israel. Just as you say the "Church age" will end, so I say that the "Jewish age" ended in 70 AD.


(2) Israel is to be understood along the lines of Church (Christians) and State (physical descendants). These themes run concurrently.
That doesn't make sense to me. I read Scripture every day, and I don't pick up on any "Church vs State" theme in the plan of God, except in a few tangential passages like "Render unto Ceasar" and "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake", etc. But there is nothing I see in the NT that suggests "Israel" - the physical descendants of Abraham - are the "State."


(3) Most of the OT prophecies relate to physical Israel, some relate to the Church, and some relate to both.
Peter said that all the prophecies were about Christ and His Work and the creation of the One New Man in Him, the Church in which there is no more Jew or Gentile:

Acts 3:18-24 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

I just don't see a single word concerning the unbelieving natural descendants of Abraham.


(4) In relation to point (2), God did not create the Church at the expense of the State (physical Israel). He created it in conjunction with the State.
As I mentioned above, the "Church + State" language is foreign to my understanding of the Gospel. And I don't understand what you mean by "conjunction." God created the Church in roughly 33 AD, and then dispersed the "State of Israel" to the four winds and destroyed the Temple, because He was through with it, because animal sacrifices could never atone for since, or they wouldn't have been continually offered (Hebrews 10:1ff). What do you mean by "conjunction"?


(5) The Jews are only a small portion of physical Israel. The greater part of physical Israel today is found as the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and a few NW European nations.
How do you know anything about population statistics of a group that doesn't even know its own name?


These are the very basic ground rules that I believe in. From them, the entire Bible story is to be understood, from start to finish.
That is what seems so strange to me. I think I have a reasonable good handle on the "entire Bible story" and it never led me to conclusions even remotely similar to yours. And even now, after a good amount of conversation, I still haven't been shown that I've missed anything fundamental to the entire Bible story. That's why I remain unconvinced. OF course, you told me that you remained unconvinced for two years after first encountering this idea, so you gotta cut me some slack!


Therefore, I hold the following to be true in respect of prophecy:
(a) Physical Israel existed before the Church age; exists during the Church age; and will exist after the Church age is wound up at the Lord's return.
(b) Physical Israel is not the Church, although it provides the conditions in which the Church is able to flourish and evangelise. (In answer to your query, this is precisely what physical Israel adds to the picture). Hence, the two themes running concurrently, as at point (2), above.
What has "physical Israel" provided the Church so that it could "flourish and evangelize"? Granted, Christ came from Israel, but what did they do for the Church after that, say between the years 100 AD and now?


(c) The Church is not physical Israel, although millions of people are part of both groups. The Church is the spiritual arm of Israel.
The promises were not given to "physical Israel." Romans 9:6-8

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Am I misinterpreting this? It looks to me like the Bible states flat out and with no ambiguity that "physical Israel" are the children of the flesh and not the children of God an most importantly, not the children who receive the promises of God.


(d) God uses both spiritual and physical Israel - Church and State - to make His message known to the nations.
During the last 1900 years, how has He used natural Israel?


(e) Jesus will have mercy on physical Israel when he returns.
Indeed He will, "for the mercy of the Lord endures forever." But that doesn't mean that physical Israel is going to play a role like the "State" relative to the "Church".


That's where I'm coming from in a nutshell.
Thanks Stephen! I think I'm getting a better picture of where you are coming from. But I also am getting more set in my disagreement with your point of view (in a friendly way, of course!).


Bible prophecy fits seamlessly onto that template, without the need to have to reduce everything to type / antitype.
Remember the danger of non-spiritualization of Scripture. It is a spiritual book!


It also grounds the Church age as being but one phase in a bigger plan.
How can there be a "bigger plan" than "Christ in you, the hope of glory?"


The Church age is not the final phase. The Church will be part of Christ in the Millennial age,
That's a very big doctrine to derive from 4 verses in Revelation. Its meaning is definitely not self-evident, and has been disputed by devout Christians since the church began.


ruling over physical Israel (for example, Matthew 19:28). There will be a new temple at this time, along with all the other detailed stuff spoken of at the end of Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel, Isaiah etc and so on and so forth. And, even then, the Millennial age must itself also come to an end. After that, the Consummation.

What a marvelous plan the Lord God has for us!

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

Thanks again Stephen. I've really enjoyed this conversation. But do you think there will be any resolution, or will we just have to agree to disagree?

In either case, I will remain ...

Your Brother in Christ,

Richard

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

It may eventually be that we do not reach resolution of our differences of interpretation. If that be the case, so be it. But at least we are both giving it a shot to see one another's perspective.

Concerning the State. I'm sure you would agree with me that America is not the Church, yes? So if not, then who is she? She has all the symbols of ancient Israel in her heraldry. Her history has God written all over it at every turn. She fulfils many prophecies spoken over the people of Israel (for which I will start a separate thread when I have a lot of free time) that the Church certainly does not fulfil. She doesn't persecute the Church; rather, she harbours the Church. But she is not the Church. So who is she? And why should she be so God-fearing? No other nations have ever been so accommodating of the Church as the modern Israelite nations. Why is that?

I have given a number of prophecies so far that I believe have been fulfilled in America. There are plenty more that I will provide in a new thread. None of these prophecies has been fulfilled by the church. The church fulfils none of the prophecies spoken over Manasseh. In fact, the church fulfils none of the prophecies spoken over any of the tribes at Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 33, or Numbers 23 and 24. How can this be, if the church is supposed to be Israel? And there are stacks of others besides, if you trawl through Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos etc. The list goes on and on, and most of the prophecies we meet have nothing to do with the church at all.

Example: Jeremiah 30:10-22. God is not addressing the church here. The church never went into captivity as a nation. The church had no lovers (other nations) who forgot her. The church received no wound that was incurable for the multitude of her iniquities, and then got punished by God. The OT prophets address Israel, its depravity and its future restoration. The church is not that future restoration they are speaking of. Consider Ezekiel 37. That's not the church. Or Hosea 1 and 2. The church is not described as the children of a harlot. Israel is.

I could easily go on and on. My point is that, once the church starts misrecognising itself as the people that these prophecies were spoken to, we end up with a confused view of God's ultimate plan for Israel, as set out in Scripture. We have to try and make 'spiritual' readings for each and every one of the promises made to Israel; and there are hundreds of them. In the end, it becomes farcical. How do we apply Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 to the church without ending up with some convoluted and confusing mess of types and antitypes that really only fogs the issue? A good example is the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. All due respect - and you certainly deserve a great amount of respect for your work on the Bible Wheel, and sharing it with us, and your out-and-out passion for the Lord and His word - but the 'spiritual' interpretation you offered for the future temple left more confusion than anything solid and recognisable. It avoided all the many specific details in the text, marshalled some seriously dubious evidences, and generalised in a most unconvincing manner. I can't see that any amount of fleshing out of that particular argument is going to offer anything convincing. Especially when there are so many other scriptures that fit seamlessly with the idea that there will be a future temple in the land of Israel. A real temple, in a real land, on a real Earth, with precise measurements detailed for it ... along with twelve real tribes of real people, in a real land that is demarcated by real towns that the prophet gives for its borders. It is certain from Scripture that God has not finished with physical Israel, and that the church has not taken their place. She has been added to Israel, but has by no means subsumed her (Israel). I believe the Bible plainly teaches that Jesus' plan of salvation extends beyond the church age, when we will witness the restitution of all things. No need to annul the plain text in so many of the prophets.

I do hope I haven't sounded like I'm pontificating. If I have, I do apologise. I do not intend to be rude or offensive. I'm just trying hard in the very tiny space that a posting allows to reiterate my understanding of Israel, both the Church and the physical descendants.

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

PS: The scripture you quoted from Acts doesn't deal with the Church. It deals with the OT prophets prophesying about Jesus, not the church. It has nothing to say about the church. However, Peter does refer there to all the prophets speaking about the restitution of all things, which is clearly yet future, for Christ is yet in the heavens. In what way did they speak of restitution? What is it that is being restituted? It has to have formerly been in place at some time for it to be restituted.

[Stephen]

Hi Richard,

I just want to let you know again that I don't mean to be so abrupt when I write. I've been following another thread in which yourself and Joel are discussing matters related to this thread. I am humbled by the great attitude and mutual respect that is a feature of that interaction. All I can say is that I'm learning as I go, and the testimony of the interaction between yourself and Joel is definitely having a moderating effect on my ofttimes bumptious approach. I sometimes think I have all the answers; clearly, that is not the case! If I'm going to continue learning, I have to learn to see other perspectives on an issue. Perhaps I am in error on the issues we are discussing in this thread, or only have a portion of correct understanding at present. Just letting you know that I'm learning from this forum in ways that go beyond the subject matter of the threads. And thanks for maintaining an open mind and willingness to listen and discuss. It's worth its weight in gold, my brother.

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I just want to let you know again that I don't mean to be so abrupt when I write. I've been following another thread in which yourself and Joel are discussing matters related to this thread. I am humbled by the great attitude and mutual respect that is a feature of that interaction. All I can say is that I'm learning as I go, and the testimony of the interaction between yourself and Joel is definitely having a moderating effect on my ofttimes bumptious approach. I sometimes think I have all the answers; clearly, that is not the case! If I'm going to continue learning, I have to learn to see other perspectives on an issue. Perhaps I am in error on the issues we are discussing in this thread, or only have a portion of correct understanding at present. Just letting you know that I'm learning from this forum in ways that go beyond the subject matter of the threads. And thanks for maintaining an open mind and willingness to listen and discuss. It's worth its weight in gold, my brother.

Stephen

Hey, no worries bro. Personally, I really enjoy straight talk since it clarifies things. But the danger is that some folks get personally offended, and then begin to write things with the intent to offend, at which point the conversation is ruined. I don't think you have done that. You got a little sharp in one post, and quickly recognized that and repented, so I think everything is going great.

I'll answer your latest posts as soon as I find a little time.

Richard

[Brother Bob]

I'm enjoying the discussion of the 'meat' of God's Word. May we all come with an attitude of humility and willingness to be wrong. I've had to do it many times. If we want truth we will do whatever it takes. Daniel taught us that one of the best ways to receive 'revelation' is by fasting and prayer. I see very little of that Danielic hermeneutic in the study of God's Word...but Daniel fasted 'for understanding'.

I don't have time to show the comparison now, but the book of Revelation is structured after Ezekiel. There has been a lot of study recently published on this fact. I took a class on Ezekiel in the Seminary and it changed the whole way I approached apocalyptic and in specific the book of Revelation.

To those with eyes to see, John completely reinterprets Ezekiel's vision of the temple in Ezk. 40-48 and incorporates its true interpretation in Revelation 21:10-22:5. You will notice by the words and phrases that John is clearly referring to Ezekiel's vision of the rebuilt temple, thus teaching us that this new temple Ezekiel saw was not a vision of a rebuilt temple to be built on earth, but is in actuality an apocalyptic vision of the New Jerusalem!

peace
BB

[Stephen]

Hi Brother Bob!

Ezekiel definitely has a major presence in the Book of Revelation. I await with interest some of the findings concerning Ezekiel's temple and the verses you mention at Revelation 21 and 22. My own opinion on this issue is not hard and fast, although at present I come out on the side of a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40 to 48. However, I am definitely open to interpretation.

I do agree that there is an exceptionally strong connection between both parts of Scripture that you have mentioned. For example, the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12,13) are specifically enunciated after the order given in the last five verses of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 48:31-35). This is proven by the order in which the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem are enunciated. These are the same twelve stones in the breastplate at Exodus 28 (scholars, take note!). Some day I will get around to sharing what God has shown me concerning the New Jerusalem cube (and the breastplate). Prepare to be amazed!

In passing, I'm sure you are aware that the wheels spoken of in Ezekiel 1 are referred to in the original tongue as ophanim. The singular is ophan (having the significant value of 137). This word originates from the idea of revolving, and survives today in our language in the word 'open' (think "Open sesame!" and you get the picture). Moreover, ophan survives today as the root in the German word Offenbarung, which is the German name for the Book of Revelation.

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm enjoying the discussion of the 'meat' of God's Word. May we all come with an attitude of humility and willingness to be wrong. I've had to do it many times. If we want truth we will do whatever it takes. Daniel taught us that one of the best ways to receive 'revelation' is by fasting and prayer. I see very little of that Danielic hermeneutic in the study of God's Word...but Daniel fasted 'for understanding'.
I like that concept ... fasting from feeling like "I am right" and "I have all the answers" and "I can't be wrong." When we fast from physical food, it is a really good time to put our hearts and minds on the True Food. When we fast from "being right" it is a really good time to put our hearts and minds on Him who is the Truth.


I don't have time to show the comparison now, but the book of Revelation is structured after Ezekiel. There has been a lot of study recently published on this fact. I took a class on Ezekiel in the Seminary and it changed the whole way I approached apocalyptic and in specific the book of Revelation.

To those with eyes to see, John completely reinterprets Ezekiel's vision of the temple in Ezk. 40-48 and incorporates its true interpretation in Revelation 21:10-22:5. You will notice by the words and phrases that John is clearly referring to Ezekiel's vision of the rebuilt temple, thus teaching us that this new temple Ezekiel saw was not a vision of a rebuilt temple to be built on earth, but is in actuality an apocalyptic vision of the New Jerusalem!

peace
BB

Sounds fascinating. Do you recall the name of the book?

Another thing about Revelation. It also can be viewed as centered on Christ as Eucharist, that is Body and Blood, Bread and Wine. The Catholics would say it is a cosmic celebration of the Mass which encapsulates the entire Gospel story. I picked up this understanding from a Catholic who was deeply moved when he heard Revelation quoted - "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain" - during Mass. Suddenly, he saw the whole book in a new light.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Brother Bob!

Ezekiel definitely has a major presence in the Book of Revelation. I await with interest some of the findings concerning Ezekiel's temple and the verses you mention at Revelation 21 and 22. My own opinion on this issue is not hard and fast, although at present I come out on the side of a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40 to 48. However, I am definitely open to interpretation.
I find it quite interesting that dispensational/futuristic interpretations focus almost entirely on the relation between Daniel and Revelation. It appears that both those great prophets are deeply entwined in the Final Book.


I do agree that there is an exceptionally strong connection between both parts of Scripture that you have mentioned. For example, the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12,13) are specifically enunciated after the order given in the last five verses of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 48:31-35). This is proven by the order in which the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem are enunciated. These are the same twelve stones in the breastplate at Exodus 28 (scholars, take note!).
Is the correlation perfect? One to one? I hadn't noticed that. Very intriguing.


Some day I will get around to sharing what God has shown me concerning the New Jerusalem cube (and the breastplate). Prepare to be amazed!
I'm ready! You'll be posting it in the Gematria section, I presume.


In passing, I'm sure you are aware that the wheels spoken of in Ezekiel 1 are referred to in the original tongue as ophanim. The singular is ophan (having the significant value of 137). This word originates from the idea of revolving, and survives today in our language in the word 'open' (think "Open sesame!" and you get the picture). Moreover, ophan survives today as the root in the German word Offenbarung, which is the German name for the Book of Revelation.

Stephen
Ophan is a facinating word. I talk about it on page 387 of the Bible Wheel book. In my opinion, it relates to the whole translingual complex based on the Hebrew panim (face) and Greek words like phaino (shine, show), phenomenon, and so forth. I would think there is a rather obvious relation between the German offen = open and the Hebrew panim root.

This now brings up another thread I have planned on opening. Over the years I have noticed many apparent cognates between Hebrew and Indo-european languages that scholars ignore (in response, I believe, to the earlier belief that Hebrew was the original tongue). The most obvious example is probably naphal which means "to fall."

Richard

[Brother Bob]

EZEKIEL AND REVELATION PARALLEL

1. THRONE VISION - (Rev 4./Ezek 1).
2. THE BOOK (Rev 5/Ezek 2-3)
3. THE PLAGUES (Rev 6:1-8/Ezek 5).
4. Slain Beneath the Altar (Rev. 6:9-11/Ezek. 6)
5. WRATH OF GOD (Rev 6:12-17/Ezek 7).
6. SEAL ON SAINTS' FOREHEADS (Rev 7/Ezek 9)
7. COALS FROM ALTAR (Rev. 8/Ezek 10).
8. NO MORE DELAY (Rev. 10:1-7/Ezek 12).
9. EATING THE BOOK (Rev 10:8-11/Ezek. 2)
11. MEASURING THE TEMPLE (Rev. 11:1-2/Ezek. 40-43)
11. JERUSALEM AND SODOM (Rev. 11:8/Ezek 16)
12. CUP OF WRATH (Rev. 14/Ezek. 23).
13. VINE OF THE LAND (Rev. 14:18-20/Ezek 15)
14. GREAT HARLOT (Rev 17-18/Ezek. 16, 23).
15. LAMENT OVER THE CITY (Rev. 18/Ezek 27)
16. SCAVENGER'S FEAST (Rev. 19/Ezek 39)
17. FIRST RESURRECTION (Rev 20:4-6/Ezek 37).
18 BATTLE WITH GOG AND MAGOG (Rev. 20:7-9/Ezek 38-39)
19. NEW JERUSALEM (Rev 21/Ezek 40-48)
20. RIVER OF LIFE (Rev 22/Ezek 47)

Philip E. Huges is amillenial and compares the temple in Ezekiel to what John writes here: http://the-highway.com/millennium10_Hughes.html

Here is a book Richard.
Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17-19,10 (European Studies Series 23, Theology Vol, 376) (Paperback) by Jean Pierre Ruiz (Author)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Philip E. Huges is amillenial and compares the temple in Ezekiel to what John writes here: http://the-highway.com/millennium10_Hughes.html

Here is a book Richard.
Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17-19,10 (European Studies Series 23, Theology Vol, 376) (Paperback) by Jean Pierre Ruiz (Author)

Thanks Bob. The link was helpful, and I think his approach will probably prove correct.

While researching him on the internet, I also found an article (http://the-highway.com/millennium7_Hughes.html) where he explained the "first resurrection" as representing salvation in Christ, which was the position I was coming to independently over in the Rapture (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22) thread.

Thanks for sharing a great resource.

Richard

[Brother Bob]

You're welcome Richard.

I was premillennial till about a year ago, when I opened up to restudy all positions. So I know what it is to defend something and believe it's right then have the floor fall through. There are still a couple questions I need answered, but the study of Isaiah 24 and wondering about the chaining of fallen angels in 2Peter and Jude helped me to rethink things.

Philip Huges is excellent. God bless you and I'm praying and hoping your forum will be used by God to help others find Him and truth.

[Stephen]

Hi again, Richard!

There are still so many threads waiting to be written, yet we are still only in the early stages of discussing matters in a number of current threads. Not enough time in the day!

I will start a thread on the NJ cube in the 'Gematria' section when I have the time, which won't be for a while yet. I've had all the data in my head for ages, but haven't found the place to share it. Some of the stuff in there is absolutely outstanding, even if I say so myself. I know you're gonna love it! When it comes time to starting that thread, I might enjoin your services to prepare a couple of graphics. Nothing difficult, just quick and easy stuff (for you, that is; for me, I'm useless and wouldn't know where to begin). It will help to have a graphic or two to use as a reference point for the text.

And yes, the correspondence between the stones in Revelation 21 and Exodus 28 is exact. However, you've got to have done your homework in advance to recognise the pattern, which means researching the stones themselves, doing the etymologies, getting the correct birth order etc. You'll pick it up quickly, I have no doubt about that. But my poor typing hand is gonna drop off answering all the questions you're going to ask!

To the thread you proposed on the similarities between Hebrew and Indo-European languages, I also have noticed many Hebrew words lying beneath our modern English equivalents. I've read that this subject was popular some 200 years ago. Some folks wrote comparisons between Welsh and Hebrew, though their works are not well known today. I seem to recall someone by the name of Professor Theo Vennemann also taking up this topic in the last five years or less. You are definitely on to something there. And yes, I can see how easily the ideas I mentioned in relation to the word 'ophan' tie in with your thoughts on the word 'panim'. Thoroughly engrossing stuff!

Stephen

[Stephen]

Hello folks!

Just reading through the latter posts in this thread again. I read the article by Philip Edgecumbe on the first resurrection, and really couldn't engage with his point. I think he was trying to say that we are already resurrected, but he fell far short of making a convincing case, if, indeed, that's what he was trying to prove. I also think he was trying to make his case as a prerequisite to his interpretation of the resurrections at Revelation 20.

At Revelation 20:4,5 we meet the term 'first resurrection'. The conditions that apply to this term are summed up in verse 5, when the prophet says 'the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished'. Obviously, those who partake of the first resurrection were part of the dead. Physically dead. The only difference is that they are sealed by God's spirit, so they can live again at the time of the first resurrection. Was this the point Philip was trying to make? If this is what he meant, I agree with him, with the proviso that the resurrection is a physical raising of believers from the dead.

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello folks!

Just reading through the latter posts in this thread again. I read the article by Philip Edgecumbe on the first resurrection, and really couldn't engage with his point. I think he was trying to say that we are already resurrected, but he fell far short of making a convincing case, if, indeed, that's what he was trying to prove. I also think he was trying to make his case as a prerequisite to his interpretation of the resurrections at Revelation 20.

At Revelation 20:4,5 we meet the term 'first resurrection'. The conditions that apply to this term are summed up in verse 5, when the prophet says 'the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished'. Obviously, those who partake of the first resurrection were part of the dead. Physically dead. The only difference is that they are sealed by God's spirit, so they can live again at the time of the first resurrection. Was this the point Philip was trying to make? If this is what he meant, I agree with him, with the proviso that the resurrection is a physical raising of believers from the dead.

Stephen
Hey there Stephen!

When a person comes to faith in Christ, he "is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). The transformation from "death" unto "life" seems to me to be accurately described as a "resurrection." It seems like this is the "first resurrection" of Rev 20. These souls reign with Christ in heaven during the "thousand years" which is the symbol of the Church age.

Now as for the idea of "lived again" - why can that not refer to the general resurrection, when the "small and the great" stand before the White Throne? Note also that there is a textual variation here. The TR has "anazeson" = "lived again," whereas most Greek mss simply have "ezeson" = "lived." I don't see the "lived not again" as necessarily implying that the first resurrection could not be spiritual and restricted to the elect, while the second resurrection is physical and universal.

This interpretation seems compelling to me. If there is a real problem with it, I will be indebted to you if you are able to point it out.

Thanks!

Richard

[Searl Miller]

As for your question if Ezekiel's Temple will be built in Israel, I presume you mean during the Millennium. Well, I don't really know but it seems to me that if the Temple was done away and the sacrificing of animals is over because Jesus was the Sacrifice to End all Sacrifices, and the Temple is now our bodies and we instead offer sacrifices of praise - it would seem to me that building a Temple and re-instituting animal sacrifices would now be an abomination to God.

Therefore; I suspect that Ezekiel's Temple is symbolic - has Kabalistic meaning, if you will.

Shalom.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As for your question if Ezekiel's Temple will be built in Israel, I presume you mean during the Millennium. Well, I don't really know but it seems to me that if the Temple was done away and the sacrificing of animals is over because Jesus was the Sacrifice to End all Sacrifices, and the Temple is now our bodies and we instead offer sacrifices of praise - it would seem to me that building a Temple and re-instituting animal sacrifices would now be an abomination to God.
A-M-E-N! :thumb:

That is exactly what a renbuilt temple with animal sacrifices would be - an utter abomination. A trampling under foot of the Son of God, as it is written in the most explicitly typological book in the Bible:

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Therefore; I suspect that Ezekiel's Temple is symbolic - has Kabalistic meaning, if you will.

Shalom.
The problem with the term "Kaballistic" is that its like a snowball that has rolled through so much dirt and picked up so much foreign matter as to be not particularly useful, or even pleasant to look at. But when properly defined and limited, it is a fine word.

Richard

[Stephen]

Afternoon Searl and Richard and Everyone!

Richard: While I most definitely do not share your view that we are already resurrected for the simple reason that we are still alive and haven't died yet, I am beginning to see your reasoning. To me, resurrection is raising from the dead. Being born again of water and the Spirit is, in my view, something very different: however, it is a prerequisite to resurrection, the only bummer being we have to physically die first before we get to experience the power of resurrection. I think you have confused the literal for the symbolic ... but you would say the reverse applies to me. Nevertheless, I still remain unmoved, and believe my understanding of what resurrection is to be the same as that of the NT writers. Either way, the Lord might forego our differences on these issues. But I'm starting to see that it does make an enormous difference in our interpretations of many key verses, and in our overall view of God's plan. You have no Millennial Era in your interpretation of Revelation, and focus almost explicitly on the first century. That is a view that I most definitely do not share!

Searl and Richard: I liked something I found on the Net a few months ago on the issue of a new temple in the Holy Land. It also deals with the issue of why animal sacrifice could be reintroduced, at the same time showing why this could be seen as a confirmation of Christ's sacrifice. To flatly suggest that Ezekiel's vision is purely symbolic simply because we feel it goes against New Testament teaching is an entirely understandable reaction. But there is just way too much detail in those last nine chapters of Ezekiel for us to judge it as all being symbolic. Let me shout that for emphasis so none of us miss it: THERE IS JUST WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL IN THOSE LAST NINE CHAPTERS OF EZEKIEL FOR US TO JUDGE IT AS ALL BEING SYMBOLIC.

http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTempleEzekielsMillennialTemple.htm

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/templemi.htm

The links, above, give some wonderful elucidation on the third temple, and of the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. I have no problem accepting the reinstitution of animal sacrifice in the millennial reign of Christ, and certainly don't regard it as blasphemous when understood in its correct context. The Christian Era will, by this time, have been fulfilled, so we will be into a New Era, the Millennial Era. New conditions will apply in regard to faith and acceptance of God's rule in the Millennial Era. The Lord is going to rule the nations with a rod of iron. Whereas in OT times animal sacrifice looked forward to Christ's sacrifice, in the Millennial Era to come, animal sacrifice will be looking back to Christ's sacrifice. Only in the intervening Era, the Christian Era in which we now live, is animal sacrifice suspended, for we now have the Holy Spirit Himself as our seal of approval.

In this scenario, us Christians are very different from those yet to be born in the millennial world to come, just as we are different from the OT saints. We are the Body of Christ. But those born in the world to come will not be members of the Body of Christ, just as the OT saints are not members of the Body of Christ. As members, we have no need of animal sacrifice, because our Lord is our sacrifice. But as with the OT saints, so with those in the world to come. They will need to show their faith through animal sacrifice, gory or abominable as that might seem to us.

So, no, I don't share the view that reinstitution of animal sacrifice in the Millennial Era to come must be an abomination, just because it is an abomination in our Christian Era. I think to understand the end of Ezekiel, we have to take off our Christian hat, and put on a Post-Christian hat, hard as that is for all of us. This should come as no great surprise, because it is exactly what the people in Jesus' time had to do, take off their OT hats, and put on their Christian hats. And, as the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles testify, this was a real battle for many. But if we don't distinguish this vital difference, we run the risk of misinterpreting God's word in one area, which then leads to misinterpretation in other areas, and a need to nuance words to fit an interpretation that was not that actually intended by the writers.

Anyway, that's how I understand it at present. I haven't held this view for more than three months, as I only came across it in a link I supplied at an earlier post in this thread. However, it makes more sense to me than anything else I've heard, because we no longer have to butcher Ezekiel's description and avoid the difficult parts like:

the role of the Levites, and of the family of Zadok
the precision measurements given in a painfully exact description of a temple complex
the geographical details of land distribution for the twelve tribes, including its borders
the geographical details concerning the river flowing from the temple
the setting out of the treasury and currency exchange
the reinstitution of certain festivals
the overly detailed reinstitution of animal sacrifice
the testimony of other OT verses which speak of the renewal of animal sacrifice in the future
the opinions of those who, in Ezekiel's era, read these chapters
the Jewish interpretation of these chapters, without the Christian biasThese are only some of the points that need to be refuted, as there are further fine details in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel that require explanation beyond the 10 points listed, above. To say it's all symbolic is a very big call to make, because then each point needs to be carefully analysed, the pros and cons weighed, conclusions justified within reason, refutations supplied, and I can't imagine anyone being able to succeed in such an enterprise. But, you're welcome to try. I'd certainly be an interested spectator, albeit one that would be analysing every twist and turn that the symbolist makes, and returning it for further inquisition.

Have a great day!

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Afternoon Searl and Richard and Everyone!

Richard: While I most definitely do not share your view that we are already resurrected for the simple reason that we are still alive and haven't died yet, I am beginning to see your reasoning. To me, resurrection is raising from the dead. Being born again of water and the Spirit is, in my view, something very different: however, it is a prerequisite to resurrection, the only bummer being we have to physically die first before we get to experience the power of resurrection. I think you have confused the literal for the symbolic ... but you would say the reverse applies to me. Nevertheless, I still remain unmoved, and believe my understanding of what resurrection is to be the same as that of the NT writers. Either way, the Lord might forego our differences on these issues.
Hey there Stephen,

Great to be working on this with you!

First, it is important that you don't deliberately alter my words. I never said that "we are already resurrected" in a physical sense and it is very misleading for you to put such words in my mouth. But I think I know what you meant. You do not believe Christ when He said that you have already passed from death into life. That's ok. You don't have to believe Him. :lol:

Now that last line was meant a joke - sort of anyway. Really, it was meant to show how quickly the conversation can degenerate into offensive mischaracterizations if we don't respect each other's words. I know you would never deny what Jesus said. You just deny my interpretation, that the passing from death to life is properly defined as a "resurrection." Well, that's great! But if that's what you meant, then you should have just said it. It makes for much better conversation.

So lets deal with the real issues here. As far as I can tell, you reject the use of the word "resurrection" to denote what happens when a person believes Jesus and has "passed from death to life." I think your objection is contrary to the plain teaching of Jesus who used those terms in parallel in the Bible:



John 5:24-29 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Look at the parallels:

He that heareth my word ... is passed from death unto life.
the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth ... unto the resurrectionThose that hear his voice are NOW passed from death unto life just as those that hear his voice will then be resurrected.

There are two resurrections. One is spiritual and happens when you are saved, and one is physical, and happens at the end of time.


But I'm starting to see that it does make an enormous difference in our interpretations of many key verses, and in our overall view of God's plan. You have no Millennial Era in your interpretation of Revelation, and focus almost explicitly on the first century. That is a view that I most definitely do not share!
And why do you not share it? There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that mentions the word "millennium" and the one that mentions a thousand year rule does not say a single word about Christ ruling on earth!

Think about it! The doctrine that Christ will rule on the earth in the future for a literal millennium is not based on a single verse of the Holy Bible. It is pure fantasy. :eek:

Richard

Edit to add: Hey Stephen, I just had a great idea. Why don't you take me from ground zero and prove the millennium to me? Begin by assuming I have never heard the doctrine. Keep it simple and direct. It should prove very enlightening, since I am pretty sure it will expose the weakness of the doctrine.

[Stephen]

Hello Richard!

The devil is chained for a thousand years in the bottomless pit. Good riddance! At this time, the first resurrection occurs, and those that partake of it rule with Christ for a thousand years. Simple ... assuming, as I have, that these two aspects of a thousand years overlap! For details of what happens during this Millennial Era, refer to Ezekiel 40 to 48, and to other OT writers like Zechariah and Isaiah, and even the Habakkuk verse in your signature.

So where was the devil during your Church Era? I can't figure how you fit all the details into a coherent picture. We are going to have to have a few words with John over why he didn't explain things better! Might have something to do with the restriction of his letter to 22 chapters.

Stephen

PS: Your quote from the Lord is a good example of what I mean by confusing the literal with the symbolic. The only time the word resurrection is used by the Lord in that verse is in specific reference to raising from the dead! Only those in the graves are resurrected, according to the very words the Lord used here. I can see the point you are trying to make, but I believe you are mistaken in your logical leap that this word applies to those who have not entered the grave yet. The context of resurrection is the grave. Unfortunately!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard!

The devil is chained for a thousand years in the bottomless pit. Good riddance! At this time, the first resurrection occurs, and those that partake of it rule with Christ for a thousand years. Simple!
By your silence, I must assume you agree that there is no mention of Christ ruling on earth, which means that my assertion stands. The doctrine that Christ will rule on the earth in the future for a literal millennium is not based on a single verse of the Holy Bible. It is pure fantasy.


So where was the devil during your Church Era?
The Devil was bound at the Cross. Everyone knows that! The Devil was "cast out" when Christ was crucified and resurrected:



John 12:31-33 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.


Confirmation is found in Hebrews 2:14 which tells us that Christ destroyed "him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Christ overcame the world, the devil, and sin. And we are more than conquerers through Him, praise God! The victory has been won! The devil is defeated! He is bound in the bottomless pit. AMEN.

So tell me, is the devil still undefeated in your part of God's Kingdom?


PS: Your quote from the Lord is a good example of what I meant by confusing the literal with the symbolic. The only time the word resurrection is used by the Lord in that verse is in specific reference to raising from the dead! Only those in the graves are resurrected, according to the very words the Lord used here. I can see the point you are trying to make, but I believe you are mistaken in your logical leap that this word applies to those who have not entered the grave yet. The context of resurrection is the grave. Unfortunately!
Actually, you are mistaken. Christ called Himself the "Resurrection" before He went to the Cross. He was talking about the fact that He is the RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE - which are not to be understood in mere physical or fleshly terms. Isn't that obvious? Indeed, the words of Christ in that exact context clearly suggest that the application of "resurrection" to the new life found in Christ really is what Christ meant. Here is what I wrote (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=400) to Joel on this topic last June:

John 11:21-26 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not [physically] died. 22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall [physically] rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were [physically] dead, yet shall he [spiritually] live: 26 And whosoever [physically] liveth and believeth in me shall never [spiritually] die. Believest thou this?
You have not shown me anything from the Bible to prove that God did not intend the word "resurrection" to have both a spiritual and a physical meaning.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

THERE IS JUST WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL IN THOSE LAST NINE CHAPTERS OF EZEKIEL FOR US TO JUDGE IT AS ALL BEING SYMBOLIC.
Hey there Stephen,

Why can't something be both detailed and symblolic? I don't understand your assertion at all.

Richard

[Stephen]

Hello Richard!

The problem is not that something can be interpreted as symbolic. The problem is whether or not a symbolic application is the correct method. With Ezekiel, you will note the major objections to the last nine chapters being symbolic. They appear to me to be insurmountable, and a literal fulfillment seems the only logical conclusion.

The onus is really on the symbolists to prove their case. To do so, every detail needs to be sussed out, and its symbolic meaning declared. Failure to engage in this manner, painstaking as it is going to be, is tantamount to disqualification.

I left the last nine chapters of Ezekiel lie fallow for the 23 years I have been a believer. I only took them up because of this forum, and the challenge was there to come to grips with these difficult chapters. I am satisfied now that the chapters are to be taken literally, and have reconciled them to my belief in the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course, this means that I believe in a Millennial Era. I am beginning to see that this is the key point where I am going to have to engage with you. Your interpretation of Revelation colours everything else prophetically, which is what makes it impossible for you to consider the literal reading of Ezekiel 40 onwards, and the reality that God is far from finished with the twelve tribes of Israel. If we are to take the Bible writers at their word, we have to engage them at the level they were writing at, and the audience to whom their words were immediately directed.

I know it's going to be too hard to try and turn Ezekiel 40 to 48 into a symbolic drama, but if you assert it is all symbolic, then you have to prove it. That's really the only valid way to justify such a position as far as I can see.

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard!

The problem is not that something can be interpreted as symbolic. The problem is whether or not a symbolic application is the correct method. With Ezekiel, you will note the major objections to the last nine chapters being symbolic. They appear to me to be insurmountable, and a literal fulfillment seems the only logical conclusion.

The onus is really on the symbolists to prove their case. To do so, every detail needs to be sussed out, and its symbolic meaning declared. Failure to engage in this manner, painstaking as it is going to be, is tantamount to disqualification.
Hello there Stephen,

Let me walk through the nine points you listed:

1) the role of the Levites, and of the family of Zadok

Actually, that seems like a HUGE and absolutely impossible problem to overcome, because God Almighty ended the LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD! See Hebrews 7:11.

2) the precision measurements given in a painfully exact description of a temple complex

There is no problem here at all becasue the existence of "details" implies nothing about whether or not it is meant symbolically. But as for the "details" they were given so that the Jews would be ashamed of their iniquities. And how does that work? Well, I know that the primary details show the Temple to be the Word of God - the Christian Bible of 66 books. And that's exactly what we would expect to convince the Jews of their sins. Indeed, the Jews model the Torah on the Temple, so they are ready to recieve the revelation of the isomorphism of the Bible Wheel and Ezekiel's Temple.

3) the geographical details of land distribution for the twelve tribes, including its borders

There is nothing about geographical details that distinguishes between literal and symbolic.

4) the geographical details concerning the river flowing from the temple
the setting out of the treasury and currency exchange

Again, there is nothing about geographical details that distinguishes between literal and symbolic.

5) the reinstitution of certain festivals

This is extremely strong evidence that the Temple is symbolic, because the festivals were prophetic of Christ who already came. They had no other purpose. E.g. The Passover prophesied His Passion. That's ALL the Bible is about. JESUS CHRIST. The types and shadows have no meaning apart from Him, or after Him. He is the fulfillment of them all. They will never be reinstituted.

6) the overly detailed reinstitution of animal sacrifice

This is absolute proof the the Temple is symbolic. Animal sacrifices after Christ are a total abomination to the Lord.

7) the testimony of other OT verses which speak of the renewal of animal sacrifice in the future

Refuted in point 6.

8) the opinions of those who, in Ezekiel's era, read these chapters

The opinions of pre-Christian Jews, while interesting and possibly insightful, can not be used to settle doctrinal issues. They were ignorant of the New Testament, and without the NT, they were uttlerly BLIND to the full reality of revealed in Christ. All they had were types and shadows. And that is what the Temple is. A shadow of Christ. He is the TRUE TEMPLE. A dead building made of dead rocks is NOTHING. The TRUE TEMPLE is made of LIVING STONES.

9) the Jewish interpretation of these chapters, without the Christian bias

See point 8.

Well, there it is. So much for a "disqualification." The idea of a rebuilt Temple is not taught in the Bible. There is not a single verse in the NT that predicts a rebuilt temple, and the end of Ezekiel is just a vision, with no explicit prophecy stating when, or if, it will ever be a reality.


I left the last nine chapters of Ezekiel lie fallow for the 23 years I have been a believer. I only took them up because of this forum, and the challenge was there to come to grips with these difficult chapters. I am satisfied now that the chapters are to be taken literally, and have reconciled them to my belief in the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.
How have you "reconciled" the return to animal sacrifices???? You haven't shown me any reconciliation yet.

I just don't understand why you insist on this fleshly interpretation of God's Word. The Bible is a spiritual book that must be interpreted spiritually.


