The abomination of desolation

Spiritual Jew · Nov 14, 2020

Ki Won said:
He sat ? Who did?

From a number of sources actually, I aggregated it myself and was trying to be kind with the 3%. Among well off households the rate could be as high as 15% but in the poorest towns/villages there might have only been 1 person in the synagogue who could read.

Jesus used "he who has ears, let him hear" on several occasions for those who would "hear" rather than "read" His words, He deliberately chose "let the reader understand" here, indicating that He is talking to those people who would one day read the Word themselves, i.e. all those post printing press Christians and more specifically to those who would experience the period He refers to in Matthew 24. (Imho)

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you on this. Just read Luke 21:20-24, which is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-19. You do know that Jerusalem was indeed surrounded by the Roman armies around 70 AD and the city and the temple buildings were destroyed back then, don't you? And you do understand that Jesus said the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed, right? And the disciples asked Him about when that would happen. So, where do you think He answered that particular question?

For some reason, most people think that Matthew 24 has to have all been fulfilled in the past or all in the future. That is simply not true. Jesus talked both about the time when the temple buildings would be destroyed, which happened around 70 AD and also when His second coming and the end of the age would occur, which has not yet happened.

parousia70 · Nov 14, 2020

Timtofly said:
I did not ask for the dragon. I said who physically represents the dragon.

Well, If you go back and read it, that is plainly not what you said... but thank you for clarifying that you believe the dragon is a metaphor.

The ringleaders who set a mark on people and cause the people to worship Satan. I am asking you to prove your point. I am not proving anything. I do not think anything happened in 70AD, and can prove it. By just being silent.

You do you have to prove the premise of your objection. Ostensibly you are appealing to specific scriptures that you believe preclude a 70 A.D. fulfillment of anything. But you have yet to establish that those scriptures teach what you claim. I’ll start with this positive claim of yours and ask for the scripture:
“The ringleaders who set a mark on people and cause the people to worship Satan.“
Please provide the scripture you are appealing to that you believe teaches there are ringleaders who set a mark upon people that cause them to worship Satan.
Ostensibly you believe this Mark is physical and visible, So any scripture supporting that would also be required.

Because no verses specify 70AD as being important to God. Nothing whatsoever.

You make this too easy my friend.
There are myriad scriptures that hinge on the destruction of the city and temple but this is among the most plain
Luke 21:20-22

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

parousia70 · Nov 14, 2020

Timtofly said:
The church is not Israel, never was never will be..

The "church" is not something separate from Israel, but rather is the remnant of the faithful within Israel.

Acts 7:38 speaks of "the church in the wilderness" with Moses. Likewise, Isaiah pointed out that in times of Israel's great apostasies, the faithful of the nation were reduced to a tiny remnant of elect ones (Isaiah 1:8-9). So it was in the first century, where Paul identifies himself as an example of the faithful remnant (Romans 11:1-5).

The Remnant of the elect Jews followed God by following Jesus and his jewish apostles. They are True Faithful Israel. Their jewish brothers who disobeyed and fought against them were cut off from among the people, as stated in Acts 3:22-24. The Rock crushed them (1 Pet 2:7-8/Mt 21:43-45), for they rejected the time of God's visitation (Luke 19:40-44). And this is the same pattern that took place in Isaiah's day and in Elijah's day -- i.e., the REMNANT of the jews is true Israel and the rest are destroyed and do not have any heritage (Rom 9:27/Rom 11:2-5).

Moreover, the apostles continually say that the members of the Nazarene sect are the true elect ones (2 Tim 2:10; Col 3:12; Galatians 6:15-16; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Peter 2:9-10 ). The Church is the faithful ones of Israel.

Israelites that accept Christ don't cease to be Israel, as you would have it. Rather, they are the obedient Israel, the remnant of Israel, the elect of Israel. They were the church long before a single gentile was added to their number years later. The Church is Jewish and is Israel at its very foundations and origins (the Israeli apostles).

