share your favorite messianic prophecy

[dfw69]

I agree with everything you say except THE LAST FEW WORDS.

and has foretold what WOULD take place before the Romans destroyed the temple in AD70, and what WILL take place generally speaking as long as it is called 'today'.

And I agree Jesus forewarn and foretold of the coming disaster of Jerusalem ....but also forewarn of future events as well just before his return

The disciples ask him for signs of his coming into the kingdom...and he told them....that there would be false Messiah's and false prophets....nation rising against nation....kingdom against kingdom...famines pestilence...signs in sun moon stars....basically revelation clears it up....Elijah must return first....he has not come yet that I know of....

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post #17:

Futurists just patronises them by insisting that whatever has gone before, it is nothing compared to what is coming.

Futurism doesn't deny that many Christians in the past/present have gone/are going through terrible tribulations. But neither does futurism deny the fact that no past or present trib in the general sense (Acts 14:22, Jn. 16:33, Rom. 5:3, Eph. 3:13, 2 Thes. 1:4) has ever fulfilled the highly-detailed & chronological events of the specific trib described in Rev. chs. 6-18. Also, while Mt. 24:21 refers to the future, worldwide trib like has never affected the whole world before, Mt. 24:21 doesn't require the future trib will be worse for every individual than, e.g., Job's personal trib, or the Jews' trib in the Holocaust, or the trib of some in the early church (e.g. Rev. 2:10). For some Christians will be protected on the earth during the future trib (Rev. 12:6,14-16).

Futurists make it irrelevant to all but the last generation.

Just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Rev. 19:7-20:3 has always been relevant to Christians (for all scripture is profitable: 2 Tim. 3:16) despite the fact it's never been fulfilled, but will be fulfilled almost entirely literally in our future, so the highly-detailed & chronological events of the preceding trib in Rev. chs. 6-18, & the subsequent millennium & other events in Rev. chs. 20-22, have always been relevant to Christians, despite the fact they've never been fulfilled, but will be fulfilled almost entirely literally in our future. Also, Christians don't have to experience every literal event in scripture, whether past literal events (e.g. Gen. chs. 1-11) or future literal events (e.g. Rev. chs. 6-18) for every scripture to be profitable to Christians (2 Tim. 3:16).

Futurists see it as utterly dependent on today's headlines, and therefore inaccessible to everyone before this generation.

Futurism considers the news re: modern geopolitics (as well as modern technology) in order to help believers consider different ways for how exactly the never-fulfilled, yet still understandable, & almost entirely literal, highly-detailed prophecies in Rev. chs. 6-18 might be fulfilled in our future. E.g., Christians at any time in the past could understand Rev. 6:4-8 refers to a horrible, literal war which will start the trib, & which, with its aftermath of famines & epidemics, will end up killing 1/4 of the world. They could understand this without having to know, e.g., what nation will start the war, or what weapons will be employed in the war. All futurism does it consider these things. For another example, Christians at any time in the past could understand Rev. 13:14-15 refers to a literal image (eikon, something made in the likeness) of the Antichrist, which will appear to be alive, which will speak, & which people will have to worship or be killed. They could understand this without having to know, e.g., whether the image will be 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional (or both), or what it will be made of, or how it will be made to speak & appear to be alive. All futurism does is consider these things.

Does Jesus have 7 horns and 7 eyes or not?

He does symbolically, but not literally. Parts of Rev. 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a Lamb, his having 7 horns, his having 7 eyes), while other parts of Rev. 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the 4 beasts, the 24 elders, Jesus having been slain, the 7 Spirits of God, the earth).

Is the book literal or not?

Rev. is almost entirely literal, for it's unsealed (Rev. 22:10), meaning it shouldn't be difficult for saved people of any time to understand it if they simply read it as it's written. The few parts of it that are symbolic are almost always explained afterward (e.g. Rev. 1:20, 17:9-12), & its few symbols not explained afterward (e.g. Rev. 13:2) are usually explained elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. Dan. 7:4-7,17). Just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Rev. 19:7-20:3 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally, so the events of the preceding trib in Rev. chs. 6-18 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally. Also, the millennium in Rev. 20 will be literal, & will begin after Jesus' 2nd coming (Rev. 19:7-20:6, Zech. 14:3-21), when he'll reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:4-6, 5:10, 2:26-29, Ps. 2, 66:3-4). After that, the events of Rev. 20:7-22:5 will occur literally.

 

[dfw69]

Zech 6:13..even he shall build the temple of the lord and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne and shall be priest upon his throne and the counsel of peace shall be between them both....

Note....its safe to say that when the false Messiah comes....peace will not be upon his priesthood or throne...nor his temple

 

[JLB777]

"Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. 2 He will not cry out, nor raise His voice, Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed He will not break, And smoking flax He will not quench; He will bring forth justice for truth. 4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands shall wait for His law." 5 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it: 6 "I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, Isaiah 42:1-6

We are in Him.

He is our Covenant.

He is our Rest!


JLB

 

[eclipsenow]

Rev. is almost entirely literal, for it's unsealed (Rev. 22:10), meaning it shouldn't be difficult for saved people of any time to understand it if they simply read it as it's written. The few parts of it that are symbolic are almost always explained afterward (e.g. Rev. 1:20, 17:9-12), & its few symbols not explained afterward (e.g. Rev. 13:2) are usually explained elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. Dan. 7:4-7,17).

Jesus having 7 eyes and 7 horns and a sword-tongue was of course literal. Oh, and the passage explained it sooooo well. Right there in Revelation 5 it says "And of course, Jesus having 7 eyes and 7 horns was all a parable, a metaphor, just in case you dumbheads who can't distinguish different forms of literature were tempted to take this chapter literally. Like the rest of this book really!"