Of course, this means that I believe in a Millennial Era. I am beginning to see that this is the key point where I am going to have to engage with you.
NO! You are totally wrong about that. The real isssue is the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ. That's where we disagree. The Bible declares that there is only ONE seed of Abraham, and that seed is Christ and all who are in Him. That's it. The natural seed is nothing. Indeed, the Ten Tribes do not even exist. They have been anihiliated. How much proof do you need? Why do you refuse to engage me on these points? They are the REAL ISSUE. I've been saying it over and over, but you think the issue is the "earthly millennium" which is not even taught in the Bible! Remember, I have proven that the Millennium is a fantasy, and you did not refute me. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that teaches Chirst will reign on earth for 1000 years! Not one. The doctrine is a fantasy!


Your interpretation of Revelation colours everything else prophetically, which is what makes it impossible for you to consider the literal reading of Ezekiel 40 onwards, and the reality that God is far from finished with the twelve tribes of Israel.
NO! You are totally wrong about that. I have given you REASONS that have NOTHING to do with my interpretation of Revelation for why I don't believe in the ten tribes. The fact is they DON'T EXIST so there is nothing for God to "do" with them. And even if they did exist, like the Jews, there is still nothing for God to "do" with them in a Gospel sense except bringing them to faith in Christ so they can receive Him - their promised inheritance. Everything I say is about the GOSPEL - you seem to be interested in something else.


If we are to take the Bible writers at their word, we have to engage them at the level they were writing at, and the audience to whom their words were immediately directed.
AMEN AMEN AMEN =========

Revelation was addressed to first century Christians who were told it was going to happen soon, for the time was at hand.

Chirst addressed his disciples, and told them it would all happen in their generation.

AMEN AMEN AMEN ==========


I know it's going to be too hard to try and turn Ezekiel 40 to 48 into a symbolic drama, but if you assert it is all symbolic, then you have to prove it. That's really the only valid way to justify such a position as far as I can see.

Stephen
Well, I think my refutation of your "nine points" was a pretty good start.

The fact is that the burden is on you to prove that the SYMBLIC VISION that God gave to Ezekiel was not ONLY a symbolic vision.

Don't you get it? The vision opens the statement: "In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel ..." So the burden of proof is entirely upon you, my friend. There is nothing in the vision that states when or even if it would manifest as a future historical fact. And since a literal interpretation contradicts fundamental aspects of God's Gospel as well as the entire flow of redemptive history, it is a near certainty that the symbolic vision was not meant to be a prophecy of a future historical temple.

Richard

[Stephen]

Hello Richard!

I'm glad you've blown off some steam! Hopefully, with that out of the way, we can proceed in a reasoning manner, using Scripture wherever possible to show why we have arrived at our different interpretations.

In previous posts in this thread, I have given some very useful links. Rather than me repeat what was written therein, might I direct you to those links, and give them a careful read. They put the perspective I am arguing for here in a much better way than I could.

I do understand why you get so heated at these ideas. They are new to you, and the immediate reaction is that they contradict everything you've learned. That's why I avoided them for so long. I thank God that other Bible scholars had already done the work for me, and all I needed to do was read their interpretation to see if it contradicted the gospel message. It does not. I am at perfect peace with the OT insistence that animal sacrifice will resume, which is not something I could have said four months ago!

Now, when I get home and have some time, I'm going to have to go over your refutation with a fine-toothed comb. I didn't pick up much reasoning in any of the points you made, just a whole bunch of rhetoric. That's OK. I am aware that there is a huge edifice of incomplete understanding that needs to be challenged here. It is to be expected that you will fight tooth and nail for your position. Saul did the same till he met the Lord on the Damascus Road. I admire your fighting spirit - it is something we both share, which is why the temperature rises around us sometimes - but I know we can go through this slowly, point by point, to see the big picture.

If I seem a bit haughty, I apologise in advance. All I truly want to do is to find out what God is really saying to us from the Bible. It's not a matter of who is right or wrong. It never is. The only thing that you or I really care about is who God is. We find that answer by the things He does. Our common ground is that Jesus Christ is God's love, and salvation cannot be found apart from that truth. With the message of Ezekiel's temple and God's love for the twelve tribes, I am investigating parts of that salvation message that go beyond the Body of Christ and the Christian Era. This is the only way of reconciling a good portion of what the OT prophets said, for it is abundantly clear that God has not finished with the twelve tribes, neither in the ancient world, nor in the world to come. The Bible tells us so over and over again.

Anyway, my lunchtime is over and I must be off. Have a good rest, and hopefully we can come back to this and go through things piece by piece.

Stephen

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

Let's go to your first refutation, concerning the role of the Levites and the family of Zadok in Ezekiel's temple.

You stated that God Almighty ended the Levitical priesthood, quoting Hebrews 7:11 as evidence. There are two points to consider here in your refutation, these being:

the discourse of Hebrews 7:11
the role of the Levites in the future templeHebrews 7:11 is comparing the Melchizedek priesthood to the Levitical priesthood. In fact, it is completely silent as to your conclusion that God Almighty ended the Levitical priesthood. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for you holding that opinion, for when we turn to the last nine chapters of Ezekiel, the Levites have, indeed, been disqualified from performing the role of priests in the future temple. Instead, they have been relegated to a more menial position (Ezekiel 44:10-14).

However, the priestly role in the future temple is delegated to the family of Zadok, who is from the tribe of Levi. Thus, while the Levitical priesthood has been removed, the priesthood yet remains with descendants of Levi (Ezekiel 44:15,16). So while it is mostly true to say that God Almighty ended the Levitical priesthood, it will nonetheless persist in an amended format in the future temple.

It's also worth noting some of the rules that will apply to the family of Zadok. There are strict rules concerning marriage, and it is apparent that priests will die during this coming era, as their widows will be eligible for remarriage (Ezekiel 44:22). Death will still be around, so this places the future temple in a timeframe prior to Revelation 21. The only timeframe it fits is Revelation 20, where the plain text speaks of a thousand year reign of Christ with his saints (verse 4).

That there will be a Millennial Era in which Christ reigns fits seamlessly with the OT, and is stated outright in the plain text of Revelation 20. The resurrection is undeniably yet future, and Paul warned us in no uncertain terms against anyone who preached otherwise (2 Timothy 2:18).

Stephen

[Stephen]

Hello Richard!

Let's have a look at your refutation of the second point.



2) the precision measurements given in a painfully exact description of a temple complex

There is no problem here at all becasue the existence of "details" implies nothing about whether or not it is meant symbolically. But as for the "details" they were given so that the Jews would be ashamed of their iniquities. And how does that work? Well, I know that the primary details show the Temple to be the Word of God - the Christian Bible of 66 books. And that's exactly what we would expect to convince the Jews of their sins. Indeed, the Jews model the Torah on the Temple, so they are ready to recieve the revelation of the isomorphism of the Bible Wheel and Ezekiel's Temple.


I'm sorry to say that this doesn't pass as refutation at all. All you've given is a dismissal of the evidence, but you haven't engaged with it in any way. Are you saying the details were given simply to make the Jews ashamed of their iniquities? Is that the best you can do?:rolleyes:

Look, from where I stand, it appears you don't want to engage with the detail because it contradicts other things you have learnt. Well, it's time to challenge those things to see if they are right. To relegate the detailed measurements to being basically trivial information is a cop-out of the worst kind. And I say that because we are not just talking about detail, we are talking about intricate and minute detail. If God intended the exact instructions He gave for the construction of the tabernacle to be carried out to the letter, we can reasonably expect He intended the same for Ezekiel's temple when He gave such precision measurements. Now, unless you can show from Scripture that these measurements were not intended to be literal, then I'd say your refutation of this point is baseless.

It is difficult to comment on your attempt to link the Bible Wheel to Ezekiel's temple without descending into ridicule. You'd be one of a handful of people at best in this world who would even think such a thing. And by handful, I mean one hand. The Bible Wheel has its place as a witness to the Bible. No problems with that. But you have got to be joking if you think the Jews are gonna give it even a second thought. How many Jews do you know of who have been convicted of Christ through the Bible Wheel thus far? Is there even one? I expect not. The Bible Wheel has barely even made an impression amongst Christians, let alone this idea that it has anything to do with being a witness to the Jews, or, even worse, that it has anything whatsoever to do with the details of Ezekiel's temple!:rolleyes:

Sorry if that's offensive, but I have to speak the plain truth here. I think you've grossly overstepped the role that the Bible Wheel has, and I'm just letting you know that as a concerned brother. If anyone outside of the few engaging in this forum read your refutation on the lines that the Bible Wheel tells us that Ezekiel's temple measurements are symbolic of the Bible, well ... you'd be dodging rotten tomatoes for the rest of your days!

In summary, Ezekiel's temple is not the Bible in symbolic form, Richard. The Bible won't be necessary when we have Christ in all his fulness, for everything will by then be fulfilled (1 Corinthians 13:10). It should be understood literally, as God intended it, unless a plausible case can be presented to refute it. That's the plain text. You have not even come close to a plausible refutation thus far.

Stephen

[Stephen]

Hello Richard!

You wrote:



When a person comes to faith in Christ, he "is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). The transformation from "death" unto "life" seems to me to be accurately described as a "resurrection." It seems like this is the "first resurrection" of Rev 20. These souls reign with Christ in heaven during the "thousand years" which is the symbol of the Church age.

Now as for the idea of "lived again" - why can that not refer to the general resurrection, when the "small and the great" stand before the White Throne? Note also that there is a textual variation here. The TR has "anazeson" = "lived again," whereas most Greek mss simply have "ezeson" = "lived." I don't see the "lived not again" as necessarily implying that the first resurrection could not be spiritual and restricted to the elect, while the second resurrection is physical and universal.

This interpretation seems compelling to me. If there is a real problem with it, I will be indebted to you if you are able to point it out.


The problem with your interpretation is that Paul warned us against it. This he specifically addressed at 2 Timothy 2:11-18. I'd say that last verse in particular qualifies as a real problem for your interpretation, wouldn't you agree? Clearly, the resurrection is not coterminous with our Christian experience of death through baptism and being born again of the Spirit. If it were, then Hymenaeus and Philetus would have been correct in saying that the resurrection had already passed. Resurrection therefore refers only to being raised from the dead. The implications that this has for Revelation 20 should be obvious.

Stephen

[Rose]

It is difficult to comment on your attempt to link the Bible Wheel to Ezekiel's temple without descending into ridicule. You'd be one of a handful of people at best in this world who would even think such a thing. And by handful, I mean one hand. The Bible Wheel has its place as a witness to the Bible. No problems with that. But you have got to be joking if you think the Jews are gonna give it even a second thought. How many Jews do you know of who have been convicted of Christ through the Bible Wheel thus far? Is there even one? I expect not. The Bible Wheel has barely even made an impression amongst Christians, let alone this idea that it has anything to do with being a witness to the Jews, or, even worse, that it has anything whatsoever to do with the details of Ezekiel's temple!:rolleyes:

Sorry if that's offensive, but I have to speak the plain truth here. I think you've grossly overstepped the role that the Bible Wheel has, and I'm just letting you know that as a concerned brother. If anyone outside of the few engaging in this forum read your refutation on the lines that the Bible Wheel tells us that Ezekiel's temple measurements are symbolic of the Bible, well ... you'd be dodging rotten tomatoes for the rest of your days!

In summary, Ezekiel's temple is not the Bible in symbolic form, Richard. The Bible won't be necessary when we have Christ in all his fulness, for everything will by then be fulfilled (1 Corinthians 13:10). It should be understood literally, as God intended it, unless a plausible case can be presented to refute it. That's the plain text. You have not even come close to a plausible refutation thus far.

Stephen

Hi Stephen

As a brother who "knows" what the Bible Wheel represents I am very surprised with the statements you have just made..:eek: I understand you are trying to validate and prove what you believe to be correct concerning the future rebuilding of Ezekiel's temple, but to stoop to such words as "you've grossly overstepped the role that the Bible Wheel has" and "The Bible Wheel has barely made an impression even among Christians let alone the idea that it has anything to do with being a witness to the Jews" leaves me "stunned" and "saddened"...:(

The Bible Wheel is the Bible its not some chart or map that Richard made up , and just because the eyes of many people, including the Jews are still in a state of blindness, is no reason to say that it has nothing to do with being a witness to the Jews. God gave the revelation of the Bible Wheel, its not the invention of a man named Richard!

Your last statement also leaves me confused :confused: First you say Ezekiel's temple is not the Bible in symbolic form (which seems like a pretty definite statement) and then you say the bible won't be necessary when we have Christ in all His fullness.

Well, we have Christ in all His fullness now (even though everything has not been fulfilled) and we still need the Bible; also if I carry through with your logic, nobody will need the Bible when "Ezekiel's temple is rebuilt" right? so why did God put the vision in the Bible anyway?

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm sorry to say that this doesn't pass as refutation at all. All you've given is a dismissal of the evidence, but you haven't engaged with it in any way.
Evidence? What evidence? All you did was make a baseless assertion that detail = literal. There was nothing to refute!

Are you saying the details were given simply to make the Jews ashamed of their iniquities? Is that the best you can do?:rolleyes:
Oh ... I'm sorry. You seem to have confused me with the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. It is He, and not I, that declared the purpose of the detailed plan of the Temple. Here, let me quote Him:


Ezekiel 43:10-11 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.
Now lest you think this is a "private interpretation", here's a quote from one of the leading scholars (I could supply countless others if you want):



Proclamation of Yahweh’s new work of salvation [represented in the pattern of the Temple] was to stimulate a realization of how far the people stood from God and from his will (cf. 16:54, 61; 36:31–32). This end was to be served first by study of the temple plan, to be drawn by the prophet, with its massive gatehouses that warned of the awesomeness of the one who resided there, and with its gradations in holiness from periphery to center.
Allen, L. C. (2002). Vol. 29: Word Biblical Commentary : Ezekiel 20-48. Word Biblical Commentary (257). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

You note that the purpose of the Temple coincides exactly with the purpose of God's Word, which also was designed to cause us to be ashamed of our iniquities so we will repent and turn to Christ. How could you miss this?


Look, from where I stand, it appears you don't want to engage with the detail because it contradicts other things you have learnt.
WHAT?!?! I engaged you on this specific point. I asked you to prove that "detail" implied "literal." You never answered. Don't tell me that I am the one who does not "want to engage."


Well, it's time to challenge those things to see if they are right. To relegate the detailed measurements to being basically trivial information is a cop-out of the worst kind.
I never said a word about relegating "detailed measurements to being basically trivial information." Once again, you are tilting at windmills, my friend. You are attempting to refute statements I never stated. Please make an effort to engage me on statements that I actually make, OK?


And I say that because we are not just talking about detail, we are talking about intricate and minute detail.
EXACTLY CORRECT. We are talking about tri-raidant symmetry that is isomorphic to the structure of God's Word and the Menorah, which also was desinged by God and which also represents the Light of His Word as well as being a memorial to the Seven Days of Creation brought forth by His Word! The convergence of DIVINE DESIGN is overwhelming. And then this is topped off with the Jewish tradition that the Tabernacle and Temple represent God's Word, which was "incarnate" in the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and this was all prophetic of the incarnation of Christ, when the Word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us. God designed His Word, both inside and out (in the text and in its structure) on reiterative patterns that all come straight from the Mind of God. Endless glory!

Here are a couple images that display some of the glorious work that God has accomplished in His Holy Word:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Ezekiel_Triradiant.gif


http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/MenorahBible.jpg

Yet that's just the BEGINNING! It seems you have forgotten that Ezekiel opens with the vision of the Bible Wheel in the form of the wheels within wheels, and that that vision has been interpreted as the WORD OF GOD - the NT in the OT and the OT in the NT since at least the sixth century AD, and Fra Angelico showed it as such in the 15th century:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Art/Angelico_Wheels.gif

You can read all about it in The Fulfillment of Ezekiel's Prophecy of the Wheels (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Ezekiel_Wheels.asp). Thus, the two great visions of Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 40-48 BOTH relate DIRECTLY to the structure of God's Word! And you chose to ridicule me for this? SHAME!

If God intended the exact instructions He gave for the construction of the tabernacle to be carried out to the letter, we can reasonably expect He intended the same for Ezekiel's temple when He gave such precision measurements. Now, unless you can show from Scripture that these measurements were not intended to be literal, then I'd say your refutation of this point is baseless.
You got it exactly backwards. God never issued a command at any point in history that someone was supposed to build Ezekiel's Temple. Therefore, the burden of proof is entirely on you to show that the VISION was intended as something other than a SYMBOL.


It is difficult to comment on your attempt to link the Bible Wheel to Ezekiel's temple without descending into ridicule.
You are only ridiculing yourself and God's Word. The patterns I showed above are derived directly from the text of Scripture. The Menorah was designed by God Almighty! And you ridicule His Mighty Work! Shame!


You'd be one of a handful of people at best in this world who would even think such a thing.
Truth is not determined by polls. You should know better than to make such an argument.


And by handful, I mean one hand. The Bible Wheel has its place as a witness to the Bible. No problems with that. But you have got to be joking if you think the Jews are gonna give it even a second thought.
What are you saying? God designed the sevenfold symmetric perfection of His Holy Word and it means nothing to you? Don't you see that there are only two possibilities? It is either an utterly meaningless "coincidence" or it is the most significant revelation in the history of the world. You are letting your frustration with your inability to support your doctrine cloud your reason. This has happened a thousand times. People always think they can hurt me by attacking the Bible Wheel when they can't defeat me in debate about Biblical doctrines.


How many Jews do you know of who have been convicted of Christ through the Bible Wheel thus far?
Untold thousands! But convicted doesn't mean converted. They still had a will and chose to refuse the Light God gave them. That's why they had to ban me on Jews for Judaism. They have real knowledge of the meanings of the Hebrew letters, and so could see that the Bible Wheel had to be designed by some intelligent agent. So they invented the idea that God designed it as a TEST to see if they would keep Torah DESPITE the evidence!!! I am not making this up. Other, more intelligent Jews with some real intellectual integrity recognized the absurdity of that argument and tried to argue that Jerome did it in the 5th century, which was extremely easy to refute. The light then began to shine so brightly they had to ban me and delete all the posts because the witness for Christ was too overwhelming. Of course, I saved the whole interaction (hundreds of posts) and may post them on my site when I find time.

Richard

[Stephen]

Good morning, Richard!

You write:


This has happened a thousand times. People always think they can hurt me by attacking the Bible Wheel when they can't defeat me in debate about Biblical doctrines.

Nobody can defeat you in debate about Biblical doctrines, Richard. That's not their problem. It's yours.


Untold thousands! But convicted doesn't mean converted. They still had a will and chose to refuse the Light God gave them. That's why they had to ban me on Jews for Judaism. They have real knowledge of the meanings of the Hebrew letters, and so could see that the Bible Wheel had to be designed by some intelligent agent. So they invented the idea that God designed it as a TEST to see if they would keep Torah DESPITE the evidence!!! I am not making this up. Other, more intelligent Jews with some real intellectual integrity recognized the absurdity of that argument and tried to argue that Jerome did it in the 5th century, which was extremely easy to refute. The light then began to shine so brightly they had to ban me and delete all the posts because the witness for Christ was too overwhelming. Of course, I saved the whole interaction (hundreds of posts) and may post them on my site when I find time.

This confirms what I thought, no Jews accepted the Bible Wheel as a witness of God. I must say I'm entirely unsurprised. While the Bible Wheel is clearly a revelation from God, I don't believe it is for some of the purposes you imagine. This is sometimes why folks in other forums shot it down. Another reason would have been your bombastic attitude, and your dismissal of their opinions. I followed a few of those threads way back, and cringed at your comments sometimes, so I just stopped following it because it descended into name-calling, and rationality went out the window.

I have seen your articles that you cited on many occasions, in which you say the Bible Wheel proves Ezekiel's temple is God's word, and that Zechariah prophesied about the Bible. I was unimpressed then, and remain so to this day. To me, as a neutral observer, this is overstepping the mark on what the purpose of the Bible Wheel is. To build a doctrine from something as puerile as there being the hint of tri-radiance in the layout of the future temple borders on the comical. I mean, the Bible Wheel is a circle, but the temple complex layout is square!

What we engage in with gematria and structures like the Bible Wheel, Vernon's work, the NJ cube, and so on, is only for a select few, I believe. The masses are highly unlikely to shout 'Eureka', and convert and be healed because of our discoveries and revelations. I wish it were so, but the evidence so far points to a reaction more akin to the big 'so what?!' Our work edifies believers who already have worked a few things out for themselves. But that's approaching the limits of its reach. This is not to deny its potential, but is the reality from on the ground.

Concerning proving that Ezekiel's temple is to be taken as literal, the plain text tells us it's literal! Not only does the prophet show the blueprint for the temple, he tells us in great detail what its function will be, who will carry that function out, details of the size of the land and its boundaries, and of various rules and ordinances. How obvious does it have to be that there is simply way too much detail for it to be other than literal? And it fits seamlessly into the picture given by many other OT prophets for the future restoration of all the twelve tribes of Israel, and their role as God's servant nation. The apostles were promised by our Lord that they would be ruling over the twelve tribes. That hasn't happened yet!

I can see that you are having great difficulty dealing with the detail in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. You have now engaged in a strategy of trying to get me to prove my position, which I have just restated. You are doing this because you can't explain the details. You dismiss them as having anything significant to say. Basically, the instructions that Ezekiel was given are superfluous, because you are saying that they are simply a generalised description of God's word. What fiction! Am I expected to take that diagram from your last post as evidence? Please, you're gonna have to do way better than that!

Anyway, that's enough space for this issue. Did you read the post on why the resurrection cannot be as you interpreted it? Paul denounced that error in 2 Timothy 2:11-18, the last verse in particular creating insurmountable problems for your interpretation of the resurrection. It then follows that you have misinterpreted Revelation 20, as I am certain you have. Which then means that your entire perspective on the world to come is deeply skewed, and needs a serious overhaul. Which then leads to the inevitable conclusion that you have not correctly understood the greater message of the prophets of the OT. Which then leads to your understanding of what restoration is to be incomplete.

I will deal with your other attempts at refutation when time becomes available. Enjoy your day.

Stephen

[Rose]

This confirms what I thought, no Jews accepted the Bible Wheel as a witness of God. I must say I'm entirely unsurprised. While the Bible Wheel is clearly a revelation from God, I don't believe it is for some of the purposes you imagine. This is sometimes why folks in other forums shot it down. Another reason would have been your bombastic attitude, and your dismissal of their opinions. I followed a few of those threads way back, and cringed at your comments sometimes, so I just stopped following it because it descended into name-calling, and rationality went out the window.

I have seen your articles that you cited on many occasions, in which you say the Bible Wheel proves Ezekiel's temple is God's word, and that Zechariah prophesied about the Bible. I was unimpressed then, and remain so to this day. To me, as a neutral observer, this is overstepping the mark on what the purpose of the Bible Wheel is. To build a doctrine from something as puerile as there being the hint of tri-radiance in the layout of the future temple borders on the comical. I mean, the Bible Wheel is a circle, but the temple complex layout is square!

What we engage in with gematria and structures like the Bible Wheel, Vernon's work, the NJ cube, and so on, is only for a select few, I believe. The masses are highly unlikely to shout 'Eureka', and convert and be healed because of our discoveries and revelations. I wish it were so, but the evidence so far points to a reaction more akin to the big 'so what?!' Our work edifies believers who already have worked a few things out for themselves. But that's approaching the limits of its reach. This is not to deny its potential, but is the reality from on the ground.

Hello Stephen

The very words you are using against Richard, are what you are displaying in this post, as in prior ones. As I have been mostly an observer in this thread with an occasional response, I have watched Richard and your interactions, and in this case you are the one who struck the first "low blow" concerning the Bible Wheel.

"Dissing" the Bible Wheel is not the way to prove your point. If the Bible Wheel is a revelation from God, as you yourself say it is, it will stand on its own, and to be blunt...."the gates of hell will not prevail against it".

Rose

[Searl Miller]

Again, I have not read all the posts here in order to have the entire picture but I have noted some remarks that prompt me to mention a thing or two.

I see the problem with the Ezekiel Temple being literal as being similar to the problem of presuming to fit a 1400 mile cube on a round earth whose horizon disappears only 32 miles distant.

Ezekiel's Temple AND ENVIRONS involves a huge amount of prime real estate devoted solely to Levitical use - the dimensions of which would nesessitate a huge plain which simply does not exist in Israel.

Unless perhaps the Temple is not to be built on Mount Moriah but rather in the center of the only major region of prime agricultural land that Israel has, that being the plain overlooked by Har Megiddo.

It does not seem prudent to give to the priesthood all the prime land and force the rest of Israel to eke out their existence on scrubby mountain patches. That's the kind of thinking one would expect from a modern developer but not God.

But I must agree with Stephen insofar that Revelation definitely specifies a "thousand years" between the Battle of Armageddon and the Great White Thtone Judgment or Judgment Day.

It does so by revealing that Satan will be bound for a thousand years after Armageddon and then he is to be released for a time, at the end of which he is defeated again and at that time cast into the Lake of Fire, after which is (or coinciding with) Judgment Day.

The Jewish use of "a thousand years" is exactly like that of God owning the livestock on "a thousand hills". It means "many" - a multitude of years; the very least of which will be 1000.

In that same Chapter 20 we are told also that this is when the Judgment Seat of Christ takes place - logically very soon after Armageddon so that we can rule and reign with Jesus for that specified period.

This in turn calls forth our definitions of Resurrection which I insist is not a physical Resurrection to new physical bodies but is purely spiritual. It is a Resurrection to life in the spirit rather than simply dissipation of our souls like so much smoke.

This 1st Resurrection is I believe an ongoing process concerning which it is said that to be apart from our bodies is to be with the Lord. The 1st Resurrection is terminated at the sounding of the 7th Trumpet when the "Rapture" takes place - as this is simply the inclusion of the Lord's people in the 1st Resurrection who remain alive t that time.

That Event is (by extrapolation from clues within the Text) 360 days before the Battle of Armageddon which is what explains how it is we can all accompany Jesus to the Battle of Armageddon.

Further, drawing on Daniel 12.12, I think the Judgment Seat of Christ is what marks those extra 45 days after Armageddon. All present are approved and found worthy to stand before Him but this Event is for the purpose of awarding us all according to our works when we were alive on earth.

In turn again, I see only one group "walking through" the Judgment Period at the close of this Age, and they are those described in Rev. 12.13 thru 16 as being protected from these things - the rest of us are covered by Verse 17.

That means - being that they are shown to be the children of Israel - they are Israelites, and it is THEY who will repopulate the earth and it is during those "thousand years" that all the unfulfilled Promises to physical Israel will be fulfilled.

WE will rule & reign in the same sense as the Angels who were sent to Abraham, Jacob, Daniel, etc.

Shalom.

[David]

(Ezekiel 43:10) As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan.

Here's my opinion on the topic: Christ is the Temple described beginning with Ezekiel 40. The whole reason the temple is described in such great detail is so that people can create models.

Look at a model of the Temple and read the descriptions of the river flowing out of it, and it's pretty easy to see that it describes Christ crucified. This is why measuring such a model would cause Israel to be ashamed. Christ is our Temple! Why would we be ashamed by a mere building?

As for why the floor plans would be so detailed, perhaps it's so we get a sense of proportion. As Searl Miller just described, it seems odd to make the measurements against the Earth. But simply making the measurements against eachother, a model is possible which can be analyzed for causing shame - once you see it, there's nowhere to run or hide!

If Scripture can also be described using the Temple design, that's a separate issue and is harmonious with the idea that "The Word became Flesh". But that's not the most important thing to see. The important thing is that Christ is the great Temple!

Now, as for the rather personal, destructive, and discouraging arguments above (which I interpret as plainly coming from both sides), please represent better, brothers! :eek: I used to tell friends to come to this site all the time, but can't continue to do so if the fruits of the Spirit aren't being amply demonstrated in the forum. These debates should be a great way to generate a wealth of interesting ideas among friends so that readers can decide for themselves and everyone can learn. That's my view. Sorry to butt my nose in your fight. :(

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So, I ask you for the fourth time. What have you got to say on Paul's warning at 2 Timothy 2:11-18 not to believe anyone who says the resurrection is already passed? This creates what looks like an insurmountable problem for your theory that we are already resurrected. Scripture tells us that this clearly is not so, in plain language! If your theory about the resurrection is seen to be error, then so is your interpretation of Revelation 20.

Stephen
Hey there Stephen!

Glad you are feeling better. I am delighted you would like to return to the discussion of Scripture. I offer you the right teacup of fellowship.

:tea:

Now before I answer your question, I need to clarify for other folks that I never said anything like "the resurrection is already passed" or that "we are already resurrected" in the physical sense you clearly implied in Post 23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2457&postcount=23) when you said "we are still alive and haven't died yet." Anyone who wants to see my rather detailed explaination of the two resurrections are invited to read Post 24 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2467&postcount=24) in this thread. I now will be responding to your Post 33 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2488&postcount=33) (note that I quote you exactly to avoid misunderstandings. It might help if you followed this example):

The problem with your interpretation is that Paul warned us against it. This he specifically addressed at 2 Timothy 2:11-18. I'd say that last verse in particular qualifies as a real problem for your interpretation, wouldn't you agree? Clearly, the resurrection is not coterminous with our Christian experience of death through baptism and being born again of the Spirit. If it were, then Hymenaeus and Philetus would have been correct in saying that the resurrection had already passed. Resurrection therefore refers only to being raised from the dead.
We are discussing the meaning of the two resurrections of Rev 20. The problem with your argument is that you implicitly assume that the "first resurrection" is subsumed in "the resurrection" mentioned in 2 Tim 2:18. But I assert that "the resurrection" of 2 Tim 2:18 refers only to the general resurrection, aka the "second resurrection." You have not established your point, and indeed, if it is true that the "first resurrection" refers to the soul passing from death to life at salvation, then we know that it was not part of the the heresy that Paul taught against in 2 Tim 2:18. The only way to salvage your argument is to 1) prove that the "first resurrection" of Rev 20 does not refer to the salvation event, or 2) prove that "the resurrection" of 2 Tim 2:18 certainly includes the "first resurrection."

Another problem with your argument is your overly restrictive use of the word "resurrection." I think it is invalid beacause the term "raised from the dead" means the same thing. Every person "raised from the dead" is also "resurrected" and every person "resurrected" is also "raised from the dead." The Bible says that we have been "raised with Christ." The term "raised" is used in parallel with "resurrection" in that context. So how do you understand this in light of 2 Tim 2:18?


This then opens up a space in which the events written by Ezekiel, and many of the OT prophets, may take place. Crucially, these do not contradict NT teachings, when properly understood. You should have read the links I gave you earlier. They shed light on this subject. Did you read them?
I read those links. Indeed, I used the image of the Temple found on the first link in the Bible Wheel book (with permission from the author). Note the massive [60 cubits = 102 feet] tripled pairs of gates:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/EzekielTemple_PaulJ.gif

Its unfortunate they offer such a faint "hint" of tri-radiance. ;) As an aside, here is what one of the scholars (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Dalet_Temple.aspTemple.asp) has to say concerning the gates and their number:


The gates are a foreshadowing of the accessibility God gave to all people through Jesus, who presents himself as the door by which one can enter to God and be saved (see John 10:9–21). The choice of three gates for this temple rather than four or more may suggest a deeper significance of the means of access God provides for humans to approach him, since God manifests himself in three ways to the human family as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Sorry for quoting a commentary with such a "puerile" idea - to suggest that the detailed structure of the Temple might have some non-literal theological meaning! Horrors! :eek:

Now getting back to your point: I read those links and found them wanting. If you think I missed the important stuff, please post one succinct point at a time and explain why you think it is a good argument, and we can discuss it!

Now that I've answered your questions, I'd like to ask for an answer to a question that I asked even earlier. In Post 23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2457&postcount=23) you asserted "there is just way too much detail in those last nine chapters of Ezekiel for us to judge it as all being symbolic." You then immediately repeated that assertion and wrote "Let me shout that for emphasis so none of us miss it: THERE IS JUST WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL IN THOSE LAST NINE CHAPTERS OF EZEKIEL FOR US TO JUDGE IT AS ALL BEING SYMBOLIC." You then repeated it a third time as the second item in your list of nine items that needed to be "refuted" before a "symbolic" intepretation could be reasonably accepted.

Given the fact that you thrice repeated this point, once in BOLD CAPS no less, I was convinced that you considered it to be a very important point. Indeed, I am not aware of any other point that you emphasized to this degree. But when I began to evaluate your argument, I realized that you had failed to give any support for your assertion that "detailed" implied "non-symbolic." I considered this a fundamental flaw because almost all students of Revelation agree that it is filled with highly detailed symbols, such as the seven headed dragon with ten crowns, etc. Indeed, I believe that most of Revelation 4-22 is symbolic and that the fact that it is "highly detailed" has absolutely no impact on that conclusion. Therefore, logic led me to ask you to explain why a high degree of detail in a vision should compel all rational people to believe the vision was "literal." Here is how I posed the question in Post 27 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2474&postcount=27):



THERE IS JUST WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL IN THOSE LAST NINE CHAPTERS OF EZEKIEL FOR US TO JUDGE IT AS ALL BEING SYMBOLIC.
Hey there Stephen,

Why can't something be both detailed and symblolic? I don't understand your assertion at all.

Richard

I am very interested in your detailed answer to that question.

Thanks!

Richard

[Stephen]

Good evening, Richard!

Yes, this is as it should be! I accept your offer of fellowship.

I don't have much free time this evening, so I will deal only with the point regarding resurrection.

The first, and most obvious objection, to Paul referring only to the second resurrection in his rebuke at 2 Timothy 2:11-18 is that the dead were still dead! Obviously, no one would have believed the resurrection is passed already if the dead were still not raised. So Paul must have been referring to something else.

The second objection is that Paul is almost certain not to have read the Revelation. Therefore Paul never needed to make a distinction between the 'first resurrection' and the general resurrection. Neither should we when dealing with this verse from 2 Timothy 2:11-18.

The third objection is that if resurrection is the same thing as the soul passing from death to life at salvation, then it is already a thing of the past for a believer. This would fit the bill for what Paul was actually warning us against believing. Why would he warn us against believing this? Because if we are resurrected already at salvation, we are already part of the 'first resurrection'. This gives us licence to do pretty much as we will, since we are already guaranteed eternal life.

This brings us to the real crux of the matter. If the 'first resurrection' is the same as the soul passing from death to life at salvation, then no matter how much we sin or deny Christ after that, we are guaranteed eternal life because we are partakers already of the 'first resurrection'. The second death has no power over us if we are part of the 'first resurrection', at least according to Revelation 20:5,6.

These, in a nutshell, are my immediate objections to resurrection referring to anything other than the physical raising from the dead. They also crystallise my position on why I think Paul was referring specifically to the teaching that you currently hold when he warned against the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus. The context of Paul's warning at 2 Timothy 2 appears to support this view, since the teaching that the resurrection is already past was an excuse for people to indulge themselves.

And you know what? It still is. If I have understood you correctly, we believers are already part of the 'first resurrection', since our souls have passed from death to life at salvation. Have I understood you correctly, or have I misquoted you? Please let me know. So what happens if you, a Christian of the 'first resurrection', whose soul has passed from death to life at salvation, suddenly decide to call Jesus Christ a liar, launch a verbal tirade against him and all who follow him, and convert to Islam, or something worse? Will God spare you from the second death? And this hypothetical situation applies to any person from the time the Holy Spirit was given until the present. I think this is pretty strong evidence that the 'first resurrection' of Revelation 20 does not refer to the salvation event.

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good evening, Richard!

Yes, this is as it should be! I accept your offer of fellowship.
Wonderful! Thank God for His Spirit that washes us clean of all sins that are past the moment we repent. I see you shining in the Light of God's Son my friend.


I don't have much free time this evening, so I will deal only with the point regarding resurrection.
That's ok ... the other questions will be waiting till you find an opportune time.


The first, and most obvious objection, to Paul referring only to the second resurrection in his rebuke at 2 Timothy 2:11-18 is that the dead were still dead! Obviously, no one would have believed the resurrection is passed already if the dead were still not raised. So Paul must have been referring to something else.
Ah ... I see what you are getting at. Very interesting indeed! I had not thought of that. I think your view is largely correct. It would be a grave error to teach - like the gnostics who hated the flesh and thought it evil and so rejected the physical resurrection - that the resurrection was ONLY spiritual and had already happened at the point of salvation. But on the other hand, it would also be a grave error to teach that the soul did not gain eternal life at the point of salvation. Thus we have two resurrections: the first is spiritual and happens at the point of salvation, the second is physical and happens before the Great White Throne Judgment. To deny either of these resurrections would be a great error. Here is how the New American Commentary explains this verse:


Paul identified the nature of the heresy. The two heretics had asserted that the general resurrection had “already taken place.” Greeks often showed a contempt for the concept of physical resurrection. Because they viewed the body as evil, they eschewed the concept of a future bodily resurrection. For such people a spiritualized or sacramental view of resurrection was more congenial. Paul had taught the concept of spiritual resurrection (see Eph 2:6; Rom 6:3–4), but he had also asserted the reality of a future resurrection (1 Cor 15; Phil 3:21). The Ephesian teaching concerning the resurrection may have denied a future bodily resurrection. It probably asserted that the resurrection had already occurred in the spiritual renewal of the believer by regeneration.
Thus, though Paul had probably not read Rev 20, his teachings naturally cohere with the idea of "two resurrections" taught there. I take this as a wonderful example of the supernatural coherence of the Divine Word.


The second objection is that Paul is almost certain not to have read the Revelation. Therefore Paul never needed to make a distinction between the 'first resurrection' and the general resurrection. Neither should we when dealing with this verse from 2 Timothy 2:11-18.
I think this argument is inconsistent with the previous one. Your first agument exposed the important truth that Paul was not talking about physical resurrection. But in the immediate context he talked about the physicial resurrection of Christ. So within the space of a few verses, Paul distinguished between the ideas of a physical and a spiritual resurrection.

I think we have come to an important agreement. The heresy had something to do with idea of a "spiritual resurrection." You assert that the very idea of a "spiritual resurrection" is itself the heresy Paul had in mind. In this view, the New Amercan Commentary and all Christians who agree that Paul taught a spiritual resurrection are heretical. In contrast with that view, I assert that the heresy was the teaching that denied the physical resurrection and taught that the spiritual resurrection was the only resurrection.

As usual, great insight comes from studying the verse in context:


2 Timothy 2:8-12 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. 10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

Well now! Those words certianly sound familiar! And they seem to have something to do with the topic at hand. Where did I read them before? :confused2: Hummm .... let me search the entire Bible for the phrase "reign with him" ... :typing: ... well look at that! It appears only in 2 Tim 2:12 and Rev 20:6! (As an aside, these two verses are diametrically opposed (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tet_Goodness.asp) on the Wheel.)


