Questions for Bible2

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post 220:

Some more old entries for review and the blog . . .

Thank you for finding and reposting them.

ThomasGuthler said in post 220:

. . . do you have any new thoughts about them?

Regarding the Deuteronomy 32:46-47 paragraph, I hope to add a blog entry under *Deut. 32:46.

Regarding the 2 Chronicles 32 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *2 Chr. 32.

Regarding the Ezekiel 16:49 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Ezek. 16:49.

Regarding the Ezekiel 36:10 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Ezek. 36:10.

Regarding the Ezekiel 37:24 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Ezek. 37:24.

Regarding the Daniel 9:2 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Dan. 9:2.

Regarding the Zechariah 6:1-8 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Zech. 6:1.

Regarding the Psalms 89:34 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Ps. 89:34.

Regarding the Revelation 13:17 paragraph, I hope to add a section under *Rev. 13:17.

--

Thank you for helping me to make these additions to the blog.
 
Upvote 0

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Regarding the Ezekiel 37:24 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Ezek. 37:24.

Can you look at this entry, seems it is not yet in the blog.

-

Some more old entries for review and the blog, do you have any new thoughts about them?




Isaiah 36 refers to Sennacherib.

Isaiah 36:1 need not have been only a similitude of some future fulfillment of Isaiah 10:5-6, but could have been its actual fulfillment.

God did not defend Judah during Sennacherib's invasion (Isaiah 36:1), for by the time of Sennacherib's invasion, Judah could have fallen into hypocrisy (Isaiah 10:5-6).

Isaiah 36:19-20 is so strikingly similar to Isaiah 10:9-11 that it's clearly the fulfillment of Isaiah 10:9-11.

-

Isaiah 37:31-32 [...] was referring to the remnant of Israel that survived Sennacherib's invasion.

Isaiah 37:32 could be the fulfillment of Isaiah 10:20 because the time referred to in Isaiah 10:20 is the time of Isaiah 10:16-19, which could refer to Isaiah 37:36.

Isaiah 37:36 could have fulfilled Isaiah 10:33-34 because Isaiah 10:33-34 doesn't have to be literally about Lebanon but could refer figuratively to the princes of the Assyrian (Isaiah 10:8) being as lofty as Lebanon, just as "Lebanon" is used figuratively in Ezekiel 31:3, 17:3, Jeremiah 22:6,23, and Judges 9:15.

… the miraculous defeat of Sennacherib by God himself in Isaiah 37:36-37 was clearly the fulfillment of the miraculous defeat prophesied in Isaiah 10:16-19.

-

Regarding [...] Isaiah 45:18, "The LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth", that could refer to the same event as Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", which could refer to God's original creation of the earth and its atmosphere billions of years ago.

-

Isaiah 52:4 could refer to the past oppressions of the Israelites by kings of Assyria, such as Tiglath-Pileser III in 734-732 B.C. (1 Chronicles 5:26, 2 Kings 15:29), and Shalmaneser V and Sargon II in 724-722 B.C. (2 Kings 17:3-6).

~

Isaiah 52:4 could refer to all of the oppression of Israel and Judah by the various kings of Assyria. It could also include future oppressions of Israel by leaders from the former territory of the Assyrian empire, such as a Baathist Iraqi General who could defeat Israel (Daniel 11:15-17), before the Antichrist arises (Daniel 11:21-45), possibly out of Tyre, Lebanon (Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

-

Jeremiah 50:17a could refer to how the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by Sargon II, king of Assyria (2 Kings 17:6), and how Judah was subsequently conquered by Sennacherib, king of Assyria (Isaiah 36:1).

Jeremiah 50:17 could refer to the same as Isaiah 52:4 (above).

-

In Exodus 28:2,40, Aaron was a type for Jesus (Hebrews 3:1), and Aaron's sons were a type for the church (Revelation 21:7, 1:6, 5:10, 20:6).

-

"And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water." (Leviticus 8:6)

The high-priest Aaron and the Aaronic priesthood in Leviticus 8:6 typified Christ and the priesthood of Melchizedek:

"The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (Psalms 110:4).

"... even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Hebrews 6:20).

It is in this order that all those in the Church, through Christ, have already been made priests:

"And hath made us kings and priests" (Revelation 1:6).

"... ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9).

"... are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5).

"And Moses brought Aaron' sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and put bonnets upon them; as the LORD commanded Moses." (Leviticus 8:13)

The garments of the priests of Leviticus 8:13 typified the garments which the priesthood of the Church has already received:

"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments" (Revelation 16:15).

"Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments" (Revelation 3:4).

"And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons'garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons'garments with him." (Leviticus 8:30)

The sanctification by sacrificial blood in Leviticus 8:30 typified the Church's sanctification by the sacrificial blood of Jesus:

"Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood ..." (Hebrews 13:12).

"... we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10).

-

2 Chronicles 28:20 refers to when Tiglath-Pileser III, king of Assyria, came into Judah during the reign of Ahaz.

-

2 Chronicles 30:6 refers to those Israelites who escaped being taken into captivity at the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel at the hands of Sargon II, king of Assyria, in 722 B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 17:6).

-

Regarding the name of God, that is revealed in the scriptures: "Know ye that the LORD [YHWH] he is God" (Psalms 100:3).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post 222:

Can you look at this entry, seems it is not yet in the blog.

I am not sure what happened there. But I hope (again) to add a new blog entry under *Ezek. 37:24.

ThomasGuthler said in post 222:

Some more old entries for review and the blog . . .

Thank you for finding and reposting them.

ThomasGuthler said in post 222:

. . . do you have any new thoughts about them?

Regarding the Isaiah 36 and Isaiah 37 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Isa. chs. 36-37.

Regarding the Isaiah 45:18 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Isa. 45:18.

Regarding the Isaiah 52:4 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Isa. 52:4.

Regarding the Jeremiah 50:17 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Jer. 50:17.

Regarding the Exodus 28 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Ex. 28.

Regarding the Leviticus 8 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Lev. 8.

Regarding the 2 Chronicles 28:20 paragraph, it seems redundant to the verse itself and the preceding verse.

Regarding the 2 Chronicles 30:6 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *2 Chr. 30:6.

Regarding the Psalms 100:3 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Ps. 100:3.

-

Thank you for helping me to make the additions to the blog.
 
Upvote 0

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Regarding Daniel 1:2 and Zechariah 5:8-11, they refer both to the same house in Shinar?

-

Some more old entries for review and the blog, do you have any new thoughts about them?





While Isaiah 20:1 refers to 711 B.C., when the king of Assyria was Sargon II, Isaiah 20:4-6 could refer to 671 B.C., when the king of Assyria was Esarhaddon (who succeeded Sennacherib, and who conquered part of Egypt in 671 B.C).

-

But regarding Isaiah 66:3-4, it may be referring instead to Israelites at the time of Isaiah who were making sacrifices even while they were living in sin (cf. e.g. Isaiah 1:1,13).

-

Ezekiel 9:4-11 refers to the time of Ezekiel, when God had a spiritual mark set on the foreheads of those people in Jerusalem whom he wished to spare from the death (Ezekiel 14:21) and destruction which came upon Jerusalem during its siege and defeat in 586 B.C.

Ezekiel 14:21 refers to four judgments which God brought upon ancient Jerusalem through Babylon in the time of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 14:22-23 means that the Jewish survivors of Babylon's attack on Jerusalem would go to Babylon (where Ezekiel was when he received the prophecy of Ezekiel 14:21) where Ezekiel would see them and be comforted.