IN CONTRAST, you apparently count only the disobedient jews as Israel! In contrast, Scripture consistently teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE! The obedient Israelites, who get baptized, somehow cease to be Israel, in your teaching. That's completely backwards. Completely. I hope you will someday teach the truth: namely, that the jews who refuse to get baptized get "cut off from among the people of God" (Acts 3:22-24) and cease to be "sons of Abraham." Such disobedient ones are called "sons of satan" (John 8:39-47/Rev 2:9). You are turned completely around backwards with regard to this topic. The apostles and Mary and Joseph and their Jewish followers are TRUE ISRAEL and the true church. Those people went out and added gentiles to themselves as by a grafting in process to to the commonwealth of faithful, obedient Israel.

Timtofly · Nov 14, 2020

parousia70 said:
Well, If you go back and read it, that is plainly not what you said... but thank you for clarifying that you believe the dragon is a metaphor.

You do you have to prove the premise of your objection. Ostensibly you are appealing to specific scriptures that you believe preclude a 70 A.D. fulfillment of anything. But you have yet to establish that those scriptures teach what you claim. I’ll start with this positive claim of yours and ask for the scripture:
“The ringleaders who set a mark on people and cause the people to worship Satan.“
Please provide the scripture you are appealing to that you believe teaches there are ringleaders who set a mark upon people that cause them to worship Satan.
Ostensibly you believe this Mark is physical and visible, So any scripture supporting that would also be required.

You make this too easy my friend.
There are myriad scriptures that hinge on the destruction of the city and temple but this is among the most plain
Luke 21:20-22

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

I am not trying to fit Revelation into the 1st century. I thought you accept that. You have a weird way of saying Revelation was not fulfilled in the 1st century. All you seem to say is it can only be in the 1st century, but you have no proof either way.

I do not question the point many fled Jerusalem, were hunted down and killed. I do not deny Jerusalem and the Temple were leveled minus the cornerstone and some of the foundation. So not completely fulfilled, because the Romans would have had to clear everything from Jerusalem. Perhaps a nuclear bomb can still fulfill the prophecy?

The 1% we agree on. Now, can you explain the 99% we do not agree on?

Timtofly · Nov 14, 2020

parousia70 said:
The "church" is not something separate from Israel, but rather is the remnant of the faithful within Israel.

Acts 7:38 speaks of "the church in the wilderness" with Moses. Likewise, Isaiah pointed out that in times of Israel's great apostasies, the faithful of the nation were reduced to a tiny remnant of elect ones (Isaiah 1:8-9). So it was in the first century, where Paul identifies himself as an example of the faithful remnant (Romans 11:1-5).

The Remnant of the elect Jews followed God by following Jesus and his jewish apostles. They are True Faithful Israel. Their jewish brothers who disobeyed and fought against them were cut off from among the people, as stated in Acts 3:22-24. The Rock crushed them (1 Pet 2:7-8/Mt 21:43-45), for they rejected the time of God's visitation (Luke 19:40-44). And this is the same pattern that took place in Isaiah's day and in Elijah's day -- i.e., the REMNANT of the jews is true Israel and the rest are destroyed and do not have any heritage (Rom 9:27/Rom 11:2-5).

Moreover, the apostles continually say that the members of the Nazarene sect are the true elect ones (2 Tim 2:10; Col 3:12; Galatians 6:15-16; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Peter 2:9-10 ). The Church is the faithful ones of Israel.

Israelites that accept Christ don't cease to be Israel, as you would have it. Rather, they are the obedient Israel, the remnant of Israel, the elect of Israel. They were the church long before a single gentile was added to their number years later. The Church is Jewish and is Israel at its very foundations and origins (the Israeli apostles).

IN CONTRAST, you apparently count only the disobedient jews as Israel! In contrast, Scripture consistently teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE! The obedient Israelites, who get baptized, somehow cease to be Israel, in your teaching. That's completely backwards. Completely. I hope you will someday teach the truth: namely, that the jews who refuse to get baptized get "cut off from among the people of God" (Acts 3:22-24) and cease to be "sons of Abraham." Such disobedient ones are called "sons of satan" (John 8:39-47/Rev 2:9). You are turned completely around backwards with regard to this topic. The apostles and Mary and Joseph and their Jewish followers are TRUE ISRAEL and the true church. Those people went out and added gentiles to themselves as by a grafting in process to to the commonwealth of faithful, obedient Israel.