Revelation 20:4-6 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


Did Paul write 2 Timothy after reading Revelation 20? No one knows. But if he did not, then the glory of God's word is magnified because the coherence between Paul and John is then another example of the supernatural coherence of all its parts.

I admit that this does not prove that the first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection that happens at salvation, but I do beleive that the lion's share of evidence is pointing in that direction.


The third objection is that if resurrection is the same thing as the soul passing from death to life at salvation, then it is already a thing of the past for a believer. This would fit the bill for what Paul was actually warning us against believing. Why would he warn us against believing this? Because if we are resurrected already at salvation, we are already part of the 'first resurrection'. This gives us licence to do pretty much as we will, since we are already guaranteed eternal life.
Is that not exactly the same problem that Paul addressed in Romans 6?

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Again, I need to know how you interepret Christ's words when He said that we "have passed from death to life." He said is is a "done deal." The beleivers have already passed from death to life. How do you interpret His words?


This brings us to the real crux of the matter. If the 'first resurrection' is the same as the soul passing from death to life at salvation, then no matter how much we sin or deny Christ after that, we are guaranteed eternal life because we are partakers already of the 'first resurrection'. The second death has no power over us if we are part of the 'first resurrection', at least according to Revelation 20:5,6.
Exactly correct. If we are saved by Christ, then we are part of the "first resurrection" and "the second death has no power over us." Praise God! That is the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ. Look closely at the following sequence of verses:

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.Now lets just connect the bold red words (note the past tense of "received"):

As many as received him ... shall not be hurt of the second death.

Do you believe this Stephen?

If so, does that give you a license to sin?


These, in a nutshell, are my immediate objections to resurrection referring to anything other than the physical raising from the dead.
Woops! Didn't you base your first argument on the fact that "resurrection" did NOT refer to "physical raising from the dead"?


They also crystallise my position on why I think Paul was referring specifically to the teaching that you currently hold when he warned against the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus. The context of Paul's warning at 2 Timothy 2 appears to support this view, since the teaching that the resurrection is already past was an excuse for people to indulge themselves.
Paul never mentioned anything about "an excuse for people to indulge themselves" in the context of 2 Timothy 2:18. Given the fact that was a major concern of his in Romans 6 and elsewhere, it is unlike that he had it in mind here since he didn't mention it.

I think the most likely concern he had was the gnostic denial of the physical resurrection.


And you know what? It still is. If I have understood you correctly, we believers are already part of the 'first resurrection', since our souls have passed from death to life at salvation. Have I understood you correctly, or have I misquoted you? Please let me know.
No, you have not misquoted me. Thanks for asking.


So what happens if you, a Christian of the 'first resurrection', whose soul has passed from death to life at salvation, suddenly decide to call Jesus Christ a liar, launch a verbal tirade against him and all who follow him, and convert to Islam, or something worse? Will God spare you from the second death? And this hypothetical situation applies to any person from the time the Holy Spirit was given until the present. I think this is pretty strong evidence that the 'first resurrection' of Revelation 20 does not refer to the salvation event.

Stephen
What would happen? Exactly the same thing that would happen to a someone whose "whose soul has passed from death to life at salvation." It seems that you are asserting that salvation is not as "permanent" as "resurrection." Are you saying that a soul can "pass from death to eternal life" and be "born of God" and "overcome the world" and then go to hell?

Well now, this is very interesting! We have entered into the issue of the meaning of salvation, the perseverance of the saints, and the Once Saved Always Saved debate. It never ceases to amaze me just how deeply every aspect of theology is interegrated with every other aspect. But I would hope that we can come to a proper understanding of the first resurrection without having to settle every unsolved problem of theology!

Great working with you on this, my friend. That was an excellent post! :thumb:

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's my opinion on the topic: Christ is the Temple described beginning with Ezekiel 40. The whole reason the temple is described in such great detail is so that people can create models.

Look at a model of the Temple and read the descriptions of the river flowing out of it, and it's pretty easy to see that it describes Christ crucified. This is why measuring such a model would cause Israel to be ashamed. Christ is our Temple! Why would we be ashamed by a mere building?
Hi David!

I think that is an excellent understanding! It reminds me of Martin Luther's statement that "Scripture deals only with Christ everywhere, if it is looked at inwardly, even though on the face of it, it may sound differently by the use of shadows and figures." (Luthers Works 25:405 (http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti83313.html)).

I take Luther's idea one step further and see the whole Bible (the Written Word of God) as a type that is fulfilled in Christ (the Incarnate Word) in all its details. This is why we see a convergence of the symbols of Word and Christ overlapping so strongly. For example, God's Word is a Light, and Christ is a Light, people stumble at the Word, and they stumble over Christ, and like Christ, the Bible is both human and divine, etc. This has been discussed a bit in the thread called Analogies between the Living and the Written Word (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25).


As for why the floor plans would be so detailed, perhaps it's so we get a sense of proportion. As Searl Miller just described, it seems odd to make the measurements against the Earth. But simply making the measurements against eachother, a model is possible which can be analyzed for causing shame - once you see it, there's nowhere to run or hide!
Yep! The three paired gates focus directly onto the Altar of Sacrifice! Can't miss that. But I think there is a lot more to it. The Bible was designed in toto by the infinite Wisdom of Almighty God, so is contains endless treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, just like Christ Himself. I own a Jewish book that analyzes the mystical (entirely non-literal) meaning of every single detailed measurement. But the same author also believes the Temple will be literally built. This just goes to show that "detailed" does not mean "non-symbolic."

I also have read commentators that think John was very deeply influenced by Ezekiel's vision because in John 2 Christ is revealed as the True Temple, and in John 7 Christ declares that "rivers of living water" will flow from the bellies of beleivers, just like the river flowing from the Temple in Ezekiel.


If Scripture can also be described using the Temple design, that's a separate issue and is harmonious with the idea that "The Word became Flesh". But that's not the most important thing to see. The important thing is that Christ is the great Temple!
I agree absolutley! Scripture was given to lead us to Christ, it is not an end in itself.


Now, as for the rather personal, destructive, and discouraging arguments above (which I interpret as plainly coming from both sides), please represent better, brothers! :eek: I used to tell friends to come to this site all the time, but can't continue to do so if the fruits of the Spirit aren't being amply demonstrated in the forum. These debates should be a great way to generate a wealth of interesting ideas among friends so that readers can decide for themselves and everyone can learn. That's my view. Sorry to butt my nose in your fight. :(
I am really sorry for the ugly words David. I admit my error - but the upside is that God can use it for good. The fact that we got so fleshly and rude and ugly shows that we are weak humans, but unlike humans without the Spirit of God, we can admit our errrors and truly forgive each other, and this shows the work of God's Spirit and glorifies Christ.

Thus the words of Scripture are confirmed: "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" - Romans 5:20

Thanks for your patience.

Richard

[shalag]

Revelation 8:10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ro+8:10&sr=1&t=nkj)And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ro+8:11&sr=1&t=nkj)But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.I'm having faith that the Spirit of God dwells in me. But I come short of resurrection life, by the infirmities that beset me, especially according to this passage.

[White]

Hey Richard, Stephen, Rose and all who have followed this painful post,

I'm glad that's over !
Since 2 Timothy 2:11-18 has been stated, lets look at
verse 11:

This saying is trustworthy:

If we have died with HIM
we shall also live with Him

If we persevere, we shall also reign with Him

But if we deny Him, He will deny us.
If we are unfaithful, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny HIMSELF.

but especially 2 Timothy 2:14

14: Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to GOD, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation...

In that Spirit, I wish all of you a Happy Rosh Hashana all the while we acknowledge that Y'SHUA is the way, the truth and the light and no one -
THAT IS NO ONE - comes to the Father but through HIM = Y'SHUA HA-MASHIACH, and may they - the Jews - come to believe and understand that HE is MOSHIACH , took away our sins, rose from the dead, is seated at the RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER, and will come again and may we all come to understand the knowledge of the truth (verse 25) as laid out in HIS WRITTEN WORD. Amen & Amen ! 10 days to Yom Kippur ! Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened...

Shalom, to all of you, to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, and to all of us,
White

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard, Stephen, Rose and all who have followed this painful post,

I'm glad that's over !
Me too! Thanks be to God who ties us all together with His Spirit. :pray:


but especially 2 Timothy 2:14

14: Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to GOD, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation...

When I was studying 2 Timothy 2 I was really struck by how appropriate those words are. I'm glad you posted them.

Talk more soon!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If your theory about the resurrection is seen to be error, then so is your interpretation of Revelation 20. This then opens up a space in which the events written by Ezekiel, and many of the OT prophets, may take place. Crucially, these do not contradict NT teachings, when properly understood. You should have read the links I gave you earlier. They shed light on this subject. Did you read them?

Stephen
Hey there Stephen,

I was reading this link (http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTempleEzekielsMillennialTemple.htm) you posted and found this little gem:


To date, this temple has not yet been constructed, but Scripture indicates that our generation will see it built in the land of Israel.

The unfortunate fact is that Paul Jablonowski did not actually quote any Scripture that "indicates that our generation will see it built in the land of Israel." So I didn't get any light on this issue from that link. Futhermore, his conclusion is very confusing, because in Revelation 20 the battle of Gog and Magog happens after the "Millennium" whereas in Ezekiel it happens before the supposedly "Millennial" Temple appears in chatper 40. I think this is a serious flaw in the "literal" interpretation.

Another fundamental problem I have with that page you linked is that it supercedes the Everlasting Living Temple of Jesus Christ [Rev 21:22!] which he calls the "Fifth Dwelling Place of God" with a later dead and dusty building made of sticks and stones that he calls the "Sixth Dwelling Place of God." Think about it! The ultimate point of ALL SCRIPTURE is Jesus Christ who is the true and ultimate fulfillment of the Typology of the Temple, and we are supposed to abandon Him and go back to dead buildings made with sticks and stones? God forbid! (Now I know you would say that we don't "abandon Him" because He would be "in the Temple" but the Bible doesn't say anything about that and it wouldn't make sense anyway with all the sacrifices and Levites and all the Jewish stuff that passed away long ago. Christ is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not Levi, and there is no mention of such a priesthood in relation to a literal Ezekiel's Temple.)

Jesus Christ is the Temple of God, as it is written in Revelation 21:22

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

We can never go back to types and shadows.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Why not just accept the plain text, in all its explicit detail? God said there's going to be a new temple in the Holy Land.

There is a new temple..the body of Christ, which is the Church. God said, "Heaven is my throne and the earth a foot-stool for my feet; has not My Hand made these "things", where shall I find a place of rest?"

God was showing that He does not care for temples made of hands....he cares for our hearts and that is where He chooses to rest. He explains that in the following verses of the passage.

Now about Ezekiel's vision, that was a spiritual representation of the Church beginning in Jerusalem and spreading throughout the entire world. The Church did in fact begin in Jerusalem, and the waters which nourishes the land (any land) is the Holy Spirit. Jesus explained this to the Samaritan lady at the well, that the true living water is the Holy Spirit. And that a time was coming when neither traveling to Jerusalem or to any Mountain would be required to worship God. For He seeks for those to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Thus in all lands that contain the kingdom of God, this is evident by the Holy Spirit (Waters) flowing through any land. Lands that do not have the Holy Spirit were considered swamp-like, marshy, and crawling with fowl creatures. That is a picture of nations not blessed by the Holy Spirit / Church.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

Joe

[Rose]

Hello Joe :yo: Great post!


Now about Ezekiel's vision, that was a spiritual representation of the Church beginning in Jerusalem and spreading throughout the entire world. The Church did in fact begin in Jerusalem, and the waters which nourishes the land (any land) is the Holy Spirit. Jesus explained this to the Samaritan lady at the well, that the true living water is the Holy Spirit. And that a time was coming when neither traveling to Jerusalem or to any Mountain would be required to worship God. For He seeks for those to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Thus in all lands that contain the kingdom of God, this is evident by the Holy Spirit (Waters) flowing through any land. Lands that do not have the Holy Spirit were considered swamp-like, marshy, and crawling with fowl creatures. That is a picture of nations not blessed by the Holy Spirit / Church.


John 4:20-23 "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him."That is the perfect answer to whether there will be another temple built in Jerusalem. Out of the mouth of Jesus Himself was spoken the words: "not at the temple in Jerusalem or anywhere else would be where true worshipers will worship God." If another temple is built in Jerusalem it will not be God ordained.

Now are bodies are the temple of God, filled with His Holy Spirit!
With which we praise and worship God :pray:

Rose

[Trumpet]

Yea Joe, good post.
One day many years ago, I was looking at a photo of the Temple Mount in today's Jerusalem, and the Spirit opened my eyes to the simple truth of that photo. We've probably all seen that picture.

Here it was, one of history's most famous places, and except for a little cupola, and a muslim shrine, the place was literally scraped bare. God couldn't have given a better view of the worth of that old religion, and how what God said would happen DID happen. The Jewish people were given 40 years to accept Jesus as Lord and Messiah, and then God ended the old way and the new was fully now the ONLY way. And it hasn't been revived, nor will it ever be revived! It's just a useless plaza of stone, that serves no purpose except to aggravate old wounds. (Wounds that would be gone if they would accept the present Temple and be a part of it.)

Don

[TheForgiven]

:yo:

My thanks to everyone for welcoming me to this webiste. Richards site on Daniel's seventy sevens helped me out a great deal. I knew the truth, but not the dates because tracking history based another past person and back-tracking from there consumed too much time. I was about to give up because I couldn't figure out how to consolidate the Jewish 360 days Calendar and compare this with our Julian Calendar [365 days]. Then I realized it was almost pointless if we just listened to what Daniel's vision means. But this isn't the proper thread, so back to the subject. :lol:

I've studied Ezekiel's vision for a little while now and it's certainly a pictoral of the Church. There's even an hint of that when the vision begins:


Ezekiel 3:10
Moreover He said to me: 'Son of man, receive into your heart all My words that I speak to you, and hear with your ears.

Ezekiel 40:4
And the man said to me, 'Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears, and fix your mind on everything I show you; for you were brought here so that I might show them to you. Declare to the house of Israel everything you see.'

Now this is repeated in John's Revelation:


Revelation 2:17
'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.'’

Revelation 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name. 13 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'’

Will Christians be given literal stones with their names? Will Christians be made into literal "Pillars" of the New Jerusalem? No these are metaphoric truths about the Kingdom of God applied to us. That those who are made Pillars are like litearl pillars who uphold tall buildings. That's how strong this persons faith represents and their example of faith would be used to uphold the Kingdom of God. In the same way, Jesus is the corner stone of the Church. He is the one stone that makes the rest of the foundation solid and perfect.

I just don't understand why many folks can't hear these things. You talk of pillars and stones and they literally expect a 1,500 mile square, as measured on all six sides, to fall from the sky in the future! :lol: If that happened, that's like inserting a 25 lb weight on the wheel of a car; as it spends, it bounces all over the place.

God bless you all and thanks for the welcome.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:yo:

My thanks to everyone for welcoming me to this webiste. Richards site on Daniel's seventy sevens helped me out a great deal. I knew the truth, but not the dates because tracking history based another past person and back-tracking from there consumed too much time. I was about to give up because I couldn't figure out how to consolidate the Jewish 360 days Calendar and compare this with our Julian Calendar [365 days]. Then I realized it was almost pointless if we just listened to what Daniel's vision means. But this isn't the proper thread, so back to the subject. :lol:
Hey there Joe!

It's great to have you here. I'm glad the article helped. It took me a long time to learn enough Scripture to be able to "see the Big Picture". The beauty (and power) of Daniel's prophecy is not in the exact minute calculations like Anderson attempted in "The Coming Prince" because our record of history is a little too fuzzy for that kind of precision. Pushing it too far only convinces the opponent that we are willing to "fudge things" in whatever way is necessary to make them fit. But if we just step back and look at the "prophetic window" - taking into account all the uncertainties in the dates - we arrive at a proof that Christ was the Messiah of Daniel's prophecy.

But you are correct, this isn't the proper thread, so we better get :focus:




I've studied Ezekiel's vision for a little while now and it's certainly a pictoral of the Church. There's even an hint of that when the vision begins:

Now this is repeated in John's Revelation:

Will Christians be given literal stones with their names? Will Christians be made into literal "Pillars" of the New Jerusalem? No these are metaphoric truths about the Kingdom of God applied to us. That those who are made Pillars are like litearl pillars who uphold tall buildings. That's how strong this persons faith represents and their example of faith would be used to uphold the Kingdom of God. In the same way, Jesus is the corner stone of the Church. He is the one stone that makes the rest of the foundation solid and perfect.

I just don't understand why many folks can't hear these things. You talk of pillars and stones and they literally expect a 1,500 mile square, as measured on all six sides, to fall from the sky in the future! :lol: If that happened, that's like inserting a 25 lb weight on the wheel of a car; as it spends, it bounces all over the place.

God bless you all and thanks for the welcome.

Joe
Excellent insight into the correct interpretation of Scripture. I don't know the fulness of the meaning of Ezekiel's Temple, but it definitely "overlaps" with the images of the Church as Temple presented throughout the New Testament in so many ways. It began with Jesus when "he spake of the temple of his body" in John 2, and was amplified when Paul applied it to the corporate Body of Christ saying "know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" and then in Revelation as you noted, Christ Himself declares that we will be "Pillars" in the New Jerusalem.

The beauty of this understanding is that it leads directly to the proper interpretation of the New Jerusalem, which is the Church of Christ exactly as stated in Hebrews:



Hebrews 12:22-23 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,


Thus the Bible confirms itself in a thousand ways! This is the Divine Unity of God's Integrated Theology, if you know what I mean. The truth leads us into evermore truth and we can be quite certain of the correct interpretations because everything confirms everything else, to the glory of God and His Gospel!

Compare this with the cartoon theology of psuedo-literalism that reads biochips, nuclear weapons, and the everchanging headlines of the current day into the eternal Word only to reap a swirling whirlwind of confusion and error!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Excellent insight into the correct interpretation of Scripture. I don't know the fulness of the meaning of Ezekiel's Temple, but it definitely "overlaps" with the images of the Church as Temple presented throughout the New Testament in so many ways. It began with Jesus when "he spake of the temple of his body" in John 2, and was amplified when Paul applied it to the corporate Body of Christ saying "know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" and then in Revelation as you noted, Christ Himself declares that we will be "Pillars" in the New Jerusalem.

Thanks for the complement brother. I'm very pleased to have found someone fully engaged in the language. At first I was confused when I studied Ezekiel's vision. I couldn't quite place my finger on it until I read the passage in Revelation about becoming "Pillars". St. Paul used this figure in one of his letters:


Galatians 2:
6 But of those who seemed to be something (whosoever they were, it maketh no difference to me: God accepteth no man's person) -- those who seemed to be somewhat in consultation added nothing to me; 7 but contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel to the Uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel to the Circumcision was unto Peter 8 (for He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the Circumcision, that Same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the Circumcision

Obvioulsy the general use of the word "Pillar" implies someone of great reputation or importance. So when Christ said, "He who overcomes, I will make him pillars in the temple of my God; the New Jerusalem which is coming down out of heaven....." we are now able to understand what He's saying.

Apply this example to the images of Ezekiel, and we get the same result. However, I must admit that I have not yet uncovered all the details about the temple. What's the purpose of the two palm trees on each side of the courte gates? Why is it that the Prince (Which we know is Christ) can only enter through one gate, and no one else besides him. Then I thought about it for quite some time. The gate of entrance is on the east side. What side does the sun come up? The east! :smiley_applause: So then, there's a connection but I just havn't quite place my finger on it yet.

As for the animals, I finally figured those out. Why were they required to offer bulls, rams, sheep, lambs, and so forth? Each animal is a discription of man. Bulls with horns are violent and all they do is charge with their horns of power. That is a picture of a sinful man with power and authority who rushes head long into anything evil, without thinking twice about it. Rams are similiar to bulls, but are more territorial than bulls and not quite as violent. Rams have horns of authority as well, but are more concerned about defending territory. That's a picture of someone who's very defensive of their land, and we know that the Jews were exactly that. Without going any further, why were they required to offer a bull for a sacrifice? They were demonstrating their intent to repent for them bullish behavior towards God. The lambs they sacrificed were showing their intent to follow and obey the Covanent. Lambs, like many creatures, are easily led astray. So then, the symbolic meaning of the animals is also applicable to Ezeliel's temple. I could list more regarding the other animals, but all one needs to do is listen....and not just read. That's the problem with the literal approach; they take too much at face value, and don't they don't listen to what God is trying to say. Now certainly not all scripture is metaphoric in nature. But if you're trying to hide things from Satan, no doubt poetic metophor's is the way to go.

The Son of man is told, "Offer these sacrifices for seven days, and on the eighth day I will except you". One of the great celebrations the Greek Orthodox Church recognizes is the eighth day. For they say that Christ is the fulfillment of the 8th day, and we are in the 8th day. [I'm not a Greek Orthodox member in case you're wondering :lol:]

Anyways, I'll stop for now but there's so much more I'm trying to understand regarding Ezekiel's vision of the temple, which we know is Christ.

Joe

[Rose]

Hi Joe :yo:

I noticed your wondering s about the eastern gate of Ezekiel's temple?
What has come to my mind concerning the eastern gate being shut, is that I have heard that it was through the eastern gate that Jesus made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and then on into the temple where He drove out the money changers and said: "My house shall be called a house of prayer" Matt 21:12-13.


In Ezekiel 43:3 "And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect [is] toward the east."

Ezekiel 44:2 "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut."Those two verses are pretty clear as to why the gate is shut if Jesus is the Prince, because now that the Lord God of Israel has entered through the eastern gate as Messiah, all has been fulfilled! So now it is sealed, for there is no one else worthy to enter in through that gate. Now we must enter through Christ Himself, who is the door.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks for the complement brother. I'm very pleased to have found someone fully engaged in the language. At first I was confused when I studied Ezekiel's vision. I couldn't quite place my finger on it until I read the passage in Revelation about becoming "Pillars". St. Paul used this figure in one of his letters:

Obvioulsy the general use of the word "Pillar" implies someone of great reputation or importance. So when Christ said, "He who overcomes, I will make him pillars in the temple of my God; the New Jerusalem which is coming down out of heaven....." we are now able to understand what He's saying.
I agree completely about the meaning of "Pillar" and the true meaning of "Temple". But I am not at all sure about the animals you describe below:


As for the animals, I finally figured those out. Why were they required to offer bulls, rams, sheep, lambs, and so forth? Each animal is a discription of man. Bulls with horns are violent and all they do is charge with their horns of power. That is a picture of a sinful man with power and authority who rushes head long into anything evil, without thinking twice about it. Rams are similiar to bulls, but are more territorial than bulls and not quite as violent. Rams have horns of authority as well, but are more concerned about defending territory. That's a picture of someone who's very defensive of their land, and we know that the Jews were exactly that. Without going any further, why were they required to offer a bull for a sacrifice? They were demonstrating their intent to repent for them bullish behavior towards God. The lambs they sacrificed were showing their intent to follow and obey the Covanent. Lambs, like many creatures, are easily led astray. So then, the symbolic meaning of the animals is also applicable to Ezeliel's temple. I could list more regarding the other animals, but all one needs to do is listen....and not just read.
I think the reason these interepretations of the animals don't "ring bells" is because they are not being drawn from Scripture. How then can I confirm if they are correct? How do I know if they are what God really intended? With the "pillars" it is easy because the Scripture teaches it. But with these interpretations of animals, I do not know. It is interesting that a similiar interpretation of the clean and unclean animals is found in an ancient commentator, but I don't recall who right now.


That's the problem with the literal approach; they take too much at face value, and don't they don't listen to what God is trying to say. Now certainly not all scripture is metaphoric in nature. But if you're trying to hide things from Satan, no doubt poetic metophor's is the way to go.
Actually, I thin the real problem with the "literal" approach is that is often used in such a way as to be aptly called the "pseudo-literal" approach. For example, some literalists seem to think that interpreting the scorpions of Rev 9 as "literal helicopters" makes their interpretation "literal"! And that exposes the real problem. Folks promoting such views are hampered by linguistic disabilities.

Good examples of literalist errors are seen in the Jews. Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again, and Nicodemus took it in the most literal way possible! And when Jesus said "Destroy this Temple" the Jews thought He was nuts becuase they didn't know He spoke of the Temple of His Body. So we know from the mouth of the Lord that He used symbols even when there was "nothing in the context" that demanded a symbolic interpration (contra dispensationalist doctrine).


The Son of man is told, "Offer these sacrifices for seven days, and on the eighth day I will except you". One of the great celebrations the Greek Orthodox Church recognizes is the eighth day. For they say that Christ is the fulfillment of the 8th day, and we are in the 8th day. [I'm not a Greek Orthodox member in case you're wondering :lol:]
That's very interesting indeed. I'm always glad to find denominations that understand the symbolic use of numbers in the Bible. Here's what I have to say about the Number 8 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Chet_Eight.asp).


Anyways, I'll stop for now but there's so much more I'm trying to understand regarding Ezekiel's vision of the temple, which we know is Christ.

Joe
Thanks Joe! I'm very interested in pursuing the details of Ezekiel's Temple since its such a stumbling block for some folks who believe in a future literal earthly ethnic Kingdom of Israel.

Talk more soon,

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hello Richard,

I will provide an example of the animal sacrifices so you can see the connection. Here is an example:


Leviticus 4
13 “‘If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty. 14 When they become aware of the sin they committed, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present it before the Tent of Meeting. 15 The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull's head before the LORD, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the LORD. 16 Then the anointed priest is to take some of the bull's blood into the Tent of Meeting. 17 He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the LORD seven times in front of the curtain. 18 He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 19 He shall remove all the fat from it and burn it on the altar, 20 and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven. 21 Then he shall take the bull outside the camp and burn it as he burned the first bull. This is the sin offering for the community.

I underlined the key text for us to understand what God is trying to say. When someone sins accidentally, and are made aware of their sin, they were to offer a Bull as a sin offering. What does this mean? As I stated earlier, Bulls are identified as rebellious chargers with horns; their horns usually representing authority or power. In this case, God is referring to people who sin accidentally and they were to offer a Bull, showing that they were not willfully sinning, as a Bull would willfully commit violence.

Now notice the fat to be offered. Why were they required to burn the fat at the entrance to the "Tent of Meeting"? This should be quite clear. What is the Biblical metaphor for fat? Fat is a result of over-indulgence and wealth. Anyone within the Assembly of God is to share all things. Moreover, burning the fat at the Tent of Meeting is symbolic for stripping wealth and sharing it with all in order to have fellowship.

So here we have two messages taken from Leviticus; things that many of the Jews didn't understand. A person who sins accidentally within the congregation were to offer a Bull showing that they were not intentionally sinning against their neighbor or the Lord. To show even more love towards each other, the fat being burned indicated that they choose to share all of the wealth and possessions with each other, before the assembly can be considered purified and clean. That's also why the fat had to be burned outside the Tent of Meeting, and not inside the tent of meeting.

This is what we should be doing before gathering together.


Acts 2 reads:
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly[g] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[h] daily those who were being saved.

Therefore, reading the Old Testament animal system is much more meaningful when we begin to understand the reasons why God chose specific animals to be sacrificed; it all has to do with what kind of sin they were dealing with, as well as the circumstance within the congregation or city.

Another example I often use is why they were commanded by Moses not to eat anything that has huffs (horns) and chews cud. Barnabus spoke of this connection as sinners with great authority who lord their authority on everyone's face, sinning without even the slightest ounce of guilt. These are those who exercise their authority and indulge in great sin. Remember the Israelites were being led out of Egypt into the promised land. And they were given this command (among many) for a reason. They were to be higher than the previous tribes that lived in the land. In short, God didn't want them to become haughty in attitude and nature, indulging in their riches and lording their authority over those within and without their nation. They were to be the light-beacon of the world. Isn't this the over-all reason why they were destroyed in 70AD? They were looking for a Messiah who would lead them into victorious battles, making their nation the power it was in the days of Joshua, David, and Solomon. They wanted a military leader. Lastly, the creature with horns and chews cud is also a representation of the Gentiles. Peter has a vision in the book of Acts and realizes that Gentiles were no longer to be considered "Unclean". That's how all this ties in; God was showing to them that they had to be better than the nations who were being driven out by Joshua. But the symbolic rituals and practices they learned were there to provide spiritual insite of the meaning. Most, however, did not understand, and neither to many of us for that matter. The end result by 70AD was that their nation (Israel) had become very pagan. Sure they offered sacrifices and offerings, but it was with a pagan's mind-set, not understanding the reasons for these sacrifices. Their methods were no different than a Gentile who served the gods (Zeus, Andrameda, and so forth). Therefore, the animal sacrifices were not provided just for mere instruction to obey the command. It was to show the type of sin they were being cleansed from, based on the characteristics of the animal being selected.


I'll post another example later; I think you will find this rather pleasant. Oh, and St. Barnabus of the 2nd century (Early Church Father) is where I learned some of these things from.)

God bless,

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard,

I will provide an example of the animal sacrifices so you can see the connection. Here is an example:

I underlined the key text for us to understand what God is trying to say. When someone sins accidentally, and are made aware of their sin, they were to offer a Bull as a sin offering. What does this mean? As I stated earlier, Bulls are identified as rebellious chargers with horns; their horns usually representing authority or power. In this case, God is referring to people who sin accidentally and they were to offer a Bull, showing that they were not willfully sinning, as a Bull would willfully commit violence.
OK - that's leading in the right direction for me. It is clear that God used different sacrifices for different sins and for different purposes like thanksgiving. And since he went into so much detail in Leviticus, we should assume that He wants us to study it and learn His intent, for indeed, "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine." So we can be confident that God put them there for a reason. Have you reviewed them all, and found a consistent interpretation?

One thought that just occured to me. Some folks - such a Stephen earlier in this thread - demand a "literal interpretation" of Ezekiel because of the extreme detail of the sacrifices and pattern of the Temple. Though he never actually explained why "detail" necessarily implies "literal" (Stephen, it would be great if you came back to the conversation to explain that point!) it seems to me that the spiritual meaning of the sacrifices of Leviticus are a counter-example. What I mean is that many folks understand a deep Gospel meaning in the details of the Levitical sacrifices. If such meaning is not there, then we must ask, why did God bother with all that detail? This then implies that the purpose of the detail is found in its SPIRITUAL MEANING as regards the Gospel of Christ. This is totally obvious in some cases, such as the Passover Lamb. It seems to me that the same principle explains the "extreme detail" in Ezekiel's Temple.



Therefore, reading the Old Testament animal system is much more meaningful when we begin to understand the reasons why God chose specific animals to be sacrificed; it all has to do with what kind of sin they were dealing with, as well as the circumstance within the congregation or city.
Yep! Excellent insight. I think a lot of people don't bother exploring these meanings because they are not needed much until we come to questions like the interpretation of Ezekiel's Temple.



I'll post another example later; I think you will find this rather pleasant. Oh, and St. Barnabus of the 2nd century (Early Church Father) is where I learned some of these things from.)

God bless,

Joe
Thanks Joe. That was a very helpful post.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Getting back to the discussion about Ezekiel's temple :focus: We know that the vision of the temple in Ezekiel was a spiritual interpretation and description of the Church. Is it therefore possible that Revelation describes a temple being occupied by the Gentiles to be a spiritual interpretation of the Church as well? I've heard Historicist's say this.

Now what makes me believe that John was referring to the actual temple is the time, times, and half of times, as well as the 42 months. These times appear to be explaining about Daniel's time, times, and half of time, as well as the 1,260 days. Why then would John be talking of a spiritual temple if this trampling of the Gentiles was to last only 42 months, until the times of the Gentiles is completed, especially knowing that the Church lasted far longer than 1,260 days, or a time, times, and half of times? I also understand that the Historicists camp interprets those times as years instead of literal days. So by their view [and if I'm not mistaken], 1,260 days is actually 1,260 years. However, there is no biblical support for that interpretation.

What's your take on this?

Joe:confused:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Getting back to the discussion about Ezekiel's temple :focus: We know that the vision of the temple in Ezekiel was a spiritual interpretation and description of the Church. Is it therefore possible that Revelation describes a temple being occupied by the Gentiles to be a spiritual interpretation of the Church as well? I've heard Historicist's say this.

Now what makes me believe that John was referring to the actual temple is the time, times, and half of times, as well as the 42 months. These times appear to be explaining about Daniel's time, times, and half of time, as well as the 1,260 days. Why then would John be talking of a spiritual temple if this trampling of the Gentiles was to last only 42 months, until the times of the Gentiles is completed, especially knowing that the Church lasted far longer than 1,260 days, or a time, times, and half of times? I also understand that the Historicists camp interprets those times as years instead of literal days. So by their view [and if I'm not mistaken], 1,260 days is actually 1,260 years. However, there is no biblical support for that interpretation.

What's your take on this?

Joe:confused:
I think the links are important enough to quote:



Daniel 12:6-11 6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. 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.

Why the extra month in Daniel's 1290 over John's 1260? I don't know.

But the very important thing here is underlined - the power of the "holy people" was finally scattered in 70 AD, thus we have another TIME MARKER that fits perfectly with all the other time markers that prove a first century fulfillmnet. Note the words:

ANGEL in Daniel 12:7 ... and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
JESUS in Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
PETER in Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
Etc., Etc., Etc., Etc., Etc., Etc. ...Therefore, the 3.5 years, the 1260 days, and the time, times, and half a time of Revelation must be speaking of the same events prophecied by Daniel that were fulfilled by 70 AD.

The only place we find the "time, times, and half a time" is in Rev 12:14



Revelation 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.


The woman went into the wilderness, and was protected by God for a time, times, and half a time, but then the next time we see her she is riding the Beast Rome drunk on the blood of the saints! She became Apostate Israel, the Great Harlot.

I am familiar with the Historicist idea that the 1260 days are years. I wouldn't say there was no warrent for that because we have the example of a "day for a year" in Numbers and Ezekiel. It seems to "fit" to a degree, but the overall Historicist position is not strong enough to convince me.

As for the Gentiles trampling the Temple for 42 months in Rev 11 - I'm not sure what it means but it doesn't look like the "Times of the Gentiles" that Paul talked about in Rom 11. But I'll need to think on that more.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Why the extra month in Daniel's 1290 over John's 1260? I don't know.

After the temple was destroyed, the survivors of the temple's destruction were not finished with horror yet. It's after the temple's destruction did Titus have nearly every tree chopped down and they were used as crosses. According to Josephus, they fastened as many Jews as possible (To include even Children) to any ounce of wood they could find. The wall that was built ended up becoming a massive crucifixion center. It was horrible! :smash: I couldn't imagine viewing the entire city filled with dying souls. Some were taken as slaves, while others were later tossed into the newly built Arena, which was built in honor of Titus and Vespasian. Those who survived 30 day or even a few months after the temple's destruction would be considered blessed because they would have lived through the most difficult time the Jews ever faced. Subsequently, this horror would return in about 25 years, under the brutal reign of Domitian and the following Emperors, but this was primarily a persecution against the Church; the 1,290 days was against the rebellious Jews.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

After the temple was destroyed, the survivors of the temple's destruction were not finished with horror yet. It's after the temple's destruction did Titus have nearly every tree chopped down and they were used as crosses. According to Josephus, they fastened as many Jews as possible (To include even Children) to any ounce of wood they could find. The wall that was built ended up becoming a massive crucifixion center. It was horrible! :smash: I couldn't imagine viewing the entire city filled with dying souls. Some were taken as slaves, while others were later tossed into the newly built Arena, which was built in honor of Titus and Vespasian. Those who survived 30 day or even a few months after the temple's destruction would be considered blessed because they would have lived through the most difficult time the Jews ever faced. Subsequently, this horror would return in about 25 years, under the brutal reign of Domitian and the following Emperors, but this was primarily a persecution against the Church; the 1,290 days was against the rebellious Jews.

Joe
Well .... to say "Those who survived 30 day or even a few months after the temple's destruction would be considered blessed" is a possible understanding, but I find it difficult because it the word blessed then does not mean "blessed" at all but rather "less cursed."

But per your earlier post, it is time to get back on topic: :focus:

And the topic is the proper interpretation of Ezekiel's Temple.

There is a lot of unfinished business. I am particularly interested in getting an answer from folks who insist that "lots of detail" in the vision necessitates a "literal" interpretation. I am not aware of any justification for that position.

I was reading Revelation yesterday, and noticed a xref in my Bible from Rev 22:3 (speaking of the New Jerusalem) to the last verse of Ezekiel (speaking of the Temple):



Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Ezekiel 48:35 It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.


The closing verse of Ezekiel's Vision suggests an identity between the Temple in His Vision and the New Jersusalem in John's vision.

Richard

[joel]

There is a lot of unfinished business. I am particularly interested in getting an answer from folks who insist that "lots of detail" in the vision necessitates a "literal" interpretation. I am not aware of any justification for that position.

I was reading Revelation yesterday, and noticed a xref in my Bible from Rev 22:3 (speaking of the New Jerusalem) to the last verse of Ezekiel (speaking of the Temple):

Quote:

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Ezekiel 48:35 It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.


The closing verse of Ezekiel's Vision suggests an identity between the Temple in His Vision and the New Jersusalem in John's vision.

Richard

I would say that they are speaking of the same thing. What else?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

There is a lot of unfinished business. I am particularly interested in getting an answer from folks who insist that "lots of detail" in the vision necessitates a "literal" interpretation. I am not aware of any justification for that position.

On another forum, a member who believed the temple in Ezekiel had to be literal because of all the detail given. He used the example of Moses being commanded to build the temple exactly how the instruction was given. It's easy to understand why because the pattern Moses was given to follow had to match what the word of the Lord stated; anything else would be a lie and a false representation. So Ezekiel is told:

Ezekiel 40:4
“Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears, and fix your mind on everything I show you; for you were brought here so that I might show them to you. Declare to the house of Israel everything you see.”

He's asked to listen with his ears (Listen to the Spirit), and look with his eyes and "UNDERSTAND" everything he is shown. This is clear indication that God was trying to relay a hidden message using discriptive things.



Ezekiel 40:17

The Outer Court
17 Then he brought me into the outer court. There I saw some rooms and a pavement that had been constructed all around the court; there were thirty rooms along the pavement. 18 It abutted the sides of the gateways and was as wide as they were long; this was the lower pavement. 19 Then he measured the distance from the inside of the lower gateway to the outside of the inner court; it was a hundred cubits on the east side as well as on the north

Did you notice something? Why does he speak of an outer-court?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I would say that they are speaking of the same thing. What else?

Joel
Well, most futurists think that Ezekiel was given a vision of a Temple that would be built during the Millennium, and they see that as quite different than the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven which doesn't happen until after the Millennium.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Well, most futurists think that Ezekiel was given a vision of a Temple that would be built during the Millennium, and they see that as quite different than the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven which doesn't happen until after the Millennium.