-

Ezekiel 23:5-10 refers to how the northern kingdom of Israel admired and sought alliance with the Assyrians and their empire before it destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel [before it took Israel into captivity].

Ezekiel 23:11-13 refers to how, even after the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel, Jerusalem admired and sought alliance with the Assyrians and their empire.

-

Note that Ezekiel 38:23 doesn't require that it is pre-2nd-coming. For the nations could become complacent near the end of the peaceful millennium, so that they will need to be reminded who is Lord.

-

Daniel 12:4 is referring to the words of the book of Daniel. But not all of the words, for most of them aren't sealed; they're plain on their face (e.g. Daniel 1).

-

The Hebrew word translated as "time" and "times" in Daniel 12:7 can mean "a fixed time ... conventionally a year" (Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary). The "time, times, and an half" of Daniel 12:7 is likewise referring to the coming 3.5-year reign of the Antichrist (Revelation 12:14,6, 13:5b, cf. 11:2b-3).

-

The identity of the seven shepherds and eight principal men who will waste the land of Assyria with the sword (Micah 5:5-6) could be prominent leaders of the Jewish survivors of the tribulation who will be allowed to attack their enemies after the second coming of Jesus Christ rescues them from a final attack upon Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:2-5,14, 12:5-14).

-

Zechariah 3:1-8a refers to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest in the time of Zechariah (Zechariah 6:11) and Haggai (Haggai 1:1,12,14, 2:2), after the kingdom of Judah had returned from its Babylonian Captivity.

Zechariah 3:1-8a is a symbolic vision whereby Joshua the son of Josedech is cleansed from his sins by God so that he might serve as high priest in the time of Zechariah.

Joshua the son of Josedech's sins are symbolized by a dirty garment, and the righteousness God gives him is symbolized by a clean garment (Zechariah 3:4-5).

The same imagery is used with reference to the church in Revelation 19:8, where the clean garment of the bride represents the righteousness (Revelation 19:8b) which those in the church have now through their faith in Jesus (Romans 3:22).

-

Mark 12:26-27 may have been referring to the patriarchs being spiritually alive (cf. Luke 16:22-31), even though they have not yet been physically resurrected. I.e. Jesus could have been countering the "nor spirit" part of the Sadducees' doctrine (Acts 23:8).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post 224:

Regarding Daniel 1:2 and Zechariah 5:8-11, they refer both to the same house in Shinar?

They refer to the same Shinar (Babylonia), but can refer to a different house (temple), the former past and the latter future (*Zech. 5:11).

ThomasGuthler said in post 224:

Some more old entries for review and the blog . . .

Thank you for finding and reposting them.

ThomasGuthler said in post 224:

. . . do you have any new thoughts about them?

Regarding the Isaiah 20 paragraph, I hope to update the blog entry under *Isa. 20.

Regarding the Isaiah 66:3 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Isa. 66:3.

Regarding the Ezekiel 9:4 paragraph, I hope to update *Ezek. 9:4.

Regarding the Ezekiel 14:21 paragraph, I hope to update *Ezek. 14:21.

Regarding the Ezekiel 23 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Ezek. 23.

Regarding the Ezekiel 38:23 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Ezek. 38:23.

Regarding the Daniel 12:4 paragraph, I hope to update paragraph 1 of section 2 of *Dan. 12:4.

Regarding the Daniel 12:7 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Dan. 12:7.

Regarding the Micah 5:5 paragraph, its basic idea seems to be covered by paragraph 1b of *Mic. 5:5.

Regarding the Zechariah 3 paragraphs, I hope to add an entry under *Zech. 3:1.

Regarding the Mark 12:26 paragraph, I hope to add an entry under *Mk. 12:26.

-

Thank you for helping me to make the additions to the blog.
 
Upvote 0

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post 226:

Can you look at the blog and the update-page, they are no longer accessible. Also on your profile page is the blog-section missing.

http://www.christianforums.com/xfa-blog-entry/latest-changes.198391/

http://www.christianforums.com/xfa-blog-entry/index-of-bible2-blog-posts-95.198504/

Those URLs are no longer valid, because CF updated its blog software, which created new URLs for every post in the blog.

--

The first page of the blog is now at:

Bible2+ | Christian Forums

--

The "Latest Changes" post is now at:

Latest Changes | Christian Forums

--

Also, see the "Table of Contents" post for the new URLs for all of the other posts in the blog:

Table Of Contents | Christian Forums

--

Also, some of these new URLs will soon be changing again as I reconstruct the blog in order to reduce the size of its posts. (Some of them have grown too large and unwieldy.) This does not mean that the Biblical information in the blog will be reduced, only that it will be spread across more posts.

If I change any URLs (by creating new, smaller posts to replace a deleted, larger post), the new URLs will be listed in the Table of Contents. The verse ranges of the post titles will also become shorter, and will be indicated in the Table of Contents.

Also, under the updated blog software, any time that a blog post is updated, it will move to the top of page 1 of the blog.
 
Upvote 0

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The first page of the blog is now at ...

It still doesn´t work, seems the blog is on a private setting, the following message appears:

Christian Forums - Error
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brent W
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post 228:

It still doesn´t work, seems the blog is on a private setting, the following message appears:

Christian Forums - Error
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.

I'm sorry that is happening to you.

Regarding a private setting, the updated blog software, as far as I know, offers no choice regarding setting who can see the blog. And I wouldn't employ it even if it had one.

Also, other people (or at least bots) are viewing the blog, as indicated by increasing view counts.

So what you could do is open a new thread at Questions about CF (+Tech Support) and ask them why you cannot view the blog. I hope it is not happening to some other people as well. Ask some other people to try to view the blog, from various IP addresses, and let me know if they are being blocked as well.

Also, can you view other CF blogs? For I know that many other CF blogs are back-in-operation under the updated software, and I was able to view another CF blog. (So it's not like there's a glitch in the software where people can only view their own blog.) If you and other people you know can view other CF blogs, but not the Bible2+ blog, then that would raise questions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Some more old entries for review and the blog, do you have any new thoughts about them? There´s also a typo at *Mk. 16:15 - ... commands of Jesus (e.g. Mathew 5:39-44, Matthew 6:19a).




Mark 10:30-31 makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but refers to those in the church who "in the world to come" (Mark 10:30b) will obtain eternal life (Titus 1:2) bodily (Romans 8:23-25) at the second coming (1 Corinthians 15:22-23,52-54, 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16, Revelation 20:4-6), no matter whether they're Jews in the church (Romans 11:1, Acts 22:3) or Gentiles in the church (Romans 11:17, 16:4b, Acts 10:45).

Mark 10:31 simply means that many in the church who are now first in the church will become last in the church "in the world to come" (Mark 10:30b), and that many in the church who are now last in the church will become first in the church in the world to come, for in the world to come God won't necessarily position everyone in the church the same way that people have currently positioned everyone in the church, often based on how they appear outwardly (John 7:24), instead of based on the actual condition of their hearts, which only God can know (1 Samuel 16:7b).

-

Luke 4:18 refers to more than just one kind of poor person, for Jesus came to preach the true gospel not only to the physically poor, but also to those who are physically rich yet spiritually poor and in need (Revelation 3:17), for even the physically rich can go to hell after they die (Luke 16:22-24, Matthew 16:26).

-

The acceptable "year" (Luke 4:19) doesn't have to be literal, but could refer to a particular, though indefinite, period of time, which could have arrived in the first century. It doesn't have to be the Day of the Lord, but could be the same as the non-literal "day" of salvation which came into effect in the first century (2 Corinthians 6:2) and continues on still today, all based on Jesus' preaching (John 3:16).