See, Bible2, your problem is that you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you demand that the TEXT ITSELF must proclaim, "This readingeth be a metaphoreth". Otherwise it is literal. But Rev 5 says Jesus has 7 eyes and 7 horns and never, ever explains it away as a parable or a metaphor. It doesn't explain it at all. It's just stated. Like a fact. But I know you have previously said it is one of the *few* metaphors in Revelation.

My challenge to you? Prove it. The writing is EXACTLY the same as the rest of the book. Every time you fall back on "Revelation is literal" I'm just going to throw Rev 5 back to demonstrate how illiterate you are.

It's there. Read it. Revelation 5. Because the text doesn't 'explain it' as you suggest. What do you do? Assume it is literal? Is that what you do *every* time you read? Assume it's literal?

What about poems? Are poems literal? What about love sonnets. "Your teeth are like the sheep going down Mt Hermon." Literal? No. Too easy. The word 'like' is in there, it's a simile.

But according to your whacked out, ignorant, illiterate definition of 'literal' writing it's all literal unless the text specifically spells out something different. So what do you do about metaphors? It seems to me that you don't have the first clue how to detect metaphorical from literal writing.

Tell me sunshine, do I call you 'sunshine' literally? Or is it a metaphor? (Sarcastic at that.) Are you my little ray of sunshine or not?

Or what about this?

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;

Literal or metaphor?

See, the problem you have, sunshine, is that metaphor is *never* explained. No good writer turns around and says "Oh, that was a metaphor!" That's up to the reader.

Imagine if Shakespeare had written:


All the world’s a stage (But that was just a metaphor)
And all the men and women merely players (I just extended the metaphor)
They have their exits and their entrances (But not literally, as it's just another metaphor).

If by definition a metaphor *never* explains itself, how are we to recognise one when we stumble over it? What clues are *you* going to look for? By your ignorant definition we have to believe *everything* is literal unless the text specifically says otherwise. But that's not how writing works.

You simply don't want metaphors to be real. You don't allow them. You want everything to be similes, where Shakespeare would have instead said

All the world is LIKE a stage,
And all the men and women are LIKE mere players;
They all live life LIKE they have exits and their entrances;

But that isn't in Rev 5 is it? IS IT? No sunshine, it isn't. Rev 5 just says it like it is. (Or isn't, depending on whether or not you have a clue about metaphors). So Jesus HAS "seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." There you go. No reason to argue about it. It's literal. The bible says so. Revelation 5 says so. Unless.... unless you can help us recognise a metaphor?

You have *no* reason to assert Rev 5 is any different to the rest of the book. This is the most metaphorical book in the entire bible! How do we know? By reading it! By recognising the metaphors as biblical images all mixed together to write a beautiful poetic sermon. And how do we know the rest of it is metaphor? By being biblically literate and recognising the bible's older, other metaphors for what they are. Anyone well versed in the bible is going to *recognise* these biblical metaphors from other areas that help to describe these symbols. They are most definitely NOT literal.

I hope this helps you clear away some of the fog before your eyes, blinding you to what is in the text. Because you've got a lot of this 'fog' and you've got it bad. (By the way, that last bit was a metaphor).

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 25:

Jesus having 7 eyes and 7 horns and a sword-tongue was of course literal.

Re: Jesus having 7 eyes & 7 horns, that isn't literal (see the "Rev. 5:6" part of post 22). Re: Jesus having a sword "tongue", what "tongue" verse are you referring to? Rev. 19:15,21's sword could be a literal, spiritual sword, like the one in Gen. 3:24.

If by definition a metaphor *never* explains itself, how are we to recognise one when we stumble over it?

The way Christians can know what in a verse is a metaphor & what in a verse is literal is by comparing each part of that verse with other verses (Isa. 28:9-10, 1 Cor. 2:13). E.g., we know Jesus isn't literally a lamb with 7 horns & 7 eyes (Rev. 5:6) because other verses show he's literally a human (Lk. 24:39, 1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:24-26, 2:17).

This is the most metaphorical book in the entire bible!

Revelation is almost entirely literal (see the last part of post 22).

 

[eclipsenow]

Re: Jesus having 7 eyes & 7 horns, that isn't literal (see the "Rev. 5:6" part of post 22). Re: Jesus having a sword "tongue", what "tongue" verse are you referring to? Rev. 19:15,21's sword could be a literal, spiritual sword, like the one in Gen. 3:24.

Really? Sounds like you don't know Revelation well.

Try chapter 1.

16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Where does it say this is a metaphor? It doesn't. Oh well, it must be literal. After all, everything in Revelation is literal ain't it sunshine?

The way Christians can know what in a verse is a metaphor & what in a verse is literal is by comparing each part of that verse with other verses (Isa. 28:9-10, 1 Cor. 2:13). E.g., we know Jesus isn't literally a lamb with 7 horns & 7 eyes (Rev. 5:6) because other verses show he's literally a human (Lk. 24:39, 1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:24-26, 2:17).

So far so good.

Revelation is almost entirely literal (see the last part of post 22).

FAIL! Because John's writing quotes biblical images that are often originally metaphors in the context of their original verses! EG: the 'beast' of Rev 13 quote Daniel's 'beasts', but John's mixed up version of Daniel's beasts indicates a different reading, an extra level of metaphor. If John had wanted to continue Daniel's metaphor he should have continued the pattern: choose another specific beast to talk about a new specific kingdom. But he didn't. John wanted to comment on all beast-kingdoms that persecute God's people. John wanted to talk about it generically, so that all generations of God's people could benefit from his warnings. So John takes Daniel's beasts which Daniel himself has already explained as a metaphor, and John does something totally new. He mixes them all up. In other words, John is saying "any time you find yourself facing something out of Daniel's prophecies, like a corrupt and ungodly government that persecutes God's people, remember this..."