Richard:applause:

EXACTLY! Futurists believe this to be a future temple [Ezekiel's vision] where the animal system will be reinstated, though they will admit they do not see or know the purpose of the animal system will have, where also Christ will rule and reign during the Millennium. Historcists, from some of my debates with them, see Ezekiel's vision of the temple as we do, namely that those pictures were of the Church, though they are unable to discern the time frame of John's trampled temple for 42 months; they view John's trampled temple as the present day Church under the RCC. I highly disagree with their interpretation of this!

I asked in my post if anyone noticed something about the Outer Court. Here's what I noticed. There's nobody within this temple; at least nothing showing it to be.....THIS IS KEY.....The New Jerusalem is defined as a city without a temple, for "The lamb of God is it's temple / sanctuary...." There's a reason why this is. The city is also described as having many jewels and stones, and four massive gates decorated with pearls. AGAIN THIS IS CRITICAL!

The reason why there's no temple within the city, and why the New Jerusalem is not showing any worshipers inside is because they are all one. John wasn't describing a city filled with worshipers and a King. John was describe the worshipers and the kings AS the city; that is why there is no temple. The New Testament teaches that the body of Christ is one, with Him as the Head and the Church as individual members of His body, each serving a particular function. One person might be the hand, another the feet, still another the eyes, and so forth. The New Jerusalem is pictured in the same way, the pearls representing the Apostles or the twelve tribes of Israel, the city itself and God as the Light of God, and the different stones and precious Jewels as the members.

Take a piece of coal and heat it up [if it were possible for us to do], compress it with thousands of pounds under heat and pressure, and what do you get? A beautiful diamond! :woah: This is the same principal with the description of the New Jerusalem. The individual stones and pillars were attributes describing the Christians themselves, and not physical characteristics of a coming city. And the reason why there's no temple is because the city itself is the temple of God and of Christ; they are all one, and this is the Church itself descending down from heaven. And the different Jewels are a representation of the Christians all throughout generations, after being purified and refined as gold refined in the fire.

Now here's why I say this. I asked why does Ezekiel describe the Outer Court? The answer is this is a picture of the Kingdom in her beginning. This also proves another point.

John in Revelation is told:

Revelation 11:2 (21st Century King James Version)
2 But the court which is outside the temple, leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles; and the Holy City shall they tread under foot for forty and two months.

Historcists believe this is a spiritual representation of the Church, just as we believe that of Ezekiel's vision. But is it? It's can't be, for the following two reasons:

1. Gentiles trampling:

1 Corinthian 12:13
3For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, whether we are bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Colossians 3:11
11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

If John was referring to the Outer Court [Or even inner Court] as a spiritual representation of the Church, how then are Gentiles regarded as Gentiles? For the scripture teaches that all who are in Christ are one and the same; no racism allowed in the Church. The only answer [from a Historicist perspective] is that the Outer Court is not part of the Church, and that only the inner Court is the Church. Well then, who is inside this Church if that's the case? This would make no sense. Yet Ezekiel is shown the Outer Court to be a beautiful place of the temple.

2. 42 Months

We know that the 42 months is applicable only to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Nothing further needs saying. :thumb:

Therefore, what is shown in Ezekiel is the Church beginning in Jerusalem. What is shown in John's vision [The New Jerusalem] Is the end result of the Church from all generations. The beautiful stones and pearls are symbolic for the sufferings that Christian's endure, much like coal is crushed into a diamond. Here is an example:

Revelation 2:
8 "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write: `These things saith the First and the Last, who was dead and is alive: 9 I know thy works and tribulation and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer. Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of Life.

The Church of Smyrna was in a beautiful blue flowered city. Christ warns them that Satan was about to cause them to suffer greatly. And historically speaking, this Church was crushed on all sides. :attention: Now this is important! Why was this necessary? Why was it so important for these Christians to suffer? Here's the answer. :flowers: When the Smyrna flower leaf is crushed, it releases a pleasant lemon like fragrance. The same thing applied to the Christians in Smyrna. Their patience and endurance under fiery trials, after being crushed, released the fragrance of Christians; a savory sweet aroma pleasing to the Lord. Not that Lord loves death and suffering, but that their faithfulness, after being tested and shown to be genuine, offers a great sacrifice to the Lord, as well as a testimony for outsiders to see. That's the connection! :yo:

Therefore, the application of the Smyrna flower is the same as the coal being crushed into a beautiful diamond; and the jewels and stones on the New Jerusalem are the different characteristics of the purification of Christians throughout all generations. :congrats:

Now, read about Ezekiel's temple again [the Outer Court] and you'll notice that there is not much description or occupation. This shows this to be a house not yet built or occupied; or a House to come. And most importantly, we know that the House of God is the Church, therefore Ezekiel's vision was of the future Church which would begin in Jerusalem [to the Jews first], and John's outer courts is the literal Jerusalem which is destroyed during the 42 month tribulation in 70 AD, and the final City is the New Jerusalem, both here and yet to come.

I hope this helps. I'm interested in your thoughts brothers.

Joe

Smyrna was a city known to have a flower, which is called Smyrna. When the leaves are crushed

[Richard Amiel McGough]

EXACTLY! Futurists believe this to be a future temple [Ezekiel's vision] where the animal system will be reinstated, though they will admit that do not see the purpose of the animal system, where also Christ will rule and reign during the Millennium.
On my bike ride today I listened to a sermon/lecture by Pastor David Legge found here: http://www.preachtheword.co.uk/sermon/ezek22.shtml. In it, he mentioned that there were going to be TWO more temples, the Tribulational Temple that will be desecrated by the antichrist and the Millennial Temple which is what Ezekiel describes. The amazing thing is that the NT is ABSOLUTELY SILENT about either of these Temples ever being built. So much for the "consistent literal" approach to the Bible!

I have a lot more to say, but your post was long and its dinner time. I'll get back to it soon (and by "soon" I mean after dinner, not after 2000 years! :lol:).

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose just noticed the connection between the New Jerusalem as a symbol of the Church of Christ (currently manifest in all believers) and the testimony of the Apostle Paul in Ephesians:



Ephesians 2:19-22 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 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.


Thus we understand the SYMBOL of the New Jerusalem as the Church of Christ:


Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

This is the glory of God's Word. The true and correct interpretations ring a thousand bells, and every verse confirms every other like a cascading waterfall of revelation.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

This is the glory of God's Word. The true and correct interpretations ring a thousand bells, and every verse confirms every other like a cascading waterfall of revelation.

Richard

:applause: Amen to that Brother! Isn't it awesome how an understanding in one verse brings the rest to life, and without contradiction??? :thumb:

It's just too bad that Futurist's can't grasp the joy in knowing the scriptures without having to scratch their heads all the time; this causes many to put things off into the future simply because they cannot understand it.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

I'm curious about something and I'd like your take on this Richard. Have you ever noticed that John never provides measurements for the Inncourt of the temple?


Revelation 11
1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod; and the angel stood, saying, "Rise, and measure the temple of God and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is outside the temple, leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles; and the Holy City shall they tread under foot for forty and two months. 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."

I noticed last night that John, In Revelation, was told to measure the temple, but he never provided any measurements. Furthermore, exactly how long is a reed? :confused2: If a reed is about the size of a yardstick, I'd say that's a pretty small temple, although I doubt this to be the case. But if this does represent an empty temple, then that certainly explains the two witnesses dressed in sackcloth.

Do you think perhaps John wasn't trying to focus on the inner temple, but used that as a transition to concentrate on the Outer temple that gets trampled? I find this curious because Ezekiel provides measurements of the entire city. John in Revelation also provides measurements for the New Jerusalem, only the New Jerusalem doesn't have a temple. I wonder if John's point is that the temple was empty and no worshipers were there, while the Outer Court was being trampled. Again, this would certainly fit the words of Jesus when he said, "BEHOLD! Your temple is left unto you Desolate!" This represents a time of mourning. This would no doubt serve as further proof that the temple mentioned in John was the Desolated temple in Jerusalem scheduled for destruction 42 months from that time frame, ending in 70AD.

What's your take on this?

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm curious about something and I'd like your take on this Richard. Have you ever noticed that John never provides measurements for the Inncourt of the temple?


Revelation 11
1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod; and the angel stood, saying, "Rise, and measure the temple of God and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is outside the temple, leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles; and the Holy City shall they tread under foot for forty and two months. 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."

I noticed last night that John, In Revelation, was told to measure the temple, but he never provided any measurements. Furthermore, exactly how long is a reed? :confused2: If a reed is about the size of a yardstick, I'd say that's a pretty small temple, although I doubt this to be the case. But if this does represent an empty temple, then that certainly explains the two witnesses dressed in sackcloth.
Hi Joe,

I think the length of the reed is probably not important, because neither it nor the measurements were mentioned in the text. But if we were to guess, we would probably take a clue from Ezekiel 40:5, where the length of the reed was stated to be six cubits. This is interesting because in Rev 21:17 we read about the reed that is "according to the measure of a man" and six is, of course, the number of man.

I don't understand why you think the size of the measuring reed would determine the size of the temple it measures. A small reed could be used to measure a big temple.

As for the Temple representing the church, this seems to cohere well with the fact that John was told to "measure the temple ... and them that worship therein."



Do you think perhaps John wasn't trying to focus on the inner temple, but used that as a transition to concentrate on the Outer temple that gets trampled? I find this curious because Ezekiel provides measurements of the entire city. John in Revelation also provides measurements for the New Jerusalem, only the New Jerusalem doesn't have a temple.
First, I would say that the detailed measurements of the New Jerusalem proves that it is a symbol of the Church, because the preponderance of 12 and 12 x 12 just like the 144,000.




I wonder if John's point is that the temple was empty and no worshipers were there, while the Outer Court was being trampled. Again, this would certainly fit the words of Jesus when he said, "BEHOLD! Your temple is left unto you Desolate!" This represents a time of mourning. This would no doubt serve as further proof that the temple mentioned in John was the Desolated temple in Jerusalem scheduled for destruction 42 months from that time frame, ending in 70AD.


What's your take on this?

Joe
I don't see how the temple could have been empty since John was commanded to measurement was to include "those that worship there." But during the 3.5 years of siege, there were many others in the temple that used it as a fortress (I don't know when they started doing that) and this may have driven out the actual "worshippers." But the verse seems too small and imprecise to support much speculation.

As for Christ's words "Behold, your temple is left to you desolate" I believe that means that He [God] left the physical Temple NEVER to return, and so it was actually desolate from that time on, and the continuation of the sacrifices after the final sacrfice of Christ were a kind of abomination of desolation not dissimilar to the sacrifice of a pig on the altar since the continued sacrfices were really a denial Christ.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I think the length of the reed is probably not important, because neither it nor the measurements were mentioned in the text. But if we were to guess, we would probably take a clue from Ezekiel 40:5, where the length of the reed was stated to be six cubits. This is interesting because in Rev 21:17 we read about the reed that is "according to the measure of a man" and six is, of course, the number of man.

I don't understand why you think the size of the measuring reed would determine the size of the temple it measures. A small reed could be used to measure a big temple

Well I didn't quite mean it like that. I was trying to determine if John was trying to show that the temple had anything to do with what was occurring on the outside of the temple. Historically speaking, we who believe in the fulfilled eschatology try to explain that he was speaking of the trampling which occurred between 68 - 70 AD. And considering we do believe this, what relevance does the temple itself have? After all, there were no worshipers inside the temple during the trampling 42 month time frame. This could be the reason why Historicist say that John was showing a picture of the Church, where those within were not considered Gentiles (Showing them to be Christians) and those outside the temple to be Gentiles (as non-Christians). I'm not sure if that's how they interpret it, and I'm interested on what you've learned of the Historicist point of view regarding the temple.

To me, I still feel that John was referring to the temples coming destruction. At the same time, I can see why they view this as the Church being controlled or trampled by the Gentiles; specifically the RCC.


First, I would say that the detailed measurements of the New Jerusalem proves that it is a symbol of the Church, because the preponderance of 12 and 12 x 12 just like the 144,000.

I agree. :o)


I don't see how the temple could have been empty since John was commanded to measurement was to include "those that worship there." But during the 3.5 years of siege, there were many others in the temple that used it as a fortress (I don't know when they started doing that) and this may have driven out the actual "worshippers." But the verse seems too small and imprecise to support much speculation.

And you're probably right. I was just wondering why John was commanded to measure the temple inside if it didn't amount to anything. My gut feeling is something is being missed here, and I can't grasp it. Then again, you may be correct that perhaps the focus is not the inside, but the outside. I'm going to investigate this a little further.


As for Christ's words "Behold, your temple is left to you desolate" I believe that means that He [God] left the physical Temple NEVER to return, and so it was actually desolate from that time on, and the continuation of the sacrifices after the final sacrfice of Christ were a kind of abomination of desolation not dissimilar to the sacrifice of a pig on the altar since the continued sacrfices were really a denial Christ.

I couldn't agree more. The temple was left desolate once Christ offered Himself for our sins. The New temple is the Church; the members themselves, to be more specific.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well I didn't quite mean it like that. I was trying to determine if John was trying to show that the temple had anything to do with what was occurring on the outside of the temple. Historically speaking, we who believe in the fulfilled eschatology try to explain that he was speaking of the trampling which occurred between 68 - 70 AD. And considering we do believe this, what relevance does the temple itself have? After all, there were no worshipers inside the temple during the trampling 42 month time frame.
Ahh ... I get it now. I wasn't really clear about what you were getting at at first. I mentioned that I thought there might not have been worshippers in the temple during the 42 month siege, but I wasn't sure. Do you have a good historical source for that? I know Josephus says that the zealots took over the temple and used it as a fortress, but I don't know when the worship actually ceased.


So what relevance does the temple itself have in Rev 11? That's a good question. Aune suggests that "measurement" could be a metaphor for judgment and destruction as in 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 21:13; Amos 7:7–9; Isa 34:11; Lam 2:8. Note especially 2 Sam 8:2:
2 Sam 8:2And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David’s servants, and brought gifts.
But I don't know why he measured the Temple, the Altar, and the Worshippers, but left out the outer court. There is more to discern here.



This could be the reason why Historicist say that John was showing a picture of the Church, where those within were not considered Gentiles (Showing them to be Christians) and those outside the temple to be Gentiles (as non-Christians). I'm not sure if that's how they interpret it, and I'm interested on what you've learned of the Historicist point of view regarding the temple.
That's actually a pretty good view, though I am not convinced by any position yet.




I agree. :o)


It is wonderful to have a bro who clealy sees those obvious symbols.
:tea:





I don't see how the temple could have been empty since John was commanded to measurement was to include "those that worship there." But during the 3.5 years of siege, there were many others in the temple that used it as a fortress (I don't know when they started doing that) and this may have driven out the actual "worshippers." But the verse seems too small and imprecise to support much speculation.
And you're probably right. I was just wondering why John was commanded to measure the temple inside if it didn't amount to anything. My gut feeling is something is being missed here, and I can't grasp it. Then again, you may be correct that perhaps the focus is not the inside, but the outside. I'm going to investigate this a little further.
I have a similar "gut feeling." But now that this question has been raised, it will reside in the background until I stumble across more insight (probably while searching out something entirely different).





As for Christ's words "Behold, your temple is left to you desolate" I believe that means that He [God] left the physical Temple NEVER to return, and so it was actually desolate from that time on, and the continuation of the sacrifices after the final sacrfice of Christ were a kind of abomination of desolation not dissimilar to the sacrifice of a pig on the altar since the continued sacrfices were really a denial Christ.
I couldn't agree more. The temple was left desolate once Christ offered Himself for our sins. The New temple is the Church; the members themselves, to be more specific.

Joe
Yep - that's one thing that seems pretty clear to me. When we understand the real meaning of the sacrifice of Christ, the hermeneutical skies of Biblical eschatology become cloudless and sunny!

Great chatting bro! :sunny:

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I couldn't agree more. The temple was left desolate once Christ offered Himself for our sins. The New temple is the Church; the members themselves, to be more specific.

Joe
Yep - that's one thing that seems pretty clear to me. When we understand the real meaning of the sacrifice of Christ, the hermeneutical skies of Biblical eschatology become cloudless and sunny!

Great chatting bro!

:yo: Howdy brother Richard. And speaking of clouds and sun, you might be interested in the passage of Christ when He refers to the Sun, Moon, and Stars.


Matthew 24: 29-31
29 "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, 30 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 with great glory. 31 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.

From my studies, I've concluded with what the Sun, Moon, and Stars mean.

1. The Sun - The Sun is a representation of God's Light, righteousness, and Holliness.

2. The Moon - The Moon is a symbol for Israel

3. Stars - The stars is a picture of the children of Israel

Now here's the picture. When you stare into the night sky and see the moon, what in fact are you seeing? You are seeing the moon provide light to the earth during times of darkness by reflecting the Sun's Light from it's surface. But if the earth blocks the Sun's light, the Moon has nothing to reflect, or if the Sun is no longer present, the moon has nothing to reflect and will likewise be dark. Now applying this understanding to what Christ was saying, He first says, "The Sun shall be darkened..." This to me means that the temple in Jerusalem was without a King or Prince. The temple, as we both agree, had become desolate. As a result, the Sun Light had been taken away. Now this obviously means that the moon, which is Jerusalem, had no light to reflect. In short, Jerusalem had become a city filled with darkness, and the stars, which are the children of Israel, began dying. This also fits the prophet Joel who said:


Joel 2:
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call[B]

The moon which became dark due to lack of sunlight resulted in death and destruction; thus the moon was turned into blood. This is all referring to the coming destruction upon Jerusalem which would leave more than a million Jews dead, resulting in one bloody moon! :(

But what was the deliverance Joel referred to? Salvation into heaven? No, that is the mistake many people assume just because they see the word "Salvation" or "Deliverance". Peter begged the Jews of his generation to accept Jesus and be saved from the coming wrath, in Acts:

[B]
Acts 2:
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said unto them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation."

I can almost imagine Peter begging and pleading his kinsmen to be converted to the Messiah so that times of refreshing may be granted unto them. It wasn't hell that Peter was speaking of, but the coming destruction involving the Sun being darkened, the Moon turning into blood, and the stars falling by the thousands, if not millions. Yes brothers, all of this links together with the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets; the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which would shock the world as they knew it, and the elements would melt in extreme heat. Peter speaks of this in his final letter to the Church, but it wasn't the earth itself that Peter was referring to, but the elementary teachings of the Jews, which was destroyed in the burning and destruction of the temple and the city in 70AD.

Daniel's End and Joel's prophesy has been fulfilled. God's love and peace to all.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:yo: Howdy brother Richard. And speaking of clouds and sun, you might be interested in the passage of Christ when He refers to the Sun, Moon, and Stars.

From my studies, I've concluded with what the Sun, Moon, and Stars mean.

1. The Sun - The Sun is a representation of God's Light, righteousness, and Holliness.

2. The Moon - The Moon is a symbol for Israel

3. Stars - The stars is a picture of the children of Israel

Hey there Joe! Thanks for the excellent post! :congrats: Very good insights.



I think your word pictures have a lot of merit, but one of the challenges I encounter when trying to understand these symbols is that they overlap a lot. For example, both the sun and the moon are used as symbols of David's Throne in the space of two verses:
Psalm 89:35-37 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. 36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. 37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah. This is why I tend to take the symbols more poetically with fuzzy overtones than scientifically with precise definitions. But don't get me wrong, they could have precise definitions in the prophetic passages. I'm just a little cautious in this area since its really important to me that we keep our interpretations soundly settled on the rock of God's Word.

I think the primary symbolic meaning of the sun, moon, and stars is well-established in the Fourth Day of Creation:
Genesis 1:14-18 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. The words translated as "to rule" (mashal and memshalah) are used elsewhere in Scripture almost exclusively for the rule of kings and governments. This fits very well with the image of David's Throne (Rule) as the sun, the light of which is witnessed by the moon at night.

We also must remember that the sun, moon, and stars represented Joseph's father, mother, and brothers in his dream. This fits pretty well with your interpretation with some variation. The Sun/Father is the primary ruler, the Moon/Mother reflects his glory and her Children/Stars are literally the Children of Israel. This then tightly coheres with the woman in Rev 12, clothed/covered by her husand/ruler/sun, standing upon (representing) the Moon/Israel with 12 stars representing the 12 tribes. It is also interesting that the English word "star" relates to "strewn" like seed in the sky which recalls God's Promise to Abraham "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven" (Gen 22:17)

In all this, one fact shines with perfect clarity. There is absolutely nothing in the statement "the sun shall be darkened ... etc." from the Olivet Discourse that suggests a future fulfillment. Furthermore, there is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the primary Biblical meaning of the sun, moon, and stars in that passage. We can know with perfect clarity that the darkening of the sun and moon and the "falling" of the stars represents the destruction of Israel. I do not see a single cloud to cast any shadow of doubt upon the solid ground of this interpretation. The events of the great tribulation in 68-70 AD fit like a glove into the integrated prophetic complex revealed in Daniel, Joel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse.

Or so it seems to me, anyway! :lol: Folks who disagree are strongly encouraged to present their challenges to these conclusions!



I can almost imagine Peter begging and pleading his kinsmen to be converted to the Messiah so that times of refreshing may be granted unto them. It wasn't hell that Peter was speaking of, but the coming destruction involving the Sun being darkened, the Moon turning into blood, and the stars falling by the thousands, if not millions. Yes brothers, all of this links together with the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets; the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which would shock the world as they knew it, and the elements would melt in extreme heat. Peter speaks of this in his final letter to the Church, but it wasn't the earth itself that Peter was referring to, but the elementary teachings of the Jews, which was destroyed in the burning and destruction of the temple and the city in 70AD.

Daniel's End and Joel's prophesy has been fulfilled. God's love and peace to all.

Joe
Amen! That's why Peter proclaimed that "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." And Daniel 12:7 confirmed the first cerntury fulfillment when he told us that "all these things shall be finished" when the "power of the holy people" was scattered, as it was in 70 AD. And Christ Himself confirmed the first century fulfillment when He declared "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled" - and he said this immediately after saying that the Jews would be scattered amongst the Gentiles! The perfect integration of these time markers and their historical fulfillment is an overwhelming testimony to the truth of God's prophetic Word.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Amen! That's why Peter proclaimed that "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." And Daniel 12:7 confirmed the first cerntury fulfillment when he told us that "all these things shall be finished" when the "power of the holy people" was scattered, as it was in 70 AD. And Christ Himself confirmed the first century fulfillment when He declared "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled" - and he said this immediately after saying that the Jews would be scattered amongst the Gentiles! The perfect integration of these time markers and their historical fulfillment is an overwhelming testimony to the truth of God's prophetic Word.

:lol: Yea, and I don't understand why futurist's insist that the generation that sees the re-blossoming of the Fig Tree and all the trees is the generation that shall pass. I don't see how they can violate their own rule of interpretation. Christ specifically warned HIS generation, that they would not all pass until every single thing he spoke about was fulfilled. I just don't get it! How can they bluntly lie like that? They admit (some anyways) that Christ was referring to the temple of His generation regarding its destruction, but then for some odd reason, they believe Christ changed the subject and shifted to a Millennial question of His return! :confused2::confused: I'll never understand these quacks that purchase all sorts of air time (television) and actually preach and teach this stuff! Hal Lidnsey's program is a complete joke!

Christ said it, but we apparently don't understand it, so we need them to lie for us and say, "Well Christ wasn't talking about their generation passing, but the generation which witnesses the regrowth of the fig tree!" So foolish and I get worked up thinking about it! Not to mention the fact that the Gospel of Luke records the same answers as Matthew, yet Luke asked nothing about His coming. So was Luke recording answers to a question that he didn't record as being asked?

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:lol: Yea, and I don't understand why futurist's insist that the generation that sees the re-blossoming of the Fig Tree and all the trees is the generation that shall pass. I don't see how they can violate their own rule of interpretation. Christ specifically warned HIS generation, that they would not all pass until every single thing he spoke about was fulfilled. I just don't get it! How can they bluntly lie like that? They admit (some anyways) that Christ was referring to the temple of His generation regarding its destruction, but then for some odd reason, they believe Christ changed the subject and shifted to a Millennial question of His return! :confused2::confused: I'll never understand these quacks that purchase all sorts of air time (television) and actually preach and teach this stuff! Hal Lidnsey's program is a complete joke!
Yep! Those are powerful criticisms. Especially about the sprouting Fig Tree representing 1948 secular Israel. If that is correct, and Jesus was really talking about a generation 2000 years in the future, then He never answered the question about when the destruction of the Temple would happen! Look at the discourse:

Luke 21:5-8 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6 As for these things [the first century Temple] 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. 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? 8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: ...
So where in Luke 21 did Jesus answer the question of WHEN? would the Temple be destroyed? There is only one answer. It is given in verse 32:

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


Christ said it, but we apparently don't understand it, so we need them to lie for us and say, "Well Christ wasn't talking about their generation passing, but the generation which witnesses the regrowth of the fig tree!" So foolish and I get worked up thinking about it! Not to mention the fact that the Gospel of Luke records the same answers as Matthew, yet Luke asked nothing about His coming. So was Luke recording answers to a question that he didn't record as being asked?

Joe
That is an excellent point. I am currently putting together a page I call the "Synoptic Apocalypse" which will display all three versions of the Olivet Discourse side by side. The coherence is amazing. They are very tight, which makes the Dispensational attempt to say that Luke predicted the historical destruction of the temple in 70 AD while Matthew predicts a future "great tribulation" appear truly ridiculous.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Originally Posted by TheForgiven
Christ said it, but we apparently don't understand it, so we need them to lie for us and say, "Well Christ wasn't talking about their generation passing, but the generation which witnesses the regrowth of the fig tree!" So foolish and I get worked up thinking about it! Not to mention the fact that the Gospel of Luke records the same answers as Matthew, yet Luke asked nothing about His coming. So was Luke recording answers to a question that he didn't record as being asked?

Joe
That is an excellent point. I am currently putting together a page I call the "Synoptic Apocalypse" which will display all three versions of the Olivet Discourse side by side. The coherence is amazing.T hey are very tight, which makes the Dispensational attempt to say that Luke predicted the historical destruction of the temple in 70 AD while Matthew predicts a future "great tribulation" appear truly ridiculous.

:congrats: AMEN TO THAT! I'll never understand their reasoning! Many dispensation members will admit that Christ was referring to the temple's destruction, but then for some odd reason, they take a single verse from the gospel of Matthew (as if Luke and Mark were not standing there) and interpret that as Christ jumping thousands of years into the future! :lol: So in most of the chapter, he's dealing with the present day events of his day. But in one question, which supposedly only Matthew asks but Mark and Luke forgot to record, "What is the sign of your coming?" we're left to believe He changed the focus of the discussion from the temple's destruction to a supposed return in the future. But guess what! They had no idea He was even leaving! LOL!

Joe

[joel]

That is an excellent point. I am currently putting together a page I call the "Synoptic Apocalypse" which will display all three versions of the Olivet Discourse side by side. The coherence is amazing. They are very tight, which makes the Dispensational attempt to say that Luke predicted the historical destruction of the temple in 70 AD while Matthew predicts a future "great tribulation" appear truly ridiculous.

Richard


Richard, I, for one, am looking forward to your page. Will it be soon? What will be the sign of its coming? (Just a little "Joel" joke).

Joel, the Awaiting

[Trumpet]

Hi Joe,

Quote "But guess what! They had no idea He was even leaving! LOL!

Joe"

So simple, yet so overlooked!

I used to be part of the futerist camp, and hardly anything was ever mentioned about the proofs of history, so unless you went out and looked on your own, you would never hear of it. Everything pointed to our time, and perhaps the biggest reason for this is the same reason that befalls many things;-- JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY! Compare how many books sell about history, as compared to books that are putting the reader himself in the center of the events.

I never thought of your quote, but that one really blows it out of the water!

God Bless Don

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, I, for one, am looking forward to your page. Will it be soon? What will be the sign of its coming? (Just a little "Joel" joke).

Joel, the Awaiting
I can answer that! I can confidently assert that this generation will not pass away until it is written! So it definitely will be done before 4007 AD! :lol:

But seriously folks .... I should be able to post a rough draft in a day or so. It will just be a page without a context because it is intended to be part of a whole new section on my website devoted to the interpretation of Revelation. I have lots of articles written, but its gonna take a while before I finish that section.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hi Joe,


Quote "But guess what! They had no idea He was even leaving! LOL!

Joe"

So simple, yet so overlooked!

Tell me about it! :lol: A friend of mine from another website was the one who asked a futurist that question, and it made a lot of sense. The Apostles were hoping for the same Messiah the Jews hoped for; a Messiah in the form of a great Jewish military leader, as in the days of Joshua and David. They had not yet learned that the Messiah was to be crucified and taken away from them. Even when Jesus was arrested, Peter struck a fellow in the ear because he did not understand what was to happen. JESUS HAD TO REMAIN ALIVE, or all hope is lost! That is what they were thinking. It wasn't until after his resurrection that Jesus explained to them what was written in the Psalms and the prophets, on how the Son of Man must suffer and be delivered unto sinners, be killed, and rise on the third day.

THEREFORE, why in the world would Futurist's believe that Matthew (and the rest) would ask Jesus when His great return was, if they had no idea He was even leaving????? :sunny: Don't you just love the sunshine!

I think Futurist spend too much time with hocus pocus and abra-kadabra, and keep getting it wrong time and time again. It's like Richard said, "They need to be exposed!" You go Richard! You go! :tea: Brothers for life!

Joe

[MHz]

THEREFORE, why in the world would Futurist's believe that Matthew (and the rest) would ask Jesus when His great return was, if they had no idea He was even leaving????? :sunny: Don't you just love the sunshine!


How close would you say these verses are to Matt:24?
Joh:16:4:
But these things have I told you,
that when the time shall come,
ye may remember that I told you of them.
And these things I said not unto you at the beginning,
because I was with you.
Joh:16:5:
But now I go my way to him that sent me;
and none of you asketh me,
Whither goest thou?
Joh:16:6:
But because I have said these things unto you,
sorrow hath filled your heart.
Joh:16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth;
It is expedient for you that I go away:
for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart,
I will send him unto you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Tell me about it! :lol: A friend of mine from another website was the one who asked a futurist that question, and it made a lot of sense. The Apostles were hoping for the same Messiah the Jews hoped for; a Messiah in the form of a great Jewish military leader, as in the days of Joshua and David. They had not yet learned that the Messiah was to be crucified and taken away from them. Even when Jesus was arrested, Peter struck a fellow in the ear because he did not understand what was to happen. JESUS HAD TO REMAIN ALIVE, or all hope is lost! That is what they were thinking. It wasn't until after his resurrection that Jesus explained to them what was written in the Psalms and the prophets, on how the Son of Man must suffer and be delivered unto sinners, be killed, and rise on the third day.
That's very interesting, because it is the error being taught by Hagee. Indeed, it is how Hagee justifies (http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/john-hagee-responds-to-controversy/)his heresy:

John Hagee: Most people confuse the role of “Messiah” and “Savior.” To be Messiah you must live. To rule and reign you must live. Jesus came to die and be the Savior of every person on earth. ...

Jesus Himself stated in Mark 14:8, Luke 24:46 and Mark 10:33-34 that He had come to die for the sins of the world as Savior. Again, you must live to be Messiah. You cannot be both Messiah and Savior!
Maybe Hagee should read the "rest of the story" - sure, Jesus died, but he also was RESURRECTED! Like :doh: - I guess Hagee never heard that before! Hagee teaches as if he doesn't believe that JESUS LIVES! It is truly amazing the power of a little leaven!

Well, anyway, we've got a thread for Hagee's heresies. But I had to mention it here because it fit with your comment.


THEREFORE, why in the world would Futurist's believe that Matthew (and the rest) would ask Jesus when His great return was, if they had no idea He was even leaving????? :sunny: Don't you just love the sunshine!

Man do I love this sunshine - :sunny: - it is the Sonshine of His Pure Doctrine!


I think Futurist spend too much time with hocus pocus and abra-kadabra, and keep getting it wrong time and time again. It's like Richard said, "They need to be exposed!" You go Richard! You go! :tea: Brothers for life!
Joe
Bro's for life - :tea: - His Life! Amen. :thumb:

The truly amazing thing is the Synergy of Truth. Every witness has a dozen others to back it up, and each of them has another dozen, until we have an unbreakable multithreaded cord of truth. For example, I was looking at the three corroborating time markers that Christ used in Matthew 24:33-34:
Matthew 24:33-34 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is 1) near, 2) even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, 3) This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. The testimony that is in "near" is confirmed by "at the doors" and both of these are confirmed by "this generation."


But that's not all. All three of those time markers are connected with the parousia (coming) of the Lord, and we find that linked with 1) and 2) again in another witness, James!
James 5:8-9 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. And the word "nigh" (engus) itself appears in Rev 1:3 (for the time is at hand) ... etc etc etc ... We have multiplied witnesses that work together synergistically so that their combined witness is absolutely convincing and incontrovertible, or so it seems to me (as I guess you all have noticed! :lol:)

The point is this. The futurist can not simply explain away 1, 2, and 3 indepenedently. He also has to explain away their synergistic reinforcment. What I mean is this: Tom Ice argues that en tachei in Rev 1:1 describes the manner in which it happens (suddenly) and not the time when it happens (soon). In isolation of the rest of Scripture, his interpretation is a valid possibility. But then in verse 1:3 we read the explanatory confirmation "for the time is near." Now the problem is that we have a time marker that is definitely speaking of "when" not "how" so it reinforces the normal interpretation of "en tachei" as "soon." But there's still more, because the same "near" is used in the Olivet Discourse in conjunction with two other time markers, namely "at the doors" and "this generation." This means that Futurist now has to explain away each time marker individually as well as the mutual corroboration generated by the synergyistic interaction between all five of them! But there's more! Both Christ and Daniel said that the Diaspora would be the sign that everything had been fulfilled, and this is linked to the same set of time markers dicussed above, so now everything is linked together in Daniel, Revelalation, the Olivet Discourse, and the record of History. But there's more! ... (but my fingers are tire so I'll tell ya later ..)

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Originally Posted by TheForgiven
THEREFORE, why in the world would Futurist's believe that Matthew (and the rest) would ask Jesus when His great return was, if they had no idea He was even leaving????? Don't you just love the sunshine!
How close would you say these verses are to Matt:24?
Joh:16:4:
But these things have I told you,
that when the time shall come,
ye may remember that I told you of them.
And these things I said not unto you at the beginning,
because I was with you.
Joh:16:5:
But now I go my way to him that sent me;
and none of you asketh me,
Whither goest thou?
Joh:16:6:
But because I have said these things unto you,
sorrow hath filled your heart.
Joh:16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth;
It is expedient for you that I go away:
for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart,
I will send him unto you.

This was taken from the gospel of John, also mentioned in chapter 14 when He spoke to them about the coming of the Holy Spirit. It appears you're trying to say that they knew he was leaving, so it's possible they asked the question. However, the discussion about His going away was during their last meeting prior to his betrayel. This means that they spoke about the destruciton of the temple (Matthew 24) several days, or weeks earlier. Not to mention this proves my point, that they had no idea He was even leaving. That explains why they sounded confused when Jesus later tells them that He's going away.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This was taken from the gospel of John, also mentioned in chapter 14 when He spoke to them about the coming of the Holy Spirit. It appears you're trying to say that they knew he was leaving, so it's possible they asked the question. However, the discussion about His going away was during their last meeting prior to his betrayel. This means that they spoke about the destruciton of the temple (Matthew 24) several days, or weeks earlier. Not to mention this proves my point, that they had no idea He was even leaving. That explains why they sounded confused when Jesus later tells them that He's going away.

Joe

I agree completely. The disciples appear to have been thoroughly perplexed by the meaning of Christ's words. That's why they said:
John 16:17-18 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? 18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith.

This lack of understanding is mentioned a number of times in the Gospels. And even after his death, they didn't "get it" until He explained it to them:
Luke 24:17-26 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

See that? They didn't get it even after it happened! He had to explain it to them and open their minds before they understood. This is proof that they were not asking about the "Second Coming" in the Olivet Discourse. Of course, it is possible that Jesus took that opportunity to answer a question that they didn't know they were asking. That's the usual futurist answer. They say that Christ took this opportunity to expound on His Second Coming even though they didn't ask. And though that is a theoretical possibility, it can be proven false by a proper exegesis of the integrated prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and Olivet Discourse.

Richard

[MHz]

Okay, that seems to be the same time-frame I came up with.

What about the 3 that saw His transformation on the mountain, would that have interested them as to when He was coming looking like He did in the vision and with the same that were in the vision with Him? That was before the OD.

Wayne

[TheForgiven]

Okay, that seems to be the same time-frame I came up with.

What about the 3 that saw His transformation on the mountain, would that have interested them as to when He was coming looking like He did in the vision and with the same that were in the vision with Him? That was before the OD.

Wayne

I would say no because during this time, they had no idea he was leaving. They didn't know anything about His leaving until Christ breathed on them the Holy Spirit. THEN they understood.

They were looking for the Messiah who would prepare them for battle and relieve them from Roman oppression. They wanted the glory days restored, but they didn't understand what God had proposed before the foundation of the world.

God was not trying to build a Super Power to rule all the earth. He was trying to unite all men under Him, using bits of jealousy to desire Him as their King. And it worked out great! How so? If it were not for the remnant which sacrificed themselves to preach unto the Gentiles, you and I would still be stacking wood and offering incense to a Greek god, teaching our children about Troy, Zeus, the god of Venus, the clash of the Titans, and so forth. But because of their hard work and dedication for God's Kingdom, you and I stand saved by grace, based on our faith in Jesus, whom they proclaimed throughout all nations.

The transfiguration was not Christ coming in His Kingdom. For Jesus said, "There are SOME standing here who shall NOT taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom...." Well that would be absurd to assume He was talking about His transfiguration several days later. Why? Because not only did SOME not taste death, but NONE of them tasted death during the transfiguration.

The only one who were alive when Jerusalem was about to be destroyed (When Christ came in His Kingdom) was Peter, John, and possibly James. The rest were either in foreign countries preaching the word to the nations, or they were killed. Very few were alive when the Jewish war began.

Joe

[basilfo]

Richard,
Great points in post #83 above. I have found the same 'but there's more!' when I study the time statements related to His coming. In fact, there is not a single teaching by the inspired apostles which says that event was NOT soon. But there's more! I'm sure you have seen all the NT ref's that are in direct contradiction to the futurist's position that the 'last days'/'end of the age(s)', the Parousia, and the coming of the Kingdom was to be 2000 yrs (and counting) after the time of Christ. For anyone who hasn't seen it in black and white, here's just a few "more":

1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by [His] Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things,

1 Peter 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

1 John 2:17,18 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Acts 2:14-20 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 "For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is [only] the third hour of the day. 16 "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

1 Cor &:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing [it.] For the form of this world is passing away.

Revelation 1:1,3 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified [it] by His angel to His servant John, 3 Blessed [is] he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time [is] near.