-

Believers are an extension of Jesus in that they are his body (Ephesians 5:30) which his Spirit lives in (Ephesians 3:17, Galatians 4:6) and works through (Philippians 2:13, John 15:5). But this must be very explicitly distinguished from the new age lie that we are all extensions of God in the sense of being little sparks of God himself, so that we are all God himself. We are not God himself, who alone is uncreated, from everlasting (Psalms 90:2, Micah 5:2), and who alone has life in himself (John 5:26, 1 Timothy 6:16). We are merely his finite creatures who are and will forever be wholly dependent upon him for our continued existence (Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:17).

-

The seed of God within born-again believers in 1 John 3:9 is the Spirit of the Son of God in 1 John 3:8b, who comes to dwell within believers (Galatians 4:6) through the seed of faith (Ephesians 3:17, Luke 17:6) which comes by hearing (Romans 10:17) the seed of the word of God (1 Peter 1:23, Luke 8:11, Colossians 3:16).

-

2 Timothy 2:10 refers to elect unbelievers, who have yet to obtain salvation.

-

While Christians are already completely new creatures spiritually (2 Corinthians 5:17), they are not yet new creatures physically, and so still await the changing of their mortal physical bodies (Romans 8:23-25) at Jesus' second coming (1 Corinthians 15:22-23, Revelation 20:4-6) into immortal physical bodies (1 Corinthians 15:52-53), like the immortal physical body Jesus has (Luke 24:39-43, Philippians 3:21).

-

"9 There remaineth therefore a rest [sabbatismos] to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his" (Hebrews 4:9-10).

Hebrews 4:10a is referring to the continual New Covenant Sabbath rest which only believers in Jesus enter into (Hebrews 4:3a).

Hebrews 4:10b isn't referring to the Old Covenant one-day-of-the-week Sabbath rest, but to the one-time rest of God the day after he created the world (Genesis 2:2-3). Since then God has worked, even on the seventh day of the week (John 5:17).

-

Acts 16:16 was an example where a non-Christian possessed by a spirit of divination spoke some good truth regarding some Christians (Acts 16:17). But that spirit was cast out nonetheless (Acts 16:18), for we are not to turn to those with spirits of divination (1 Samuel 28:8b), regardless of whether they speak the truth or not, but are to turn to the Bible for our instruction (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and to the prophets of God in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28) who may have been given words for our church (1 Corinthians 14:14,29-33) by the Holy Spirit Himself (1 Corinthians 12:8-11).

-

The Greek word translated as "count", as in "add up", in Revelation 13:18, comes from the Greek word translated as "stone" in Revelation 2:17, for the ancient Greeks used to add things up by using little stones (cf. the abacus).

-

The dead works of Hebrews 9:14 (cf. 10:22,2) would be any sin (Galatians 5:19-21), not works of faith (James 2:24, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6).

-

Jeremiah 2:18 refers to how Israel was going after the ways of the Assyrian empire.

Jeremiah 2:18 could refer to the Israelites in the time of Jeremiah seeking political alliances with Assyria or Egypt instead of trusting in God to protect them from both.

-

Hosea 6:2-3 will be fulfilled at the second coming (Zechariah 14:4-21, 12:10-14, Romans 11:26), which won't happen until after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31).

Hosea 6:3 means that Jesus' second coming will be such a blessing that it will like both the blessing of the literal former rain and the blessing of the literal latter rain together.

-

Between the wrath of the vials (Revelation 16) and the wrath of the great white throne judgment (which wrath is the lake of fire: Revelation 20:15,10, 14:10-11) will come the wrath of the second coming (Revelation 19:15), and then the wrath during the millennium (Psalms 2:8-12, cf. Zechariah 14:17-19), and then the wrath at the end of the Gog/Magog event (Revelation 20:7-10, Ezekiel 38:18-23).

Note that God's wrath doesn't have to destroy everything, for not everything will be destroyed at the vials of God's wrath (Revelation 16) or at the subsequent wrath of God at the second coming of Jesus (Revelation 19:15). And God's destroying everything before the White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11, 2 Peter 3:10) may not be an instance of his wrath, but could be done calmly in a simple desire to wipe the slate clean and begin again with the new earth (Revelation 21:1-4).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post #231:

Some more old entries for review and the blog . . .

Thank you for finding them, and reposting them here.

ThomasGuthler said in post #231:

. . . do you have any new thoughts about them?

Regarding the Mark 10:30-31 paragraphs, I hope to make additions to the blog under *Mk. 10:30 and *Mk. 10:31. But with modifications to the paragraphs, so as not to contradict the point made under *Eph. 1:21 that the present world (or age) can include the future tribulation (Revelation chapters 6 to 18) and the subsequent millennium (Revelation 20), with the age (or world) to come being the subsequent time of the new earth (Revelation 21). For the end of the present age, when all of the unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire (Matthew 13:40, Revelation 20:15), will not occur until sometime after the future millennium (Revelation 20:7-15).

-

Regarding the Luke 4:18 and Luke 4:19 paragraphs, I hope to make additions to the blog under *Lk. 4:18 and *Lk. 4:19.

Regarding the Ephesians 5:30 paragraph, I hope to make an addition under *Eph. 5:30.

Regarding the 1 John 3:9 paragraph, I hope to make an addition under *1 Jn. 3:9.

Regarding the 2 Timothy 2:10 paragraph, I hope to make an addition under *2 Tim. 2:10.

Regarding the 2 Corinthians 5:17 paragraph, I hope to make an addition under *2 Cor. 5:17.

Regarding the Hebrews 4:9-10 paragraphs, I hope to make an addition (after modifications) under *Heb. 4:9.

Regarding the Acts 16:16 paragraph, I hope to make an addition under *Acts 16:16-17.

Regarding the Revelation 13:18 paragraph, I hope to make an addition under section 3 of *Rev. 13:18.

Regarding the Hebrews 9:14 paragraph, I hope to make an addition under *Heb. 9:14.

Regarding the Jeremiah 2:18 paragraphs, I will go with the first paragraph over the second, and hope to make an addition under *Jer. 2:18.

Regarding the Hosea 6:2-3 paragraphs, I will skip them per se, but still hope to make additions under *Hos. 6:2.

Regarding the Revelation 16 paragraphs, I hope to add a section under *Rev. 16.

--

Thank you for helping me to make these additions to the blog.

ThomasGuthler said in post #231:

There's also a typo at *Mk. 16:15 - ... commands of Jesus (e.g. Mathew 5:39-44, Matthew 6:19a).

Thank you for pointing that out.
 
Upvote 0

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents unto thee." (Psalms 68:29)

This is referring to the 4th temple built after the 2nd coming?

-

Some more old entries for review and the blog, do you have any new thoughts about them?




Ephesians 1:10 means that the Church consists of one body which includes both those believers (those in Christ) who have died and are literally in heaven (e.g. Revelation 6:9-11) and those believers who have not yet died and are still literally on the earth (Ephesians 6:3).

At the second coming of Christ, He will physically gather together into one place all believers in heaven and in earth (Mark 13:27; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17).

-

Ecclesiastes 9:5 is referring only to dead bodies in their graves, not to the souls of the unsaved dead who suffer torment in the fires of Hades (Luke 16:22-24). But the torment of Hades isn't eternal, for after the millennium all of the unsaved dead will be resurrected out of Hades to be judged and cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:12-15). It is in the lake of fire (Gehenna, the eternal hell) that the unsaved will be tormented in fire and brimstone forever with the devil (Revelation 14:10-11, 20:10,15, Matthew 25:41,46, Mark 9:45-46)

-

Jesus saying that the devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44) could mean from his beginning as the devil, not from his beginning as Lucifer.