Hebrews 11 names the church, and many were not Israel. The church started with Abel, and in the OT ended with John the Baptist. Certainly many of Israel are in the church. See the dilemma? Can you prove that every Gentile in the NT who accepted Christ and His Atonement is a descendant of Jacob? By NT, I mean the last 1990 years. I do not think you are claiming that the church has to be Israel, but Israel is but a branch of the Olive tree. Perhaps a natural branch, but the Olive tree is Christ. Christ is the church and the church is in Christ. Paul is the one who said the Gentiles were the wild branch grafted in. If Israel is just a branch. And can be broken off, then Israel cannot define the church. Only those in Christ can define the church.

parousia70 · Nov 14, 2020

Timtofly said:
All you seem to say is it can only be in the 1st century, but you have no proof either way.

Scripture demands it. We are to believe it.

"The Revelation" is nothing less than the apostolic announcement of the then contemporary arrival of the Great Tribulation and Day of the Lord.(Revelation 1:9-10) It is the announcement of the Lord's coming in their generation. Christ's 1st century coming was heralded by St. John, the apostle who was to live until that coming (Jn 21:21-23; Matt 16:27-28)
John's announcement of Christ's apocalypse concerned things that were then taking place and things about to take place:

Revelation 1:19
'Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things"(YLT)

Revelation 1:1,3
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place...Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and heed the things which are written in it, for the time is at hand."

John's written announcement of the apocalypse that he sent to the seven Asia Minor churches is about things that were already underway as he wrote and their completion was obligated to "shortly come to pass," for the time was then at hand. Timo, John is either a true prophet or he is false. He explicitly states that the "things" contained in the announcement of Christ's apocalypse were "things that are" ... "things that were about to come after those things" ... "things that were obligated to take place soon because the time was then at hand." There is no way around this. John must be right, and futurists must be wrong.

Indeed, it is the apostles that placed the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in their generation (Matt 24:34/23:36), and consistently spoke of the fall of Jerusalem as the imminent day of judgment of their times (Lk 21:22, Mt 23:33-24:34; Mt 21:40-45; Lk 19:40-44). This was the desolation of which it was said: "the end of all things is at hand" (1 Pet 4:7); "in a very short while he who is coming will come an will not delay" (Heb 10:37); "the time is short" (1 Cor 7:29); "there are now many antichrists by which we know it is the final hour" (1 Jn 2:18-19); "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show...the things which must soon take place...for the time is at hand" (Rev 1:1,3); "the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door (Jas 5:8-9); "salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is near" (Rom 13:11-12); "this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt 24:34).

Christ had told them the Days of Vengeance (Lk 21:20-22) would take place in their generation (Mt 23:36/24:34) before the last apostle died (Mt 16:27-28/Jn 21:21-22) and even before they had finished their ministry to the doomed nation (Mt 10:23). Right on schedule, the Lord of the Vineyard came and took away their kingdom and gave it to a new nation; the Stone fell upon them, crushing the enemies of Christ and the apostles to powder (Mt 21:40-45).

We need to look no further than the pages of scripture and the Divinely inspired, infallible testimony of the apostolic witness for all the proof we need.

parousia70 · Nov 14, 2020

Timtofly said:
Can you prove that every Gentile in the NT who accepted Christ and His Atonement is a descendant of Jacob?

Can you prove any Jew alive today is a descendent of Jacob?

From its inception, and throughout its existence, Israel was made up of more than just genetic descendants of Jacob.

It actually began with Genesis 17:12, when God extended His covenant to both ethnic and non-ethnic Israelites:

Genesis 17
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

From the beginning of covenant history, faithful obedient Gentiles, without ethnic distinction, were full participants in that covenant.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God

Israel has NEVER been limited to genetic descendants of Jacob.

I do not think you are claiming that the church has to be Israel, but Israel is but a branch of the Olive tree. Perhaps a natural branch, but the Olive tree is Christ.

