John of Gischala, 66AD

[Interplanner]

[thanks to Rev20 for posting this elsewhere. I copied it here for a 'taste' of what the events of the 60s in Jerusalem and Judea were like. Dan 8 mentions an awful leader of the 'rebellion that desolates' coming in the 4th empire after his present time. What else needs to be said?]

John of Gischala, the leader of the controlling faction in Jerusalem, is said to have done the following. In particular read the last (long highlighted) sentence:

"6. But as for John, when he could no longer plunder the people, he betook himself to sacrilege, and melted down many of the sacred utensils, which had been given to the temple; as also many of those vessels which were necessary for such as ministered about holy things, the caldrons, the dishes, and the tables; nay, he did not abstain from those pouring vessels that were sent them by Augustus and his wife; for the Roman emperors did ever both honor and adorn this temple; whereas this man, who was a Jew, seized upon what were the donations of foreigners, and said to those that were with him that it was proper for them to use Divine things, while they were fighting for the Divinity, without fear, and that such whose warfare is for the temple should live of the temple; on which account he emptied the vessels of that sacred wine and oil, which the priests kept to be poured on the burnt-offerings, and which lay in the inner court of the temple, and distributed it among the multitude, who, in their anointing themselves and drinking, used [each of them] above an hin (about 5 liters) of them. And here I cannot but speak my mind, and what the concern I am under dictates to me, and it is this: I suppose, that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, that the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed." [Flavius Josephus, "Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, V.13.6, p.1454]​

You can read more about John of Gischala beginning here:

"1. NOW as Josephus was thus engaged in the administration of the affairs of Galilee, there arose a treacherous person, a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, "whose name was John. His character was that of a very cunning and very knavish person, beyond the ordinary rate of the other men of eminence there, and for wicked practices he had not his fellow any where. Poor he was at first, and for a long time his wants were a hinderance to him in his wicked designs. . ."" [Flavius Josephus, "Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, II.21.1, p.1277]​

John of Gischala could very well have been the Man of Sin the Apostle Paul wrote about. He would certainly give Nero a run for his money in the evil department.

 

[Codger]

[thanks to Rev20 for posting this elsewhere. I copied it here for a 'taste' of what the events of the 60s in Jerusalem and Judea were like. Dan 8 mentions an awful leader of the 'rebellion that desolates' coming in the 4th empire after his present time. What else needs to be said?]

John of Gischala, the leader of the controlling faction in Jerusalem, is said to have done the following. In particular read the last (long highlighted) sentence:

"6. But as for John, when he could no longer plunder the people, he betook himself to sacrilege, and melted down many of the sacred utensils, which had been given to the temple; as also many of those vessels which were necessary for such as ministered about holy things, the caldrons, the dishes, and the tables; nay, he did not abstain from those pouring vessels that were sent them by Augustus and his wife; for the Roman emperors did ever both honor and adorn this temple; whereas this man, who was a Jew, seized upon what were the donations of foreigners, and said to those that were with him that it was proper for them to use Divine things, while they were fighting for the Divinity, without fear, and that such whose warfare is for the temple should live of the temple; on which account he emptied the vessels of that sacred wine and oil, which the priests kept to be poured on the burnt-offerings, and which lay in the inner court of the temple, and distributed it among the multitude, who, in their anointing themselves and drinking, used [each of them] above an hin (about 5 liters) of them. And here I cannot but speak my mind, and what the concern I am under dictates to me, and it is this: I suppose, that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, that the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed." [Flavius Josephus, "Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, V.13.6, p.1454]​

You can read more about John of Gischala beginning here:

"1. NOW as Josephus was thus engaged in the administration of the affairs of Galilee, there arose a treacherous person, a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, "whose name was John. His character was that of a very cunning and very knavish person, beyond the ordinary rate of the other men of eminence there, and for wicked practices he had not his fellow any where. Poor he was at first, and for a long time his wants were a hinderance to him in his wicked designs. . ."" [Flavius Josephus, "Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, II.21.1, p.1277]​

John of Gischala could very well have been the Man of Sin the Apostle Paul wrote about. He would certainly give Nero a run for his money in the evil department.

My first thought was that it was Eleazar ben Ananus, but then I switched to John of Gischala. But now I think it was Eleazar ben Simon - who was a complete radical. John wasn't in the city when Cestius laid siege to Jerusalem; and he didn't take control of the Temple until Titus set up his siege on Passover of 70AD. John tricked Eleazar ben Simon into opening the gates of the temple so people could sacrifice on that Passover. John's soldiers infiltrated this group of people and took over the temple from Eleazar by stealth.