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

More to come,
Jack

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
Great points in post #83 above. I have found the same 'but there's more!' when I study the time statements related to His coming. In fact, there is not a single teaching by the inspired apostles which says that event was NOT soon. But there's more! I'm sure you have seen all the NT ref's that are in direct contradiction to the futurist's position that the 'last days'/'end of the age(s)', the Parousia, and the coming of the Kingdom was to be 2000 yrs (and counting) after the time of Christ. For anyone who hasn't seen it in black and white, here's just a few "more":

1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by [His] Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things,

1 Peter 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

1 John 2:17,18 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Acts 2:14-20 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 "For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is [only] the third hour of the day. 16 "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

1 Cor &:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing [it.] For the form of this world is passing away.

Revelation 1:1,3 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified [it] by His angel to His servant John, 3 Blessed [is] he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time [is] near.

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

More to come,
Jack
Excellent quotes Jack! You are absolutely correct when you wrote "there is not a single teaching by the inspired apostles which says that event was NOT soon." Amen! :thumb: Let the truth be spoken clearly. The first century fulfillment is confirmed by the blazing incontrovertible historical FACT of the destruction of Temple in 70 AD. When I compare the unified Biblical and historical REALITY with the absurd futurist fantacies of a rebuilt Temple that will be redestroyed just so they can rerun the prophecies God fulfilled long ago, I cannot help but think some great delusion has overtaken the field of eschatology.

I'm not trying to offend futurists, but the offense of that doctrine is such that it must be refuted with great clarity and force. There are MILLIONS of people who uncritically receive the futurist fictions of LaHaye and Lindsey as Gospel truth, and so their faith is undermined when they actually read the Bible and find that they have been deceived. The futurist doctrines also directly attack the fundamental witness that God has given of the prophetic truth of His Word in the great and mighty fulfillment of everything that "all the phophets, from Samuel and those that follow after" have spoken (Acts 3:24).

But as a final word, let me remind everyone that I am entirely aware that I don't have all the answers, and I welcome and encourage futurists to defend their views. My forcefully expression of my strong opinions does not indicate that I have a closed mind, as should be obvious to all who know me since I have more than once changed my mind after correction by members on this board. My one desire is that we test all doctrines in light of the Bible.

Peace in the Gospel Truth,

Richard

[TheForgiven]

1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by [His] Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things,

1 Peter 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

1 John 2:17,18 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Acts 2:14-20 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 "For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is [only] the third hour of the day. 16 "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

1 Cor &:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing [it.] For the form of this world is passing away.

Revelation 1:1,3 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified [it] by His angel to His servant John, 3 Blessed [is] he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time [is] near.

Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

More to come,
Jack

:congrats: 100% percent, right on the mark! The last days no longer exist; we are in the New Days, the New Moon.

Joe

[MHz]

Excellent quotes Jack! You are absolutely correct when you wrote "there is not a single teaching by the inspired apostles which says that event was NOT soon." Amen! :thumb:
Well there is this one,
2Th:2:2: 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.

[TheForgiven]

Well there is this one,
2Th:2:2: 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.

The literal translation of the above passage is skewed by the translation of the KJV. Let us read the correct translation:


2 that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither through spirit, neither through word, neither through letters as through us, as that the day of Christ hath arrived;

Most English translations read "Has come". And Paul was quite right. It was not yet there, and he wrote that letter sometime between 40 and 50 AD. The destruction of Jerusalem was not for quite some time, almost 20 years. Paul then says to wait for the one who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called god, or that is worshiped. This was probably Nero Caesar, who set himself as to be higher than the gods. This could also have been the rebels who ram-sacked Jerusalem, demanding that all remain in Jerusalem to defend the city just prior to the war. It was they who entered the temple and desecrated it with their presence. Josephus refers to these as the robbers of the temple, stealing all the money and gold. This was also known as the abomination which causes desolation. But this event was still into their future, and the setting was not yet set. But when the time drew closer, they began to see the things Christ warned them about. At that time, the setting was not yet in place, the rebellion had not yet occurred, and the falling away was still to come.

Good for trying though.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent quotes Jack! You are absolutely correct when you wrote "there is not a single teaching by the inspired apostles which says that event was NOT soon." Amen! :thumb:

Well there is this one,
2Th:2:2: 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.
Good find Wayne!

I absolutely hate to make any statement that is not 100% correct, so your help is greatly appreciated. But the verse you found doesn't actually say what you thought it said. The word "at hand" is not the usual "engus" (near, at hand) we find in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. It is "enesteken" which literally means "has come" as in already past rather than soon future. This is a KJV anomaly that most modern English translations have fixed. Here's a sample:

NKJ 2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
NIV 2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
NET 2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.
NAS 2 Thessalonians 2:2 that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
GWN 2 Thessalonians 2:2 Don't get upset right away or alarmed when someone claims that we said through some spirit, conversation, or letter that the day of the Lord has already come.Thanks again, Wayne! I didn't know about this anomaly until your post required me to look into it.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The literal translation of the above passage is skewed by the translation of the KJV. Let us read the correct translation:



Most English translations read "Has come". And Paul was quite right. It was not yet there, and he wrote that letter sometime between 40 and 50 AD. The destruction of Jerusalem was not for quite some time, almost 20 years. Paul then says to wait for the one who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called god, or that is worshiped. This was probably Nero Caesar, who set himself as to be higher than the gods. This could also have been the rebels who ram-sacked Jerusalem, demanding that all remain in Jerusalem to defend the city just prior to the war. It was they who entered the temple and desecrated it with their presence. Josephus refers to these as the robbers of the temple, stealing all the money and gold. This was also known as the abomination which causes desolation. But this event was still into their future, and the setting was not yet set. But when the time drew closer, they began to see the things Christ warned them about. At that time, the setting was not yet in place, the rebellion had not yet occurred, and the falling away was still to come.

Good for trying though.

Joe
JINX! I was posting the same thing at the same time.

[joel]

Brothers, are you saying that "the day of Christ" (KJV) has come?

I know that you believe that the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. was a significant event which is a benchmark for many things, but, are you saying that it marked the beginning of "the day of Christ" as stated in the letter of Paul, II Thess. 2:2?

Joel

[MHz]

Well you both missed my point, I wasn't referencing the end of the sentence, I was referencing the beginning of it.
"that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled"
"not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled"
"not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy"
"not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us"
"that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us"
"Don't get upset right away or alarmed when someone claims that we said through some spirit, conversation, or letter"

Now if they had read Revelation before this was given then it couldn't apply to that book. If Revelation was only circulated after this was made known to them could Revelation be included as something that would make them thing the day of the Lord was going to be soon.

There is also that, not so little, thing that the believers in Christ will be resurrected before those living, at that time, are gathered. Without being able to parade a whole bunch of resurrected people around where is that promise in terms of fulfillment?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Brothers, are you saying that "the day of Christ" (KJV) has come?

I know that you believe that the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. was a significant event which is a benchmark for many things, but, are you saying that it marked the beginning of "the day of Christ" as stated in the letter of Paul, II Thess. 2:2?

Joel

Yes, I believe that the "day of Christ" in 2 Thess 2 is refering to the coming of the Lord in judgment on apostate Jerusalem to destroy the Temple and its wicked inhabitant (the high priest/false prophet Rev 16:30) who did lying "signs and wonders" according to the working of Satan who empowered the Beast who empowered the false prophet/second beast of Rev 13:12-14
Revelation 13:12-14 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him [after the working of Satan], and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

The "man of perdition" of 2 Thess has the same powers as the false prophet, both decieve and both go to perdition. Compare with 2 Thess 2:
2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
They certainly sound like the same character. And note, the literal Temple was standing when Paul wrote this, so I think it fits perfectly with the destruction of the literal Temple in 70 AD.

Glad you stopped by here in the eschatology discussion Joel. I would be delighted if you were to present your futurist interpretations here. We could all benefit.

Richard

[joel]

Richard,

What keeps me coming back is your open-mindedness. I must commend you because you endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.

This is a very strong characteristic of God's working in and through you.

As you have pointed out, I have a "future" perspective as to the fulfillment of some prophetic utterances.....whereas, you have a "past" perspective as to certain fulfilled prophecies, but, still hold to the future fulfillment of some ( which we have not yet fully delineated, but, may, in time).

The major problem that I have with the 70 A.D. emphasis has to do with the "casting away of Israel". I see this as a temporary issue, and not a permanent issue. I think that this is the key point at which we differ, but, I want you know that I hold you in the highest of respect and esteem, as well as your kind and sensitive bride, Rose. If we lived nearby, I'm sure we would be the best of friends.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well you both missed my point, I wasn't referencing the end of the sentence, I was referencing the beginning of it.
"that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled"
"not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled"
"not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy"
"not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us"
"that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us"
"Don't get upset right away or alarmed when someone claims that we said through some spirit, conversation, or letter"

Now if they had read Revelation before this was given then it couldn't apply to that book. If Revelation was only circulated after this was made known to them could Revelation be included as something that would make them thing the day of the Lord was going to be soon.

I don't understand why you think the "soon" makes any difference since Paul was clearly talking about not being "soon shaken" by the false statement that they had missed the coming of the Lord.

He did not deny the "soon" coming of the Lord.


There is also that, not so little, thing that the believers in Christ will be resurrected before those living, at that time, are gathered. Without being able to parade a whole bunch of resurrected people around where is that promise in terms of fulfillment?

Now you've jumped to a different passage from a different book.

The "coming of the Lord" in that passage seems to be talking about the Second Coming, since it also mentions the resurrection of the dead. But I'm not sure yet.

This exemplifies why so many folks get so confused about eschatology. The "coming of the Lord" has more than one meaning, as is abundantly proven by Scripture, correct?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

What keeps me coming back is your open-mindedness. I must commend you because you endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.

This is a very strong characteristic of God's working in and through you.


Thanks for the encouraging words Joel. And I have to agree that it must be God working in me, cuz in my flesh I have lashed out at folks a few times in this forum, much to my chagrin. And without His abundant grace, I'm sure it would have happened a lot more. You have spoken peace many times into this forum, and been a good helper. I sure am glad that you have persevered with us through these last six months bro!


As you have pointed out, I have a "future" perspective as to the fulfillment of some prophetic utterances.....whereas, you have a "past" perspective as to certain fulfilled prophecies, but, still hold to the future fulfillment of some ( which we have not yet fully delineated, but, may, in time).

That's exactly what I'm hoping for. A clarification of where we agree and disagree. And for that matter, a clarification of what I myself believe, since my eschatology is a work in progress.


The major problem that I have with the 70 A.D. emphasis has to do with the "casting away of Israel". I see this as a temporary issue, and not a permanent issue. I think that this is the key point at which we differ, but, I want you know that I hold you in the highest of respect and esteem, as well as your kind and sensitive bride, Rose. If we lived nearby, I'm sure we would be the best of friends.

Joel
Yes, the question of "Israel" is a core issue. I was reading Ryrie's Dispensationalism Today and he said that a belief in the conbtinued distinction between the Church and Israel is the "sine qua non" of Dispensationalism. Do you label yourself that way? Belive me, I hate labels, and I'm not trying to label you, but on the other hand, they can help define our "hermeneutical orientations." Thus I freely call myself a preterist even though I do not "buy into" every detail of any "preterist" system that I have seen yet.

I base my understanding on Israel on the fundamental Gospel message of Scripture - as far as I can tell, God gave His promises to the "children of promise" and explicitly excluded the "children of the flesh." I see nothing that indicates a future Israeli ethnic kingdom. What do you suppose are the primary biblical witnesses for a future theocratic kingdom of ethnic Israel?

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

I don't understand why you think the "soon" makes any difference since Paul was clearly talking about not being "soon shaken" by the false statement that they had missed the coming of the Lord.
How is that day not the day of the Lord? They were told the dead would be alive before they were gathered, the only way they could think they had missed that day is if the dead were alive again. In the verses in question they are given something else that would occur before the dead would be raised, there would be a falling away and the man of sin would be exposed.



He did not deny the "soon" coming of the Lord. You seem to be separating something that cannot be separated.



Now you've jumped to a different passage from a different book.
Are you saying they are unrelated, it seems they were give additional information?
1Th:4:17: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th:4:18: Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1Th:5:1: But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th:5:2: For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.



The "coming of the Lord" in that passage seems to be talking about the Second Coming, since it also mentions the resurrection of the dead. But I'm not sure yet.

This exemplifies why so many folks get so confused about eschatology. The "coming of the Lord" has more than one meaning, as is abundantly proven by Scripture, correct?

Without reading all the references myself I'm a bit unwilling to do a blanket comment.

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

How is that day not the day of the Lord? They were told the dead would be alive before they were gathered, the only way they could think they had missed that day is if the dead were alive again. In the verses in question they are given something else that would occur before the dead would be raised, there would be a falling away and the man of sin would be exposed.

You seem to be separating something that cannot be separated.

Hey there Wayne,

You seem to be identifying the topic of 1 Thess 4 with that of 2 Thess 2. I am not sure they are the same. 2 Thess 2 says nothing about any resurrection, and 1 Thess 4 says nothing about any Temple, man of perdition, etc. And since the Bible clearly distinguishes amongst different comings of the Lord, that seems like a likely solution. Obviously it needs more discussion.


Are you saying they are unrelated, it seems they were give additional information?
1Th:4:17: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th:4:18: Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1Th:5:1: But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th:5:2: For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

I am the first to admit that 1 Thess 4 is a big challenge for preterists. There are some who work with the language to come up with an interpretation that allows for the "resurrection" to have happened back then, but I certainly don't feel compelled to believe that. So I could interpret them both to be still future, in which case they would both refer to the Second Coming at the end of the world when everyone is resurrected just before the final judgment (no rapture, no millennium). Or I could go along with the premill dispensational view, but then I would have a HUGE gaping hole in my eschatology that would be filled with lots of speculation about rebuilt Temples and antichrist covenants and all the typical futuristic fantasy stuff. So what I'm getting at is that the only understanding that INTERLOCKS with the rest of the integrated prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse seems to be the LITERAL Temple destroyed in 70 AD, as outlined above.

So that's why the coming of the Lord in 1 Thess currently seems to me to be referring to the Second Coming, and the coming in 2 Thess to 70 AD. But I'm still working on it. I am the first to admit 1 Thess is a challenge, and I don't really like the tension of having two different "comings" so closely related in two different books to the same church. But I'm not the only one with that problem! Look at what the dispensationalists have done with the Olivet Discourse! They have two different destructions of the Temple in that one passage! Now that's some serious tension in my book. At least my two comings are completely separated by being in different contexts in different books.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Originally Posted by MHz View Post
Are you saying they are unrelated, it seems they were give additional information?
1Th:4:17: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th:4:18: Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1Th:5:1: But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th:5:2: For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

I for one do believe this happened. What else was Josephus describing in his writing?


a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

And just as it happened then, it will happen again at the final judgment and resurrection of everyone else.

Revelation states, "The rest of the dead lived not again until the 1000 years were finished...." It's obvious that the 1000 years are not yet finished, for we are still here. That is the resurrection we all await.

When the final resurrection is completed, all who have died since the last resurrection will be raised as they were, unto salvation or judgment. This is when death and hades will be done away with. Christ said, "I have the keys to death and hades..." indicating that judgment rests solely on His shoulders. At the last resurrection, when all have been judged, anyone not found written in the Lambs book of life will be throne into the lake of fire, to burn for eternity.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I for one do believe this happened. What else was Josephus describing in his writing?


Thanks for the quote Joel. I must admit that I find it very intriguing that we find such a report from the Jewish historian of the Great Tribulation of 70 AD. But ... it's just one witness, so I'm still waiting to see how all the pieces come together. The challenge I have with your suggestion is that the rest of the Christians were not resurrected at that time, were they? So how do you interpret the "meeting them in the air" part?


And just as it happened then, it will happen again at the final judgment and resurrection of everyone else.

Revelation states, "The rest of the dead lived not again until the 1000 years were finished...." It's obvious that the 1000 years are not yet finished, for we are still here. That is the resurrection we all await.

When the final resurrection is completed, all who have died since the last resurrection will be raised as they were, unto salvation or judgment. This is when death and hades will be done away with. Christ said, "I have the keys to death and hades..." indicating that judgment rests solely on His shoulders. At the last resurrection, when all have been judged, anyone not found written in the Lambs book of life will be throne into the lake of fire, to burn for eternity.

Joe
OK - I need to get this clear. You believe that all saints were resurrected in 70 AD, and the rest of the dead are still dead. Do you think that the resurrection was like the Lord's? I mean, are the graves empty? I suspect you might say they already were empty since the bodies had completely decayed. That's ok. But what about a freshly buried saint. Would that body rise like Christ's or was it left in the grave and a new one created?

There are some real problems with the physical resurrection no matter what view we hold. It looks like the case of Christ may have been fairly rare - a "showcase" if you will where God raised the specific body that died and left an empty grave so we all would know what happened. But that doesn't work for most folks, such as Vinny who was give concrete overshoes and tossed in to sleep with the fish. You see, the fish ate Vinny, and then Vinny's townfolk ate the fish, so in the resurrection, there was no body to resurrect. Obviously, God had to recreate Vinny from scratch. So if it good enough for Vinny, its good enough for everyone else, I would guess ... my point being that it looks like preterists can assert a physical resurrection of all saints that died before 70 AD without asserting that their graves would be empty.

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,


You seem to be identifying the topic of 1 Thess 4 with that of 2 Thess 2. I am not sure they are the same. 2 Thess 2 says nothing about any resurrection, and 1 Thess 4 says nothing about any Temple, man of perdition, etc. And since the Bible clearly distinguishes amongst different comings of the Lord, that seems like a likely solution. Obviously it needs more discussion.
Why repeat things, in one place, 1 Thess:4 they were saying not to feel sorry for those that died before Christ would gather people. The part excluded was what would happen before (times and seasons left blank but apparently there would be such things) 2 Thess:2 (given to the very same people who had read 1 Thess by then) fill in what was left blank before)



I am the first to admit that 1 Thess 4 is a big challenge for preterists. There are some who work with the language to come up with an interpretation that allows for the "resurrection" to have happened back then, but I certainly don't feel compelled to believe that. So I could interpret them both to be still future, in which case they would both refer to the Second Coming at the end of the world when everyone is resurrected just before the final judgment (no rapture, no millennium).
Well I don't believe in a rapture (going to heaven in a glorified body) anytime before the end of Satan's 'little season'.
Isa:51:6: Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

The thousand is just a time that Christ's spends with those who have been deemed to be righteous between when Satan is chained in the pit until he is released for his final attempt, a total flop but the 'forces with him at that time are hundreds if not thousands of times more in number. Since those people have been with Christ for 'a time' it isn't even considered to be any sort of tribulation. They are witnessing God's judgment on Satan and fallen angels. If any men are involved it is only these;
Eze:39:1-6
Eze:39:10: So that they shall take no wood out of the field, neither cut down any out of the forests; for they shall burn the weapons with fire: and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord GOD.
Eze:39:11: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamon-gog.
Eze:39:12: And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.

The way to rob somebody who is dead is to put their bones in a place reserved for those who will never be resurrected. These are the worst of the worst and have repelled every attempt Christ has made to turn them around.


If you apply verses about the new earth to this time you have many things that happen that would be 'interfered with', not least is what the earth would endure with fire from God in heaven. If the new earth comes into being after that event there is nothing to interfere with it starting out just fine and staying that way forever.



Or I could go along with the premill dispensational view, but then I would have a HUGE gaping hole in my eschatology that would be filled with lots of speculation about rebuilt Temples and antichrist covenants and all the typical futuristic fantasy stuff. So what I'm getting at is that the only understanding that INTERLOCKS with the rest of the integrated prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse seems to be the LITERAL Temple destroyed in 70 AD, as outlined above.
I certainly don't agree with everything they promote. The only earthly temple I see is the one Christ builds all by himself and that is only after all the wrath appointed for that time is past. A house of Prayer doesn't (or shouldn't) bring up images of OT sacrifice. I don't even but into a 7 year time-frame so that rules out a 7 year covenant. I'm not saying something like a covenant won't be proposed in the 3 1/2 days that the witnesses lay dead, but that is the only time the image could be in Jerusalem, before that the two witnesses are there for the whole time that the Beast is doing things. Both times end only that 3 1/2 days apart.



So that's why the coming of the Lord in 1 Thess currently seems to me to be referring to the Second Coming, and the coming in 2 Thess to 70 AD. But I'm still working on it. I am the first to admit 1 Thess is a challenge, and I don't really like the tension of having two different "comings" so closely related in two different books to the same church. But I'm not the only one with that problem! Look at what the dispensationalists have done with the Olivet Discourse! They have two different destructions of the Temple in that one passage! Now that's some serious tension in my book. At least my two comings are completely separated by being in different contexts in different books.

Can you explain how they arrive at two destructions? The ones I have been confronting are those who say some kind of temple will be in place (and not put there by Satan's forces) before His 2nd coming.
I should point out that when I say Jerusalem is Babylon it only becomes Babylon when Satan is in actual control of the ground. Babylon doesn't apply to her even a minute before that time.

Wayne

[TheForgiven]

Thanks for the quote Joel. I must admit that I find it very intriguing that we find such a report from the Jewish historian of the Great Tribulation of 70 AD. But ... it's just one witness, so I'm still waiting to see how all the pieces come together. The challenge I have with your suggestion is that the rest of the Christians were not resurrected at that time, were they? So how do you interpret the "meeting them in the air" part?

This is my personal opinion. I believe they were ALL raised to be with the Lord...all of them, but one man, and that was John. I believe He remained as the Lord told him, because it was him that continued to administer to the saints in Asia Minor...but again, that is my theory.

It also explains the lack of Christian writings in the latter part of the first century. Although I tend to accept that Revelation was written in the mid 90's, I still feel within my inner self that John wrote the vision in the 60's.

At any rate, the RCC claims they have Peter's body in the Vatican. I think they're lying because a document which I'm still searching for claims that Peter was temporarily buried in a region outside of Jerusalem, but was later (about six months) recovered and transfered to the Vatican. I doubt this to be truthful in many respects.


OK - I need to get this clear. You believe that all saints were resurrected in 70 AD, and the rest of the dead are still dead. Do you think that the resurrection was like the Lord's? I mean, are the graves empty? I suspect you might say they already were empty since the bodies had completely decayed. That's ok. But what about a freshly buried saint. Would that body rise like Christ's or was it left in the grave and a new one created?

There are some real problems with the physical resurrection no matter what view we hold. It looks like the case of Christ may have been fairly rare - a "showcase" if you will where God raised the specific body that died and left an empty grave so we all would know what happened. But that doesn't work for most folks, such as Vinny who was give concrete overshoes and tossed in to sleep with the fish. You see, the fish ate Vinny, and then Vinny's townfolk ate the fish, so in the resurrection, there was no body to resurrect. Obviously, God had to recreate Vinny from scratch. So if it good enough for Vinny, its good enough for everyone else, I would guess ... my point being that it looks like preterists can assert a physical resurrection of all saints that died before 70 AD without asserting that their graves would be empty.

I can't honestly answer that, but if their bodies are still around, it would consist of bones. But I'm pretty sure you won't find them...ever wonder why? :)

Now the catacombs uncovered in the city of Corinthian were Christians of the later centuries, about 2nd and 3rd. These buried underground because they didn't have enough money to purchase a tomb. Plus, this was primarily a Roman practice.

But to answer your question, I'll offer you my opinion. Christ returned in 70AD and raised His original builders of the kingdom, and that means their bodies are no longer with us today. I'd ask any anthropologist to find any remains of even one Apostle.....if they can find the remains of King Tut from Egypt being 1500 years older than the Apostles, then they can find the remains of even St. John Himself, the last of the Apostles. But like Noah's ark, you and I know that the story of Noah is true, yet we need not view the Ark to believe this....although I believe they may have found it, but that's for another discussion. At any rate, I believe they were raised and are with the Lord.

Matthew 27 records a resurrection after Jesus was raised, yet even Futurist try twisting that resurrection and compare it to Lazarus. But that's because they refuse to believe in the power of God, and act as though there is only one resurrection.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,


You seem to be identifying the topic of 1 Thess 4 with that of 2 Thess 2. I am not sure they are the same. 2 Thess 2 says nothing about any resurrection, and 1 Thess 4 says nothing about any Temple, man of perdition, etc. And since the Bible clearly distinguishes amongst different comings of the Lord, that seems like a likely solution. Obviously it needs more discussion.

Why repeat things, in one place, 1 Thess:4 they were saying not to feel sorry for those that died before Christ would gather people. The part excluded was what would happen before (times and seasons left blank but apparently there would be such things) 2 Thess:2 (given to the very same people who had read 1 Thess by then) fill in what was left blank before)

Why repeat things? The first reason I can think of is that it really really helps us confirm the truth, as it is written: "And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." (Genesis 41:32) And again: "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe" (Philippians 3:1)

I don't see any indication of a "leaving out" and a "filling in" - those passages have only two things in common, 1) mention of the "coming" (parousia) of the Lord, and 2) the city addressed in the letter. That's not nearly enough to prove that they are talking about the same event, since we have abundant proof that there were various "comings" of the Lord in the NT.


The thousand is just a time that Christ's spends with those who have been deemed to be righteous between when Satan is chained in the pit until he is released for his final attempt, a total flop but the 'forces with him at that time are hundreds if not thousands of times more in number. Since those people have been with Christ for 'a time' it isn't even considered to be any sort of tribulation. They are witnessing God's judgment on Satan and fallen angels. If any men are involved it is only these;
Eze:39:1-6
Eze:39:10: So that they shall take no wood out of the field, neither cut down any out of the forests; for they shall burn the weapons with fire: and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord GOD.
Eze:39:11: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamon-gog.
Eze:39:12: And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.

I have no idea how you can confidentally assert all those theories as if they were true. You are piecing things together without anything to confirm your conclusions. Why not stick to what is written and sure and confirmed and drop all the speculation that has no firm foundation?


The way to rob somebody who is dead is to put their bones in a place reserved for those who will never be resurrected. These are the worst of the worst and have repelled every attempt Christ has made to turn them around.

There is no physical location on earth that is "reserved for those who will never be resurrected." Where did you get that idea? Why does your eschatology seem so personal and idiosyncratic? I mean, you say things that I've never heard before, and that are not verifiable from Scripture with any degree of certainty.


If you apply verses about the new earth to this time you have many things that happen that would be 'interfered with', not least is what the earth would endure with fire from God in heaven. If the new earth comes into being after that event there is nothing to interfere with it starting out just fine and staying that way forever.

What do you mean "apply verses about the new earth?" Why would that mean that "the earth would endure with fire from God in heaven?" And why would that be a problem? You are talking about things that are not at all obvious to me. You still have not laid down the foundation for your futurist understanding, so I don't have anything to test as yet. You just keep talking about things as future without establishing them on Scripture, or so it seems to me anyway.

The first thing we got to do is get a proper historical view of the Bible in place. Most of the verses that were written as future events were later fulfilled and are now past. For example, all the prophecies about the Babylonian exile are now fulfilled, agreed? All the prophecies about Christ's first comming are now fulfilled, agreed? All the prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD are now fulfilled, agreed? How much is left? Before interpreting anything as future, we must discuss its context and see if it has already been fulfilled.


I certainly don't agree with everything they promote. The only earthly temple I see is the one Christ builds all by himself and that is only after all the wrath appointed for that time is past. A house of Prayer doesn't (or shouldn't) bring up images of OT sacrifice. I don't even but into a 7 year time-frame so that rules out a 7 year covenant. I'm not saying something like a covenant won't be proposed in the 3 1/2 days that the witnesses lay dead, but that is the only time the image could be in Jerusalem, before that the two witnesses are there for the whole time that the Beast is doing things. Both times end only that 3 1/2 days apart.

That's very interesting. It is helpful to know more of what you believe and don't believe.


Can you explain how they arrive at two destructions? The ones I have been confronting are those who say some kind of temple will be in place (and not put there by Satan's forces) before His 2nd coming.
I should point out that when I say Jerusalem is Babylon it only becomes Babylon when Satan is in actual control of the ground. Babylon doesn't apply to her even a minute before that time.

Wayne
Where do you get the idea that Jerusalem can be called Babylon only when "Satan is in actual control of the ground?" And for that matter, what does it mean for Satan to be in "actual control of the ground?" Is that different than when he is influencing the spirits of the apostate rulers? If so, why?

As for the two destructions - They get the future destruction from Matt 24 and the past destruction in 70 AD from Luke 21. That is, of course, a ludicrous scheme that is impossible to support with valid hermeneutics, because the three witnesses of Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all agree with the past destruction of the Temple. But its all they've got to work with, so they force the text to fit their scheme and hope no one notices.

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

Why repeat things? The first reason I can think of is that it really really helps us confirm the truth, as it is written: "And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." (Genesis 41:32) And again: "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe" (Philippians 3:1)
So an Apostle sends a letter (or visits) that contains some information. The same thing happens again but more information is given about something mentioned on the first visit. Would it have been better (and a waste of time since they were doing quite well) to repeat what was once said in total so they would understand this 'new info'?
How were they doing?
2Th:1:3: We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;
2Th:1:4: So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

Vs:7 - 10 also cover what is in ch:2.



I don't see any indication of a "leaving out" and a "filling in" - those passages have only two things in common, 1) mention of the "coming" (parousia) of the Lord, and 2) the city addressed in the letter. That's not nearly enough to prove that they are talking about the same event, since we have abundant proof that there were various "comings" of the Lord in the NT.
Could he have been referring to 1 Thess?
2Th:2:5: Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

I assume those were not the whole of what they had read, just like they did not keep there letters to themselves, everybody would have been taught what was in 1 Thess.

1Th:5:27: I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.



I have no idea how you can confidentally assert all those theories as if they were true. You are piecing things together without anything to confirm your conclusions. Why not stick to what is written and sure and confirmed and drop all the speculation that has no firm foundation?

Well lets see, 4 unbound angels kill 1/3 of men (in the whole earth), Christ takes out 2/3 when He comes. Say that is the number we go with that is against anything to do with Him. At todays pop 6B - 2B = 4b/.66 = 2.7B approx. Now how many is "the number of whom is as the sand of the sea", these are not scattered about all over the world, they surround the camp of the Saints and the beloved city. Given enough time you could probably count the 'people' that is going to be the easier of the two tasks because the number is smaller.



There is no physical location on earth that is "reserved for those who will never be resurrected." Where did you get that idea? Why does your eschatology seem so personal and idiosyncratic? I mean, you say things that I've never heard before, and that are not verifiable from Scripture with any degree of certainty.
I don't have much hope for anybody in anyplace called Gog or Magog. Another place that does not exist until prophecy is fulfilled. How many people do you think are 'living carelessly', is it a few words that could include many, many people.
Eze:39:6: And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD.

Not very descriptive until you find some text that is about the same time and place,

Zec:14:12: And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
Mal:3:6: For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Yes they will be buried in Israel,
Eze:39:11: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamon-gog.

Not only them, the ones that were living carelessly will also be gathered and brought there,
Eze:39:14: And they shall sever out men of continual employment, passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search.
Eze:39:15: And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog.
Eze:39:16: And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land.



What do you mean "apply verses about the new earth?" Why would that mean that "the earth would endure with fire from God in heaven?" And why would that be a problem? You are talking about things that are not at all obvious to me. You still have not laid down the foundation for your futurist understanding, so I don't have anything to test as yet. You just keep talking about things as future without establishing them on Scripture, or so it seems to me anyway.

I've been asked more than once to provide a time-line for how I think the end plays out. Still trying to figure out how to do it. Time isn't one of my biggest priorities when it comes to those verses, I try to sort them into a sequence of events. It would be easier to sort them into something that would look like a family tree. If the SC was ground what events that take place after would be up like branches, what was before going down like a root. I haven't done that either, what I can do is give you a list that includes before and after.
Wayway before, Israel is chastised for her sins by being without a city and they were scattered, the Gospel is first brought to the Gentiles, Revelation begins when the time for words alone is over, time to do what has already been talked about, two more times for the words "It is done." One at Christ's return, which marks the time of end of the sorting of the church
-each church has it's good points and it's not so good points, the time that they are sorted is at Christ's return.
We are then given the finer details of what will happen after it starts.
Before
-fire from the alter
-trumps begin to sound
time not determined for the 1st 4 No trump sounds before the 144,000 are sealed, in the chapter that is about 'who is saved' the Church is also mentioned, their number is not determined but it is after great tribulation that they are in white. Gentiles who have overcome what needed to be overcome are standing before Christ. Their journey that is coming is also given, so that it doesn't come as a surprise.Re:7:14-17



The first thing we got to do is get a proper historical view of the Bible in place.
Okay, we are somewhere between the two bruises, 1 down, 1 to go.



Most of the verses that were written as future events were later fulfilled and are now past.
There is probably quite a gap between our ratios.



For example, all the prophecies about the Babylonian exile are now fulfilled, agreed?
I would like a list before I agree to that. The prophets that covered that also had a few words to say about the day of the Lord and it will be a destruction whereas Neb's Babylon did take then slaves but his kingdom wasn't destroyed in the same manner as the Babylon of the NT.



All the prophecies about Christ's first comming are now fulfilled, agreed?


Everyone that He was to fulfill before He said "It is finished." just before He gave up the Ghost on the cross. Anything after that would have to wait for the next 'It is done." to be completely fulfilled. I more after that 1.

[QUOTE=RAM;4091]
All the prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD are now fulfilled, agreed?
70 AD is a past event, thats as far as I go without something written about that subject that is considered Scripture.



How much is left? Before interpreting anything as future, we must discuss its context and see if it has already been fulfilled.

All of Revelation, any idea why the last book, and probably the shortest, is about fallen angels and then, with little surprise, there they are in another book, like Peter, and suddenly 3 times when Revelation is examined.

Before interpreting anything as spiritual, we must discuss its context and see if it has already been fulfilled in a literal fashion.

I'll try it anyway you prefer, just don't 'catch-22' me ;)




That's very interesting. It is helpful to know more of what you believe and don't believe.
-two woes, tribulation before SC, time 42 months,
-third woe, great tribulation, everything associated with TDOTL, time ends the same day it starts as far as the wicked are concerned, 1st day of eternity for those alive at the end of a resurrection of the righteous and the gathering of those left alive.
A brief reprieve from having Satan around to influence things, because it is only a reprieve only Israel receives rivers of living water. The Church gets rain if they are an obedient people, being Church they are. Their new name is Saint, the same ones who are wise enough to head for Christ's house of prayer at once a year will see with their own eyes how things will look once the new earth is revealed. With some simple timing it might work out that if the thousand years starts when the nations are all gathered for that 1st feast then at the end they are there when that 'little season' starts.

A static population being as they are 'like the angels' neither being married nor given in marriage. It is from 'the rest' that new children will be born to. The priests will have many more to care for than if they had their own children, multitudes rather than 100's.



Where do you get the idea that Jerusalem can be called Babylon only when "Satan is in actual control of the ground?" And for that matter, what does it mean for Satan to be in "actual control of the ground?" Is that different than when he is influencing the spirits of the apostate rulers? If so, why?
Physical control, like this verse being entirely literal,
Da:11:45: And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.



As for the two destructions - They get the future destruction from Matt 24 and the past destruction in 70 AD from Luke 21. That is, of course, a ludicrous scheme that is impossible to support with valid hermeneutics, because the three witnesses of Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all agree with the past destruction of the Temple. But its all they've got to work with, so they force the text to fit their scheme and hope no one notices.

Far as I know the end begins when Re:1 starts, the 1st marker is the destruction of the wicked (last vial) and then the next marker would be the nations being given what they witness Israel receive at Christ's SC, compassion and mercy when His wrath towards them has been poured out in full. Everybody from man that should be alive is alive, then we start to fulfill what is said about the NE.

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

So an Apostle sends a letter (or visits) that contains some information. The same thing happens again but more information is given about something mentioned on the first visit. Would it have been better (and a waste of time since they were doing quite well) to repeat what was once said in total so they would understand this 'new info'?
How do you know it was the same thing? As I said, there are only two points in common between 1 Thess 4 and 2 Thess 2, namely 1) the parousia, 2) Thessalonica. Compare that with six points in common with the OD - it looks like 2 Thess 2 is talking about the destruction in 70 AD.


How were they doing?

They were doing fine, except they were a bit freaked out about some bad doctrine that Paul was correcting.


Could he have been referring to 1 Thess?
2Th:2:5: Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?


Sure, but that doesn't mean that 1 Thess 4 is the same topic as 2 Thess 2 - But the more I read it and think about it, the more it seems that perhaps they are talking about the same coming in 70 AD. That makes very good sense in general, the only real challenge is how to understand the reference to resurrection, but then again, we know that there was a resurrection of dead saints when Christ rose, and all Christians are already resurrected according to John 11.
John 11:25-26 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? Never die? Do you believe that? If so, it sounds like eternal life and an already accomplished resurrection to me. So there might be a solution along those lines. But that's another conversation.

The important thing now is that the OD and Rev were definitely fulfilled in 70 AD, and I am sure the same is true of 2 Thess 2. Therefore, I'm starting to think its probably also true that 1 Thess 4 is fulfilled also.


I don't have much hope for anybody in anyplace called Gog or Magog.

It doesn't seem like there is any "place" called "Gog or Magog." But if there is a place on earth so described, then any soul there has the same hope as any other soul in any other place on earth, because God is the creator of all.


Not very descriptive until you find some text that is about the same time and place,

Zec:14:12: And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
Mal:3:6: For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

And how do you know that Zech and Mal are talking about Gog? You don't! It's all just made up speculation. You have nothing to confirm your interpretations. Without two or thee other witnesses, you "patterns" are just drawing lines between randomly picked stars in the night sky. The patterns have no reality.

Are you understanding my hemeneutical demands? Anyone can say "This is that" but without confirming evidence, its nothing more than speculation.



What do you mean "apply verses about the new earth?" Why would that mean that "the earth would endure with fire from God in heaven?" And why would that be a problem? You are talking about things that are not at all obvious to me. You still have not laid down the foundation for your futurist understanding, so I don't have anything to test as yet. You just keep talking about things as future without establishing them on Scripture, or so it seems to me anyway.
I've been asked more than once to provide a time-line for how I think the end plays out. Still trying to figure out how to do it.
Actually, I'm not interested at all to know if you can invent a time line. That's been done a thousand times. My interest is in the foundation of your furutristic beliefs. Is there a foundation? Can you show me from the Bible that I should believe in futurism? If not, why do you believe it?