The olive tree is Israel
Jeremiah 11:16

Christ is the church and the church is in Christ. Paul is the one who said the Gentiles were the wild branch grafted in. If Israel is just a branch. And can be broken off, then Israel cannot define the church. Only those in Christ can define the church.

Moses had foretold that the jewish sons that refused to listen to Jesus would be "destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:22-24). That is exactly what happened. The disobedient sons of Abraham were the branches that were cut off off the olive tree, Israel (Romans 11:17-24; Mt 21:40-45). Believing gentiles join into the olive tree, Israel (Romans 11:17-24).

The Israelite apostles of the Jewish Messiah say I am a Jew (Rom 2:27-29), say I am "Abraham's seed" (Rom 4:16/Gal 3:29), say I am "the peculiar people, royal priesthood, holy nation" (1 Pet 2:9-10), say I am the circumcision-less Israel of God (Gal 6:15-16), say I am "no longer a stranger but a fellow citizen of the commonwealth" (Eph 2:19), say I was once not a people but now am the people of God (1 Pet 2:10) and say I am the circumcision (Phil 3:2-3). Each and every one of these statements takes a key identifier/distinctive of Israel and labels me with it. Meanwhile, Christ calls the disobedient genetic sons of Abraham the "sons of satan" and the "synagogue of satan" (Rev 2:9/John 8:39-47), and St. John says that those who deny the Son have no claim whatsoever to the Father (1 Jn 2:23)

Timtofly · Nov 14, 2020

parousia70 said:
Scripture demands it. We are to believe it.

"The Revelation" is nothing less than the apostolic announcement of the then contemporary arrival of the Great Tribulation and Day of the Lord.(Revelation 1:9-10) It is the announcement of the Lord's coming in their generation. Christ's 1st century coming was heralded by St. John, the apostle who was to live until that coming (Jn 21:21-23; Matt 16:27-28)
John's announcement of Christ's apocalypse concerned things that were then taking place and things about to take place:

Revelation 1:19
'Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things"(YLT)

Revelation 1:1,3
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place...Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and heed the things which are written in it, for the time is at hand."

John's written announcement of the apocalypse that he sent to the seven Asia Minor churches is about things that were already underway as he wrote and their completion was obligated to "shortly come to pass," for the time was then at hand. Timo, John is either a true prophet or he is false. He explicitly states that the "things" contained in the announcement of Christ's apocalypse were "things that are" ... "things that were about to come after those things" ... "things that were obligated to take place soon because the time was then at hand." There is no way around this. John must be right, and futurists must be wrong.

Indeed, it is the apostles that placed the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in their generation (Matt 24:34/23:36), and consistently spoke of the fall of Jerusalem as the imminent day of judgment of their times (Lk 21:22, Mt 23:33-24:34; Mt 21:40-45; Lk 19:40-44). This was the desolation of which it was said: "the end of all things is at hand" (1 Pet 4:7); "in a very short while he who is coming will come an will not delay" (Heb 10:37); "the time is short" (1 Cor 7:29); "there are now many antichrists by which we know it is the final hour" (1 Jn 2:18-19); "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show...the things which must soon take place...for the time is at hand" (Rev 1:1,3); "the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door (Jas 5:8-9); "salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is near" (Rom 13:11-12); "this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt 24:34).

Christ had told them the Days of Vengeance (Lk 21:20-22) would take place in their generation (Mt 23:36/24:34) before the last apostle died (Mt 16:27-28/Jn 21:21-22) and even before they had finished their ministry to the doomed nation (Mt 10:23). Right on schedule, the Lord of the Vineyard came and took away their kingdom and gave it to a new nation; the Stone fell upon them, crushing the enemies of Christ and the apostles to powder (Mt 21:40-45).

We need to look no further than the pages of scripture and the Divinely inspired, infallible testimony of the apostolic witness for all the proof we need.

I get the prophecy. I see no fulfillment. Show me the proof of the prophecy being fulfilled, not the prophecy itself, please.

It is all about to happen again and the vineyard will be taken away from the harlot church and given to the House of Jacob. Revelation has things to say about the harlot church as well.