Paul is the only NT writer that speaks of the "Man of sin." Who is the leader of the terrorists occupying the temple at that time. The other writers (synoptics) only refer to the terrorists who took over the temple at the approach of Cestius about Cheshvan 1st 66AD. These two elements - the takeover of the temple and the army of Cestius were the two events that Jesus warned his followers to watch for. And they were to exit the city posthaste - which happened when the terrorists left the city in pursuit of Cestius for about a week. This was their narrow window of escape and it is why Jesus' warning was so urgent.

Eleazar ben Ananus was not the terrorist radical that John and the other Eleazar was. He doesn't seem to be the one who desecrated the temple like Ben Simon did. Eleazar ben Ananus was reassigned to a post outside of Jerusalem by the new government that was set up after the defeat of Cestius. So after this he was not in the city. That leaves Eleazar ben Simon. He was such a radical that the new government did not even want him involved in it. But they recanted because he had control of the public treasury and he had gotten much plunder and spoils from the defeated Roman army. I think he is our man - because there really isn't anyone else that I can see.

 

[Interplanner]

Didn't John G win between the three part internal fight for control? Or, are you saying it is the other factors that make the determination, not just final control?

 

[daq]

[thanks to Rev20 for posting this elsewhere. I copied it here for a 'taste' of what the events of the 60s in Jerusalem and Judea were like. Dan 8 mentions an awful leader of the 'rebellion that desolates' coming in the 4th empire after his present time. What else needs to be said?]

John of Gischala, the leader of the controlling faction in Jerusalem, is said to have done the following. In particular read the last (long highlighted) sentence:

"6. But as for John, when he could no longer plunder the people, he betook himself to sacrilege, and melted down many of the sacred utensils, which had been given to the temple; as also many of those vessels which were necessary for such as ministered about holy things, the caldrons, the dishes, and the tables; nay, he did not abstain from those pouring vessels that were sent them by Augustus and his wife; for the Roman emperors did ever both honor and adorn this temple; whereas this man, who was a Jew, seized upon what were the donations of foreigners, and said to those that were with him that it was proper for them to use Divine things, while they were fighting for the Divinity, without fear, and that such whose warfare is for the temple should live of the temple; on which account he emptied the vessels of that sacred wine and oil, which the priests kept to be poured on the burnt-offerings, and which lay in the inner court of the temple, and distributed it among the multitude, who, in their anointing themselves and drinking, used [each of them] above an hin (about 5 liters) of them. And here I cannot but speak my mind, and what the concern I am under dictates to me, and it is this: I suppose, that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, that the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed." [Flavius Josephus, "Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, V.13.6, p.1454]​

You can read more about John of Gischala beginning here:

"1. NOW as Josephus was thus engaged in the administration of the affairs of Galilee, there arose a treacherous person, a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, "whose name was John. His character was that of a very cunning and very knavish person, beyond the ordinary rate of the other men of eminence there, and for wicked practices he had not his fellow any where. Poor he was at first, and for a long time his wants were a hinderance to him in his wicked designs. . ."" [Flavius Josephus, "Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, II.21.1, p.1277]​

John of Gischala could very well have been the Man of Sin the Apostle Paul wrote about. He would certainly give Nero a run for his money in the evil department.

Aint you the lucky one. Now that you have figured out the man of sin, and placed him far away in the past, the words of both Yeshua and Paul have passed away and become nullified when it comes to you because you really have nothing serious to "WATCH!" for, (as Yeshua said to ALL) and of course those words of Paul do not apply to you either according to your one-time carnal fulfillment found in the person of a physical man, naming him by name, and laying upon him all the blame. But what will you do when you are called up before the Bema tou Christou to give an answer for disregarding the following words spoken emphatically to Peter three times and thus confirming this statement which he makes to Cornelius and his household?

Acts 10:28 KJV
28. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Spirits can be "unclean" but we are admonished not to call other men unclean. If you understood how Yeshua does the same in the Gospel accounts you might understand that when he castigates the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Jews, he is using the titles as typology and loaded symbolism rather than condemning individual men or even those groups as a whole. The same statements therefore still apply to you and I which were spoken to the disciples, such as, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, the leaven of the Sadducees, and the leaven of Herod." And why? because those titles are employed to describe attributes and traits of certain spirits rather than those actual physical groups. Each of them had some good traits and some bad just like everyone else and every one in every other modern kind of people groups or religious groups. One may find modern Pharisees preaching from lavish pulpits of million dollar churches all across this land at just about any given time.