So basically claiming you read Rev 13 literally is just nonsensical rubbish, like saying you've invented a round triangle. It doesn't mean anything. Rev 13 is a metaphor built on another metaphor. There's nothing literal about it. But it is literary. Get the difference?

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 27:

Oh well, it must be literal.

The "sword", not a sword "tongue", in Rev. 1:16; 19:15,21 could be a literal, spiritual sword, like the one in Gen. 3:24.

After all, everything in Revelation is literal ain't it sunshine?

No, but Revelation is almost entirely literal (see the last paragraph of post 22).

EG: the 'beast' of Rev 13 quote Daniel's 'beasts', but John's mixed up version of Daniel's beasts indicates a different reading, an extra level of metaphor.

It hasn't been said that Rev. 13's beast is literal. The 7 heads of the beast in its empire aspect (Rev. 13:1, 17:3) represent 7 empires (Rev. 17:9-10): Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, & (possibly) Islam. The first 5 had fallen by the time of John the apostle in the 1st century AD: "five are fallen" (Rev. 17:10, 1:1b-2). The 6th (Rome) existed at the time of John: "one is" (Rev. 17:10). The 7th (possibly Islam) had not come by the time of John: "the other is not yet come" (Rev. 17:10). The empire of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) will be a different, still-future, 8th head (Rev. 17:11), which will be a revival of one of the 5 empires which had fallen by the time of John (Rev. 17:8,10-11). It could be a revival of the empire of Babylon. The Antichrist may claim to be Nebuchadnezzar returned, & so reinstitute the system Nebuchadnezzar set up whereby everyone had to worship an image or be killed (Dan. 3, Rev. 13:15).

And the Antichrist could make his world capital in the rebuilt city of Babylon (in Iraq), & build a main temple to himself (& Satan) there. For a temple to "wickedness" will be built in Shinar (Babylonia) (Zech. 5:8,11), & the Antichrist is called "that Wicked" (2 Thes. 2:8). He may also claim to be Nimrod (the founder of Babylon: Gen. 10:8-10), & Hammurabi, & Asoka, et al. For he may claim that he has had many different "past lives" as different human rulers.

---

The 10 horns/kings of the beast in its Antichrist's-empire aspect (Rev. 13:1, 17:3,12) could be 10 men whom the Antichrist will appoint as kings over 10 major nations.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 27:

John takes Daniel's beasts which Daniel himself has already explained as a metaphor

Dan. 7's first 3 beasts (Dan. 7:3-6) represent the ancient empires of Babylon (lion), Medo-Persia (bear), & Greece (leopard). Dan. 7's 4th beast, or 4th "king"/"kingdom" (Dan. 7:17,23), represents the ancient Roman Empire. The 10 horns/kings which come out of it (Dan. 7:7,24) could represent 10 major kingdoms/nations today which came out the former territory of the Roman Empire, which consisted not only of Western Europe, but also the Middle East & North Africa. These 10 nations could be Germany, the U.K., France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, & Syria. The 10 part-iron/part-clay toes of Dan. 2:42 could represent the same thing as the 10 horns of Dan. 7:7. The Europeans could be the iron, & the Arabs & Turks could be the clay. In Dan. 2:43, the inability of the iron to mix with the clay could represent how, e.g., there are many Turks living in Germany, but they remain separated in ghettoes within German cities. Similarly, there are many Algerians living in France, but they remain separated in ghettoes within French cities.

But despite this social separation, which could endure indefinitely, the people of Western Europe on the one hand, & the people of the Middle East & North Africa on the other, could still one day put aside their political separation & become united into one confederation (Dan. 2:42 refers to the 10 as a singular "kingdom"). The person who brings this about could be the Antichrist. The arising of the "little" horn (Dan. 7:8, 8:9), which is "diverse" from the 10 major nations (Dan. 7:24), could mean the Antichrist will arise from a little country. And the little horn arising from "among" the 10 major nations (Dan. 7:8) could mean the Antichrist's country's territory used to be part of the Roman Empire. And before that, it could have been part of one of the 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms which succeeded the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great (Dan. 8:8-9,21-25). The territory of these 4 kingdoms stretched from Greece over to Iran, & down into Egypt. So the Antichrist could come from the Middle East. He could be an Arab who will come from the little country of Lebanon, from the modern city of Tyre (Ezek. 28:2, 2 Thes. 2:4).

The Antichrist could start out by claiming to be a Baathist. After becoming the leader of Lebanon, he could peacefully gain control of a Baathist confederation of 3 of the 10 major nations (Dan. 7:24): Egypt ("toward the south" of Lebanon: Dan. 8:9), Iraq & Syria ("toward the east" of Lebanon: Dan. 8:9). This confederation could also include the minor nation of a United Palestine (i.e. a defeated Israel, "the pleasant land": Dan. 8:9). This Baathist confederation could be put together in the future by an Iraqi Baathist General who could completely defeat & occupy Israel & Egypt (Dan. 11:15-17; in verse 17, the original Hebrew word translated as "daughter" is "bath"), but who could then mysteriously disappear (Dan. 11:19) shortly before the Antichrist arises on the world stage (Dan. 11:21-45). Years later, when the Antichrist gains control over all 10 of the major nations, he could appoint kings over them (Rev. 17:12) who will defer to him (Rev. 17:13), like, e.g., when Napoleon gained control over different nations, he appointed kings over them who would defer to him.

 

[JLB777]

The "sword", not a sword "tongue", in Rev. 1:16; 19:15,21 could be a literal, spiritual sword, like the one in Gen. 3:24.