Time isn't one of my biggest priorities when it comes to those verses, I try to sort them into a sequence of events. It would be easier to sort them into something that would look like a family tree. If the SC was ground what events that take place after would be up like branches, what was before going down like a root. I haven't done that either, what I can do is give you a list that includes before and after.
Ok - that sounds interesting. But before you start talking about a "Second Coming" you need to establish from Scripture what that term means. You have to clearly establish its relationship to the Olivet Discourse, and show which parts are fulfilled and which are still future and why.


Wayway before, Israel is chastised for her sins by being without a city and they were scattered, the Gospel is first brought to the Gentiles, Revelation begins when the time for words alone is over, time to do what has already been talked about, two more times for the words "It is done." One at Christ's return, which marks the time of end of the sorting of the church
-each church has it's good points and it's not so good points, the time that they are sorted is at Christ's return.
We are then given the finer details of what will happen after it starts.
Before
-fire from the alter
-trumps begin to sound
time not determined for the 1st 4 No trump sounds before the 144,000 are sealed, in the chapter that is about 'who is saved' the Church is also mentioned, their number is not determined but it is after great tribulation that they are in white. Gentiles who have overcome what needed to be overcome are standing before Christ. Their journey that is coming is also given, so that it doesn't come as a surprise.Re:7:14-17
That's way too much convoluted stuff for me to sort out. We need to get down to the foundation of your futurism. For example, you claim that "Revelation begins when the time for words alone is over." What is your foundation for that claim? How do you deal with the fact that Jesus said it was happening soon, "for the time is at hand." How do you deal with its integration with the OD which He also said would happen in the first century?

Do you see what I'm looking for? I'm not interested in how many lines you can draw between random dots. Anyone can do that. And they will all be different which proves that they are not all not true.




The first thing we got to do is get a proper historical view of the Bible in place.

Okay, we are somewhere between the two bruises, 1 down, 1 to go.

What are the "two bruises" and what makes you think we are between them? And why are you talking so cryptically?




Most of the verses that were written as future events were later fulfilled and are now past.

There is probably quite a gap between our ratios.

Yes, I'm sure there is! :lol:

And that's why I keep asking you for facts, because I am pretty sure that the majority of your "future verses" are already fulfilled, and that they could be proven to be.




For example, all the prophecies about the Babylonian exile are now fulfilled, agreed?

I would like a list before I agree to that. The prophets that covered that also had a few words to say about the day of the Lord and it will be a destruction whereas Neb's Babylon did take then slaves but his kingdom wasn't destroyed in the same manner as the Babylon of the NT.

Yes, of course. Good point. I didn't say that all the prophecies that mention Babylon were fulfilled - some of those seem to be pointing to the destruction of Mystery Babylon in 70 AD.





How much is left? Before interpreting anything as future, we must discuss its context and see if it has already been fulfilled.

All of Revelation, any idea why the last book, and probably the shortest, is about fallen angels and then, with little surprise, there they are in another book, like Peter, and suddenly 3 times when Revelation is examined.

Excellent. Now we know where you stand on Rev. But I must ask for some justification. First, what is there in the TEXT of Rev that proves it is still future? Second, how do you deal with Christ saying it would happen soon? Third, what do you do with the fact that it was addressed to first century churches - do you deny that those parts of Rev are past? I mean, He gave direct warnings about things soon to happen in the first century churches. So that's past, isn't it?

And what does mention of fallen angels have to do with Rev being future?


Before interpreting anything as spiritual, we must discuss its context and see if it has already been fulfilled in a literal fashion.

I'll try it anyway you prefer, just don't 'catch-22' me ;)

:lol: - good one. And I agree, we should seem to understand the full meaning of every passage, both its literal and spiritual meanings.

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

How do you know it was the same thing? As I said, there are only two points in common between 1 Thess 4 and 2 Thess 2, namely 1) the parousia, 2) Thessalonica. Compare that with six points in common with the OD - it looks like 2 Thess 2 is talking about the destruction in 70 AD.


1 Thess has 4 verses in 4 chapters that mentions the coming of Christ, are you saying those are 4 different events? 2Thess has 2 verses in 1 chapter, does that make it 6 comings? I'm going to have to go with 6 verses about 1 single coming.




They were doing fine, except they were a bit freaked out about some bad doctrine that Paul was correcting.
Really, in some letters to other people who were in need of correction it was stated what needed to be corrected, for example,
1Co:5:1: It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co:5:2: And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co:5:3: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co:5:4: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co:5:5: To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.



Sure, but that doesn't mean that 1 Thess 4 is the same topic as 2 Thess 2 - But the more I read it and think about it, the more it seems that perhaps they are talking about the same coming in 70 AD. That makes very good sense in general, the only real challenge is how to understand the reference to resurrection, but then again, we know that there was a resurrection of dead saints when Christ rose, and all Christians are already resurrected according to John 11.
John 11:25-26 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? Never die? Do you believe that? If so, it sounds like eternal life and an already accomplished resurrection to me. So there might be a solution along those lines. But that's another conversation.
Isn't that covering the same thing, if you suffer a physical death being a believer in Christ you will be resurrected back to life, if you are alive and a believer when that happens you will never die (as in goto the same place those just resurrected were)?

If your resurrection to life is the 2nd birth then Jesus was resurrected when John baptized Him and the Spirit of God descended to Him.


If a theory has a few holes in it does it make it 'more accurate' than one that has more holes in it?



The important thing now is that the OD and Rev were definitely fulfilled in 70 AD, and I am sure the same is true of 2 Thess 2. Therefore, I'm starting to think its probably also true that 1 Thess 4 is fulfilled also.
Let me know how it works out.



It doesn't seem like there is any "place" called "Gog or Magog." But if there is a place on earth so described, then any soul there has the same hope as any other soul in any other place on earth, because God is the creator of all.
Gotta make you wonder, since it is those two places that are mentioned as being with Satan later. Not covering what happens to them after, the ones who suffer the seals aren't going to be alive for the thousand years.




And how do you know that Zech and Mal are talking about Gog? You don't! It's all just made up speculation. You have nothing to confirm your interpretations. Without two or thee other witnesses, you "patterns" are just drawing lines between randomly picked stars in the night sky. The patterns have no reality.
Eze:39:4: Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.

Zec:14:14: And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.
See any relationship? How many feasts are there for the beasts of the field. The OT has only a few references to something like that, are they all related to the same thing mentioned in the NT

Re:19:21: And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.



Are you understanding my hemeneutical demands? Anyone can say "This is that" but without confirming evidence, its nothing more than speculation.

Is the feast confirmed as being the same based on the 'birds' being there even though beasts of the field are not mentioned in a book that has many beasts mentioned that are not beasts of the field.



Actually, I'm not interested at all to know if you can invent a time line. That's been done a thousand times. My interest is in the foundation of your furutristic beliefs. Is there a foundation? Can you show me from the Bible that I should believe in futurism? If not, why do you believe it?
Good because I wouldn't do one even if you asked. So we have to do it the 'hard way'. Over time I will present all the reasons that I believe the way I do.
You want me to prove it before I submit any foundation.



Ok - that sounds interesting. But before you start talking about a "Second Coming" you need to establish from Scripture what that term means. You have to clearly establish its relationship to the Olivet Discourse, and show which parts are fulfilled and which are still future and why.
Is that over time or on just this thread and in the next post?





That's way too much convoluted stuff for me to sort out. We need to get down to the foundation of your futurism. For example, you claim that "Revelation begins when the time for words alone is over." What is your foundation for that claim? How do you deal with the fact that Jesus said it was happening soon, "for the time is at hand." How do you deal with its integration with the OD which He also said would happen in the first century?

I already said 'generation' was meant for the people who saw those things fulfilled, once Re starts it's first waypoint is in a fairly short time.



Do you see what I'm looking for? I'm not interested in how many lines you can draw between random dots. Anyone can do that. And they will all be different which proves that they are not all not true.
They aren't random, in the whole time the Bible covers there is only one day of the Lord.



What are the "two bruises" and what makes you think we are between them? And why are you talking so cryptically?
Ge:3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.




Excellent. Now we know where you stand on Rev. But I must ask for some justification. First, what is there in the TEXT of Rev that proves it is still future? Second, how do you deal with Christ saying it would happen soon? Third, what do you do with the fact that it was addressed to first century churches - do you deny that those parts of Rev are past? I mean, He gave direct warnings about things soon to happen in the first century churches. So that's past, isn't it?


And what does mention of fallen angels have to do with Rev being future?

Maybe it defines what an angel is when it says angel from the pit and unbound angel?

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that 1 Thess 4 is the same topic as 2 Thess 2 - But the more I read it and think about it, the more it seems that perhaps they are talking about the same coming in 70 AD. That makes very good sense in general, the only real challenge is how to understand the reference to resurrection, but then again, we know that there was a resurrection of dead saints when Christ rose, and all Christians are already resurrected according to John 11.
John 11:25-26 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? Never die? Do you believe that? If so, it sounds like eternal life and an already accomplished resurrection to me. So there might be a solution along those lines. But that's another conversation.

Isn't that covering the same thing, if you suffer a physical death being a believer in Christ you will be resurrected back to life, if you are alive and a believer when that happens you will never die (as in goto the same place those just resurrected were)?
Yes, that's possible, or He could have been saying that we already were spritually resurrected. It will require more discussion to discern. But the only reason we need to worry about it right now is because of the one "problem verse" of 1 thess 4 that speaks of the resurrection in connection with the first century coming of the Lord.


If your resurrection to life is the 2nd birth then Jesus was resurrected when John baptized Him and the Spirit of God descended to Him.

How does that follow? Christ wasn't born again when He was baptized. He already had eternal life. But He still could die ...


If a theory has a few holes in it does it make it 'more accurate' than one that has more holes in it?

Excellent question! Since all interpretations have "holes" - or rather, problematic verses - how do we determine which is correct?

The answer seems pretty obviousl. We start with the main things, the plain things, and the things we can be certain about. If a theory violates any of those, then you know its wrong. Next, you don't accept any theory without at least two or three witnesses. Next, you check for overall consistency of your eschatologial theories with your theology of the Gospel (Soteriology) and the Church (Ecclessiology). And finally, since every theory will have some "holes" most folks choose the one with the fewest, all else being equal.

Its not a big mystery really. There are established standards by which to judge between competing eschatologies.




The important thing now is that the OD and Rev were definitely fulfilled in 70 AD, and I am sure the same is true of 2 Thess 2. Therefore, I'm starting to think its probably also true that 1 Thess 4 is fulfilled also.

Let me know how it works out.

Will do ... indeed, that's exactly what I am doing. You see, I'm happy to "think out loud with you here, and to let you know the "problem verses" I have since your insights will help me understand the truth - even those inmsights that are meant to prove me wrong. They all help me get a little closer to the truth. And that's why I value you contribution so much.




It doesn't seem like there is any "place" called "Gog or Magog." But if there is a place on earth so described, then any soul there has the same hope as any other soul in any other place on earth, because God is the creator of all.

Gotta make you wonder, since it is those two places that are mentioned as being with Satan later. Not covering what happens to them after, the ones who suffer the seals aren't going to be alive for the thousand years.

Eze:39:4: Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.

Zec:14:14: And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.
See any relationship? How many feasts are there for the beasts of the field. The OT has only a few references to something like that, are they all related to the same thing mentioned in the NT

Re:19:21: And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Yeah, I see the connection. But why assume Zech 14 is literal? And why assume it is still future? We have reason not to think it's literal, since we know God is not interested in a literal feast days like Tabernacles. Those were types and shadows, and they have fled now that the blazing everlasting light of Jesus Christ has risen. And why future since we know that many prophecies of Zechariah were fulfilled in the first coming, such as these:

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.See that? There are four major prophecies from chapters 9, 11, 12, and 13 all fulfilled in the first century coming of the Lord. And those were just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.



Is the feast confirmed as being the same based on the 'birds' being there even though beasts of the field are not mentioned in a book that has many beasts mentioned that are not beasts of the field.

First, Zech 14.14 mentions neither a feast nor birds. But assuming you are talking about Rev 19 and Ezek 39, the connection would have to be more than just the mention of wild birds eating the dead, since that would happen after any war that has ever been faught in the history of the world. Jesus said "where the body is, there the eagles (vultures) would be gathered." It's an ancient and a common metaphor.




Actually, I'm not interested at all to know if you can invent a time line. That's been done a thousand times. My interest is in the foundation of your furutristic beliefs. Is there a foundation? Can you show me from the Bible that I should believe in futurism? If not, why do you believe it?

Good because I wouldn't do one even if you asked. So we have to do it the 'hard way'. Over time I will present all the reasons that I believe the way I do.

And so will I. :yo:

But it would be nice if you had an obvious foundation. I feel like I really do have a solid Biblical set of reasons to believe that Daniel, Rev, and the OD are past. But I readily admit that there are a few problem verses, but they are fewer by far than the problems with any futurist system I have seen.


You want me to prove it before I submit any foundation.

No! I just want you to submit your foundation. Say - I believe in the futurist vision for these three fundamental reasons 1,2,3.





Ok - that sounds interesting. But before you start talking about a "Second Coming" you need to establish from Scripture what that term means. You have to clearly establish its relationship to the Olivet Discourse, and show which parts are fulfilled and which are still future and why.

Is that over time or on just this thread and in the next post?

Could you just do it all in one sentence while typing with your nose and standing on your right big toe? Thanks!

<I trust you can tell that was a joke! :D>



I already said 'generation' was meant for the people who saw those things fulfilled, once Re starts it's first waypoint is in a fairly short time.

Yes, and I disputed that claim ... and we never settled our disagreement. Sorry for hounding you on that point. But it does seem important because it ties in with the timing of the OD and so makes everything fit together. I don't understand your justification for taking everything in Rev future, especially since that contradicts its connection with the OD. It seems like you are just saying "Cuz that's how I want it to be." This seems like a really important point, since much of your interpretation rests on the ASSUMPTION that Rev is future. Don't you think we should establish that idea on facts rather than just assuming it to be true?




Do you see what I'm looking for? I'm not interested in how many lines you can draw between random dots. Anyone can do that. And they will all be different which proves that they are not all not true.

They aren't random, in the whole time the Bible covers there is only one day of the Lord.
That's a very interesting, and debatable, point. I'll review my understanding and get back to you on it.




What are the "two bruises" and what makes you think we are between them? And why are you talking so cryptically?


Ge:3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Oh - I didn't know what you were getting at because both of those events already happened in my estimation. Both bruises happened at the Cross when Satan's power was destroyed and Christ was "bruised for our iniquity." Which one do you think is still future?

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

Yes, that's possible, or He could have been saying that we already were spritually resurrected. It will require more discussion to discern. But the only reason we need to worry about it right now is because of the one "problem verse" of 1 thess 4 that speaks of the resurrection in connection with the first century coming of the Lord.
You make it sound like such a 'little problem'. I would think determining if resurrection is spiritual or literal is a pretty big issue. Is it is just spiritual then no matter how much faith you have in Scripture, how closely you try to follow those two laws, etc., when your body gives up it's breath, that's it, you go to the grave and stay there for eternity. If it is literal then faith in Christ and trying to follow those two laws will mean that when He returns if you are dead you will come back to life and if you are alive you will be transformed from a mortal being to an immortal being that will live for eternity.



How does that follow? Christ wasn't born again when He was baptized. He already had eternal life. But He still could die ...

Lets use another example then, when were the Apostles spiritually resurrected?



Excellent question! Since all interpretations have "holes" - or rather, problematic verses - how do we determine which is correct?
When you have one that has no holes. If resurrection from the dead is an issue with your doctrine have you been looking for a solution to the problem. A in-depth study of what resurrection means in the passages that refer to it should be on your list of things to do. That would also include defining death and what that means in relation to a resurrection of the dead.

To start this, please give me your opinion on this verse and how it applies to to a spiritual resurrection,
M't:22:27: And last of all the woman died also.
M't:22:28: Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
M't:22:29: Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
M't:22:30: For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
M't:22:31: But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
M't:22:32: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

From my literal POV it means that when she is resurrected from the dead she won't be having anymore children, she will never marry and she will be immortal. I will point out that this covers the resurrection of people that is called the first resurrection only, it does not include those who are 'the rest'.

A literal resurrection ( a one time thing) would also mean that if you come from a family that has a long history of being Christian all those people will be present for any gathering. It literally means you could go and look for your great, great, great grandparents and you would be able to find them.



The answer seems pretty obviousl. We start with the main things, the plain things, and the things we can be certain about. If a theory violates any of those, then you know its wrong. Next, you don't accept any theory without at least two or three witnesses. Next, you check for overall consistency of your eschatologial theories with your theology of the Gospel (Soteriology) and the Church (Ecclessiology). And finally, since every theory will have some "holes" most folks choose the one with the fewest, all else being equal.

Its not a big mystery really. There are established standards by which to judge between competing eschatologies.

Using the 1000 years as an example, I gave two references that point to verses that cover a time when some are happily with Christ and others are in torment. You say the 1000 years is false, it's a Scripture, it can't be false.

Why settle for even 1 hole? Wouldn't be a very good reason to keep searching?



Will do ... indeed, that's exactly what I am doing. You see, I'm happy to "think out loud with you here, and to let you know the "problem verses" I have since your insights will help me understand the truth - even those inmsights that are meant to prove me wrong. They all help me get a little closer to the truth. And that's why I value you contribution so much.
Concerning that 'problem' about the dead being, what are your options without any input from me?



Yeah, I see the connection. But why assume Zech 14 is literal? And why assume it is still future? We have reason not to think it's literal, since we know God is not interested in a literal feast days like Tabernacles. Those were types and shadows, and they have fled now that the blazing everlasting light of Jesus Christ has risen.
So this tradition is null and void?
Lu:22:19: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Nobody is going to celebrate the event that the feast of the tabernacles represents?



And why future since we know that many prophecies of Zechariah were fulfilled in the first coming, such as these:

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.See that? There are four major prophecies from chapters 9, 11, 12, and 13 all fulfilled in the first century coming of the Lord. And those were just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

Yes there are more, many more. 1,093 according to this article
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/types.htm



First, Zech 14.14 mentions neither a feast nor birds. But assuming you are talking about Rev 19 and Ezek 39, the connection would have to be more than just the mention of wild birds eating the dead, since that would happen after any war that has ever been faught in the history of the world. Jesus said "where the body is, there the eagles (vultures) would be gathered." It's an ancient and a common metaphor.
In this feast it is Christ who does the killing.



But it would be nice if you had an obvious foundation. I feel like I really do have a solid Biblical set of reasons to believe that Daniel, Rev, and the OD are past. But I readily admit that there are a few problem verses, but they are fewer by far than the problems with any futurist system I have seen.

No! I just want you to submit your foundation. Say - I believe in the futurist vision for these three fundamental reasons 1,2,3.
How is it 'better' in that you have 'fewer problems' when one of those is bigger than a lot of what futurists have (proper sequence of events) when put together, and in this matter it is about what resurrection is, spiritual or literal. Part of the promise of a resurrection from death is that it means eternal life. The living are said to be also given immortal bodies.

So #1) resurrection from death is literal, not spiritual.
#2) scripture was mean to follow a certain course, prophecy and then deed (knowledge about something in the future and then the future becomes the past and that which was spoken about is made manifest)
#3) not one thing written about Christ's second coming (1st as king) has come to be past

lets cover #1 in full before we move on to one of the other 2.



Could you just do it all in one sentence while typing with your nose and standing on your right big toe? Thanks!

<I trust you can tell that was a joke! :D>
It would probably be just as fast LOL Seriously after having had a comp for years I still 2 finger type and looking up the location of some keys, and then there is the spelling and then the proof reading, etc, yikes....



Yes, and I disputed that claim ... and we never settled our disagreement. Sorry for hounding you on that point. But it does seem important because it ties in with the timing of the OD and so makes everything fit together. I don't understand your justification for taking everything in Rev future, especially since that contradicts its connection with the OD. It seems like you are just saying "Cuz that's how I want it to be." This seems like a really important point, since much of your interpretation rests on the ASSUMPTION that Rev is future. Don't you think we should establish that idea on facts rather than just assuming it to be true?
We both know each other's justification, do you want to beat it to death or go onto the next point?

Similar verse,

Da:11:33: And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
There are two groups of people, those that instruct and those that are instructed. Who dies, the instructors or the ones who have been instructed?





Oh - I didn't know what you were getting at because both of those events already happened in my estimation. Both bruises happened at the Cross when Satan's power was destroyed and Christ was "bruised for our iniquity." Which one do you think is still future?


Satan bruised Christ's heel at the cross, a bruise that kept Him off His feet for 3 1/2 days.


Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Wayne,





Excellent question! Since all interpretations have "holes" - or rather, problematic verses - how do we determine which is correct?

When you have one that has no holes.

Is that a joke? You have not presented anything remotely like a theory with no holes.


If resurrection from the dead is an issue with your doctrine have you been looking for a solution to the problem. A in-depth study of what resurrection means in the passages that refer to it should be on your list of things to do. That would also include defining death and what that means in relation to a resurrection of the dead.

Our interpretation of the ressurection does not, indeed cannot, determine whether the related prophecies were fufilled in the first century. Christ said He would come in the first century. You either believe Him or you don't. If you don't, then your theory has a very big gaping hole, and you most definitely are not interpreting the Bible "literally."

I know not whether we will or will not find a systematic eschatology in this lifetime with "no holes." But I do know that there are holes in every interpretation I have yet evaluated. If you are unaware or are unwilling to admit this elementary fact, how then can we progress in our joint effort to evaluate our competing interpretations?

The issue of the resurrection comes up because it is inextricably integrated with other prophecies that Christ Himself declared and history confirms to have been fulfilled in the first cerntury. Therefore we have the following three options:

1) Reinterpret the fulfilled prophecies as still future

2) Reinterpret the resurrection as fulfilled along with all the other prophecies

3) Live with the tension between different parts of the same prophetic utterances being fulfilled or unfulfilled.

Option 1 means you contradict the plain words of Christ and their literal historical fulfillment.

Option 2 means you contradict popular interpretations of resurrection.

Option 3 means you recognize the limitations of any human effort to create a systematic Biblical eschatology.

I'll follow up on the other issues if we can see eye-to-eye about what I have just posted. Futher conversation without agreement on the nature of the funamental problem of Biblical Eschatology would be a waste of everyone's time.

Richard

[MHz]

Is that a joke? You have not presented anything remotely like a theory with no holes.
LOL If my theory had no holes all 30,000 and some verses would be in their place now wouldn't they.



Our interpretation of the ressurection does not, indeed cannot, determine whether the related prophecies were fufilled in the first century. Christ said He would come in the first century. You either believe Him or you don't. If you don't, then your theory has a very big gaping hole, and you most definitely are not interpreting the Bible "literally."
Indeed cannot does not seem to leave you much wiggle room. I believe every word in the Bible is inspired, right down to the jots, that is why I read it! You have it boiled down to a competition between camps.
To be quite truthful, your version that has Christ in control at 70AD and it is His people (you) as being His 'rod of iron' has me more than a little leary of your whole doctrine. You take it from humbly spreading the Gospel to enforcing the rule of law. The last 2000 years would show it isn't working.



I know not whether we will or will not find a systematic eschatology in this lifetime with "no holes." But I do know that there are holes in every interpretation I have yet evaluated. If you are unaware or are unwilling to admit this elementary fact, how then can we progress in our joint effort to evaluate our competing interpretations?
Correct me if I am wrong, you want the holes to be plugged without affecting your basic doctrine?
I'm not telling you how to read the Bible, but I can tell you how I read it.



The issue of the resurrection comes up because it is inextricably integrated with other prophecies that Christ Himself declared and history confirms to have been fulfilled in the first cerntury. Therefore we have the following three options:

1) Reinterpret the fulfilled prophecies as still future

2) Reinterpret the resurrection as fulfilled along with all the other prophecies

3) Live with the tension between different parts of the same prophetic utterances being fulfilled or unfulfilled.

Option 1 means you contradict the plain words of Christ and their literal historical fulfillment.

Option 2 means you contradict popular interpretations of resurrection.

Option 3 means you recognize the limitations of any human effort to create a systematic Biblical eschatology.

I'll follow up on the other issues if we can see eye-to-eye about what I have just posted. Futher conversation without agreement on the nature of the funamental problem of Biblical Eschatology would be a waste of everyone's time.

Seems to be a different attitude from 'bring it on', Richard.
You don't want to hear how I differ from others that see fulfillment as being, as long as I believe in anything future I am in another (misbeguided) camp. Are you looking to enlarge your camp? The only reason I visit 'Christian sites' is to chat about Scripture, it's that simple. I certainly don't search for a 'specific camp'.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Seems to be a different attitude from 'bring it on', Richard.

I dont' know what you mean by that.


You don't want to hear how I differ from others that see fulfillment as being, as long as I believe in anything future I am in another (misbeguided) camp.

That's not true. I love to hear your interpretations. And I have never said that folks who believe some prophecies are yet to have a future fulfillment are "misbeguided."


Are you looking to enlarge your camp?

No. I don't even have a "camp." I have repeatedly and explicitly told you what I am looking for. I am looking for the true Biblical eschatology. That's why I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I am not pushing for any particular understanding or camp. Sure, I've come to some conclusions on certain issues, but that is a far cry from a "camp." My fundamental purpose is perfectly clear. I want to test my theory and your theory and every other theory in light of the Bible so that our understanding will align with what God teaches in His Word.

So, do you agree with my statement of the "Fundamental Problem of Biblical Eschatology" or not?

Richard

[TheForgiven]

RAM wrote:
The important thing now is that the OD and Rev were definitely fulfilled in 70 AD, and I am sure the same is true of 2 Thess 2. Therefore, I'm starting to think its probably also true that 1 Thess 4 is fulfilled also.

:thumb: Good on you bro....I hope I didn't upset you, or anyone else, with my post about the resurrection. That is a very touchy subject with me as you can tell. It's not that I get angry (For I don't), but more ashamed because I used to debate with Futurists about the resurrection, namely that our bodies are not raised, but we are given new tents / new bodies as Paul states. This was when I used to be Full Preterist.

The error of the Full Preterist is they assume that the "Eternal Life" and "Resurrection" had to do with the change in Covenants. However, that is not true. The New Covenant is what makes the resurrection possible, to those who believe, but it is not the resurrection of the world in itself. To me, that's over-spiritualizing the passage.

As for Pau's message to the Thessalonian's, I firmly believe those events are already fulfilled. My problem is I can't prove it. But then again, maybe I can.....believe in what the word says, and that is your proof. Futurist's who try to say, "Show me the proof..." are showing that they don't trust in the word, or the time of the word. They define nearly all prophesy as "God's undefined Time". Oh, but they are sure about the "Fig Tree" and "This Generation shall not pass since 1947". But all other prophesies of the scripture stating the closeness of the event is within God's undefined Time. So basically by their view, although they don't know they are contradicting themselves in this way, Christ has been at the door since the 60's AD, and apparently the end has a long way to go.

My blessings and peace to you all. And I ask your forgiveness if I have offended anyone. I tend to get over-passionate at times. :hippie:

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:thumb: Good on you bro....I hope I didn't upset you, or anyone else, with my post about the resurrection. That is a very touchy subject with me as you can tell. It's not that I get angry (For I don't), but more ashamed because I used to debate with Futurists about the resurrection, namely that our bodies are not raised, but we are given new tents / new bodies as Paul states. This was when I used to be Full Preterist.
Hey Joe,

No offense here at all. You seem to be just like me ... willing to explore ideas that might prove you wrong, all for the sake of the grand prize, knowing the truth!

The resurrection passages are a big challenge. They don't naturally fit with the rest of those verses, so I was thinking that 1 Thess 4 might be talking about a different coming. But that doesn't seem likely because it fits too tightly with the OD, and the OD was certainly fulfilled in 70 AD, so we have a genuine eschatological problem no matter what "camp" you stand in. That's why I call this the "Fundamental Problem of Biblical Eschatology." I hope that brother MHz sees it is a problem that must be solved regardless of the eschatological system to which one adheres.


The error of the Full Preterist is they assume that the "Eternal Life" and "Resurrection" had to do with the change in Covenants. However, that is not true. The New Covenant is what makes the resurrection possible, to those who believe, but it is not the resurrection of the world in itself. To me, that's over-spiritualizing the passage.

As for Pau's message to the Thessalonian's, I firmly believe those events are already fulfilled. My problem is I can't prove it. But then again, maybe I can.....believe in what the word says, and that is your proof. Futurist's who try to say, "Show me the proof..." are showing that they don't trust in the word, or the time of the word. They define nearly all prophesy as "God's undefined Time". Oh, but they are sure about the "Fig Tree" and "This Generation shall not pass since 1947". But all other prophesies of the scripture stating the closeness of the event is within God's undefined Time. So basically by their view, although they don't know they are contradicting themselves in this way, Christ has been at the door since the 60's AD, and apparently the end has a long way to go.

My blessings and peace to you all. And I ask your forgiveness if I have offended anyone. I tend to get over-passionate at times. :hippie:

Joe
That's pretty much what it comes down to. Do you believe the plain meaning of the Bible? If you say yes, then the plain meaning of Christ's words declare that He came back in 70 AD, and that's no problem until you read the plain meaning of Paul's words which seem to declare that the resurrection happened at the same time. I agree that its not impossible that the plain meaning of Paul's words are true, but its certainly not my first option. But then, maybe I don't like it because I have been indoctrinated by a world full of opinions generated by Hal Lindey and Time Lahaye.

I don't know ... but I am determined to dig deep until I hit bedrock.

Richard

[MHz]

I dont' know what you mean by that.
Sure you do, that's why you misspelled don't.



That's not true. I love to hear your interpretations. And I have never said that folks who believe some prophecies are yet to have a future fulfillment are "misbeguided."
Really, just when does that time start? So far all I have heard is whoa. "prove this before you go on", prove the finite before the big picture. If we disagree about anything after,
Ge:1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
and the last verse there is a hole.

How many to go?

You want me to compress into a few lines the sum of what the Holy Bible has shown me to be the true word of God. The answer is in one line "It can't be done."

The whole of my knowledge after doing a complete read )of the NT)was this,
1Co:11:34: And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

How many to go?

Words from a minister to Jesus, is it 'safe' to assume' that since He had not returned at that time it was written, that at Jesus's return He would also set things in order.
Jesus was the first, Just like the trees back in Genesis, the first tree is mentioned and it later says at the end of the 6th day everything was complete. trees covered the 'inhabitable places'. The trees did not cover the whole earth at the end of the day they were first mentioned and then the next day began. It only mattered that by the end of that day the world is as the way we know it.



No. I don't even have a "camp." I have repeatedly and explicitly told you what I am looking for. I am looking for the true Biblical eschatology. That's why I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I am not pushing for any particular understanding or camp. Sure, I've come to some conclusions on certain issues, but that is a far cry from a "camp." My fundamental purpose is perfectly clear. I want to test my theory and your theory and every other theory in light of the Bible so that our understanding will align with what God teaches in His Word.
Yours and mine do not seem to be in the same camp, HEY, no harm no foul.

'My camp' warned me before that might occur when you go through all the Scriptures without 'somebody not inspired' giving you bookmarks.
"Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. " KJV 1611 preface



So, do you agree with my statement of the "Fundamental Problem of Biblical Eschatology" or not?

At this point I don't think that is much of an issue.

MHz

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So, do you agree with my statement of the "Fundamental Problem of Biblical Eschatology" or not?

At this point I don't think that is much of an issue.

MHz
Why are you refusing to answer the question? It seems really straightforward to me. And it seems to strike the very heart of our discussion.

Richard

[MHz]

Why are you refusing to answer the question? It seems really straightforward to me. And it seems to strike the very heart of our discussion.
(from another post) "The resurrection passages are a big challenge. They don't naturally fit with the rest of those verses, so I was thinking that 1 Thess 4 might be talking about a different coming. But that doesn't seem likely because it fits too tightly with the OD, and the OD was certainly fulfilled in 70 AD, so we have a genuine eschatological problem no matter what "camp" you stand in. That's why I call this the "Fundamental Problem of Biblical Eschatology." I hope that brother MHz sees it is a problem that must be solved regardless of the eschatological system to which one adheres."

Hi Richard,
From any Scripture I've read about His return there seems to be just one time. Two different letters speak of Him coming, 1st one says the dead will be raised first and then the living, no time gap is indicated, the ones alive would start to be gathered after the last of the dead were out of the Graves.

Please bear with me because I'm going to ask you 'assume for a moment' that it is a yet to be thing. When Jesus went to the cross we were told to 'break bread' and love one another until He returned. Fast forward in time until the 6 trumps have sounded. At the sound of the 7th, Christ returns, anything/anyone deemed to be an iniquity is 'put away'. The ones who are destined for resurrection are raised and the ones left alive are given what is needed to be changed from being mortal to being immortal. The covenant is then brought in, needed because the one 'breaking bread' is old because it was only meant to be done until His return.

The big difference I see between 70AD and a future coming is that the one already past was a desolation, the future coming is the end of being desolate, Christ in control of not just Jerusalem, but all of Israel as well as the rest of the whole world.

In as future setting the ones who are in Judea are not Jews, they are Gentiles. The only ones from the 12 tribes alive at that time are the 144,000.

The OD only says 'those in Judea', some words used to describe those who flee are 'the elect' (a term used in at least one place for believing Gentiles), "then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn', anther reference to Gentiles.

Gentiles are the ones that see the bodies of the 2 witnesses lay dead in the street, they are the ones sending gifts back and forth and Gentiles are the ones in this,

Re:11:13: And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Re:11:17: Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Re:11:18: And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Would being given a glorified body fit in with it being a 'reward'?

One more thing that should be considered, since there is a mention of 'the elect', if it applied to Christian Jews there should be some/many in Judea about 70AD.

Ac:8:1: And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
(reading past that should say when the Apostles left Jerusalem)

Say that happened about 35AD, 35 years later would there be more or fewer Christian Jews in Judea? How many Gentile Jews would be in Judea in 70AD?
Wayne

PS. Hi Joe, when I say prove it I'm looking for some supporting Scripture that gives a definite time-frame.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,
From any Scripture I've read about His return there seems to be just one time. Two different letters speak of Him coming, 1st one says the dead will be raised first and then the living, no time gap is indicated, the ones alive would start to be gathered after the last of the dead were out of the Graves.

Please bear with me because I'm going to ask you 'assume for a moment' that it is a yet to be thing. When Jesus went to the cross we were told to 'break bread' and love one another until He returned. Fast forward in time until the 6 trumps have sounded. At the sound of the 7th, Christ returns, anything/anyone deemed to be an iniquity is 'put away'. The ones who are destined for resurrection are raised and the ones left alive are given what is needed to be changed from being mortal to being immortal. The covenant is then brought in, needed because the one 'breaking bread' is old because it was only meant to be done until His return.

Good morning Wayne,

I don't have any trouble assuming your point of view, since it flows from a natural reading of parts of Scripture. I really am able to see your points, and within a limited context they seem "obviously correct."

But I encounter a challenge when I try to put together the "big picture" that includes all the prophecies that were fulfilled in 70 AD. I read the OD and it really fits extremely tightly with the first century fulfillment, and then I read Rev and 2 Thess 2 and they all fit (for the most part) ... but then I read 1 Thess 4 and I say "Resurrection? How am supposed to understand that?"

So what do I do now? Do I reject the obvious fulfillment in 70 AD? That would require a lot of heavy reinterpretation of pretty plain language. Or do I reinterpret the resurrection? Or is there some other solution? What do you suggest?


The big difference I see between 70AD and a future coming is that the one already past was a desolation, the future coming is the end of being desolate, Christ in control of not just Jerusalem, but all of Israel as well as the rest of the whole world.

I don't see it that way. A literal reading of Rev as future has near total desolation in it. And the preterist understands the past desolation was of carnal Jerusalem - Christ is currently ruling in glory in the heavenly New Jerusalem, which is the Church of the Firstborn (Heb 12:22). No desolation there.


In as future setting the ones who are in Judea are not Jews, they are Gentiles. The only ones from the 12 tribes alive at that time are the 144,000.

The OD only says 'those in Judea', some words used to describe those who flee are 'the elect' (a term used in at least one place for believing Gentiles), "then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn', anther reference to Gentiles.
Are you suggesting the entire OD is still future? :confused2:

If there are no Jews in Judea, who are running the synagogues?


Gentiles are the ones that see the bodies of the 2 witnesses lay dead in the street, they are the ones sending gifts back and forth and Gentiles are the ones in this,

Re:11:13: And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

I agree that the Gentiles are the ones who sent gifts (good insight!) but it is the Jews of the land of Israel that rejoiced:
Revelation 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth [land of Israel] shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.


Re:11:17: Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Re:11:18: And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Would being given a glorified body fit in with it being a 'reward'?
Sure, but the text jumped to the end of the story there. That's when they get their glorified bodies. In the resurrection after the "millennium."


One more thing that should be considered, since there is a mention of 'the elect', if it applied to Christian Jews there should be some/many in Judea about 70AD.
The Christian Jews fled in accordance with the specific teaching of Jesus Christ in the OD - "Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains" (Luke 21:21).

Richard

[MHz]

I don't have any trouble assuming your point of view, since it flows from a natural reading of parts of Scripture. I really am able to see your points, and within a limited context they seem "obviously correct."

But I encounter a challenge when I try to put together the "big picture" that includes all the prophecies that were fulfilled in 70 AD. I read the OD and it really fits extremely tightly with the first century fulfillment, and then I read Rev and 2 Thess 2 and they all fit (for the most part) ... but then I read 1 Thess 4 and I say "Resurrection? How am supposed to understand that?"
From a future POV it would mean coming back to life, that would include those priests (that did not flee and were killed) that Jesus was addressing in Matt:23. They are resurrected and Jesus would be standing right in front of them. They didn't convert back in 70AD, that was when they were undergoing desolation of the temple and the city.



So what do I do now? Do I reject the obvious fulfillment in 70 AD? That would require a lot of heavy reinterpretation of pretty plain language. Or do I reinterpret the resurrection? Or is there some other solution? What do you suggest?
Other than reading all the other prophecies in all the other books and seeing how they fit should give you enough to determine if everything was fulfilled.
We have already covered Jer:25, the list of the Nations, as far as I know in 70AD Rome was the only Nation involved. Should that be something that is similar or something different.

Does this verse apply to something that did occur in 70AD?

Joe:3:2: I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

Joe:3:9: Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:
Joe:3:10: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.
Joe:3:11: Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD.
Joe:3:12: Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.
Joe:3:13: Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great.
Joe:3:14: Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Joe:3:17: So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.
Joe:3:18: And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim.
Joe:3:19: Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.
Joe:3:20: But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation.

Isn't the above talking about a deliverance for Judah and Jerusalem?