This time there will be proof, that cannot be shown from the 1st century.

Timtofly · Nov 15, 2020

parousia70 said:
Can you prove any Jew alive today is a descendent of Jacob?

From its inception, and throughout its existence, Israel was made up of more than just genetic descendants of Jacob.

It actually began with Genesis 17:12, when God extended His covenant to both ethnic and non-ethnic Israelites:

Genesis 17
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

From the beginning of covenant history, faithful obedient Gentiles, without ethnic distinction, were full participants in that covenant.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God

Israel has NEVER been limited to genetic descendants of Jacob.

The Olive tree has never been limited to Israel.

parousia70 said:
The olive tree is Israel
Jeremiah 11:16

Was an olive tree:

Adonai once called you an olive tree,
beautiful, full of leaves and good fruit.
Now with the roar of a violent storm,
he has set it on fire;
and its branches will be consumed.

parousia70 said:
Moses had foretold that the jewish sons that refused to listen to Jesus would be "destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:22-24). That is exactly what happened. The disobedient sons of Abraham were the branches that were cut off off the olive tree, Israel (Romans 11:17-24; Mt 21:40-45). Believing gentiles join into the olive tree, Israel (Romans 11:17-24).

The Israelite apostles of the Jewish Messiah say I am a Jew (Rom 2:27-29), say I am "Abraham's seed" (Rom 4:16/Gal 3:29), say I am "the peculiar people, royal priesthood, holy nation" (1 Pet 2:9-10), say I am the circumcision-less Israel of God (Gal 6:15-16), say I am "no longer a stranger but a fellow citizen of the commonwealth" (Eph 2:19), say I was once not a people but now am the people of God (1 Pet 2:10) and say I am the circumcision (Phil 3:2-3). Each and every one of these statements takes a key identifier/distinctive of Israel and labels me with it. Meanwhile, Christ calls the disobedient genetic sons of Abraham the "sons of satan" and the "synagogue of satan" (Rev 2:9/John 8:39-47), and St. John says that those who deny the Son have no claim whatsoever to the Father (1 Jn 2:23)

Christ is still the olive tree and humans are only branches.

parousia70 · Nov 15, 2020

Timtofly said:
I get the prophecy. I see no fulfillment. Show me the proof of the prophecy being fulfilled, not the prophecy itself, please.

Where is your proof Jesus rose on the third day and later ascended to the right hand of the Father in Heaven? I don’t want scripture, I want proof.
Unless you believe of course that scripture is all the proof I should require?

It is all about to happen again and the vineyard will be taken away from the harlot church and given to the House of Jacob.

wait... “again”? What do you mean by again? Where is your proof to support your contention that it happened once already? When was the Vineyard taken away in the first place? Show me the fulfillment, not the prophecy.

Revelation has things to say about the harlot church as well.

Point me to the Chapter and verse you believe supports this contention.

parousia70 · Nov 15, 2020

Timtofly said:
[Israel]Was an olive tree:

So your contention is at some point both Jesus and Israel were the olive tree simultaneously?
Your contention is that at some point Israel was not merely the branches (people), but was the entire tree?, synonymous with Jesus?
That Israel at some point was In fact Jesus Himself, and only later was separated into just a branch?

Timtofly · Nov 15, 2020

parousia70 said:
Where is your proof Jesus rose on the third day and later ascended to the right hand of the Father in Heaven? I don’t want scripture, I want proof.
Unless you believe of course that scripture is all the proof I should require?

wait... “again”? What do you mean by again? Where is your proof to support your contention that it happened once already? When was the Vineyard taken away in the first place? Show me the fulfillment, not the prophecy.

Point me to the Chapter and verse you believe supports this contention.

So you avoid my simple request by making demands? What is the point in you disagreeing with me, if you cannot even prove you have a disagreement to actually post?

Timtofly · Nov 15, 2020

parousia70 said:
So your contention is at some point both Jesus and Israel were the olive tree simultaneously?
Your contention is that at some point Israel was not merely the branches (people), but was the entire tree?, synonymous with Jesus?
That Israel at some point was In fact Jesus Himself, and only later was separated into just a branch?