No, but Revelation is almost entirely literal (see the last paragraph of post 22).



It hasn't been said that Rev. 13's beast is literal. The 7 heads of the beast in its empire aspect (Rev. 13:1, 17:3) represent 7 empires (Rev. 17:9-10): Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, & (possibly) Islam. The first 5 had fallen by the time of John the apostle in the 1st century AD: "five are fallen" (Rev. 17:10, 1:1b-2). The 6th (Rome) existed at the time of John: "one is" (Rev. 17:10). The 7th (possibly Islam) had not come by the time of John: "the other is not yet come" (Rev. 17:10). The empire of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) will be a different, still-future, 8th head (Rev. 17:11), which will be a revival of one of the 5 empires which had fallen by the time of John (Rev. 17:8,10-11). It could be a revival of the empire of Babylon. The Antichrist may claim to be Nebuchadnezzar returned, & so reinstitute the system Nebuchadnezzar set up whereby everyone had to worship an image or be killed (Dan. 3, Rev. 13:15).

And the Antichrist could make his world capital in the rebuilt city of Babylon (in Iraq), & build a main temple to himself (& Satan) there. For a temple to "wickedness" will be built in Shinar (Babylonia) (Zech. 5:8,11), & the Antichrist is called "that Wicked" (2 Thes. 2:8). He may also claim to be Nimrod (the founder of Babylon: Gen. 10:8-10), & Hammurabi, & Asoka, et al. For he may claim that he has had many different "past lives" as different human rulers.

---

The 10 horns/kings of the beast in its Antichrist's-empire aspect (Rev. 13:1, 17:3,12) could be 10 men whom the Antichrist will appoint as kings over 10 major nations.

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

• The temple that the antichrist goes and set's up the abomination of desolation is the temple of God in Jerusalem. It wouldn't be an abomination if the temple was set up in Babylon.

 

[Douggg]

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

 

[Bible2]

JLB777 said in post 30:

The temple that the antichrist goes and set's up the abomination of desolation is the temple of God in Jerusalem.

That's right. Re: the "abomination of desolation" (the AOD), Dan. 11:31 was typically fulfilled by the AOD in 1 Maccabees 1:54, which occurred in the holy place of the 2nd Jewish temple in Jerusalem in the time of Antiochus IV. But per Mt. 24:15, the church will see the AOD in Dan. 11:31 fulfilled (antitypically) in the future, when the church will see the AOD "stand" "in" the holy place (of a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem). This future AOD could be a standing, android image of the Antichrist (the AC) (Rev. 13:15) which his followers ("they") will put in the holy place of the temple (Dan. 11:31) to be worshipped (Rev. 13:15), after "they" have stopped the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices which the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel will have restarted in front of the temple (Dan. 11:31). This image will "pollute" the holy place of the temple (Dan. 11:31). The AC will then fulfill Dan. 11:36/2 Thes. 2:4 by sitting himself in the temple & proclaiming himself God. By the power of Satan (the dragon, Rev. 12:9), the AC (the individual-man aspect of the beast) will then rule & be worshipped by all the nations of the earth for 3.5 literal years (Rev. 13:4-8), & will physically overcome Biblical Christians in every nation (Rev. 13:7-10, 14:12-13, 20:4-6, Mt. 24:9-13).

Also, from the day on which (antitypically) "the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1,335 days" (Dan. 12:11-12, Rev. 16:15). Also, because the AC will fulfill Dan. 11:31 antitypically & will fulfill Dan. 11:36 for the first (& only) time, then he will also fulfill all of Dan. 11:21-45 (the first part of it antitypically, and the rest for the first & only time) when he arises on the world stage, for that passage refers to the career of the same man. And since the AC will fulfill all of Dan. 11:21-45 when he arises on the world stage, then just preceding his arising on the world stage, Dan. 11:13-19 could be antitypically fulfilled by an Iraqi Baathist General completely defeating & occupying Israel & Egypt with a huge Iraqi Army (Dan. 11:15-17; in verse 17, the original Hebrew word translated as "daughter" is "bath").

One reason the 3rd temple hasn't been built yet is the Israeli government is protecting the Muslim Dome of the Rock & the Al Aqsa Mosque (the 3rd holiest buildings in Islam, right after those in Mecca & Medina), knowing that if the ultra-Orthodox Jews were to destroy these buildings in order to clear the Temple Mount for a 3rd temple, this could mean the end of the state of Israel. For enraged Muslim armies & militias could attack Israel en masse in an all-out jihad & defeat it completely. While the ultra-Orthodox Jews are no doubt aware of this danger, they believe the 3rd temple must nonetheless be built exactly where the prior temples stood: right over the Rock of Sacrifice (the Rock of the Dome of the Rock) on which Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac. And the ultra-Orthodox Jews could be brought to the point where they will even desire to see the end of the current state of Israel, believing that only in its demise will God make it possible for them to establish a new, perfectly ultra-Orthodox, theocratic state of Israel.

Something that could bring the ultra-Orthodox Jews to this point would be them getting squeezed out of their settlements in Samaria & Judaea (aka the West Bank) & East Jerusalem, as part of a peace deal handing these areas over to a Palestinian state. For the ultra-Orthodox Jews (rightly) see Samaria, Judaea, & Jerusalem as the historically most important & holy parts of the land promised by God to Israel since the time of Abraham (Ex. 32:13). So when they start to get squeezed out of these areas, in a rage they could suddenly mass in their tens of thousands, armed with machine guns (which they're allowed to have for self-defense against the Palestinians), and led by 3 huge bulldozers they could march as a great army to the Old City of Jerusalem & go onto the Temple Mount & destroy the Dome of the Rock & the Al Aqsa Mosque.