I don't see it that way. A literal reading of Rev as future has near total desolation in it. And the preterist understands the past desolation was of carnal Jerusalem - Christ is currently ruling in glory in the heavenly New Jerusalem, which is the Church of the Firstborn (Heb 12:22). No desolation there.



Are you suggesting the entire OD is still future? :confused2:
Apparently that is what I'm saying, yes. The destruction of 70 AD was fulfillment of all prophecy concerning the 70 weeks.

This verse from the brass says that it would happen in the time of that kingdom. That would still leave the whole of the iron and clay to be sometime after the sanctuary was torn down,
Da:8:11: Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.



If there are no Jews in Judea, who are running the synagogues?
I'm not sure which verse you are referencing.



I agree that the Gentiles are the ones who sent gifts (good insight!) but it is the Jews of the land of Israel that rejoiced:
Revelation 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth [land of Israel] shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
It only says 'they', the only ones mentioned before that are "they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations", I don't see Jews specifically mentioned. A heathen standing in the land of Judea is not considered to be a Jew, he is a stranger.



Sure, but the text jumped to the end of the story there. That's when they get their glorified bodies. In the resurrection after the "millennium."
No jump is indicated. A person would not live to be a thousand with having a glorified body.



The Christian Jews fled in accordance with the specific teaching of Jesus Christ in the OD - "Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains" (Luke 21:21).


If this was 70AD they would be Christian Jews, that does not eliminate 'them' as being Gentiles should that call be for a future event.

Wayne

[Trumpet]

Hi Guys,

Here's some info on the period of time of 70 AD and what took place. The site is http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/Opry/2092/Destruct.html

Here's one little snippet from that:

Abomination of Desolation

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

The Christians who were in Jerusalem at the time recognized the assault upon the city by Cestius Gallus as the fulfillment of the words of our Lord, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand): Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains:" Matthew 24:15-16. It is said that every Christian in the city fled. Most of them went to Pella in Decapolis, as they had been instructed.
Was the presence of the Roman army of Cestius Gallus actually the "abomination of desolation"? The Roman army was considered an abomination by the Jews, because of the Roman's ensigns and images which they worshipped and to which they sacrificed.

Where is the holy place in which the abomination of desolation was to appear? Was it the temple proper? This is what many believe, but Ezekiel 43:12 indicates differently. "This is the law of the house; upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be holy. Behold this is the law of the house." Ezekiel 43:12. [emphasis mine].

So the mere presence of the Roman army in the "holy city" was an abomination, standing where it ought not.

If we read only Matthew and Mark, we have difficulty fully comprehending the reference to the "abomination of desolation," but let us now look at Luke's account of these same prophecies and we will see why the Christians believed this to be what Jesus had foretold: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people." Luke 21:20-23.

Notice again, that this prophecy is not for the whole world, but for those in Judea only. Actually, the siege of the city under Cestius Gallus did not materialize into the destruction of the city. That was to come later, but it served the Christians well, in that it afforded them time to escape before the actual desolation came.

This vengeance which Jesus prophesied had to come upon the Jews in order to fulfill the Scriptures. There was to be distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. "This people" refers to the Jews, who both killed Jesus and the prophets (1 Thessalonians 2:15), and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children." Matthew 27:25. The desolation was not intended to ensnare the Christians, for they had the words of Jesus warning them to flee when certain events began to occur.

Eusebius, in his history, reports that an oracle of the Lord directed them to flee from Jerusalem. They fled across the Jordan river to Pella. It is said by Eusebius that not one Christian was killed in the destruction of Jerusalem.5 By A.D. 69, the Jerusalem church was gone entirely,6 gathered out of the tribulation by the Lord's word.

Although the A.D. 66 attack by Cestius Gallus was not the destruction of Jerusalem, it did signal the beginning of what is called the "great tribulation." There followed, continuous attacks of Jews upon Romans, and Romans upon Jews.

The people of Damascus slew the Jews that lived with them. A short time later, Vespasian was sent into Syria by Nero to make war with the Jews there. He slew ten thousand Jews and two Jewish generals, John and Silas.

Vespasian took Gadara, Jotapata, Joppa, and Taricheae, and helped his son Titus in taking Gamala. Great was the slaughter of the Jews by Vespasian.

Titus then took Gischala and John of Gischala fled to Jerusalem. As there was preparation for war with Rome, there were, inside, various factions fighting each other.


I agree that the prophecies may apply to both 70 AD AND some time in the future, and I'd like to post more on that idea later if I may.

Don

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Other than reading all the other prophecies in all the other books and seeing how they fit should give you enough to determine if everything was fulfilled.
We have already covered Jer:25, the list of the Nations, as far as I know in 70AD Rome was the only Nation involved.
Should that be something that is similar or something different.

Does this verse apply to something that did occur in 70AD?

The prophecy of Jeremiah 25 doesn't say when those nations would be judged. And since many, if not most, of those nations went out of existence long ago, I am pretty sure that any judgment they were to receive in this world was received in the past when they actually existed. The idea God will recreate the nations just so He can "give them that are wicked to the sword" (Jer 25:31) makes no sense to me at all. But it does make perfect sense that He did give them to the sword in the past because we have many examples when He did. To me, it makes no sense to rip thoses events out of their historical context and transport them to a future apocalypse - except perhaps as symbols of God's judgment (we see the historical judgments on Babylon used that way).


Joe:3:2: I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

Joe:3:9: Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:
Joe:3:10: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.
Joe:3:11: Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD.
Joe:3:12: Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.
Joe:3:13: Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe [70 AD = Rev 14:14 = Coming of Son of Man on cloud]: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great.
Joe:3:14: Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Joe:3:17: So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.
Joe:3:18: And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD [Pentecost - that's why God inspired Peter to quote Joel at Pentecost.], and shall water the valley of Shittim.
Joe:3:19: Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.
Joe:3:20: But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation.

Isn't the above talking about a deliverance for Judah and Jerusalem?


The above is talking about the judgment and destruction of apostate carnal Jerusalem and the eternal salvation of heavenly Jerusalem. The language is a collage of the events between the Crucifixion, Pentecost, and 70 AD. The fountain is the Holy Spirit poured out exactly as Christ prophesied:
John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"

This also fuflfilled the prophecy of Zechariah:
Zechariah 12:10 - 13:1 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: [PENTECOST] and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. [CHRIST CRUCIFIED] 11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. [70 AD] 12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; 13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; 14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. Zechariah 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

We know they "looked upon Christ whom they crucified" in the first century, so we know this prophecy was fulfilled at least in part at that time, and since we know the fountain of the Holy Spirit was also poured out upon the people, we have no reason to think any of this is future. And the sickle judgment in Joel fits perfectly with 70 AD and Rev 14. It looks very tight to me.




Are you suggesting the entire OD is still future? :confused2:

Apparently that is what I'm saying, yes. The destruction of 70 AD was fulfillment of all prophecy concerning the 70 weeks.
Wow. I must tell you that I find that entirely incredible. How do you deal with the fact that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the first century temple? Jesus said "Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Are you saying that you don't think He was talking about those buildings that they were looking at in the first century?


This verse from the brass says that it would happen in the time of that kingdom. That would still leave the whole of the iron and clay to be sometime after the sanctuary was torn down,
Da:8:11: Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

On Dan 8:11=12 Walvoord notes that "expositors have differed widely" on the interpretation of that verse, and he quotes Montgomery as saying that those two verses "constitute ... the most difficult short passage in the bk." The divergent interpretations of its fulfillment span everything from Antiochus in the 2nd century BC, Christ or Titus in the first century, to a future antichrist thousands of years after Christ.

Such a highly contested and confusing verse seems entirely inadequate to overthrow the plain, ordinary, literal, and normal meaning of the words Christ spoke in the Olivet Discrourse.




If there are no Jews in Judea, who are running the synagogues?

I'm not sure which verse you are referencing.


Christ speaking in the Olivet Discourse:
Luke 21:12,20 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. ... 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

So you are expecting that Jews in the future will once again be "delivering [Christians] up to the synagogues?" To me, it seems totally obvious that Christ was talking to His first century followers about the persecution they would be suffering in the first century. There is not a hint of anything that is still future as far as I can see. So what am I missing? Can you tell me what it is about the OD that makes you think it is all still future?





I agree that the Gentiles are the ones who sent gifts (good insight!) but it is the Jews of the land of Israel that rejoiced:
Revelation 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth [land of Israel] shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

It only says 'they', the only ones mentioned before that are "they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations", I don't see Jews specifically mentioned. A heathen standing in the land of Judea is not considered to be a Jew, he is a stranger.

In the preterist understanding, the text is talking about the first cerntury, so they that dwell upon the earth [land of Israel] would be Jews.


No jump is indicated. A person would not live to be a thousand with having a glorified body.

There is nothing in the Bible that says it is impossible to live that long in an unglorified body. Methusalah got pretty close; 969 years old.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Guys,

Here's some info on the period of time of 70 AD and what took place. The site is http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/Opry/2092/Destruct.html

Here's one little snippet from that:

Abomination of Desolation

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

The Christians who were in Jerusalem at the time recognized the assault upon the city by Cestius Gallus as the fulfillment of the words of our Lord, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand): Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains:" Matthew 24:15-16. It is said that every Christian in the city fled. Most of them went to Pella in Decapolis, as they had been instructed.

Thanks Don,

That's very helpful!

Any idea of where it is said that "every Christian in the city fled?" What ancient author said that? I've heard it many times, but don't recall where it was written.


I agree that the prophecies may apply to both 70 AD AND some time in the future, and I'd like to post more on that idea later if I may.

Don
That's a mystery to me. How could there be another fulfillment if there is not a sanctified Temple, and how will there be a sanctified Temple if the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the death of Christ?

Are there any verses that suggest a future fulfillment to you?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I found this in Matthew Henry's commentary (via a footnote in the article Don posted)

Now those to whom Christ said this immediately, did not live to see this dismal day, none of all the twelve but John only; they needed not to be hidden in the mountains (Christ hid them in heaven), but they left the direction to their successors in profession, who pursued it, and it was of use to them; for when the Christians in Jerusalem and Judea saw the ruin coming on, they all retired to a town called Pella, on the other side Jordan, where they were safe; so that of the many thousands that perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was not so much as one Christian. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 3, cap. 5
Henry, M. 1996, c1991. Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Mt 24:4). Hendrickson: Peabody

Richard

[pjmiller]

I see you found a source Richard for the belief that most Christians fled Jerusalem prior to the complete destruction. [I've been following this topic. :)]



After seeing your question i went looking through my notes for any links to references...i did find this also:

The Effects of the Fall of Jerusalem on Christianity (http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/articles/scott_effects-on-christianity.html)


And-


Did Jerusalem Christians Flee to Pella? (http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/articles/scott_flee-pella.html)



Thanks for the great topics and discussions on this board--only the Lord knows how much I'm learning from reading here. I'm not a big poster, but do follow along in the topics!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I see you found a source Richard for the belief that most Christians fled Jerusalem prior to the complete destruction.



After seeing your question i went looking through my notes for any links to references...i did find this also:

The Effects of the Fall of Jerusalem on Christianity (http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/articles/scott_effects-on-christianity.html)


And-


Did Jerusalem Christians Flee to Pella? (http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/articles/scott_flee-pella.html)



Thanks for the great topics and discussions on this board--only the Lord knows how much I'm learning from reading here. I'm not a big poster, but do follow along in the topics!
Hey there pj!

Nice to hear from you. Thanks for those links, they are helpful. Here's a snippet I thought worth posting (colors and smileys added):


S.G.F. Brandon's Criticism of the Traditional Accounts

The validity of the traditional account is vigorously debated, primarily as a result of S.G.F. Brandon's highly controversial work, [I]The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church.(4) Brandon argues that in spite of the claims of ancient writers, there is ample reason to believe that the Church of Jerusalem "identified itself too closely with the nation from which it had originally emerged and in Israel's virtual annihilation it subsequently shared."(5) Both because of the nature of the pre-70 C.E. church and consequences of the Jewish overthrow, not only did Christianity in its primitive form cease to exist, but Christianity as a whole was subsequently "virtually reborn."


Brandon's conclusions depend heavily upon his methodological commitments which permit him to reconstruct, as he recognizes, a revived "Tuebingen School" view of early Church history.(6) The NT documents, he argues, show that the conflict between the Jewish-Jerusalem view of Christianity (of which James, the Relative of Jesus, was the leader) staunchly opposed that propounded by Paul. :blah: As a result of Paul's arrest, the Jerusalem Christians were, between 55 and 65, virtually unopposed in promoting and spreading their gospel. :eek: Paulinism was all but stamped out. The 70 C.E. catastrophe and the elimination of the Jewish-Jerusalem form of Christianity permitted the resurgence and eventual victory of Paulinism.

Although Brandon's reconstruction has gained some support,(9) it also received severe criticism from the book's original reviewers(10) -- including H-J Schoeps, the dean of contemporary studies of early Jewish Christianity(11). More recent investigations have tended to support at least some version of the traditional account.(12)

That Brandon has misread and mishandled his sources seems to me obvious.

I post that because it seems obvious to me that Brandon began his study with a rejection of the theological integrity of Scripture - as evidenced by his idea that Paul and James were preaching different Gospels. This old error is still being taught in various versions of Dispensationalism.

Richard

[alec cotton]

Hello steve
I don't know how old this thread is but I just came across it to-day'. I have puzzled over the vision for a long time and came to the conclusion that it was just that;A vision. There is just one thing I would like to point out and that is, the yard stick in the man's hand. It was six cubits by the cubit and an hand breadth. There were four hand breadths in a cubit. These cubits were five hand breadths to a cubit. Six times five equals thirty. Six,the number of man. Five the number of grace. Jesus .A man full of grace. He alone was the standard by which the whole vision was to be measured. ' Behold a house ,one reed long one reed broad and one reed high'. A goodly price you priced me at ;Thirty pieces of silver. Man+grace+ redemption. I am sure than all the numbers in the vision are full of meaning but I just can't figure them out. May peace and understanding be yours.
Alec












This thread split off from the Ezekiel's Temple is the Word of God (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=49) which deals with the symbolic aspect of the Temple and its relation to the Bible Wheel.

Here we will wrestle with the question of whether or not the Temple is meant to be interpreted "literally", the meaning of the Levitical priesthood in Ezekiel 40-48, whether or not the sacrifices will be reintroduced, and other such matters.

RAM

Stephen's post begins below:

================================

Hi folks!

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". ;)

Why not just accept the plain text, in all its explicit detail? God said there's going to be a new temple in the Holy Land. God said the land is going to be divided amongst the 12 tribes of Israel. Real tribes of real people. God said sacrifice is going to be reinstituted. And guess what? Death is still going to be around, too, when all this is happening.

I think you guys are working way too hard to try and make this fit your own understanding of Scripture. To my mind, it's not the plain text that needs to be adjusted to fit a belief system. It's the other way around. The belief system needs some major overhauling. The deep questions need to be confronted, not sidestepped through claiming everything is a type that needs some dodgy decoding. Things we thought we knew need some serious review, and, where appropriate, need to be discarded.

Yesterday, I posed a question regarding God's new temple from Ezekiel's book. At the time, I had never thought to go looking for an answer myself. Between now and then I did a yahoo search. The first two websites I met came up with answers to my important questions as a Christian. They make a lot more sense to me than this wishy-washy 'spiritualising' caper that attempts to subsume everything into the church. There was a time before the church, and there is going to be a time after the church. We are part of that process, but we are not the be-all and end-all. That's what my whole Bible tells me.

http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTempleEzekielsMillennialTemple.htm
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/templemi.htm

Come on, folks! Please, stop tinting everything through the lens of the church. The explanations that emanate from that viewpoint need so much qualifying that they are, to my mind, untenable, to put it politely. God's salvation plan is a lot bigger than that.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!" :(

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello steve
I don't know how old this thread is but I just came across it to-day'. I have puzzled over the vision for a long time and came to the conclusion that it was just that;A vision. There is just one thing I would like to point out and that is, the yard stick in the man's hand. It was six cubits by the cubit and an hand breadth. There were four hand breadths in a cubit. These cubits were five hand breadths to a cubit. Six times five equals thirty. Six,the number of man. Five the number of grace. Jesus .A man full of grace. He alone was the standard by which the whole vision was to be measured. ' Behold a house ,one reed long one reed broad and one reed high'. A goodly price you priced me at ;Thirty pieces of silver. Man+grace+ redemption. I am sure than all the numbers in the vision are full of meaning but I just can't figure them out. May peace and understanding be yours.
Alec
Hey Alec,


Good insights! The primary point that must be understood before any valid interpretation of Ezekiel's vision is possible is that it was indeed a symbolic vision of a "Temple." And what is the ulitmate meaning of the "temple" in the Holy Bible? The answer is clear - in the Old Testament it was a type of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Church of God, as it is written:
John 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Thus, Christ Himself is the ultimate meaning of the Temple, and so the same meaning is applied to His Body, the Church of God:
2 Corinthians 6:16-7:1 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. 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

I highlighted the red text because is shows that Ezekiel had prophesied about the Church earlier in his book just before the vision of the Temple:
Ezekiel 37:23-28 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. 24 ¶ And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

The blue text obviously refers to Jesus Christ, and further confirms that the prophecy was not supposed to be interpreted in a literal carnal sense. God gave Ezekiel a prophecy of the Church of the New Covenant formed first from the believing Remnant of carnal Israel.

Getting back to your main point, I think we also find solid proof of the symbolic nature of the numbers describing the Temple in Revelation 21-22. The 12 foundations are an explicit representation of the 12 Apostles, as it is written:

Ephesians 2:20-22 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.
There is much more to say if I had time. But the bottome line is that there is no doubt whatsoever about the symbolic meaning of the "Temple" in the Bible.


Richard

[alec cotton]

Richard! I find it hard to believe that you said that. In rev.20.4 The group of people is specified. Some of them are those who will refuse the mark of the beast. The man of sin has not yet been revealed. While I'm here I might as well comment on Daniel. "From the abomination of desolation there will be two thousand three hundred days(years) then the sanctuary will be cleansed". That is his second appearing. At his final appearing "Every eye shall see him AND THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM".I'll send you the sackcloth and ashes by airmail.
Alec

[TheForgiven]

alec cotton wrote:

Richard! I find it hard to believe that you said that. In rev.20.4 The group of people is specified. Some of them are those who will refuse the mark of the beast. The man of sin has not yet been revealed. While I'm here I might as well comment on Daniel. "From the abomination of desolation there will be two thousand three hundred days(years) then the sanctuary will be cleansed". That is his second appearing. At his final appearing "Every eye shall see him AND THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM".I'll send you the sackcloth and ashes by airmail.
Alec

Hello Alec cotton. I hope you don't mind me answer this post.

There is no scriptural support for the theories of days of Daniel are to equal a thousand years (i.e. 1330 days is 1330 years). When Peter said, "A day of the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day" ,he was not providing a hidden a mathematical formula to calculating the time frame for Christ's return; furthermore, In Daniel, there is no reference to a day equaling a thousand years. Therefore, this theory is just that....a made-up theory.

The Church has accepted for more than 2008 years that each of Daniel's week (seventy total) = 7 years. Thus seventy sets of seven = 490 years. That being stated, how then could you believe that 1260 / 1290 / 1330 days = years x each day? That has no biblical support or consistency, although I certainly understand the reasons for formulating such a theory.

The man of sin has not been revealed? Perhaps not in our day because our day is far better than what is was in the first century. Before I could comment any further on the "Man of sin", I'd have to know if you consider the Man of sin to be the anti-Christ. According to St. John, who wrote, "Beloved, it is the LAST HOUR. Many imposters have come into the world, and just as you have heard that the anti-christ is coming, EVEN NOW, many anti-christ's have come . THAT IS HOW WE KNOW it is the last hour..."

Seeing then, that the Last hour was upon them in the first century, and many anti-christ were already there, how then can you say that the AC did not come? Are the many anti-christ's still coming? If so, then John was very confused because he testified that the "Last HOUR" was upon them based on the signs of the many anti-crhist's.

Lastly my friend, what "Temple" do you expect to be cleansed? Will Christ cleanse a temple not yet built? More than that, will He cleanse a temple made of hands? Paul stated, "Ye are the temple of the Holy Spirit, whom you have from God...." Why then would Christ return in the future to cleanse an unbuilt temple?

I'm interested in your replies.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard! I find it hard to believe that you said that. In rev.20.4 The group of people is specified. Some of them are those who will refuse the mark of the beast. The man of sin has not yet been revealed. While I'm here I might as well comment on Daniel. "From the abomination of desolation there will be two thousand three hundred days(years) then the sanctuary will be cleansed". That is his second appearing. At his final appearing "Every eye shall see him AND THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM".I'll send you the sackcloth and ashes by airmail.
Alec
Hey there Alec,

I'm not sure which comment you were refering to when you said "I find it hard to believe that you said that. In rev.20.4 The group of people is specified." I am confused because I didn't say anything about the people in Rev 20:4 in my last post. Could you clarify your point please? It would be especially helpful if you could quote something I wrote and indicate where you disagree with it.

Thanks!

Richard

[alec cotton]

Hey there Alec,

I'm not sure which comment you were refering to when you said "I find it hard to believe that you said that. In rev.20.4 The group of people is specified." I am confused because I didn't say anything about the people in Rev 20:4 in my last post. Could you clarify your point please? It would be especially helpful if you could quote something I wrote and indicate where you disagree with it.

Thanks!

Richard
Sorry about that. I tried to attach the quote yesterday but a pop up kept saying"not enough words." As I recall ,it was when you seemed to indicate that all the redeemed would be reigning with Christ in heaven in the millenium period. I've trawled through all these pages and can't find it again.
In a minute I intend answering "the unforgiven and if you just have a look at that you will see where i am coming from. God bless you Richard.You dont know how grateful I am to you or how much I appreciate this site which you created
Alec

[alec cotton]

Hello Alec cotton. I hope you don't mind me answer this post.

There is no scriptural support for the theories of days of Daniel are to equal a thousand years (i.e. 1330 days is 1330 years). When Peter said, "A day of the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day" ,he was not providing a hidden a mathematical formula to calculating the time frame for Christ's return; furthermore, In Daniel, there is no reference to a day equaling a thousand years. Therefore, this theory is just that....a made-up theory.

The Church has accepted for more than 2008 years that each of Daniel's week (seventy total) = 7 years. Thus seventy sets of seven = 490 years. That being stated, how then could you believe that 1260 / 1290 / 1330 days = years x each day? That has no biblical support or consistency, although I certainly understand the reasons for formulating such a theory.

The man of sin has not been revealed? Perhaps not in our day because our day is far better than what is was in the first century. Before I could comment any further on the "Man of sin", I'd have to know if you consider the Man of sin to be the anti-Christ. According to St. John, who wrote, "Beloved, it is the LAST HOUR. Many imposters have come into the world, and just as you have heard that the anti-christ is coming, EVEN NOW, many anti-christ's have come . THAT IS HOW WE KNOW it is the last hour..."

Seeing then, that the Last hour was upon them in the first century, and many anti-christ were already there, how then can you say that the AC did not come? Are the many anti-christ's still coming? If so, then John was very confused because he testified that the "Last HOUR" was upon them based on the signs of the many anti-crhist's.

Lastly my friend, what "Temple" do you expect to be cleansed? Will Christ cleanse a temple not yet built? More than that, will He cleanse a temple made of hands? Paul stated, "Ye are the temple of the Holy Spirit, whom you have from God...." Why then would Christ return in the future to cleanse an unbuilt temple?

I'm interested in your replies.

Joe

Hello joe
I am delighyed to have the chance to chat with you. I came to the conclusionabout a year for a day from Daniels seventy weeks. I am sure that we agree that the abomination of desolation was in 70 AD .When the angel said "from the abomination--------there will be 2300 days" There is no way in which I could interpret that as being literal days because nothing happened.
Now let me take two steps back. In the tent in the wilderness the hihg priest went into the holy of holies once a year which signified a one off event. While he was there the sanctuary had to be free from people. When he came out ,the sanctuary was cleansed. I see it like this;Jesus the high priest of our profession went ito the holy of holies(the bosom of the Father) with blood. When he returns the sanctuary will be cleansed .In the mean time the sanctuary (Israel) must be deserted. When he returns he will reign on earth for a thousand years(sorry richard)and he will rule with a rod of Iron. I take that to mean that every misdemeanour wil be sevelely punished.After that,the devil is let loose for an uspecified period to deceive the nations. I'll tell you what has puzzled me for years. In dan.12.12-13, ------a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed and holy is he that waiteth ,and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. Can't be days. Nothing happened. Can.t be consecutive. Not enough room. It must be years. I thought it was the life span of Huss ,but it doesn't fit. Nice reading your posts. May you find favour.
Alec

[TheForgiven]

Hello joe
I am delighyed to have the chance to chat with you. I came to the conclusionabout a year for a day from Daniels seventy weeks. I am sure that we agree that the abomination of desolation was in 70 AD .When the angel said "from the abomination--------there will be 2300 days" There is no way in which I could interpret that as being literal days because nothing happened.
Now let me take two steps back. In the tent in the wilderness the hihg priest went into the holy of holies once a year which signified a one off event. While he was there the sanctuary had to be free from people. When he came out ,the sanctuary was cleansed. I see it like this;Jesus the high priest of our profession went ito the holy of holies(the bosom of the Father) with blood. When he returns the sanctuary will be cleansed .In the mean time the sanctuary (Israel) must be deserted. When he returns he will reign on earth for a thousand years(sorry richard)and he will rule with a rod of Iron. I take that to mean that every misdemeanour wil be sevelely punished.After that,the devil is let loose for an uspecified period to deceive the nations. I'll tell you what has puzzled me for years. In dan.12.12-13, ------a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed and holy is he that waiteth ,and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. Can't be days. Nothing happened. Can.t be consecutive. Not enough room. It must be years. I thought it was the life span of Huss ,but it doesn't fit. Nice reading your posts. May you find favour.
Alec

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has set us free from condemnation of all sin. Through our errors, we learn from His grace, knowing that errors can be corrected, through repentance from dead works, and works that lead to death. It is only through the cleansing power of Christ, that we (our temples) are able to be washed, through the eternal sacrifice of Jesus, and who died on the cross, was raised, and taken into glory. Because He ascended unto the Father, we have a perpetual mediator of the eternal covenant, that all who turn to the Lord Jesus are saved, and are being saved, by His grace. This salvation teaches us to turn away from bad habits (sin), and learn the ways of righteousness. Righteousness is like a light that leads us to the straight path. Those who stray from the path enter into darkness, and over time, the once well lit temple becomes a dark and abandoned one. This example of obedience was illustrated throughout the entire Old Testament. It was confirmed by the Lord when He Himself said, "Behold! Your temple is left unto you Desolate...." The Light, who became flesh, left the temple made of hands, so that He (after returning to the Father) could send down the light into our hearts, and illuminate a once dark habitation.

The Lord is pleased to dwell in temples upon the earth. As the scripture says, "Heaven is my throne, and the earth a footstool for my feet. Where shall I find a place of rest? Has not my hands made all these things? Who then shall I look to? He who is contrite, and does not offer a bribe over the innocent, and cares for widows and orphans...." The scripture shows that the Messiah sends forth His Spirit of promise to turn the hearts of lost men into found men, by the over-shadowing inspiration of the Spirit. Those who walk according to the Spirit vow to keep their temples clean from filth, so that the Holy Spirit is not grieved, and our labor is not in vain. It is in this way that the temple is cleansed, by the spirit and the blood. We are the temple of the living God, and it is this temple that God chooses to find rest for His feet. He does not care for temples made of hands, of brick or stone. Our hearts is the rest place of God. That is what Ezekiel was shown....the images are pictures of the Church, first in Jerusalem, and expanding beyond the Jordon river. Ezekiel is shown that water flows from the throne, east, west, as high as the knees. Jesus said, "If you had known the water I could give, it would well up unto eternal life." This water is the Holy Spirit. Just as water washes dirt from the body, the Holy Spirit washes our lives of sin, to purify our hearts and minds, and conforming us to the image of God, that we may dwell with Him forever, both within this tent, and the tent which is above, kept in store for us when we are ready.

Now about the days of Daniel, I understand your reasons, but we must remain within context of the book. Why 1260 / 1290 / 1335 days? Those are the significant time frames beginning from when the daily sacrifice was taken away. It is difficult to identify the starting point without a point of reference. However, the conclusion would be that those who remained alive beyond the 1335 days were considered blessed, primarily because the Tribulation and the war had come to an end. Think about it like this. The current global war on terror is becoming a hard issue for the American public. Our military forces are growing tired, our citizens are turning against the Republicans for forcing our children to endure such a long struggle. But we all know that one day, it will end. How happy do you suppose everyone would be once the war is finally over? The same is for the 1335 days. God's wrath was completed, the wife of the lamb gains the throne, and becomes the eternal beacon of the world, ruling as Queen with her husband.

The "Rod" you spoke of is not what we await, but is living and active. The Lord began striking down the nations soon after the Apostles began their work. But before then, the Kingdom was not yet fully built. As the time of the end approached, the Kingdom of Christ had expanded to the far outer reaches of the Roman Empire, creating conflict in all the nations. Christians were being persecuted left and right, as fear set it with all the rulers, especially considering the Christians were converting too many people. This caused a reduction of temple participation among the heathen. But before the Gentile nations were being stricken by the Rod, He first applied His Rod towards His own; the ones who rejected Him. The Jews received the gospel first, and those who persecuted Him, and His Apostles, were later destroyed. So Jerusalem became the first to experience the Rod of Christ. After the Harlot was destroyed (Jerusalem), the nations began to suffer the same kinds of fate. But Daniel's 1335 days had to do with the completion of 70 AD, taking us well into 71 AD. By that time, all had come to rest, and the Tribulation was over. Anyone that remained were considered blessed. Of course, the troubles would start again as the Beast itself was being stricken by the Rod.

Since that time, the Rod of Christ continues to demonstrate itself through the rising and falling of nations throughout our history. His Rod is what we delight in, for without His Rod of correction, all of us would live as rebellious children.

Grace and love to you from Jesus.

Joe

[Codger]

Hi Guys,

Here's some info on the period of time of 70 AD and what took place. The site is http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/Opry/2092/Destruct.html

Here's one little snippet from that:

Abomination of Desolation

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

The Christians who were in Jerusalem at the time recognized the assault upon the city by Cestius Gallus as the fulfillment of the words of our Lord, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand): Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains:" Matthew 24:15-16. It is said that every Christian in the city fled. Most of them went to Pella in Decapolis, as they had been instructed.
Was the presence of the Roman army of Cestius Gallus actually the "abomination of desolation"? The Roman army was considered an abomination by the Jews, because of the Roman's ensigns and images which they worshipped and to which they sacrificed.

Where is the holy place in which the abomination of desolation was to appear? Was it the temple proper? This is what many believe, but Ezekiel 43:12 indicates differently. "This is the law of the house; upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be holy. Behold this is the law of the house." Ezekiel 43:12. [emphasis mine].

So the mere presence of the Roman army in the "holy city" was an abomination, standing where it ought not.

If we read only Matthew and Mark, we have difficulty fully comprehending the reference to the "abomination of desolation," but let us now look at Luke's account of these same prophecies and we will see why the Christians believed this to be what Jesus had foretold: "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people." Luke 21:20-23.

Notice again, that this prophecy is not for the whole world, but for those in Judea only. Actually, the siege of the city under Cestius Gallus did not materialize into the destruction of the city. That was to come later, but it served the Christians well, in that it afforded them time to escape before the actual desolation came.

This vengeance which Jesus prophesied had to come upon the Jews in order to fulfill the Scriptures. There was to be distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. "This people" refers to the Jews, who both killed Jesus and the prophets (1 Thessalonians 2:15), and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children." Matthew 27:25. The desolation was not intended to ensnare the Christians, for they had the words of Jesus warning them to flee when certain events began to occur.

Eusebius, in his history, reports that an oracle of the Lord directed them to flee from Jerusalem. They fled across the Jordan river to Pella. It is said by Eusebius that not one Christian was killed in the destruction of Jerusalem.5 By A.D. 69, the Jerusalem church was gone entirely,6 gathered out of the tribulation by the Lord's word.

Although the A.D. 66 attack by Cestius Gallus was not the destruction of Jerusalem, it did signal the beginning of what is called the "great tribulation." There followed, continuous attacks of Jews upon Romans, and Romans upon Jews.

The people of Damascus slew the Jews that lived with them. A short time later, Vespasian was sent into Syria by Nero to make war with the Jews there. He slew ten thousand Jews and two Jewish generals, John and Silas.

Vespasian took Gadara, Jotapata, Joppa, and Taricheae, and helped his son Titus in taking Gamala. Great was the slaughter of the Jews by Vespasian.

Titus then took Gischala and John of Gischala fled to Jerusalem. As there was preparation for war with Rome, there were, inside, various factions fighting each other.


I agree that the prophecies may apply to both 70 AD AND some time in the future, and I'd like to post more on that idea later if I may.

Don

I agree - the "Camp" of the Israelites was actually a 2,000 cubit radius (3,000 feet) from the front of the Holy place in the temple (pivot point). When Jesus was crucified it was done "outside the camp" meaning on the southern summit of the Mount of Olives. This was beyond the 4,000 cubit circle around the Temple (diameter).

Larry

[TheForgiven]

As we start off the new year of 2009, I thought this would be a great time to resurrect the discussion of the "House of The Lord", and the modern popular theory that the temple of God (or house), will be rebuilt (according to the Futurist theory) according to visions received by Ezekiel. I will show that 2008 did not bring about the Futurist theories, and that 2009 will be another year of God's fulfilled promise to David, according to the Preterist understanding; the fulfilled eschatology.

Using the Old Testament as our backbone, let us travel back in time to King David, who was King over Israel.

At the height of his reign after defeating all the different tribes that once occupied ancient Israel, David was grieved that he had established homes and families throughout Israel, yet the Ark of the Covenant dwelt in Tents. But God responds to David to correct his discomfort of God's dwelling place. In 1 Chronicles 17, we read:


1 Chronicles 17: 1-6

1 Now it came to pass, when David was dwelling in his house, that David said to Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant of the LORD is under tent curtains.” 2 Then Nathan said to David, “Do all that is in your heart, for God is with you.” 3 But it happened that night that the word of God came to Nathan, saying, 4 “Go and tell My servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD: “You shall not build Me a house to dwell in. 5 For I have not dwelt in a house since the time that I brought up Israel, even to this day, but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another. 6 Wherever I have moved about with all Israel, have I ever spoken a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”’

David, although wanting to please God very much in building a dwelling place for God, He responds to David by showing that out of all the travels God did with His people Israel, that at no time did He ever take pleasure in dwelling in tents made of hands.

God's purpose was much more than dwelling in mere tents made of hands. And God's kingdom is more than a simple city, with a simple throne, to physically rule from there. God would show David that He would set up a Kingdom through his seed (David's seed) and establish His kingdom forever.


7 Now therefore, thus shall you say to My servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts: “I took you from the sheepfold, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. 8 And I have been with you wherever you have gone, and have cut off all your enemies from before you, and have made you a name like the name of the great men who are on the earth. 9 Moreover I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore, as previously, 10 since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. Also I will subdue all your enemies. Furthermore I tell you that the LORD will build you a house. 11 And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. 14 And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.”’”

David was promised that through his genealogy, his seed, God would raise up a King to sit upon His throne, and His Kingdom shall be forever and ever. On that Day, God would become His Father, and He shall be His Son.

It's no big secret who this King was to be. For His kingdom has been preached upon the whole inhabited earth, since the days He took rule and reigned upon the earth. To this Day, the King of Kings has proved His rule and reign upon all the nations, just as He did in the days of Moses after taking them by the hand through the crossing of the red sea, to incarnating Himself into man, at the name of Jesus, who died upon the cross as a perpetual sacrifice, thereby giving men of all nations who would receive His loving kindness, and have their iniquities blotted out forever!

His Name is Jesus, and His reputation has endured the test of times. The son who was born of the genealogy of David, and who's "House" is established forever.

God does not dwell in tents made of hands, but within our bodies. If His plan was to dwell in a throne of rock and brick, would He not have established it with his chosen? Yet we have the word promised to David that at no time did God ask to dwell in a man-made tent, but promised David that through his seed (sperm) that God would raise up a King and establish His throne forever.

His throne is in heaven, and His kingdom rules upon the face of the whole inhabited earth. And to this day, it has never seen an end, nor shall it ever.

God's rule is eternal, and His Kingdom, the Church (Israel) abides forever and ever. Jesus is that King, and His Kingdom is the Church. As David was promised, He would establish a "land" than they shall never have to flee from again. If God promised them another land, why would anyone in our day still look upon the former land. This land is not the well-known geographical location of Israel, but an eternal Israel, the land that is established forever. This land is the Church, which thus fulfills the promise to David, and the visions shown to Ezekiel.

And all of God's children said????

Joe

[Rose]

God's purpose was much more than dwelling in mere tents made of hands. And God's kingdom is more than a simple city, with a simple throne, to physically rule from there. God would show David that He would set up a Kingdom through his seed (David's seed) and establish His kingdom forever.



David was promised that through his genealogy, his seed, God would raise up a King to sit upon His throne, and His Kingdom shall be forever and ever. On that Day, God would become His Father, and He shall be His Son.

It's no big secret who this King was to be. For His kingdom has been preached upon the whole inhabited earth, since the days He took rule and reigned upon the earth. To this Day, the King of Kings has proved His rule and reign upon all the nations, just as He did in the days of Moses after taking them by the hand through the crossing of the red sea, to incarnating Himself into man, at the name of Jesus, who died upon the cross as a perpetual sacrifice, thereby giving men of all nations who would receive His loving kindness, and have their iniquities blotted out forever!

His Name is Jesus, and His reputation has endured the test of times. The son who was born of the genealogy of David, and who's "House" is established forever.

God does not dwell in tents made of hands, but within our bodies. If His plan was to dwell in a throne of rock and brick, would He not have established it with his chosen? Yet we have the word promised to David that at no time did God ask to dwell in a man-made tent, but promised David that through his seed (sperm) that God would raise up a King and establish His throne forever.

His throne is in heaven, and His kingdom rules upon the face of the whole inhabited earth. And to this day, it has never seen an end, nor shall it ever.

God's rule is eternal, and His Kingdom, the Church (Israel) abides forever and ever. Jesus is that King, and His Kingdom is the Church. As David was promised, He would establish a "land" than they shall never have to flee from again. If God promised them another land, why would anyone in our day still look upon the former land. This land is not the well-known geographical location of Israel, but an eternal Israel, the land that is established forever. This land is the Church.

And all of God's children said????

Joe

AMEN, and AMEN

Rev.21
1)And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
2)And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
3)And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
4)And He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Those words speak for themselves!