Nope, that was your point, not mine. You quoted Jeremiah and claimed Jesus was not the Olive tree.

Noah had an olive tree after the Flood to prove there was life. Was that Israel meeting Noah when he could leave the ark? Not every time an olive tree is mentioned in Scripture is the same symbol or literal thing.

parousia70 · Nov 15, 2020

Timtofly said:
So you avoid my simple request by making demands? What is the point in you disagreeing with me, if you cannot even prove you have a disagreement to actually post?

Not at all.. again I’m testing the validity of your premise which I don’t accept as valid.

You ostensibly accept the apostolic testimony When it comes to the fulfillment of the resurrection and ascension (because there is no extra biblical proof whatsoever) but you refused to accept the apostolic testimony heralding the fulfillment of the 1st century arrival of the Great tribulation and day of the lord.

why?

And, if you require me to provide proof It happened once, why do you not also have to provide proof of your belief that it happened once already, since you claim it will happen “again”?

Do you give yourself a pass?

Timtofly · Nov 15, 2020

parousia70 said:
Not at all.. again I’m testing the validity of your premise which I don’t accept as valid.

You ostensibly accept the apostolic testimony When it comes to the fulfillment of the resurrection and ascension (because there is no extra biblical proof whatsoever) but you refused to accept the apostolic testimony heralding the fulfillment of the 1st century arrival of the Great tribulation and day of the lord.

why?

The Bible does not declare 70AD fulfilled anything, not even the fleeing from Jerusalem. It easily could, no?

I do not deny the history of what happened. Many fled and where saved. Many fled, were hunted down, and killed. Titus did not set up any foreign pagan worship during the 7 to 10 year period. The rebels set the Temple on fire, and those fighting were too obsessed with the slaughter, they refused to put out the fire and save the destruction of the Temple. Was the Temple destruction a fluke? Titus did not want a destroyed Temple, but wanted to convert it. So which prophecy could have been fulfilled? The destruction of the Temple or the desolation of the Temple? Could both have been fulfilled simultaneously?

parousia70 said:
And, if you require me to provide proof It happened once, why do you not also have to provide proof of your belief that it happened once already, since you claim it will happen “again”?

Do you give yourself a pass?

The only thing I remember saying "again" about is handing over the vineyard back to the House of Jacob. The church today is in part, worse than the religious leaders of Jesus' first coming. Were the Sadducees in league with Satan? The religious name sake of Christ is accused of being in league with Satan. I agree. Instead of having a split view of Judaism, today there are 100's of flavors of theology. The church has also killed her own prophets and any one who stood up to denounce Satan or heresy creeping in to her theology. The Dark Ages were darker with the Word of God shut up and hidden from humanity much longer than the wicked kings of Israel. God did not come when the son was killed, and set things straight. The son was the one asking the question about God even before the Son was killed.

Now it is time. Time is up. God on the throne and the Lamb are going to come and reap the final harvest. Why would declaring the Word of God, be considered getting a pass? If it does not happen soon, then I will be wrong. How can I be wrong before being declared wrong, if it does not happen?

Semper-Fi · Nov 16, 2020

chad kincham said:
So? The John verse has nothing to do with it.

We’re not talking about His resurrection, but about the third temple that will be built, and the son of perdition (that’s not Jesus, BTW) stepping into the temple and claiming to be God, that Paul said has to occur before Jesus returns.

I used John to show the use of the word [temple].
2 Thessalonians 2:4 [temple G3485], is not talking
about a physical brick building temple or they would
of used the word [temple G2411] instead.

Matthew 21:12, the [temple] here is different
"And Jesus went into the [temple] of God,
and cast out all them that sold and bought
in the temple,

G2411
??e??´?, hieron, hee-er-on'
Neuter of G2413; a sacred place, that is, the
entire precincts (whereas G3485 denotes
the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple
(at Jerusalem or elsewhere): - temple.