 

[Bible2]

JLB777 said in post 30:

It wouldn't be an abomination if the temple was set up in Babylon.

It hasn't been said that the 3rd Jewish temple of 2 Thes. 2:4, Dan. 11:31,36, Mt. 24:15, Rev. 11:1-2 will be set up in Babylon instead of in Jerusalem. What has been said is that the Antichrist could build a main temple to himself (& Satan) in Babylon (see post 28). But the Antichrist will also sit (at least one time) in the 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem and declare himself God there (2 Thes. 2:4, Dan. 11:36,31, Mt. 24:15). The Antichrist could also sit (at least one time) in other religions' holiest shrines and declare himself to be God there as well. For example, he could also sit in Islam's Kaaba in Mecca, in the Sikhs' Golden Temple in Amritsar, in Catholicism's St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, etc.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

The Antichrist will fulfill 2 Thes. 2:4 when he by force takes control of a 3rd Jewish temple, stops the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices (which the ultra-Orthodox Jews will have been offering in front of it), and then has the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) set up in the holy place of the temple (Mt. 24:15, Dan. 11:31).

The Antichrist could make quite a show of his sitting himself in the Jewish temple and declaring himself God (2 Thes. 2:4, Dan. 11:36,31). He could even make a TV/Internet broadcast of it which will be seen live by the world (cf. Mt. 24:15). He could be shown entering the temple's most holy place in magnificent golden robes. He could then step up to the Ark of the Covenant (which could have been discovered, and placed in the temple) and lift the Mercy Seat off of it, showing the Ark to be empty. He could then look into the camera & say: "Where is YHWH? He is not here! He is a distant fraud! His power on this earth is as hollow as this empty Ark!" (The Antichrist will revile YHWH: Rev. 13:6, Dan. 11:36.)

Then the Antichrist could raise the Mercy Seat high above his head only to suddenly smash it down violently to the ground, breaking it into pieces. The sound of crowds roaring with approval could then be heard in the background. Then the Antichrist could place his hands on the Ark and stare into the camera: "WE can do better than this". He could then knock over the Ark & stamp it with his foot, bashing in its side. Two of the Antichrist's followers in robes could then quickly come in and clear away the rubble of the Mercy Seat and the Ark, while four more men in robes carry into the temple's most holy place a magnificent golden throne and place it right where the Ark had been before. All the men could then bow down and motion with their arms for the Antichrist to sit on the throne. He could then grandly take his seat upon it.

Glorious symphonic music could then swell as the sound of crowds roaring with approval increases. Then the Antichrist's False Prophet (Rev. 19:20) (who could be a future, apostate pope) could enter the temple's most holy place & approach the Antichrist carrying a majestic golden crown encrusted with large diamonds and all kinds of precious stones. The Antichrist could take the crown from the pope's hands, and as the Antichrist is placing the crown on his own head, a camera could zoom in on his face as he says: "I AM THAT I AM. I AM YOUR GOD. Worship me, all ye nations of the earth!" (Rev. 13:8, Dan. 11:36, 2 Thes. 2:4).

 

[daq]

Genesis 1:11-13 KJV
11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

[eclipsenow]

The "sword", not a sword "tongue", in Rev. 1:16; 19:15,21 could be a literal, spiritual sword, like the one in Gen. 3:24.

Except Jesus has a physical body, but hey? If you mix literal and metaphor, why not mix spiritual and body? You can't tell your foot from your mouth (well I guess your foot lives in your mouth, so that would be difficult).

No, but Revelation is almost entirely literal (see the last paragraph of post 22).

No, but it isn't. Please tell us how to recognise the genre of a whole book? Could it be that, just maybe my sweet sunshine darling honey bunch, that it's full of metaphors? Just as my previous sentence was full of sarcasm? Are we getting genre's of writing yet angel-blossom of my life?

On the other hand, we all know where the metaphor of the 'sword of the Spirit' comes from, don't we petal?

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Well, there you have it. In this vision Jesus (the WORD of GOD) is about to speak to John, and in this mix-up of both Old and New Testament imagery, Jesus mouth or 'voice' is compared to a sword. Just as the Word of God is in Ephesians. See? Revelation is full of metaphors making theological points. (Not 'literal' spirit swords which you are MEANINGLESSLY inserting into the text without any thought for the theological point John & Jesus are making in this letter to all Churches across all time!)

So once again you've demonstrated how utterly shallow and sad and short of meaning your 'literal' reading of Revelation is. It misses the most salient points. It sells the book short. Instead of brimming over with rich theology, you've cut it into a drab 2 dimensional timeline of the future that has no relevance to the majority of Christian history. This should fill you with horror, but because you have autism you don't really feel it, do you my little internet troll?

It hasn't been said that Rev. 13's beast is literal.

Stop right there you little rosebud of angelic scent! (Sarcasm). You just said nearly the whole book was literal. So, is it or isn't it?

So, basically my sweet honey petal, you don't get to lecture me on what you think Revelation means until you can correctly identify the genre. And you're about as far from that as I am from meaning all my more flattering 'adjectives' above.

 

[daq]

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: [Genesis 1:11-13]

Matthew 13:31-32 KJV
31. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
32. Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. [Genesis 1:11-13]

Luke 13:18-19 KJV
18. Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?
19. It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it. [Genesis 1:11-13]

John 12:23-24 KJV
23. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. [Genesis 1:11-13]

Matthew 13:34-35 KJV
34. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
35. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

John 17:24 KJV
24. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

And the evening and the morning were the Third Day, [Genesis 1:11-13]
And the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world, [Genesis 1:1-13] …

 

[eclipsenow]

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

• The temple that the antichrist goes and set's up the abomination of desolation is the temple of God in Jerusalem. It wouldn't be an abomination if the temple was set up in Babylon.