I perceive that this mistake will cost you, O Greek scholar, (to the last kodrantes).

 

[Interplanner]

Since we know what it is to fear the Lord, we persuade men, 2 Cor 5. That's how it works. The Gospel reinforces that fear/respect, but also has happy news for us.

The driving force of a new testament believer is not a nervous system forcing itself to watch (and most of those people mean watch the events in Israel etc). Rather: "One died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

 

[Codger]

Didn't John G win between the three part internal fight for control? Or, are you saying it is the other factors that make the determination, not just final control?

Allow me to explain where I am at (this week) as I have stated my viewpoint changes over time.

Lets go over the whole passage because it all has to fit together - every word...

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (NIV2011)
1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,

2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

Paul is of course addressing the report that some of the Thessalonians believed that the Lord had already come. Not so says Paul. Here is what has to happen first before that day comes...

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

The rebellion of course was the rebellion (some interpret this as "Falling away") against the Romans and it has nothing whatsoever to do with a Christian apostasy - like is popularly believed. And as Josephus plainly says that it was Eleazar ben Ananus the governor of the temple who caused the daily sacrifice for the Romans to cease. This was seen a an act of war. Thus began the rebellion against Rome which was at first between the peace party and the Zealots in Jerusalem. Brother against brother Just like Jesus had predicted. Eleazar became one of the leaders of the separatist Zealot band; and his father - the deposed High Priest - became a leader of the peace party. So the father and son were at odds.


4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?

This all has to fit also with the prophesies of Daniel and Jesus. This seems to fit Eleazar ben Simon the best because Eleazar ben Ananus was not the radical that Eleazar ben Simon was. Ben Ananus was the governor of the temple and apparently there were no violations of the Covenant in the temple while he was in charge. This I think changed when Cestius with 30-45,000 troops came to Jerusalem to put down the rebellion. The hard core radicals – ben Simon retreated into the Temple which was in itself a fortress. Apparently he held control of the Temple until he lost it to John at Passover of 70AD with the coming of Titus. The conflict with Cestius only lasted a matter of days and then for unknown reasons – he retreated and lost nearly 6,000 of his soldiers.

When the zealots returned to the city after the defeat of Cestius a week later (meanwhile the Christians had escaped) they set up a new government and ben Ananus was sent to a post elsewhere. So from about Cheshvan 13th 66AD until Nissan 14th 70 AD, ben Simon was in possession of the temple. Note that there was no Roman presence in the city all of that time – just the three warring bands of terrorists fighting among themselves. So why couldn't the christians escape during this three year period? They couldn't because the Zealots were killing anyone who tried to leave the city as they were considered pro Roman traitors. Josephus states that this was one thing that the three Zealots gangs all agreed upon – killing the traitors.

So I see that the “man of sin” historically was Eleazar ben Simon because he took over the Temple at the appearing of Cestius. These were the two events that Jesus warned his followers to watch out for and it took some 36 years before it started to come to pass

6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

And as I have said repeatedly it was the Shekinah Glory in the Temple that was restraining the outbreak of war with the Romans. It was seen leaving the Temple on Nisan 8th 66AD. The heavenly host was heard leaving just 56 days later on Pentecost of 66AD. The Restrainer had been taken away. It was only a matter of a short time that Eleazar ben Ananus stopped the sacrifices for Rome and the war began. It's all very simple actually.


8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

All of the followers of Jesus believed that he was coming again for his people “Immediately after the tribulation of those days” We know today that this coming was delayed so this tyrant was not killed by the brightness of his coming just like Jesus said – His coming was up to His Father.

9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie,

The Zealots in the Temple, in order to calm the populace, were making up stories of miracles that were happening in the Temple. This reinforced the lie that God was about to deliver them from Roman oppression. I have only found one example from the works of Josephus. He reports that a cow in the temple gave birth to a lamb. This “false miracle” was intended to reinforce the lie of God's impending deliverance.

10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

The “lie” or powerful delusion was mentioned before – the belief that God would deliver them supernaturally. God (Jesus) had already told them that they were not going to win this coming war and told his followers about how to escape when the conditions warrant. Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians in 52AD and all of this was fulfilled just 14+ years later.

 

[daq]

Since we know what it is to fear the Lord, we persuade men, 2 Cor 5. That's how it works. The Gospel reinforces that fear/respect, but also has happy news for us.