Mark 14:49 templeG2411
I was daily with you in the [temple] teaching

Matthew 24:1 templeG2411, [buildings]G3619
to shew him the [buildings] of the temple

G3619
?????d?µ?´, oikodome¯, oy-kod-om-ay'
Feminine (abstraction) of a compound of G3624
and the base of G1430; architecture, that is,
(concretely) a structure; figuratively confirmation:
- building, edify (-ication, -ing).
-

A third temple does not have to be built before
Christ returns to earth. In fact the bible says that
soon half of Jerusalem will be taken.

parousia70 · Nov 16, 2020

Timtofly said:
The Bible does not declare 70AD fulfilled anything, not even the fleeing from Jerusalem. It easily could, no?

St John, in the opening passages of the Revelation, affirms THE Tribulation of Jesus Christ and THE Day of the Lord had arrived In His day. Why do you doubt his testimony?
(Revelation 1:9-10)

The only thing I remember saying "again" about is handing over the vineyard back to the House of Jacob.

Correct. So again I'll ask, Can you provide any proof the vineyard was taken away in the first place?
When and How did this happen?

Show us the proof.

It continues to seem very odd to me that you can not provide the same proof of things you believe came to pass that you require others to provide for things they (we) believe came to pass.

Why is it a different standard for you?

If it does not happen soon, then I will be wrong.

Do you therefore judge the apostles as having been “wrong” because what they said was coming soon did not come soon? Or is that different?

How can I be wrong before being declared wrong, if it does not happen?

Well, since you appear to believe "soon" can mean thousands of years, (either that, or the apostles were wrong, I’m not sure which) that's a pretty low bar, don't you think? If soon can mean thousands of years, you have the built in cushion of never in your lifetime being able to be proven wrong, regardless of what does not happen in your lifetime, and can therefore claim, with absolute impunity, that just about anything you want is going to happen "soon", right?

chad kincham · Nov 16, 2020

Semper-Fi said:
I used John to show the use of the word [temple].
2 Thessalonians 2:4 [temple G3485], is not talking
about a physical brick building temple or they would
of used the word [temple G2411] instead.

Matthew 21:12, the [temple] here is different
"And Jesus went into the [temple] of God,
and cast out all them that sold and bought
in the temple,

G2411
??e??´?, hieron, hee-er-on'
Neuter of G2413; a sacred place, that is, the
entire precincts (whereas G3485 denotes
the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple
(at Jerusalem or elsewhere): - temple.

Mark 14:49 templeG2411
I was daily with you in the [temple] teaching

Matthew 24:1 templeG2411, [buildings]G3619
to shew him the [buildings] of the temple

G3619
?????d?µ?´, oikodome¯, oy-kod-om-ay'
Feminine (abstraction) of a compound of G3624
and the base of G1430; architecture, that is,
(concretely) a structure; figuratively confirmation:
- building, edify (-ication, -ing).
-

A third temple does not have to be built before
Christ returns to earth. In fact the bible says that
soon half of Jerusalem will be taken.

The third temple has to be there for the son of perdition to step into, before Jesus returns 2 Thessalonians ch 2.

jgr · Nov 16, 2020

chad kincham said:
The third temple has to be there for the son of perdition to step into, before Jesus returns 2 Thessalonians ch 2.

If Paul had intended a physical temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, he would have used eidóleion or hieros/hieron as he did in the associated Scriptures below.

But he didn't. He used naos, consistent with his intended spiritual meaning, as in the associated Scriptures below.

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

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

Ephesians 2:21,22
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Spiritual Jew · Nov 16, 2020

jgr said:
If Paul had intended a physical temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, he would have used eidóleion or hieros/hieron as he did in the associated Scriptures below.

But he didn't. He used naos, consistent with his intended spiritual meaning, as in the associated Scriptures below.

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

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

Ephesians 2:21,22
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Excellent point. I agree. Also, it's worth pointing out that Paul would never have called the temple standing at that time "the temple of God" because the temple standing at the time ceased to be the temple of God when the veil was torn in two. And Paul would not refer to a future physical temple as "the temple of God" because God has no use for a future physical temple since we, the church, are the temple of God.

The abomination of desolation

Amillennialist

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Similar threads