What a fantastic example of ripping a verse out of context! Out of context of the rest of the bible, out of context of its own book, out of context of its own chapter!

2 Thessalonians 2 does not predict a still hypothetical future third temple!

Even commentators I know of who actually *believe* in a future Anti-Christ have commented that the verse phrase "so that he sets himself up in God’s temple" could easily mean setting himself up in God's church. Yes it is *imagery* drawn from Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 8, 9, and 11) and Mark 13:14. But Paul warns "Don’t let anyone deceive YOU", the church! Not the Jews! The CHURCH! They have "not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." Paul says this struggle is about a counterfeit gospel, not a counterfeit Jewish kingdom.

Now check this out.
1 Corinthians 3:16
"Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?"

2 Cor 6:16
16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God."

Eph 2:21
Ephesians 2:21
"In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord."

It *could* be that the 'Anti-Christ' is a reference to anyone who takes up residence in the CHURCH and is trying to corrupt THAT temple of God. Indeed, since Jesus body was the TRUE temple, and we are now all growing up into the corporate temple of the Christian church, I think that makes far more sense. Especially given Paul's concern for pure preaching and teaching. The Anti-Christ here is trying to usurp God's purposes in the church.

This reading would make these verses in 2 Thessalonians an applicable warning to false teachers for ALL Christians in ALL ages, not some silly end-times-table prophecy that we may as well cut out of our bibles for 2000, 3000, or 4000 years. (Or however long it takes the Lord to return?)

What good is rebuilding an actual bricks and mortar temple for a largely secular Jewish state anyway? The real action, as far as hurting God's people goes... is to hurt GOD'S PEOPLE! According to the New Testament, that's not the Jews any more, but believers. Jews AND Gentiles that call on Christ as Lord! That's God's people now. So the Anti-Christ wants to invade and usurp the church! Get in there and do some false teaching. As 1 John says, there are many Anti-Christs. We should watch out for them.

"It is probably best to take "temple of God" as a metaphor, meaning that the AntiChrist will usurp God's authority." So says David Ewert in the "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible". In other words, this guy believes in a literal AntiChrist, but even he doesn't seem to correlate that with believing a literal third temple will be rebuilt.

IS THERE EVEN GOING TO BE A LITERAL ANTI-CHRIST?

I have 3 reasons for being sceptical about an AntiChrist.

1/ I don't read Revelation literally, as it's the most symbolic book in the bible.

2/ I don't read Matthew 24 as about a future Anti-Christ as I believe the Abomination was fulfilled in the destruction of the second temple under Titus. (After all, the disciples were asking aboUt *that* temple, the one they could see with their own eyes and point to! Jesus told them it was going to be destroyed, and the temple would suffer an abomination, and Titus had his soldiers sacrifice to him as a God while the temple burned in AD70. Fulfilled.)

3/ John talks about *many* Anti-Christs.

So, really, if this 2 Thess 2 passage turns out to be a metaphor for something else, I'm scratching my head to think of any other Anti-Christ-in-the-temple verses for the future?

This next guy is a personal friend of mine!

“But is there going to be one mega-evil ruler who will deceive the world and lead millions astray and do things like brand ‘666’ on their foreheads?
Probably not. There are passages in the Bible, which talk about a particular being that is Christ's foe (e.g., “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the dragon of Revelation 12-13 who is identified as the Devil). But this kind of symbolic language is used to describe an attitude or spirit of evil rather than a single evil person. The fact that some parts of Scripture bring ultimate evil to a head by using an individual character to identify it probably says more about how dramatic literature operates than it does about predicting history.”

The devil you know | The Briefing

Or try Luke Woodhouse:
"To explain this present spiritual reality in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul draws a picture of the last days, when the man known as ‘lawlessness’ will be exposed. On that day, rebellion at its highest magnitude will be revealed for all to see. Comparisons with ‘lawless’ figures over history have often been distractions for Christians, in that they miss the picture Paul sketches. But comparisons should not be totally dismissed. The global outrage at figures like Adolf Hitler is a rare opportunity to see the secret power of lawlessness brought out into the open and examined. It is a moment where the whole world stops and notices anarchy with its disguise removed. It's a glimpse of hell."
Getting refocused on the return of Jesus | The Briefing

So, in summary, I'm not even convinced in a literal AntiChrist figure, let alone an AntiChrist that has to rebuild the temple so he can stand in it!

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 35:

Except Jesus has a physical body

The fact that Jesus has a physical body (Lk. 24:39) doesn't contradict that the "sword", not a sword "tongue", in Rev. 1:16; 19:15,21 could be a literal, spiritual sword, like the one in Gen. 3:24.

Could it be that, just maybe my sweet sunshine darling honey bunch, that it's full of metaphors?

No, for Revelation is almost entirely literal (see the last paragraph of post 22).

Instead of brimming over with rich theology, you've cut it into a drab 2 dimensional timeline of the future that has no relevance to the majority of Christian history.

Re: "a drab 2 dimensional timeline of the future", Revelation isn't drab in any way, but most if it is future, for Rev. chs. 6-22 are future, for they're about "things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1), and just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Rev. 19:7-20:3 has never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find its fulfillment, so the highly-detailed events of the preceding tribulation in Rev. chs. 6-18 have never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find their fulfillment.