And/or, Jesus saying that the devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44) could mean from the beginning of the Adamic race in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:7-8).

Before Lucifer's fall into rebellion against God (Isaiah 14:12), so that he became the "Satan", the "Adversary" of God (Zechariah 3:2) and man (1 Peter 5:8), God could have placed Lucifer in the Garden of Eden as the "covering cherub" (Ezekiel 28:13-15). Lucifer's first act of rebellion against God could have been to deceive Eve (2 Corinthians 11:3), just as he continues his rebellion against God today by deceiving the whole world (Revelation 12:9).

-

Romans 8:7 doesn't say that the carnal mind of humans is the same as the spiritual being who is called the devil. For the mind of Jesus is not carnal, yet he was still tempted by the spiritual being who is called the devil (Matthew 4).

One can't redefine "carnal" as "human", after trying earlier to define "carnal" as "the devil". While Jesus certainly has a human mind, it is not at enmity with God: "the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Romans 8:7). Jesus was "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). He was tempted by the spiritual being called the devil and Satan: "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him" (Matthew 4:1-11).

There is no logic in saying that because the devil is the adversary of God and the carnal mind of man is also adversarial to God, that then the carnal mind of man must be the devil himself. That's as illogical as saying that because Hiter was the adversary of the Jews during World War II, and because the gestapo was also adversarial to the Jews during World War II, that then the gestapo must have been Hitler himself.

Satan is an individual spiritual being like the angels: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" (Job 1:6-7). "And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee" (Zechariah 3:2). "Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 1:9).

-

"The devil does not tempt to wrong things" is incorrect because the devil tempts us to commit sins, just as the devil tempted Jesus to commit sins by breaking the commandments of God (Matthew 4:7,10). Even if by "The devil does not tempt to wrong things" what was meant was "The devil only tempts us to do wrong things by making them appear to us as good things", it still is incorrect, in that while the devil can certainly try to make us think some wrong things are good things, he can still tempt us to do wrong things which we know full well are absolutely wrong. One way he can tempt us to go ahead and do them anyway is by assuring us that (in his words) "even though it's a sin, don't worry about it; God will forgive you". And so he can gently lead us down a path where we begin to sin willfully, without repentance, to the loss of our salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29), while he is whispering in our ears, "It's okay; God will forgive you; no need to repent".

But Jesus answers in a clear voice: "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die" (Romans 8:13); "lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain" (1 Thessalonians 3:5). "I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed" (2 Corinthians 12:21).

Actually, the devil does tempt to wrong things. For example, he tempted Jesus to wrongly cast himself down from the temple: "Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4:5-7). Note that here the devil even employed a scripture in his temptation to something wrong, showing that we have to know all of scripture, every last word of it (Matthew 4:4), in order to be able to (like Jesus did) counter with scripture the devil's wrong use of scripture.

And that was not the worst temptation the devil did. He even tried to tempt Jesus to worship him: "the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matthew 4:8-10). Note that Jesus again countered the temptation to wrong with scripture itself. "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee" (Psalms 119:11).

Note that no one need have tempted Lucifer; he could have sinned out of the lust of his own heart, just as we are tempted and sin out of the lusts of our own hearts: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin" (James 1:14-15). "Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man ... For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man" (Mark 7:14-15,21-23).

Actually, God didn't create the devil, in the sense that God created Lucifer good, even perfect; it was Lucifer who corrupted himself and so became the devil:

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" (Ezekiel 28:15).

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isaiah 14:12-15).

So Lucifer ended up tempting himself to wrong by his desire to be like God while rebelling against God. And this of course is Lucifer's ultimate temptation to man: the false New Age idea that man can become like God, or can already be God, even while rebelling against God (as in the God of the Bible: YHWH).

But if we choose to follow Lucifer's temptation to wrong, instead of obeying God, we will end up suffering the same ultimate fate as Lucifer: "thou [Lucifer] shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isaiah 14:15);

Ultimatley, Lucifer and all men who followed him (whether knowingly or unknowingly) into disobeying God without repentance, will end up in the lake of fire: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever ... And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:10,15). "Then shall he [Jesus] say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:41,46).

It's important to always remember the ultimate fate of Lucifer, for during the coming tribulation he will succeed in tempting the whole world into committing the ultimate wrong, for he will bring the whole world (except for some of the elect) into the worship of himself: "And they worshipped the dragon" (Revelation 13:4). Here the dragon is Lucifer/Satan: "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 12:9).

-

Luke 10:18 doesn't have to be the same event as Revelation 12:9, just as it doesn't have to be the same event as Isaiah 14:12.

-

While God is able to keep Christians safe if he wants to, he still commands Christians to flee persecution, never out of cowardice or any fear of death (Hebrews 2:15), but so that they can preach somewhere else that needs to hear the gospel (Matthew 10:23, Luke 4:29-31). That's why Paul didn't hang around a city when persecution arose against him (Acts 17:4-34), for what use was there of him getting killed right away before he'd had the chance to preach the gospel to many other cities?

1 Timothy 6:12 isn't talking about Christians sticking around and fighting their persecutors, but fighting against the evil spiritual forces which animate their persecutors (Ephesians 6:12, 2 Timothy 2:24-26).

Christians can still wage spiritual warfare (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) even as they flee persecution. For example, they can still pray every day for the salvation of the people who were persecuting them, that their persecutors would be delivered from the evil spiritual forces and thoughts controlling their minds.

Noah wouldn't have walked away from any persecution he may have suffered while building the ark, because he had to stay and build the ark if he and his family were to survive the approaching flood.

Stephen could have tried to calmly walk away from his stoning (Acts 7:59), but the enraged mob could have surrounded him on all sides and pushed him back, into the center, until he fell down from the blows of the stones. Jesus calmly walked away from an enraged mob that was about to kill him (Luke 4:29-30), so that he could teach other people somewhere else (Luke 4:31).

David didn't walk away from the giant because he was under the Old Covenant, where it was okay to hate and kill the enemies of Israel (1 Samuel 17:45-54). Indeed, it was David who intentionally looked for a fight with the giant (1 Samuel 17:32). But under the New Covenant, believers must love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-44) and never fight against them physically (2 Corinthians 10:3-5), even in revenge if they're physically hit by their enemies (Matthew 5:39). They that take up the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52).

The Bible doesn't say that Lot and his family were persecuted in Sodom before the angels arrived. And after they arrived, Lot's house got surrounded by a mob (Genesis 19:4) which was about to break down his door (Genesis 19:9). So Lot and his family couldn't have walked away; they were trapped in their house. It was only by a miracle performed by the angels that Lot and his family weren't all killed (Genesis 19:11).

Just as Lot was commanded to escape to the mountains (Genesis 19:17), so the church has been commanded to escape to the mountains when it sees the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36, 2 Thessalonians 2:4), which will begin the Antichrist's 42-month world reign and persecution of the church (Revelation 13:5-10, 14:12-13, 20:4).

-

Matthew 22:1-13 is only a parable, which means that we are not to get hung up on any of its details, but focus on the message that the parable is trying to convey: God allows all sorts of people to get saved, but they can subsequently lose their salvation if they fall into willful, unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29), so that they are not found wearing the figurative wedding garment of righteousness (Revelation 19:8).