It really is audacious how those who nullify Torah and Tanach, and have obviously not yet been called to the Bemato tou Christou, equate themselves as equal with Paul in knowing the terror of YHWH. Have you never read in the covenant the Father made with Abram how a horror and terror of great darkness fell upon him? When were you and your counterpart caught up to the third heaven and Paradise? Where is your testimony of this because I am sure many would like to read it.

2 Corinthians 5:8-11 KJV
8. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; [Bematos tou Christou] that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

There are three key words in the II Corinthians 12 passage to which perhaps one should pay particularly close attention concerning the revelatory-apokalupsis-vision of Saulos-Paulos and the ''catching up'' of the duo into the third heaven and Paradise. The three words are GSN#444 anthropos, GSN#5108 toioutos, and GSN#726 harpazo, which three are each employed TWICE in critical places in the text in the account which Paulos writes concerning this his own ''catching away'' or ''harpazo'' more commonly known in these modern times as ''the Rapture''. The word ''toioutos'' is most significant because it denotes ''character or individuality'' and seeing how it is employed twice in this context makes it an extreme probability that Paulos is implying that two different and distinct individuals were caught up or Raptured at this appointed-mow`ed-time in his walk with Yeshua.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 ASV (American Standard Version)
2. I know a man [GSN#444 anthropos] in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one [GSN#5108 toioutos] caught up [GSN#726 harpazo] even to the third heaven.
3. And I know such a [GSN#5108 toioutos] man [GSN#444 anthropos] (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth),
4. how that he was caught up [GSN#726 harpazo] into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Original Strong's Ref. #444
Romanized anthropos
Pronounced anth'-ro-pos
from GSN0435 and ops (the countenance; from GSN3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:
KJV--certain, man.

Original Strong's Ref. #5108
Romanized toioutos
Pronounced toy-oo'-tos
(including the other inflections); from GSN5104 and GSN3778; truly this, i.e. of this sort (to denote character or individuality):
KJV--like, such (an one).

Original Strong's Ref. #726
Romanized harpazo
Pronounced har-pad'-zo
from a derivative of GSN0138; to sieze (in various applications):
KJV--catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

2 Corinthians 12:1-4 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented)
2. Oida anthropon enChristo pro eton dekatessaron, eite en somati ouk oida, eite ektos tou somatos ouk oida (ho Theos oiden), harpagenta ton toiouton heos tritou ouranou.
3. Kai oida ton toiouton anthropon, eite en somati eitechoris {*} tou somatos ouk oida (ho Theos oiden),
4. hoti herpage eis ton Paradeison kai ekousen arreta remata ha ouk exon anthropo lalesai.

Verse three begins with ''KAI'' which simply means ''AND'' or ''ALSO'' ~

Original Strong's Ref. #2532
Romanized kai
Pronounced kahee
apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:
KJV--and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.

What happens if we understand it here as ''ALSO'' instead of ''AND''?

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 - A Literal Rendering
2. I know an anthropon-man in Christou fourteen years ago; whether in the body, not I know, or whether out of the body, not I know, (the Theos knoweth), was harpazo-caught-up that certain-toioutos-one unto the third heaven.
3. ALSO I know of a certain-toioutos-one anthropon-man; whether in the body, or apart from the body, not I know, (the Theos knoweth),
4. that was harpazo-caught-up into the Paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Unless your appointment has indeed passed and you are a "castaway" fish:

2 Corinthians 13:5 KJV
5. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? [GSN#96 adokimos]
6. But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates [GSN#96 adokimos].

Original Strong's Ref. #96
Romanized adokimos
Pronounced ad-ok'-ee-mos
from GSN0001 (as a negative particle) and GSN1384; unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):
KJV--castaway, rejected, reprobate.

Adokimos here is more accurately rendered "castaway", (as opposed to "reprobate").
For the kingdom of the heavens is like a net in the Doctrine of the Master-Teacher.
Be careful you do not claim to have something you know nothing about.

 

[Interplanner]

The Gospel reinforces that fear/respect for God because He took his own law seriously and sacrificed for us (Rom 3:21-31). It creates love for God. You don't need to be spooked into obedience, you don't jerk your nervous system around, and you don't need extraterrestrial visions. You just "love God because he first loved us."

 

[daq]

The Gospel reinforces that fear/respect for God because He took his own law seriously and sacrificed for us (Rom 3:21-31). It creates love for God. You don't need to be spooked into obedience, you don't jerk your nervous system around, and you don't need extraterrestrial visions. You just "love God because he first loved us."