Also, Rev. chs. 6-22 are a future timeline, for they are chronological, insofar as the future tribulation of Rev. chs. 6-18 will begin with the events of seals 2-6, occurring in the order shown in Rev. 6:3-14. After the events of seal 6, Rev. 7 will occur. Then seal 7 will be unsealed & out of it will come the tribulation's 7 trumpets (Rev. 8:1-6). Then the events of trumpets 1-6 in Rev. 8:7-9:21 will occur in the order shown there. Then Rev. 10 will occur. Then the literal 3.5 years of the Antichrist's worldwide reign will occur, which time period is shown from 4 different angles in Rev. chs. 11-14 (Rev. 11:2b-3, 12:6,14, 13:5,7, 14:9-13). Then trumpet 7 will sound, announcing the legal end of the Antichrist's reign (Rev. 11:15). Out of trumpet 7's heavenly temple opening will come the 7 plagues of the 7 vials (Rev. 11:19, 15:5-16:1), the tribulation's final stage. Then the events of the 7 vials will occur in the order shown in Rev. 16. Then Jesus will return (Rev. 19:2-7) and marry the church (Rev. 19:7). Then Jesus will defeat the unsaved world (Rev. 19:11-20:3) and reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:4-6, 5:10, 2:26-29). Then the events of Rev. 20:7-22:5 will occur in the order shown there.

. . .that has no relevance to the majority of Christian history.

See the "relevant" part of post 22.

You just said nearly the whole book was literal. So, is it or isn't it?

It is, keyword "nearly" (i.e. "almost").

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 37:

2 Thessalonians 2 does not predict a still hypothetical future third temple!

Not only 2 Thes. 2:4, but also Rev. 11:1-2, Mt. 24:15, and Dan. 11:31,36 require that there will be a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem during the future tribulation of Rev. chs. 6-18/Mt. 24. The 3rd temple will coexist with the church like the 2nd temple did (Lk. 24:53, Acts 22:17) and like the temple building in heaven does (Rev. 11:19). The 3rd temple could be built on Jerusalem's Temple Mount by the ultra-Orthodox Jews after they clear the site by destroying the Muslim Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. Shortly after they build it, the Antichrist could attack and defeat them and a false Messiah leading them (Dan. 11:22).

Then the Antichrist could "cut" a peace treaty with them and their false "Messiah" (Dan. 9:26a, 11:23a) permitting them to keep the temple and to continue to perform the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices in front of it for at least 7 more years (Dan. 9:27a), so long as they give up the temple's outer court (Rev. 11:2a) to the Muslims so that the Muslims can rebuild the Al Aqsa Mosque on the southern end of the Temple Mount and resume worship there. The ultra-Orthodox Jews could grudgingly agree to this, if the only other option is for them to lose the temple entirely. They could then build a high wall between the temple and the mosque, in order to keep the temple from being defiled.

But then, only some 3.5 years after making the peace treaty, the Antichrist will break the treaty, attack the temple, stop the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices, place the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) in the holy place of the temple (Dan. 9:27b, 11:31, Mt. 24:15), and then sit himself in the temple and proclaim himself God (2 Thes. 2:4, Dan. 11:36). Thus could begin the Antichrist's literal 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Rev. 13:4-18, 12:9, 2 Thes. 2:9).

At the very end of the future tribulation of Rev. chs. 6-18/Mt. 24, the Antichrist (Dan. 11:45) and the world's armies will pillage Jerusalem right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Zech. 14:2-21), and at the 2nd coming there will be tremendous earth changes in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Zech. 14:4-5). These events could result in all of Jerusalem's structures, including the 3rd temple and the Wailing Wall (also called the Western Wall), being broken down so that not one stone will be left on another (Lk. 19:44, Mt. 24:2). Then the returned Jesus (Zech. 14:4, Acts 1:11-12) will rebuild Jerusalem and make it the capital of the world (Zech. 14:8-19, Mic. 4:1-4), and he will build a 4th temple there (Zech. 14:20-21, 6:12-13). It will serve a similar function for the church during the millennium (Rev. 20:4-6) as the 2nd temple served for the church in the 1st century AD (Lk. 24:53, Acts 22:17) and as the temple building in heaven (Rev. 11:19) serves for those in heaven (Rev. 7:15).

Even commentators I know of who actually *believe* in a future Anti-Christ have commented that the verse phrase "so that he sets himself up in God’s temple" could easily mean setting himself up in God's church.

While the church as a whole is a figurative temple building (Eph. 2:21), it coexists as the temple of God with the literal temple building in heaven (Rev. 11:19), and with the temple of Jesus' individual human body (Jn. 2:21), and with the temple of every Christian's individual human body (1 Cor. 6:19). And if the church-as-a-whole-temple can currently coexist with all these other temples of God, it will be able to coexist with the future, 3rd-earthly-literal temple building which the scriptures show will exist during the future tribulation of Rev. chs. 6-18/Mt. 24 (Rev. 11:1-2, Mt. 24:15, Dan. 11:31,36, 2 Thes. 2:4), which 3rd temple building will be accepted by God as a valid temple, just as the 2nd temple building was accepted by God as a valid temple, even at the time of Jesus' first coming (Mt. 23:21) and even at the time of the early church (Lk. 24:53, Acts 22:17).

For the ultra-Orthodox Jews will build the 3rd temple, and will offer animal sacrifices in front of it, under the auspices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (the OCML), which remains holy before God (Rom. 7:12). That's why God still keeps an ark of the OCML in his temple building in heaven (Rev. 11:19), and why it was possible for the apostle Paul one time to involve himself with the 2nd temple's OCML practices without him committing sin (Acts 21:20-26, 1 Cor. 9:20). This isn't to say that the Jesus-denying motives of the ultra-Orthodox Jews will be holy before God, but that the OCML 3rd temple in itself and its animal sacrifices in themselves will be holy before God because the OCML in itself remains holy before God (Rom. 7:12), even though its letter is no longer meant to be practiced by people (Rom. 7:6) because the New Covenant has been inaugurated by Jesus and his once-for-all-time sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Heb. 10:1-23, Mt. 26:28).