If we try to latch onto every detail of Matthew 22:1-13, we will run into problems right away, for we would have people making it into the Father's house in heaven but then being subsequently cast out, as if the Father didn't know who was in unrepentant sin until they got all the way into heaven and were already at the wedding. We would, in light of another parable (Matthew 25:1-13), have both the wise and foolish virgins making it into the wedding, and then the foolish ones being subsequently cast out of the wedding. We would have contradicting messages in two different parables. That's why we can't latch onto the details of the various parables: the details contradict each other. So we have to take a step back and instead look for the common message that all the parables are trying to convey: we have to be ready and righteous for Jesus' return.

~

Luke 12:36 is only a parable; it's not referring to the actual marriage of Revelation 19:7, just as the parable of Matthew 22:11-13 isn't referring to the actual marriage of Revelation 19:7. And the details of those two parables contradict another parable with a marriage: Matthew 25:10. And yet all three parables contain a lesson applicable to those in the Church.

So what we have to do is not try to latch onto the contradictory details of the parables (e.g., do the wicked make it into the wedding and then get cast out, as in Matthew 22:13, or do they never even make it into the wedding at all, as in Matthew 25:10-12?), but take a step back and see what is a common lesson applicable to those in the Church which all three of the parables convey: those in the Church must remain spiritually ready and righteous for Jesus' second coming (Luke 12:40, Matthew 25:13), for if they fall into unrepentant sin, and so are no longer wearing the symbolic wedding-clothes of righteousness (Revelation 19:8b, cf. 16:15), they will lose their salvation at the second coming (Matthew 22:13, 24:51, 25:12, 7:21-23, Luke 12:39, Matthew 24:43).

The lesson of all three of the parables of Luke 12:36, Matthew 22:11, and Matthew 25:10, is applicable to those in the Church, which will have already existed for some 2,000 years by the time of the second coming. We can't pretend that only the parable of Matthew 25:10 is applicable to those in the Church, while the other two parables are not, for if the lesson of one of the three parables is applicable to those in the Church, then the lesson of all three of the parables is applicable to those in the Church, for all three parables are teaching the same lesson.

-

If Jesus was raised by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11a) and Christians will be raised by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11b), then the unelect could also be raised by the Holy Spirit. But the unelect will still be raised only to be damned, in "the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:29), at the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).

-

The first seal can't refer to international peace pacts brought in or maintained through righteousness before the second coming, for there is no righteousness apart from faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22), and he came not to bring peace on earth (Matthew 10:34), until his second coming (Micah 4:3-4).

Revelation 6:4-8 refers to a one-time series of future events, not a constant situation.

Nothing about the phrase "to take peace from the earth" (Revelation 6:4) requires that the war that the second seal symbolizes will be a war just for the sake of war and not for the sake of ideology, for the war it symbolizes could be started by an Iraqi Baathist General against Israel and Egypt for the sake of Baathist ideology, even if he initially cloaks his motive under Islamic ideology, which he could easily do if, for example, some ultra-Orthodox Jewish extremists blow up of the Islamic Dome of the Rock to (as they could say) "prepare the site for Messiah's rebuilding of the Temple".

Even wars started because of ideology and between armies of opposing ideologies aim at "killing one another" (Revelation 6:4), under the belief that by killing people opposed to one's own ideology, one's own ideology can therefore become more powerful upon the earth.

-

In Romans 2:26 the "uncircumcision" refers only to the physical uncircumcision of physical-Gentiles, just as in Romans 2:25 the "circumcision" refers only to physical circumcision. And Romans 2:26 is not referring to unregenerate physical-Gentiles, but to regenerate, righteous physical-Gentiles. Romans 2:26 means that even believing physical-Gentiles are counted by God as being circumcised, even though they remain physically uncircumcised; their circumcision is spiritual (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11).

And the opposite is true as well: an unbelieving physical-Jew, even though he may be physically circumcised, is in spirit uncircumcised (Romans 2:25, Acts 7:51) and so is not a Jew in spirit (Romans 2:28-29, Revelation 2:9, 3:9); he's been broken off in spirit from the good olive tree of Israel, the physical-Jews' own tree (Romans 11:20,24).

Romans 2:28-29 and Philippians 3:3 explain how even a genetic physically-circumcised Jew can not be a real Jew, if he is an unbeliever, while even a genetic physically-uncircumcised Gentile can be a real Jew, if he is a believer [Christians are Jews in spirit].

-

Antiochus III could have fulfilled Daniel 11:13 by, through an alliance with Philip V of Macedon, raising a large army to invade the Ptolemaic kingdom, which was centered in Egypt and at that time extended up to Sidon.

The Jews could have fulfilled Daniel 11:14 by helping Antiochus III.

Antiochus III could have fulfilled Daniel 11:15 by defeating the Ptolemaic armies in Sidon and Palestine.

But these verses could have a future fulfillment, just as Daniel 11:31 will have a future fulfillment, per Matthew 24:15, even though it could have been fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 BC (1 Maccabees 1:54).

Antiochus IV Epiphanes was indeed only a Biblical type of the final Antichrist, for while Antiochus IV Epiphanes' setting up of "the abomination of desolation upon the altar" [spoken of by 1 Maccabees 1:54] in 168 BC could have been a fulfillment of the abomination of desolation prophesied in Daniel 11:31, Jesus said that the church will still "see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" (Matthew 24:15). This didn't occur in 70 AD, because Daniel 11:31 is part of the entire sequence of events outlined in Daniel 11:21-45, which all refer to the career of the same person, the same king of the north. This career wasn't fulfilled by any Roman Emperor in 70 AD or at any other time, nor did Antiochus IV Epiphanes in any way fulfill the latter part of Daniel 11:21-45, beginning in Daniel 11:36, which refers to a man magnifying himself above every god. This will be fulfilled by the Antichrist, when he will sit in a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). [This will exceed in wickedness the abomination of desolation during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:54) insofar as he didn't sit in the temple and proclaim himself God above all gods.]

Just as Antiochus IV Epiphanes succeeded in causing some Jews to "forget the law" (1 Maccabees 1:49) and to turn toward his own religion: "Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion" (1 Maccabees 1:43), so could the Antichrist succeed in causing some Christians to forget the Bible and turn toward his own religion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post #233:

"Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents unto thee." (Psalms 68:29)

This is referring to the 4th temple built after the 2nd coming?

Yes.

ThomasGuthler said in post #233:

Some more old entries for review and the blog . . .

Thank you for finding them and reposting them here.

ThomasGuthler said in post #233:

. . . do you have any new thoughts about them?

Regarding the Ephesians 1:10 paragraphs, I hope to add them to the blog's *Eph. 1:10 entry, which will include the former *Eph. 1:9.

Regarding the Ecclesiastes 9:5 paragraph, I would point people to the *Soul sleep section under *1 Cor. 15:51.

Regarding the John 8:44 paragraphs, I hope to add a new entry under *Jn. 8:44.

Regarding the Romans 8:7 paragraphs, I hope to add a new entry under *Rom. 8:7.

Regarding the Matthew 4:7 paragraphs, I hope to add a new entry under *Mt. 4:1.

Regarding the Luke 10:18 paragraph, I would go with what's at *Lk. 10:18 now.

Regarding the Hebrews 2:15 paragraphs, I would point people to the *Fleeing sections of *Rev. 12:6.

Regarding the Matthew 22:1-13 paragraphs, I would go with what's under *Mt. 22 now.

Regarding the Luke 12:36 paragraphs, I would go with what's under *Lk. 12:36 now.

Regarding the Romans 8:11a paragraph, I will skip it, at least for now.