God Bless,

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As we start off the new year of 2009, I thought this would be a great time to resurrect the discussion of the "House of The Lord", and the modern popular theory that the temple of God (or house), will be rebuilt (according to the Futurist theory) according to visions received by Ezekiel. I will show that 2008 did not bring about the Futurist theories, and that 2009 will be another year of God's fulfilled promise to David, according to the Preterist understanding; the fulfilled eschatology.

Using the Old Testament as our backbone, let us travel back in time to King David, who was King over Israel.

At the height of his reign after defeating all the different tribes that once occupied ancient Israel, David was grieved that he had established homes and families throughout Israel, yet the Ark of the Covenant dwelt in Tents. But God responds to David to correct his discomfort of God's dwelling place. In 1 Chronicles 17, we read:



David, although wanting to please God very much in building a dwelling place for God, He responds to David by showing that out of all the travels God did with His people Israel, that at no time did He ever take pleasure in dwelling in tents made of hands.

God's purpose was much more than dwelling in mere tents made of hands. And God's kingdom is more than a simple city, with a simple throne, to physically rule from there. God would show David that He would set up a Kingdom through his seed (David's seed) and establish His kingdom forever.



David was promised that through his genealogy, his seed, God would raise up a King to sit upon His throne, and His Kingdom shall be forever and ever. On that Day, God would become His Father, and He shall be His Son.

It's no big secret who this King was to be. For His kingdom has been preached upon the whole inhabited earth, since the days He took rule and reigned upon the earth. To this Day, the King of Kings has proved His rule and reign upon all the nations, just as He did in the days of Moses after taking them by the hand through the crossing of the red sea, to incarnating Himself into man, at the name of Jesus, who died upon the cross as a perpetual sacrifice, thereby giving men of all nations who would receive His loving kindness, and have their iniquities blotted out forever!

His Name is Jesus, and His reputation has endured the test of times. The son who was born of the genealogy of David, and who's "House" is established forever.

God does not dwell in tents made of hands, but within our bodies. If His plan was to dwell in a throne of rock and brick, would He not have established it with his chosen? Yet we have the word promised to David that at no time did God ask to dwell in a man-made tent, but promised David that through his seed (sperm) that God would raise up a King and establish His throne forever.

His throne is in heaven, and His kingdom rules upon the face of the whole inhabited earth. And to this day, it has never seen an end, nor shall it ever.

God's rule is eternal, and His Kingdom, the Church (Israel) abides forever and ever. Jesus is that King, and His Kingdom is the Church. As David was promised, He would establish a "land" than they shall never have to flee from again. If God promised them another land, why would anyone in our day still look upon the former land. This land is not the well-known geographical location of Israel, but an eternal Israel, the land that is established forever. This land is the Church, which thus fulfills the promise to David, and the visions shown to Ezekiel.

Wow - that was probably the clearest statement of the meaning of the "Throne of David" prophecies that I have ever seen! Thanks bro! Well done. :thumb:

:congrats:




And all of God's children said????

Joe
I think Rose got it right - AMEN and AMEN! That's what the children of God say when God's Word is spoke with clarity and power!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Thank you brother Richard and sister Rose.

I thought I'd show more evidence concerning the fulfillment of Christ's throne established forever and ever. Instead of preaching, I will quote the scriptures that support my position. As sister Rose stated, the scripture speaks for itself.

THE THRONE OF DAVID AND A KING SHALL REIGN FOREVER


2 Samuel 7:

12 “When your [DAVID] days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.”’” 17 According to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

PETER PROVES THIS WAS FULFILLED by the HOLY SPIRIT:


Acts 2:

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

AUTHOR OF HEBREWS STATES the EARTH'S KINGDOM SHALL BE SHAKEN ONCE MORE


Hebrew 12:

25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” 27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Summary:

David was promised a King would be raised from his blood line, who would rule from His HEAVENLY THRONE [Acts 2:30], and remove the kingdom that could be shaken [made of hands], and establish the Kingdom of Christ [Throne of David] which cannot be shaken (Hebrew 12:28].....It is not the earth that was to be shaken (destroyed) as many suppose, but the kingdom itself [Israel based on flesh], as shown in Hebrews 12:28. For the author of Hebrews states, "Since we are RECEIVING A KINGDOM WHICH CANNOT BE SHAKEN...." indicating that prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Kingdom was not yet established, for it was in the building process. That's why the Apostles were chosen....to build the House of the Lord. God established His Spiritual Kingdom of Israel [For God is Spirit] and Christ rules at the right hand [Figurative] of the Father, forever and ever.....

The Throne of David lives on and on....forever and ever.

Amen!

Joe

[Rose]

Thank you brother Richard and sister Rose.

I thought I'd show more evidence concerning the fulfillment of Christ's throne established forever and ever. Instead of preaching, I will quote the scriptures that support my position. As sister Rose stated, the scripture speaks for itself.

THE THRONE OF DAVID AND A KING SHALL REIGN FOREVER

2 Samuel 7:

12 “When your [DAVID] days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.”’” 17 According to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.

PETER PROVES THIS WAS FULFILLED by the HOLY SPIRIT:

Acts 2:

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

AUTHOR OF HEBREWS STATES the EARTH'S KINGDOM SHALL BE SHAKEN ONCE MORE

Hebrew 12:

25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” 27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Summary:

David was promised a King would be raised from his blood line, who would rule from His HEAVENLY THRONE [Acts 2:30], and remove the kingdom that could be shaken [made of hands], and establish the Kingdom of Christ [Throne of David] which cannot be shaken (Hebrew 12:28].....It is not the earth that was to be shaken (destroyed) as many suppose, but the kingdom itself , as shown in Hebrews 12:28. For the author of Hebrews states, "Since we are RECEIVING A KINGDOM WHICH CANNOT BE SHAKEN...." indicating that prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Kingdom was not yet established, for it was in the building process. That's why the Apostles were chosen....to build the House of the Lord. God established His Spiritual Kingdom of Israel [For God is Spirit] and Christ rules at the right hand [Figurative] of the Father, forever and ever.....

The Throne of David lives on and on....forever and ever.

Amen!

Joe

Once again Joe you have presented excellent insights which are continually confirmed by Scripture.

When the sixth seal of Revelation is opened that which Paul spoke of in Heb. 12 happened......for the last time the earth was shaken and the heaven also.

Rev.6
[I]14)And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15)And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and thechief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man,hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16)And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sits on the throne , and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17)For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand.

In the book of 2 Peter he also speaks of the heavens and the earth dissolving, and a New heaven and New earth coming forth......the Kingdom of God ushered in!
2 Peter 3:10-13 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

The Throne of David lives on and on....forever and ever.....and His Kingdom has come!

God Bless,

Rose

P.S. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus also speaks of the powers of heaven been shaken.

Luke 21:25-28 “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. Andthen shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass,then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draws near.”

[TheForgiven]

Does anyone find it interesting that Saul, David, and Solomon, Jehoash, each reigned approximately 40 years? Both David and his son Solomon each had about 7 years of awesome reign, before they had their Kingdom stripped from them?

:confused2:

I find this quite interesting. For years, I never dug deep into the meaning of 40 years, although I knew it has a message. Do a keyword search for the phrase "forty years" and watch how many possible clues are shown. 40 years in the wilderness, 40 years of blessing, 40 years of dry land or war, 40 years between the death of Christ and his "coming".

What say you all?

Joe

[gregoryfl]

40 years holds great significance. To the Hebrews it is the number of completion and fulfillment. Each instance is an entering into something new.

8 symbolizes resurrection

5 symbolizes grace

5 (grace) X 8 (resurrection) = New life, fulfillment.

Ron

[Victor]

Does anyone find it interesting that Saul, David, and Solomon, Jehoash, each reigned approximately 40 years? Both David and his son Solomon each had about 7 years of awesome reign, before they had their Kingdom stripped from them?

:confused2:

I find this quite interesting. For years, I never dug deep into the meaning of 40 years, although I knew it has a message. Do a keyword search for the phrase "forty years" and watch how many possible clues are shown. 40 years in the wilderness, 40 years of blessing, 40 years of dry land or war, 40 years between the death of Christ and his "coming".

What say you all?

Joe

Hey Joe, I think that this issue is a very lengthy one. We can write a lot on the meaning of the Number 40 and the significance of "forty years" periods.

In the context that you mention, the first thing that comes to mind is what is implied in Book 4: that the forty years are the average lenght of a generation (Numbers 14). So, David's reign for example lasts forty years - an ideal time. And there's a lot more to that too!

[Victor]

40 years holds great significance. To the Hebrews it is the number of completion and fulfillment. Each instance is an entering into something new.

8 symbolizes resurrection

5 symbolizes grace

5 (grace) X 8 (resurrection) = New life, fulfillment.

Ron

40 being the product of 5 and 8 is really rich in meaning. The idea of newness is directly linked to the symbolic meaning of the Number 8 (http://www.biblewheel.com/wheel/spokes/Chet_Eight.asp). And Number 5 is intimately linked to the idea of Life (http://www.biblewheel.com/wheel/spokes/Heh_Day.asp) and Grace (http://www.biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Romans/Rom05.asp).

But there's more to it: the geometry of this number reinforces the same ideas. Forty is the fourth octogonal number and is also the sum of the first four pentagonal numbers. So the link between 40 and the numbers 5 and 8 is strong.

But there's more to it: the numerical value of the Hebrew word for Grace (Chen) is 58, the justaposition of the digits 5 and 8! And Book 58, Hebrews, explains the spiritual significance of the forty years in the wilderness! God's Grace is explained in terms of the New Covenant.

Now, if we scan the Bible books from first to last, which Book is the one where the New Covenant (that brings newness of life) first goes forth? What is this book's number? :)

[Rose]

There are many interesting similarities between the 40 years that the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness, and the 40 years between the crucifixion of Christ, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D...

1) The Jews experienced 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, because of unbelief (rejecting the Word of God given to Moses), and only those who were born in the wilderness could enter the Promised Land (except for Joshua, and Caleb).

2) The Jews experience 40 years of tribulation (between 30 A.D. and 70A.D.) because of unbelief (rejecting Jesus as their Messiah thus causing even those who believed to suffer tribulation), and only those born again could enter the Promised land (the Kingdom of God).

Revelation also speaks of Israel’s (the Woman) time in the wilderness after Jesus (the man child) ascends to His throne, which I believe is speaking of the time between 30 and 70 A.D..
Rev.12
5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] His throne.
6)And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.
God Bless,
Rose

[TheForgiven]

There are many interesting similarities between the 40 years that the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness, and the 40 years between the crucifixion of Christ, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D...

1) The Jews experienced 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, because of unbelief (rejecting the Word of God given to Moses), and only those who were born in the wilderness could enter the Promised Land (except for Joshua, and Caleb).

2) The Jews experience 40 years of tribulation (between 30 A.D. and 70A.D.) because of unbelief (rejecting Jesus as their Messiah thus causing even those who believed to suffer tribulation), and only those born again could enter the Promised land (the Kingdom of God).

Revelation also speaks of Israel’s (the Woman) time in the wilderness after Jesus (the man child) ascends to His throne, which I believe is speaking of the time between 30 and 70 A.D..
Rev.12
5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] His throne.
6)And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.

God Bless,
Rose

I'd say you hit the nail right on the head sister Rose. I'm beginning to see the importance of 70AD. Just as the children of Israel (after being led out of Egypt) crossed the red sea, only those who were born in the wilderness were allowed to enter into the land God promised to provide them. I think this picture best fits with whta happened in the first century.

The Jews who rejected Jesus were like those who wandered in the wilderness until it was time to enter. Only those who were "Born again" were permitted to enter the "Rest" of God. The author of Hebrews warns his fellowing brothers according to the flesh:


Hebrews 3:

1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. 3 For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. 4 For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. 5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:


' Today, if you will hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
In the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me,
And saw My works forty years. 10 Therefore I was angry with that generation,
And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart,
And they have not known My ways.’
11 So I swore in My wrath,

‘ They shall not enter My rest.’'

12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called 'Today,' lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, 15 while it is said:



' Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.'


Failure of the Wilderness Wanderers

16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? 17 Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

The text speaks for itself. The author of Hebrews exhorts them to accept Jesus, and concludes that those who remain in a hardened state of sin will end up being rejected from entering the rest of God.

Now this rest is a picture of the promise fulfilled to those who were born in the wilderness, and entered into the land promised by God. The likeness (in the same way) towards the Jews of the flesh, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD (40 years after Christ), was accomplished when the gospels were presented to them. Those that refused remained in a state of hardening, and were not permitted to enter into the "rest" of God which came after 70AD. The "rest" of God was His Spirit entering the house of the Lord, just as He did when Solomon dedicated the temple in His Name. Knowing that God dwells in the hearts of the believers, those who were permitted to enter God's rest, obeyed the message of Christ, and thus were spared from God's judgment in 70AD.

The author of Hebrews appears to be a complete summary of the New Testament. It served as a warning to the scattered tribes, and to exhort them one last time to accept Jesus, prior to what was "fading away", and coming to its end....the old covenant.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The text speaks for itself. The author of Hebrews exhorts them to accept Jesus, and concludes that those who remain in a hardened state of sin will end up being rejected from entering the rest of God.

Now this rest is a picture of the promise fulfilled to those who were born in the wilderness, and entered into the land promised by God. The likeness (in the same way) towards the Jews of the flesh, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD (40 years after Christ), was accomplished when the gospels were presented to them. Those that refused remained in a state of hardening, and were not permitted to enter into the "rest" of God which came after 70AD. The "rest" of God was His Spirit entering the house of the Lord, just as He did when Solomon dedicated the temple in His Name. Knowing that God dwells in the hearts of the believers, those who were permitted to enter God's rest, obeyed the message of Christ, and thus were spared from God's judgment in 70AD.

The author of Hebrews appears to be a complete summary of the New Testament. It served as a warning to the scattered tribes, and to exhort them one last time to accept Jesus, prior to what was "fading away", and coming to its end....the old covenant.

Joe



But there's more to it: the numerical value of the Hebrew word for Grace (Chen) is 58, the justaposition of the digits 5 and 8! And Book 58, Hebrews, explains the spiritual significance of the forty years in the wilderness! God's Grace is explained in terms of the New Covenant.

Now, if we scan the Bible books from first to last, which Book is the one where the New Covenant (that brings newness of life) first goes forth? What is this book's number? :)



I wanted to answer both of you here. Joe's quote from Hebrews is particularly relevant:
In the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me,
And saw My works forty years.


And Victor's hint to Matthew (Book 40, the first Gospel) is amplified by the first occurence of "good news" (gospel) in Isaiah 40 which also proclaims the completion of the "punishment" of Jerusalem:
Isaiah 40:1-5,9-10 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. 2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins. 3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. ... 9 O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God[Jesus Christ]!

There is so much here!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Victor wrote:

Now, if we scan the Bible books from first to last, which Book is the one where the New Covenant (that brings newness of life) first goes forth? What is this book's number?

Ahhhhh! :thumb: Interesting. That would be the book of Matthew which just happens to be the 40th book according to our Bibles. Very interesting indeed. At the same time, the early church didn't use the Bible as we know it today. Most of the churches within each province used a collection of letters. If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't until after the 3rd century (I think within the 4rth century) did the Counsel vote on which letters to retain as official Church literature to be used for worship.

But I do state that this is very interesting indeed.

Anymore goodies?

Joe

[Victor]

Ahhhhh! :thumb: Interesting. That would be the book of Matthew which just happens to be the 40th book according to our Bibles. Very interesting indeed. At the same time, the early church didn't use the Bible as we know it today. Most of the churches within each province used a collection of letters. If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't until after the 3rd century (I think within the 4rth century) did the Counsel vote on which letters to retain as official Church literature to be used for worship.

But I do state that this is very interesting indeed.

Anymore goodies?

Joe

Hey brother Joe, that's very interesting really. The early church didn't have the neat Canon that we have today. Only after a long and complex process did the Book of Matthew ended up being the 40th book. No group of humans, therefore, could have put it there. But of course the same God who inspired the content of Scripture is the same God who superintended the whole process of the canon formation.


And there are many more goodies! :D Note for example that the Mosaic Law limited the number of stripes a wicked person could receive as punishment:
Deu 25:3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.

The Jews, who were zealous not to go beyond the estipulations of the Law, instituted that one of the stripes should be abated from the total so that the number of forty could not be exceeded. The NT confirms this:
2Co 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
So the Number 39 was the limit of the Torah's punishment. Likewise, the Old Covenant, which brought curse, is limited to 39 Books! In Matthew the New Covenant is introduced. The curse of the Torah is limited and the New Covenat brings God's gracious blessings.

[Victor]

In my last post I mentioned that the 39 stripes were symbolic of the curse of the Mosaic Law.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible had the following to say about these stripes:

In practice among the Hebrews, the number of blows inflicted was in fact limited to 39, lest by any accident in counting, the criminal should receive more than the number prescribed in the Law. There was another reason still for limiting it to 39. They usually made use of a scourge with three thongs, and this was struck 13 times. That it was usual to inflict but 39 lashes is apparent from Josephus, Ant. 4. viii, section 21.
So the stripes were usually grouped in 3 x 13. It seems a miracle then that the verse that reveals the meaning of the curse of the Law is found in Galatians 3.13!

Gal 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.
It is just... amazing!

[Victor]

Galatians 3.13 mentions that Christ was hanged on a tree, redeeming us from the curse of the Torah, but the verse doesn't explicitly link it to the chastisement of the stripes.

But the Bible does it elsewhere! There's one more place in Scripture that mentions Christ being hanged 'on a tree', and this verse parallels being hanged on a tree with punishment by stripes!

1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

[Victor]

I just checked something very interesting. We know that 1 Peter 2:24 ("by whose stripes you were healed") is a quote of Isaiah 53:5 ("and with his stripes we are healed").

The bolded words above from Isaiah comprise a single word in Hebrew: V'B'Chaburah. What is the numeric value of this word? 624. And what is this number a multiple of? 39!! The number of stripes!

[TheForgiven]

Hi all! :yo:

I'm very sorry that I've not been able to post anything these past few days. Joe's been having multiple Emergency Room trips. I've been having some serious heart issues, only to find out it's not my heart after all. It's my stomach. :lol: I think I've been eating too many hot peppers, giving me a serious case of acid reflux (GERD), and causing hypertension leading to my High Blood pressure.

I feel great today, and all seems well, thanks to the Lord who spared me from what I thought was sure death. Both hand went knumb after my two attacks last night, but as I stated, today I feel like a champ. So I'll be around much longer. :lol: I suppose I'd better lay off the spicey foods.

Victor! Your last posts are extremely interesting, and I'd love to hear more from you about the 39 stripes. Certainly, we all have come to learn that most of these things are pictures used to serve us, upon whom the eternal age of grace, and blessing have come for more than 2000 years.

I've been inspired to study more of the Old Testament, and thus I think it would a great idea if we started different threads (perhaps on another section of this forum) on the different books of the Bible. In doing so, I believe we will gain a more perfect understanding of the events leading up to the New Testament; that is, the conclusion of the 70AD destruction of the world, and the birth of a New Heaven and New Earth.

I liked very much what brother LES had to write regarding the temple and city (Heaven and Earth) and his post matched quite well.

The other sister Rose has chosen to refrain from further communcation, and I understand her fears. She's found a new love with the Historicist view, and I hope she learns a great deal from them. Perhaps down the road she'll see where the Preterist view point is coming from....other than the fear most tend to have towards Preterism.

God bless you all, and I look forward to more discussions of eschatology.

And now, back to the discussion....Lord willing.

Joe

[Brother Les]

TheForgiven Hi all!

I'm very sorry that I've not been able to post anything these past few days. Joe's been having multiple Emergency Room trips. I've been having some serious heart issues, only to find out it's not my heart after all. It's my stomach. I think I've been eating too many hot peppers, giving me a serious case of acid reflux (GERD), and causing hypertension leading to my High Blood pressure.



Joe, I am no doctor and make no claims of cures, But.....

I have come to believe that all 'cures' for 'acid reflux disease' (it is not disease) are almost bogus. A fast relief that I use on 'myself' from grandma's 'cures' is Apple Cider Viniger. I know my friend, you are saying that 'I have too much 'Acid' in my stomach and 'you' want me to dump some more down there.... My Grandma used to say "An Apple a day....." and I would never argue with 'grandma'. 'Science' has 'proven' that the human body needs to be slightly Alkaline, but what happens with modern 'processed' foods is that we get more 'Acidy'... and the body don't like. The 'balance' gets thrown off and a lot of bad things happen and bad things happen... ie. clogged arteries and high blood pressure...

When the stomach is trying to break down all of this 'modern' processed 'junk' food, it has a really hard time and is dumping tons of acid in there to break it down.... which most of the time it can not and this 'food' passes straight through and does no one any good. What do people do with 'heartburn'? Tums (alkiline) and more Tums... What does the stomach do when it detects more 'alkiline'? It pours in more acid.... Not the direction that you want to go....

What my Grandma told me to do is take two table spoons of Apple Cider Vineger (yuck), one squirt on lemon (cuts the yuck) and two table spoons of water in a glass... down it.... The Stomach says... Where did all of this Acid (good Acid) come from and shuts off the production of the acid in the stomach because of too much. I have done this twice a day, once in the mornings and once before the evening meal and 'I" feel great over all in a matter of days and as a side effect it cleans out arteries and thins your blood....more air to the brain... per grandma. ;)

My grandma would say start eating healthy, take a shot of Apple Cider Vinegar eveyday and go to the healthfood store and buy an intestinal cleanse ( a healthy intestine is a health man)... (grandma has a 'home' recipe, which I have tried, and man-o-man does it clean a 'body' out.)






PS I am no doctor and give no advice, I only do what my grandma suggests for myself. (and she lived to be 91 and in great health unto the day that she went to sleep, to be in the arms of My and hers, Lord)

Blessings
Brother Les

[TheForgiven]

OFF THE AIR FOR A WHILE

Sounds like Grandma knows best. :thumb: I can only hope and pray that GERD is all I have. I've been taking heartburn medications for years, and it seemed to work just fine. I doubt, however, that GERD is my problem. I'm about 60&#37; percent certain that my problem is cardiovascular related. My blood pressure has been very high these past few weeks. My measurement two days ago was 147/72, and that's while taking my blood pressure medication. My cholesterol has been lingering around 241 for the past four years, and even on medication, it doesn't seem to want to decrease. Then again, with a poor diet and lack of exercise, it's no surprise to me.

My symptoms are sudden chest pressure with pressure building in the fore and top of my head, with numbness during acute attacks. My heart would start racing out of nowhere, and the heart rate seems almost unmeasurable. That, followed by dizziness and difficulty in concentrating.

Folks, my last attack this past Friday night certainly seemed like sure death. I cannot say that I wasn't afraid, because I most certainly was. Even after arriving to the Emergency room, with all of my conditions, they were not able to determine what was wrong, except that I was having a panic attack. :confused2: My MRI's didn't appear to indicate anything, but then again, this was the emergency room. All blood tests showed good, and no indications of a heart attack seemed evident. So they're guessing I have GERD. I'm scheduled to see a cardiologist on Monday, and they'll be performing more tests.

I don't know what's wrong, but this I do know. The attacks are occurring more frequent, and is no longer limited to the night time hours. I'm having them throughout the day as well. It's possible that the many medications they have me on just might be causing my attacks..if that's what I've been having. All I know is that all of my attacks have been very scary.

I'm not afraid of physical death, so that's not what is fearful to me. It's the pain involved with physical death that frightens me. Friday nights attack surprised me, in that I am still alive. Perhaps the Lord is giving me a warning, or a message to prepare, or even repent. There are still sins within my life that I know need reckoning with. Anger, frustration, loss of control, and sins of that sort, still infect my soul. But with each passing year of my age, I grow more and more mature.

TO ALL MY FAMILY AT THE BIBLEWHEEL FORUM

I do not know if this will be my last post or not. I ask you all to remember me in your prayers, that the Lord will do as He wills, but have mercy on my sins, and that I may be granted repentance. If it is His will that I die to face judgment, then I pray that He counts me worthy enough to attain the resurrection into the glorious inheritance of our fathers who have passed on before us.

Know that I love you all very deeply, and I pray that the Lord will sustain me long enough to someday meet some of you.

Brother Richard, I love you so much, like a dear brother in Christ. You and your lovely wife Rose have been a huge blessing to my soul. You'll never know how much of a blessing you two have been to me. I love you very very much.

Brother Joel, your light and love are quite evident, even among those who do not agree with the Futurist position. But know that I love you deeply as well too. Please pray for me my dearest friend.

Victor, you are a great brother in the Lord and I love our discussions. I'm very happy to discuss the great mysteries with you. Please pray that I'm able to continue our discussions of God's word together.

Gregory, you are a great inspiration to me as well. Like brother Joel, your love for God is quite evident, and your grace is well known among us. Please keep me in your prayers.

Brother LES. You mean a great deal to me, and I'm very glad to have met you on the reformed.org forum. Please pray for me, and keep up the good work in the Lord.

Finally, brother DAVE. You are my brother and dear friend. I've followed you on many forums, and it's awesome having you as a Preterist team member. Your line of questioning is inspiring, and your debates have given me plenty of confidence, even during my constant flip-flopping. I love you dearly my good friend. You are the first to embrace me as your friend on the Christianity.com forum, when I first began my debates with the Futurist. You and I have been mistreated many times by those of the opposition. But like a good soldier, we kept swinging out swords, even when we were being beat down and insulted. All we can do is pray that God grant them the ability to understand His word.

To all that I might have missed. The Biblewheel forum is a great learning tool. Some might argue that learning is not necessary, and that Christians should rely solely on divine Revelation. But there have been many false prophets who claimed to have "Dine Revelation". Remember that you are but flesh and bone, and that sometimes your mind, often tricked by the flesh, can mask the truth into mere speculation. This speculation has years of false predictions and false truths. Don't always assume that your "divine Revelation" is what you might think it is. I believe God reveals His word as you grow, and not necessarily all at once. I know this from experience, in my former Pentecostal (First United Pentecostal Church) days, which in my opinion, turned out to be misleading. I used to think that any thought that entered into my head was "Divine Revelation". :lol: Most of that was nothing more than "Joe's" revelation. :p

I will be off the air for a while, until I'm able to regain my strength. I'm hoping to get a wonderful sleep tonight, without having more attacks.

Please pray for me, and ask Christ on my behalf, to forgive me in what ever offenses I have committed, and that His will be swift, should it be my time to depart this tent.

Remember that I love you all. I hope to see you all soon. Until then, I bid you God's grace, peace, and love of the brotherhood.

Joseph

[gregoryfl]

Joe,

Thank you for the update. And know that prayers will be lifted up in your behalf. Father will be glorified in your situation. You are a precious brother.

Your bro,

Ron

[Brother Les]

Joe, Blessings to you and a fast recovery. I would never go against 'your' doctor. But I would go against mine. 'GERD' is just a symtom of a deeper problem that is going on in 'The Body'. Cholesterol counts can more or less be bogus, the medical association have 'changed' their numbers so much that it is like a yo-yo.... Good Chol VS BAD Chol... Remember a year ago when 'eggs' were soooo bad for you.... turns out more bogus info...

It could be that you are closer to the truth than you know... 'all' of the meds are messin with you. 'Anti-biotics (anti-life) kill much more than the 'bad guys', it also kills the 'good' bacteria in the gut and intestines.

One time I had a bad 'infestation' of 'yeast'. Got rid of most sugar use and No artifical sweetener products... 'Aspartine', sweet-n-low, got rid of.... (works great to kill ants around the house) Processed 'sweetener' does no good for the body, it is a mind 'thing'. I went to a healthfood store and got a yeast 'cleanser', intestinal cleanse and Pro-biotics. Changed my diet... fruit, veggies, and good o'steaks. No soda (sugar), no beer (yeast), exercise... lost my spare tire on the way and 25 pounds somewhere and then gained it back (muscle weights more than fat).

The last place that 'I' would want to be it "I" were sick would be in the Hospital.... You have a long road to go, but I know that you can get there. Keep in touch.

Blessings
Brother Les

Ram, if you want you can delete my last two post as they do not go with this thread.

Brother Les

[Victor]

Brother Joe,

I'm sorry to hear about the additional heart problems you're experiencing. All the best to you and your family in the next few days.

I enjoyed your last couple of posts. And I thing that everybody here enjoys in uplifting participation in this forum. You'll be back with us soon. Meanwhile, we'll be praying for you. :pray:

Many blessings from your brothers in God's Family, in the name of Jesus our Lord,
Victor

[joel]

Blessings to you, dear friend.

Looking forward to your return.

Joel

[basilfo]

Brother Joseph,
So sorry to hear about your ailments my friend. They sound painful and it's always tough to be unsure of the actual cause. But God does all these things for a reason as you know, so just ask Him for the lesson in all of it.

When I'm going through a "trial", and start to feel bad, I try to think of Paul's condition:

2 Cor 11:24 From the Jews five times I received forty [stripes] minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 [in] journeys often, [in] perils of waters, [in] perils of robbers, [in] perils of [my own] countrymen, [in] perils of the Gentiles, [in] perils in the city, [in] perils in the wilderness, [in] perils in the sea, [in] perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness --

And you never hear of Paul complaining - just the opposite - he counted it all joy. We can do that too with the right frame of mind and spirit. We can endure if we lean on His mighty shoulder. That's what He wants us to do.

Fight on Joseph. You are also a fine member of our armed services serving your country and defending all of us. Only a very few citizens make that sacrifice for the rest of us. We thank you for that Joseph.

We're all praying for you. Let us know how you're doing when you can.

Peace and blessings to you Joseph our brother.
Dave

[Rose]

My dear brother Joe, I feel privileged to have you share your personal problems and fears with us here on the forum so we can pray for your speedy recovery :D. You would be greatly missed by us, not to mention how much your family needs you.

Sorry I haven't responded sooner but we have been without internet service for a couple days and I'm just now catching up on reading posts.

You are a tremendous blessing to Richard and myself, your posts have inspired me greatly to dig deeper into Gods Word, and to leave no stone unturned in my search for the truth. Our many discussions on eschatology have help me to form a solid understanding of the book of Revelation.

With all that said, we need you to stick around awhile longer....you still have a lot more posts to write :lol:.

God Bless you my dear brother, this is my prayer for you.

Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

Rose

[TheForgiven]

I thank you from the deepest parts of my heart, for all the love you all have shown me. Lord willing, I look forward to continuing our discussions on eschatology. Unfortunately, I am not in a good condition to do so until my mind is back on track.

To give you all a considerate update, they may have found my problem, which appears to be directly related to my cardiovascular system. I may have a problem with GERD which is agitating my blood system.

My EKG checked bad today, as I was having a small episode while at work. This episode occurred within 30 minutes of a very light meal, which consisted of a bowl of chicken/rice soup, and a peanut butter & jelly sandwich. I told the doctor what I ate, and she went off on me. :lol: I mean she was very mad.

My cardiologist appointment is tomorrow, so we'll see what he/she can find. Thus far, I have had more than six heart related attacks, of which all have checked negative for an active heart attack. But at least today, the EKG finally registered something that deeply concerned the doctor. I'm not exactly sure how she translated the scribing that's on the EKG print out, but it has something to do with negative pressure, and an abnormal beat. I'd say the abnormality is the heavy fluttering that takes place during my attacks. It was explained to me that the fluttering is the bloods inability to continue pumping, so a kind-of back pressure occurs....much like a hick-up. The blood tries to reverse its flow when it's unable to pass through an artery. When these nasty episodes occur, my blood pressure sky rockets, nearly 188/83 (normal is 120/60, to give an example). My heart rate is so fast during these attacks that shortness of breath occurs, and I lose feeling in both arms, and my lower right extremity.

If I were to guess, I'd say my current condition is from years of poor dieting and lack of exercising that finally caught up to me. My eating habits were not very good, although I never suspected this would severely affect my health, considering I know others who eat far worse than I do. I love my vegetables, but I love my pork, chicken, and steak as well.

My goodness! Having to change 40 years of eating habits is not easy. My Doc doesn't even want me eating anything with citric acid in it. I'm sure Brother LES would beg the differ. :lol: I'm not supposed to eat anything with sodium, salt, spice (peppers), fat, or anything with cholesterol. :confused2: If I'm not mistaken, that pretty much wipes out any form of food except rice cakes. :lol: What's a man to do???

Well, I'll keep you all informed. At least today's attack was very small compared to the others. Then again, I hardly ate anything today. My hope is that it's more stomach related than cardiovascular.

God bless you all, and please keep me in your prayers.

Joseph

[Victor]

Thanks for the news, brother Joe. I see that this is a good opportunity to change eating habits. :thumb: I hope you have a speedy recover.

:hug:

Victor

[Victor]

There's a very interesting article on the web called The Significance of the Number 40 (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/40.html). It covers most of the Bible references concerning this number and makes a very good application. It also covers the preterist understanding of Bible prophecies. Here's an interesting image that compares the chronology of the Old and New Covenants:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/im-40yrs.gif

[TheForgiven]

Thanks brother Victor in pointing out the awesome designs of the "40 years" teaching.

It is my opinion that the Jews were given time to accept Christ for "40 years". This would seem to match the Israelite's wondering in the wilderness for 40 years, after crossing the red sea.

Well Jesus is that "red Sea", and all passed through the red sea, just as Paul states. But God was not pleased with many of them, and their bodies fell in the desert by the thousands. The same thing (figuratively) happened to the disobedient Jews who all perished in the Great Fire of Jerusalem that destroyed the temple and the entire city. Thousands died by crucifixion, death in the Arena, or persecution.

What say you all?

Joseph

[gregoryfl]

Hey Joe,

I see Jesus as Moses, for the Israelites were baptized into Moses, and we are baptized into Jesus in his Spirit. I see the Red Sea as that moment in time when we miraculously pass from death to life, to begin our time as believers in this desert of testing for us until we too, enter that rest when the mind of flesh is totally killed off. But please, I would love to hear in what way you see Jesus as the Red Sea. I'm sure there could be a correlation there as well.

Ron

[TheForgiven]

Hey Joe,

I see Jesus as Moses, for the Israelites were baptized into Moses, and we are baptized into Jesus in his Spirit. I see the Red Sea as that moment in time when we miraculously pass from death to life, to begin our time as believers in this desert of testing for us until we too, enter that rest when the mind of flesh is totally killed off. But please, I would love to hear in what way you see Jesus as the Red Sea. I'm sure there could be a correlation there as well.

Ron

Paul in his writing states that they (The Israelites) were all baptized by Moses through the "Cloud" and the "Red Sea", but God was not please with many of them because of their disobedience. Paul then states that we are baptized into Christ, through the waters that buried us, as well as resurrected us to the newness of life.

That is what baptism symbolizes. A faith in the resurrection of the dead, having passed from our former life into the death of Christ, and raised to the newness of life through the washing by his blood (Red Sea) and renewal of our spirit by His Spirit.

Acts 2:38

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is for you, and for all who will call upon the name.....

I believe our Baptism is symbolic of what took place when Moses led them through the red sea. We are led through the waters of Christ, who shed His blood for our sins.

BY THE WAY

Still having heart problems. I had a major attack yesterday that left my hands and feet tingling, and unconscious for about a minute or so. They, of course, claimed it was a panic attack, even with the pressure I was feeling on the upper portion of my chest-center. What's scary is the rising number of people dying of heart attacks because the hospitals are not correctly reading EKG readings. I've had two readings that stated I have an abnormal heart condition, but the doctors are ignoring it. They say my pulse is fine, but that's after 10 aspirins, and a valume. It's ridiculous! I go into the hospital with high blood pressure readings (a clear indication of either clogged arteries, or shrinking arteries), yet after 4 to 8 chewed aspirins, my blood thins and my blood pressure returns to normal....oh so now it's good! I don't get it!

The signs are obvious to me. I believe I'm suffering from heart disease, and the many attacks I've been having are leading up to a serious, possibly fatal, heart attack.

I can't believe the hospitals aren't taking me serious on this. I researched this topic, and I'm finding a large number of people have died these past few months from mis-diagnosed heart attacks. One big problem is the HMO's; they don't want to pay money for bypass surgery, or things of that sort. It's apparently cheaper to let them die, and the life insurance company (if any) ends up with the bills, or the family members who remain.

It's a sad world we live in.

Joe

[Victor]

BY THE WAY

Still having heart problems. I had a major attack yesterday that left my hands and feet tingling, and unconscious for about a minute or so. They, of course, claimed it was a panic attack, even with the pressure I was feeling on the upper portion of my chest-center. What's scary is the rising number of people dying of heart attacks because the hospitals are not correctly reading EKG readings. I've had two readings that stated I have an abnormal heart condition, but the doctors are ignoring it. They say my pulse is fine, but that's after 10 aspirins, and a valume. It's ridiculous! I go into the hospital with high blood pressure readings (a clear indication of either clogged arteries, or shrinking arteries), yet after 4 to 8 chewed aspirins, my blood thins and my blood pressure returns to normal....oh so now it's good! I don't get it!

The signs are obvious to me. I believe I'm suffering from heart disease, and the many attacks I've been having are leading up to a serious, possibly fatal, heart attack.

I can't believe the hospitals aren't taking me serious on this. I researched this topic, and I'm finding a large number of people have died these past few months from mis-diagnosed heart attacks. One big problem is the HMO's; they don't want to pay money for bypass surgery, or things of that sort. It's apparently cheaper to let them die, and the life insurance company (if any) ends up with the bills, or the family members who remain.

It's a sad world we live in.

Joe

This is very frustrating Joe. I don't even know what to say. It is not fair to say that all is normal only after you have taken medication. That is ignoring reality.

Today with the advent of internet doctors are having a tough time. Pacients are not ignorant of their diseases anymore.

I pray for your speedy recover, in Jesus' name, Amen.

Victor

[joel]

The signs are obvious to me. I believe I'm suffering from heart disease, and the many attacks I've been having are leading up to a serious, possibly fatal, heart attack.


Joe......have a seen a heart specialist?

In my area, provided you have insurance coverage, you have a "primary" doctor who then refers you to specialists.

My primary doctor did not foresee my impending heart attack......my first major symptoms were characteristic of a loss of energy....and general, lingering fatigue. I was running to stay in decent shape....but found that I could not go as far, nor as long.

Then, I began to have upper chest pains that I ignored....thinking that it was severe indigestion. When the pain became severe (I was driving from a nearby town, having visited with some Christian friends.......) I drove myself to the emergency room of a nearby hospital where my daughter works.

An EKG......revealed the need for more tests......a sonogram type of test on my chest confirmed to the ER Dr. that I needed some serious heart specialty diagnosis......that day, I had a stent put into the major vein of the heart.....the recovery of energy was instant.....the vein was 95% blocked.

Upper chest pains would suggest to me to see a specialist.

Our continued prayers are dispatched in your behalf......Joel