 

[eclipsenow]

The fact that Jesus has a physical body (Lk. 24:39) doesn't contradict that the "sword", not a sword "tongue", in Rev. 1:16; 19:15,21 could be a literal, spiritual sword, like the one in Gen. 3:24.

No Bible2, it isn't literal you sad autistic little man. You DO NOT get to just repeat 'it's literal' 3 times and then clip your ruby slippers together and wish it so. It doesn't work that way pal. You're ignoring ALL of the rules of hermeneutics. It is NOT a literal spiritual sword sticking out of Jesus mouth because that doesn't make any biblical sense.

Tell me, what would it mean? Huh? If it is, instead, John's translation for us of his vision, then it makes sense. John is saying that he saw Jesus and that Jesus was about to speak, and reminding us that Jesus words are EXTREMELY important because they are the Sword of the Spirit.

If it is a literal spiritual sword, all I can ask is... what the? What on earth does that mean? Nothing! John saw some freaky stuff, and .... nothing. There's no where in the bible that explains what to do when a 'spiritual sword' sticks out of your mouth. Indeed, it sounds a little Satanic and weird, like being possessed by a weapon.

Sorry pal, but you're just going to have to do better than 'but... maybe... possibly... it could be....'. You're going to have to show us OTHER spiritual swords coming out of mouths and what they meant for us to have any CLUE what this actually means? Why would God dress Jesus physical body up with a spiritual sword coming out of his mouth?

Can you hear yourself? Can you hear how stubborn you sound?

Now, your rather autistic 'cut and paste' doesn't quite work below, does it? It's like your rather limited powers of comprehension clicked off half way through my argument and you just copied and pasted one of my sentences and tacked on your own autistic internet troll rubbish.

See, you forgot one vital point: I've repeatedly said that Revelation is about the GOSPEL. Haven't I? Would you at least grant that? Please? Tell me you've heard me say that?

So, I know this is a big next step for you, but just so we are clear: what is the gospel? Yes it's "Jesus came to save me from my sins" but it is also about how he restores the Kingdom of God. It's about how that Kingdom will have the perfect reign of Christ in the New Heavens and New Earth, our ultimate Sabbath destination of rest and enjoying God forever.

In other words, a CORE part of the good news is that Jesus will return!

So your copy and paste routine below doesn't quite work, does it? Can you see why? Let's re-read it.

Re: "a drab 2 dimensional timeline of the future", Revelation isn't drab in any way, but most if it is future, for Rev. chs. 6-22 are future, for they're about "things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1), and just as Jesus' 2nd coming in Rev. 19:7-20:3 has never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find its fulfillment, so the highly-detailed events of the preceding tribulation in Rev. chs. 6-18 have never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find their fulfillment.

And the rest diverges even further from the point, so we'll just cut it there. (I'm sure you'll just cop and paste it into a thousand other posts so I don't really need to indulge it here, do I?)

Your rant above has proved NOTHING about the literary genre of Revelation because it's just your silly assumptions about the return of the Lord NOT being part of the gospel! John explains that Revelation is all about the gospel in Chapter 1. John says he wants all his readers to hear and obey it. It's FOR them because it is ABOUT them and he wants them to OBEY it because it's all about the GOSPEL which he states in Chapters 1, 5, and restates in 12, just in case we missed it the first time.

Now here's the thing. The gospel news he is proclaiming is specifically tailored to suffering Christians of HIS generation (and all suffering Christians since). It's HIS generation because the TRIBULATION HAD ALREADY STARTED IN JOHN'S DAY! He says so right there in Chapter 1! He shares in their tribulation! Read it and weep for your precious (but ultimately petty) future timetables! The tribulation is the suffering we have already been undergoing for 2000 years and WILL continue to suffer until the Lord returns! John says it clearly.

The terrible tribulation John's Christian flock were enduring forced John to write compassionately of the suffering they would endure, and remind them of their GOSPEL hope in the New Heavens and New Earth which would be installed after Judgement Day.

So what I am saying is that a metaphorical reading of all John's OBVIOUS bible reading is completely consistent with John writing a gospel message to his generation, which he is clearly doing from Chapter 1. It's not only logical, but required pastorally! John knows. He's already in the tribulation, stuck under house-arrest and prejudice and persecution. He's longing for the justice of the Lord. He's longing for the return of the Lord when he will raise the dead and judge everyone and install the New Heavens and New Earth, all together on Judgement Day. He's excited by it! This great gospel hope of the Lord's return should be present in every altar call that has just explained the gospel. Repent, while it is still today! Because the Lord could return and crash you into eternity unprepared.

THAT is the gospel sunshine! Don't you DARE turn around and insist that because there's something about Judgement Day everything John says should therefore be about the future. That's just inconsistent rubbish. What, do you insist that every altar call gospel presentation that somehow mentions Judgement Day is suddenly transformed into a Last Day's timetable? (Don't answer that... for your own sake! Knowing you, you probably would. You can't recognise genre and literary style from cutting down a forest with a herring. That's another rather specific genre joke).

But a literal Last Days timetable is NOT consistent with John's urgent command to READ and TAKE TO HEART (obey) his message! It's a totally MESSED UP reading of Revelation that turns John into an unimpassioned monster. All his friends are about to experience horrible suffering and know real loss, and John suddenly wants to rave to them about some horrible future suffering Christians THOUSANDS of years later will go through?

That's just .... unimaginably autistic. It's completely devoid of compassion. Only someone with Asperger's could imagine such a travesty.