Regarding the Romans 3:22 paragraphs, I would point people to *Rev. 6:1 and *Rev. 6:4.

Regarding the Romans 2:26 paragraphs, I would go with what's under *Rom. 2:29 and *Philip. 3:2 now.

Regarding the Daniel 11:13 paragraphs, I would point people to *Dan. 11:31, *Dan. 11:14, and *Dan. 11:10.

-

(It seems that I'm more likely to skip entries toward the bottom of a long post, either because I'm burned out by that time, or because you have listed the entries in a way that the entries toward the top of the post are the most original with regard to what's already in the blog.)

--

Thank you for helping me to make the additions to the blog.

All of your work is greatly appreciated.
 
Upvote 0

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There are some more old entries for review and the blog, do you have any new thoughts about them?





Rabbi Richman reflects on his motivation in establishing the Temple Institute's International Department:

"The Torah testifies that the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was the spiritual center for all mankind. All of Israel's prophets foretell that in the future, the Holy Temple will once again stand on Mount Moriah, and at that time all nations will worship there together.


When Richman says that "the Holy Temple will once again stand on Mount Moriah, and at that time all nations will worship there together", he could mean that people from all nations will become ultra-Orthodox Jewish proselytes and worship in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as ultra-Orthodox Jews.

For the ultra-Orthodox Jews will never willingly let Gentiles worship in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem who haven't been circumcised (Ezekiel 44:7) and undergone a strict conversion to ultra-Orthodox Judaism, which conversion they would consider the only acceptable "circumcision of the heart" (cf. Ezekiel 44:7).

The ultra-Orthodox Jews could downplay this, and just refer to "all nations worshipping in the temple together" without mentioning the requirement that any such worshippers will have to first become ultra-Orthodox Jews, so that they can get the support of Christians worldwide for their temple-building plan.

Christians could give money and political support for the rebuilding of the temple, thinking that they'll get to visit it and worship in it. But then when it's actually built, the ultra-Orthodox Jews will bar them from setting foot anywhere near the temple lest they defile it.

~

The ultra-Orthodox Jews will not permit Christians to help them build the temple, for they see Christians as non-kosher people who would only defile the temple. And Christians should not financially support the building of the temple, because it will be built by the ultra-Orthodox Jews for reasons including the restarting of the Mosaic animal sacrifices for sin, which have all been abolished by God and replaced forever by Christ's one-time New Covenant sacrifice on the Cross for our sins (Hebrews 10, Matthew 26:28).

The ultra-Orthodox Jews will never willingly allow the Pope or any other Christian to set foot anywhere near the temple which they're going to rebuild on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, as they would see this as a gross defilement of the temple.

The ultra-Orthodox Jews will never go for the Antichrist sitting in the temple (2 Thessalonians 2:4) which they'll have rebuilt in Jerusalem (Revelation 11:1); they'll no doubt fight him tooth and nail as he approaches the temple, but he'll overcome them militarily so that they won't be able to prevent him from spiritually desolating the temple (Daniel 11:31, Matthew 24:15).

But there will be other, non-Orthodox Jews who will go for the Antichrist sitting in the temple, and will even assist him in spiritually desolating it (Daniel 11:30b-32a). These could include Luciferian Jews who will be all for the Antichrist's Luciferian world-reign, when the whole world will be brought into the worship of Lucifer and the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4-8).

--

The Church is not Israel and Israel in not the Church. The Church is the Church and consists of what were Jews and what were Gentiles, but is only the Church now, being Sons and Daughters of God, not Jew, Greek, Gentile. So when you see the woman, that is Israel and no other, not the Church + Israel and not only the Church, but Israel. If you miss that, it messes up not only Revelation, but all the books of the bible when dealing with eschatology


It's correct to say that missing the actual relationship between Israel and the Church will totally mess up one's understanding of Revelation and the other Biblical books dealing with eschatology, for they were all given to Believing Israel, the Church (2 Timothy 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:19). Passages such as Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6-18 were given to the Church so that it might prepare itself to endure unto the end of the tribulation (Matthew 24:13) with patience and faith and obedience (Revelation 13:10, 14:12), always waiting for the second coming and rapture (after the tribulation, Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8) which will make all of the sufferings of the Church worthwhile (Acts 14:22; 1 Peter 1:13, 4:12-13; 2 Corinthians 4:17-18; 1 Corinthians 15:54-58, Revelation 14:13).

~

„The Church didn't even exist when the words of Matthew 24 were delivered, nor any of that book.“


Note that that doesn't matter because it still contains many teachings given by Jesus to the Church that would exist later: "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18); "the church" (Matthew 18:17).

Matthew 24 was addressed to the Apostles upon which the Church would be built (Ephesians 2:20), and so was addressed through them to the Church, especially to those in the Church who will enter the Tribulation.

Matthew 24:9 is referring to believers in Jesus who will be in the Tribulation (cf. Revelation 13:10, 14:12-13), and all believers in Jesus are in the Church (Ephesians 4:4-5).

The fact that the Jews didn't know of the church at the time that Jesus spoke Matthew 24:31 is irrelevant to that verse applying to the church in the future, just as the fact that the Jews didn't know of the church at the time that Jesus spoke John 3:16 is irrelevant to that verse applying to the church in the future.

Note that Paul repeats to the Church the Communion teaching which Jesus gave to the Apostles in Matthew: "this is my blood of the new testament" (Matthew 26:28), "the new testament in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:25).

And how many in the Church reject the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) and the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7) as not being for the Church, simply because they are in Matthew? If we in the Church gladly keep the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount, then we should also be willing to keep Matthew 24.

~

Where the bible says Jew or Israel, that is what it means


Note that the words "Jew" or "Israel" aren't used in Matthew 24, just as they aren't used in the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount.

Also, the word "Jew" isn't used in the Tribulation chapters of Revelation (chapters 6-18); and the word "Israel" is used only one time in those chapters, to refer to the 144,000 believers in Jesus who will be sealed in the Tribulation (Revelation 7:3-4, 14:1-5). They are referred to as being "of the children of Israel", and they are also of the Bride, for the Bride includes all believers in Jesus (Ephesians 4:4-5). This is why later in Revelation, the picture of the Bride is a picture of the children of Israel: "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife ... the children of Israel" (Revelation 21:9,12).

Even believing Gentiles have been grafted into Israel: "graffed in among them" (Romans 11:17); "at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise ... Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens" (Ephesians 2:12,19); "the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things" (Romans 15:27).

Both the words "Jew" and "Israel" can refer to the Church: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit" (Romans 2:28-29); "we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" (Philippians 3:3).

"... they are not all Israel, which are of Israel ... the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Romans 9:6,8); "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ ... if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:16,29); "the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body" (Ephesians 3:6).

~

... it matters a lot regarding exactly whom you are addressing


Whom was Jesus addressing when He said: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"? (John 3:16).

He was addressing only Nicodemus: "Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (John 3:9-10).

Does it matter a lot that Jesus was addressing John 3:16 only to Nicodemus? Or does it not matter at all in regard to John 3:16's full application to the Church?

Whom was Jesus addressing when "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"? (John 14:6).

Jesus was addressing only the apostle Thomas: "Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" (John 14:5).

Does it matter a lot that Jesus was addressing John 14:6 only to the the apostle Thomas? Or does it not matter at all in regard to John 14:6's full application to the Church?

Whom was Jesus addressing when He said: "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also"? (John 14:2-3).

Jesus was addressing only the apostles: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35).

