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.)