Does it matter a lot that Jesus was addressing John 14:2-3 only to the apostles? Or does it not matter at all in regard to John 14:2-3's full application to the Church?

Whom was Jesus addressing when He said: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved"? (Matthew 24:9-13).

Jesus was addressing only the apostles: "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3).

Does it matter a lot that Jesus was addressing Matthew 24:9-13 only to the apostles? Or does it not matter at all in regard to Matthew 24:9-13's full application to the Church?

If we in the Church gladly accept verses such as John 3:16, and John 14:6, and John 14:2-3 as having full application to the Church, even though in these verses Jesus was addressing only certain individuals before the Church even existed, then on what consistent grounds can we turn around and in good conscience throw out Matthew 24:9-13 as having no application to the Church, simply because it was likewise addressing only certain individuals before the Church even existed?

~

He came to Israel first, His words were for them first, addressed to them. First to Israel, then to the gentiles later (the mystery), not at the same time


That's right, Jesus came to Israel first (Matthew 15:24, Romans 15:8), just as everything that comes from God has to go to the Jews first (Romans 1:16, 2:9-10). But as you point out, He later would also come to the Gentiles (John 10:16), just as was foretold in the Old Testament (Isaiah 49:6, Acts 26:22-23).

So what Jesus taught in the Gospels first to the Jews, was to be later taught to the Gentiles as well (Matthew 28:19-20). So just as verses such as John 3:16, and John 14:6, and John 14:2-3 are all now fully applicable to the Church, so Matthew 24:9-13 is now fully applicable to the Church.

But where would one get the idea that the Gospels can't be preached to Jews and Gentiles at the same time? Aren't the Gospels supposed to be preached to everyone (Matthew 28:19-20), Jews and Gentiles alike? (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Isn't that why there have been Jews who have been saved since the early Church and down through history until this day? Isn't that why today the Church has "Jews for Jesus", missionaries to the Jews, as well as missionaries to Gentile people?

~

Matthew is definitely the Gospel book tailored for Israel, by far.


If Matthew were originally tailored for Jewish readers, how would that affect its application to the Church? Weren't all of the Gospels, all of the things that Jesus taught, first for the Jews? And haven't we seen that this makes no difference at all regarding the full application of various passages in the Gospels to the Church?

Are we in the Church to throw out the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), and the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7), and the universal baptism and teaching command of Matthew 28:19-20, as inapplicable to the Church, simply because they were taught first to the Jews? If not, if everyone in the Church would agree that that would be completely unwarranted, even silly, then on what consistent grounds can we turn around and in good conscience throw out Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21) as inapplicable to the Church simply because it was taught first to the Jews?

And what are we in the Church to do with the book of Revelation? Wasn't that entire book, from beginning to end, including the detailed tribulation chapters of 6-18, addressed to the Church? (Revelation 1:1, 22:16). What excuse would people use to throw out Revelation as inapplicable to the Church? What would they come up with so that they can pretend that verses such as Revelation 13:10 and 14:12-13 don't apply to the Church?

~

I just don't dig spiritualizing meanings of the text, it makes for considerable confusion through the whole of scripture when scripture is suppose to be cohesive and literal in meaning.


How would the text of Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21) and Revelation chapters 6-18 have to be spiritualized to say that they have full application to the Church? Were John 3:16, and John 14:6, and John 14:2-3, and Matthew 6:9-13, and Matthew 28:19-20 spiritualized by saying that they have full application to the Church? If not, then why can't Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21) and Revelation chapters 6-18 remain just as cohesive and literal as they are, and still have full application to the Church?

--

The fourth beast/kingdom shown to Daniel (Daniel 7:23, cf. 2 Esdras 11:39) was the Roman Empire, the standard of which was an eagle (cf. 2 Esdras 12:11).

2 Esdras 12:14 could refer to the first twelve emperors of the Roman Empire. If 2 Esdras 12:15 includes Caesar as the first, since he was made dictator for life before his assassination, then the second could be Augustus, whose reign was longest of the twelve.

--

Hebrews 11:39-40 doesn't mean that the Old Testament saints who died in faith had any different promise than the church, for they were promised the same heavenly city of New Jerusalem that the rest of the church is promised (Hebrews 11:16,10). Hebrews 11:39-40 simply means that they didn't receive the fulfillment of that promise until the church had been formed.

The "better thing for us" (Hebrews 11:40) could simply mean that unlike the Old Testament saints who died in faith, believers now don't have to go down into Hades, but can go immediately into heaven to be with Jesus upon their death (2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21,23).

Now all believers, no matter whether they died in Old Testament times or have died or are still alive in these New Testament times, are all under the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 12:24, 9:15, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6).

--

The firstborn in Hebrews 12:23 is Jesus (Hebrews 1:6, Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15,18, Revelation 1:5).

In Hebrews 12:23, where it says "AND to the spirits of just men made perfect", the Greek word translated as "and" can be translated as "even" (Hebrews 11:19). It in no way requires that the just men made perfect aren't part [of "the general assembly and church of the firstborn"] of the church. For the only way that men can be made perfect is through faith in Jesus and the gospel (Hebrews 13:21, 10:14), and anyone who has faith in Jesus and the gospel is part of his body, the church (Ephesians 4:4-5).

--

Hebrews 13:24 says "all the saints", it means "all the other saints" besides "them that have the rule over you" mentioned in the same verse, for "them that have the rule over you" are also saints (Hebrews 13:7,17).

--

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (1 Peter 4:11)

Here "glorified" is the translation of the original Greek verb "doxazo", from the noun "doxa", which means honor, praise, worship. 1 Peter 4:11 means that those obedient to God through Jesus Christ should do all things to God's honor, praise, and worship.

--

In the Bible, a "vision" doesn't have to be visual; the original Hebrew word translated as "vision" in 2 Samuel 7:17, for example, can simply mean "revelation", even one that is only heard in one's mind.

...if a prophetic vision doesn't have an inspired interpretation given afterward, that could mean that it doesn't need one, that it can be taken literally, as in the case of Isaiah 53. But if a prophetic vision does have an inspired interpretation given afterward, that probably means that the vision contained some symbols which couldn't be taken literally if their prophetic meaning were to be properly understood. So it would only make sense that where the prophetic meaning of a vision were different from the vision itself, that God would often provide an inspired interpretation afterward.

As a boy, Samuel was scared to share a vision (1 Samuel 3:15b). Some of the apostles were commanded not to share a vision until a certain time (Matthew 17:9). John the apostle was commanded not to share a certain part of a vision (Revelation 10:4). During a trip to heaven, Paul the apostle heard things which he could not lawfully share (2 Corinthians 12:4).

On the other hand, sometimes people have dreams or daydreams that they think are visions, but are just the imagination of their own heart (Jeremiah 23:25-32, Ezekiel 13:2-9).

One way to tell if a vision is false is to check it against what the scriptures say and see if it contradicts anything in the scriptures. But even if it doesn't, it could still be false; one will just have to wait and see if it actually comes to pass (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). Time will always tell.

Most Christians who say things like "God spoke to me this morning" don't mean an audible voice, but ideas from God placed within their minds. Although it is rare, it is possible for non-psychotic people to hear an audible voice from God (1 Samuel 3:4-10).

--

If the "powers that be" moved the clock ahead seven years and changed the dates so that we have a jan-dec calendar instead of basing it on the birth of Christ, then why did they set the clock ahead by 7 years?


It's unlikely that some grand conspiracy was involved.

Our current Gregorian calendar was derived from the Julian calendar ("July" was named after "Julius" Caesar; later, "August" was named after Augustus Caesar), which came into regular effect in 45 B.C., and so wasn't based on the birth of Christ. It wasn't until 525 A.D. that a monk suggested the B.C. - A.D. calendar system, based on the year of Christ's birth. And then it took another 500 years for the B.C. - A.D. system to take hold throughout Christendom. So it's unlikely that our current B.C. - A.D. system was some great conspiracy to set the clock ahead by 7 years; it was more likely based on the best available knowledge of the true year of Christ's birth.

Luke 3:1,23 says that it was "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" in which "Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age". Even our modern historians set the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar at 28 A.D. So, even by modern reckoning, the true year of Christ's birth could have been 2 B.C. So how does the Ethiopian church arrive at 7 A.D.?

Regarding the January-December system of our current Gregorian calendar, it, like the Julian calendar on which it was based, retained the previous and ancient Roman naming of a month as "SEPTember", which meant that that was the 7th month of the pre-Julian Roman calendar, just as "OCTober" was the 8th month, "NOVember" was the 9th month, and "DECember" was the 10th month. So the 1st month of the pre-Julian Roman calendar was March, to coincide with the Spring Equinox on March 21.

It was in 153 B.C. that the pre-Julian Roman calendar changed its start of the year to January 1st, to coincide with the date when Roman consuls took office. So the setting of January 1st as the start of the year happened a long time before the birth of Christ.

The Julian and our Gregorian calendar retained January 1st as the start of the year, just as they retained (like the the pre-Julian Roman calendar subsequent to 153 B.C.) the old names for the months September through December, even though those months were no longer the 7th through 10th months of the year.

It wasn't until 1582 A.D. that Pope Gregory XIII established our current Gregorian calendar, which made only a minor adjustment to the Julian calendar (regarding how often to have leap-years). But, even then, England and its colonies (including in America), which were Protestant and so didn't follow the dictates of the Pope, refused to change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar until 1752.

For some reason, not even Pope Gregory XIII, nor the Protestants, changed the old pagan Roman names for the months of the year (just like they didn't change the old pagan names for the days of the week). Pope Gregory, like the Protestants, kept the name "January" even though it honors the pagan god Janus, the god of beginnings. "February" was named after a pagan time of religious atonement. "March" was named in honor of the pagan god Mars. "April", which was from the Latin word "aperire", which meant "to open", was named in honor of the opening of spring flowers. "May" was named in honor of the pagan goddess Maia, who was thought to cause the growth of plants. "June", from the Latin word "juvenis", was named in honor of youth. (The origins of the names of the rest of the months were mentioned above.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
There are some more entries for review and the blog, do you have any new thoughts about them?
The ultra-Orthodox Jews will not permit Christians to help them build the temple, for they see Christians as non-kosher people who would only defile the temple.
This is true throughout most of world/ society/ population.
(but this is NOT a "new" thought nor a "new" truth nor a "new" idea.
No, it has been true for a long time - many centuries in fact)
Probably needs a thread in controversial section though, if YHWH permits.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post #235:

There are some more old entries for review and the blog . . .

Thank you for reposting them.

ThomasGuthler said in post #235:

. . . do you have any new thoughts about them?

Regarding the first two sections, I'll skip them, at least for now. They are partly covered by the idea of the last sentence of paragraph 2 of section 1 of *Rev. 11:1 (in the blog), and by the last sentence of paragraph 2 of section 2 of *Rev. 11:1.

Regarding the 3rd section (of what you reposted), it should be covered by the "Tribes" section of *Rom. 11:17, and by the "relevant" section of *Rev. chs. 6-22.

Regarding the 4th section (of what you reposted), it should be covered by the "Trib saints?" section of *Mt. 24.

Regarding the 5th section (of what you reposted), it should be covered by the "Tribes" section of *Rom. 11:17, and by *Rev. 7:4, *Rom. 9:3, *Rom. 9:8, and *Gal. 3:29.

Regarding the 6th section (of what you reposted), it should be covered by *Jn. 14:1, and *Mt. 24:9.

Regarding the 7th to 9th sections (of what you reposted), they should be covered by *Rom. 1:16, and by the "Tribes" section of *Rom. 11:17, and by the "Trib saints?" section of *Mt. 24, and by the "relevant" and "Literal" sections of *Rev. chs. 6-22.

Regarding the 10th section (of what you reposted), I will skip it, at least for now.

Regarding the 11th and 12th sections (of what you reposted), they should be covered by *1 Pet. 4:6.

Regarding the 13th section (of what you reposted), it should be covered by *Rev. 7:11. But I hope to, at some point in the future, add a pointer, a "See under Revelation 7:11 below", under a new, *Heb. 13:24 entry.

Regarding the 14th section (of what you reposted), it seems redundant to what the verse itself says.

Regarding the 1st paragraph of the 15th section (of what you reposted), I hope to, at some point in the future, add a new, *2 Sam. 7:17 entry.

Regarding the 2nd paragraph of the 15th section (of what you reposted), it should be covered by the "Literal" section of *Rev. chs. 6-22.

Regarding the 3rd paragraph of the 15th section (of what you reposted), I will skip it, at least for now. Although it did bring to mind *Mt. 10:27.

Regarding the 4th paragraph of the 15th section (of what you reposted), it should be covered by section 9 of *Lk. 11:1.

Regarding the 5th paragraph of the 15th section (of what you reposted), it should be covered by section 2 of *2 Tim. 3:16, and by the "Tradition" section of *1 Tim. 3:15.

Regarding the 6th paragraph of the 15th section (of what you reposted), I will skip it, at least for now.

Regarding the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 16th section (of what you reposted), they should be covered by paragraph 2 of *Mt. 14:1.

Regarding the rest of the 16th section (of what you reposted), I will skip it, at least for now. For its information should be in any good encyclopedia's "Calendar" entry. And it doesn't really relate to the Bible per se.

-

None of this is to say that you can't keep everything (that you have reposted) in your files. Please keep and share with others any past posts which you have found interesting, and which others may find interesting. When I say that what you have reposted "should be covered" by already-existing blog entries, I simply mean that the basic ideas of the posts which you have reposted should be able to be grasped by any Christian who reads the already-existing entries in the blog.

-

But thank you again for reposting the old posts. For they could be read by many people who won't ever go to the blog. (Indeed, compare the relatively high number of views for this thread, with the very low number of views for the blog's posts.)
 
Upvote 0

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But thank you again for reposting the old posts. For they could be read by many people who won't ever go to the blog. (Indeed, compare the relatively high number of views for this thread, with the very low number of views for the blog's posts.)


Hopefully some more people will find to your blog through this thread.

-

Thank you for commenting the posts, this was the last batch of old entries for review, after scanning completely through my files there´s nothing left to bring back from oblivion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ThomasGuthler said in post #238:

. . . this was the last batch of old entries for review, after scanning completely through my files there's nothing left to bring back from oblivion.

Thank you for all of your work, over the years, in finding the old posts and reposting them, and adding them to your files. They have added very much to the blog.

Hopefully, if I can get caught up on reviewing the blog's already-existing posts, I will be able to mine some new entries for it directly, from the Bible itself. For, as God's own Word, there is no end to its depths of meaning.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThomasGuthler

Newbie
Apr 16, 2013
176
7
✟35,993.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

What about Cessationism, is it a sin to believe in it and thereby quenching the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19)? Do you need to repent from Cessationism or otherwise you will get lost in the end because of the unforgiven sins of quenching the Spirit and despising prophesyings (1 Thessalonians 5:20) and forbidding to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39)?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0