Yes, surely you don't need anything because you have yourself.

 

[Interplanner]

??? You have nothing without the Gospel. There is no spirituality without the Gospel, that he loved us and gave himself up for us. That's what draws us to obey him.

 

[daq]

??? You have nothing without the Gospel. There is no spirituality without the Gospel, that he loved us and gave himself up for us. That's what draws us to obey him.

How much of the Gospel do you actually fancy yourself to have? Some here even profess four different gospels for four different dispensations: are you of that persuasion also? I just showed you the words of Paul which include the word harpazo which is used for the "rapture", (to snatch or seize) twice in one context and yet you rejected them while going on about "jerking your nervous system around", (whatever that is supposed to mean I have no clue) and "extraterrestrial visions" concerning what Paul wrote in the passages quoted. The revelations Paul received from above are part of "his Gospel" so I guess what you are saying is that you reject Paul too when he disagrees with the greater you, (NOT!).

 

[Interplanner]

The Gospel is that God justifies us from our sins through Christ, Rom 3:21-31. As far as I know that is the center of the letter to Romans.

No about the various gospels down through the ages. Rom 1 and Gal 3 make it clear that this message was preached down through time.

One use of that term about a situation he was reluctant to mention is not the Gospel. Nor is it "the Gospel" because it happens to be the same term as the rapture which also has scant mention. The Gospel is the historic event that expressed God's love for the unrighteous, to offer them a chance to be justified from their sins. I Cor 15, Rom 5, Eph 2. It also fulfills all Israel's promises, Eph 2B-3A, Acts 13's sermon.

 

[Douggg]

??? You have nothing without the Gospel. There is no spirituality without the Gospel, that he loved us and gave himself up for us. That's what draws us to obey him.

Actually, I am going to agree with you, 100%.

 

[daq]

Actually, I am going to agree with you, 100%.

What about these words of Messiah:

Matthew 5:18-20 RSV
18. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Are these words part of the Gospel of right now or some other dispensation?

 

[Douggg]

What about these words of Messiah:

Matthew 5:18-20 RSV
18. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Are these words part of the Gospel of right now or some other dispensation?

The Gospel of salvation is that by grace are we saved by the shed blood of Christ on the cross and nothing else, added to or subtracted from.

It has nothing to do with placing different timeframes in dispensations.

On this solid rock I stand, and I shall not budge nor repent of it.

 

[parousia70]

What about these words of Messiah:

Matthew 5:18-20 RSV
18. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So I take it you don't wear mixed fiber clothing, don't shave, don't eat shellfish and don't go near women during their menstrual cycle then?

 

[Old Timer]

Is this another thread about the DofJ?

 

[Douggg]

Is this another thread about the DofJ?

No, it is about preterism.....

.....I don't get it...

........

....Preterism rules !

....oh, brother

 

[Old Timer]

same thing really... even those little rascals seem to know how absurd this stuff is..

 

[daq]

So I take it you don't wear mixed fiber clothing, don't shave, don't eat shellfish and don't go near women during their menstrual cycle then?

You did not answer my question so why should I answer yours?
However I will answer yours and then I will add another for you.

"So I take it you don't wear mixed fiber clothing"

Your conscience is a garment:

Ezekiel 44:15-18 KJV
15. But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God:
16. They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.
17. And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen (HSN#6593 pishteh) garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.
18. They shall have linen bonnets (turbans) upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird (HSN#2296 chagar) themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.

Original Strong's Ref. #6593
Romanized pishteh
Pronounced pish-teh'
from the same as HSN6580 as in the sense of comminuting; linen (i.e. the thread, as carded):
KJV--flax, linen.

Original Strong's Ref. #6580
Romanized pash
Pronounced pash
probably from an unused root meaning to disintegrate; stupidity (as a result of grossness or of degeneracy):
KJV--extremity.

Original Strong's Ref. #2296
Romanized chagar
Pronounced khaw-gar'
a primitive root; to gird on (as a belt, armor, etc.):
KJV--be able to put on, be afraid, appointed, gird, restrain, X on every side.

The linen garments are to be loose fitting, not binding, a relaxed or "degenerated" material, as flowing, and not causing any sweat like as would be caused by wool, (also wool being a rough and irritable material to the skin). The word translated as "gird" (chagar) might better be understood more appropriately as "to bind about" (with fearfulness implied in the meaning of the word). What would cause "a priest" to come before YHWH with an improper kind of fear? What would cause "a priest" to sweat?

In other words the linen garments we are to wear, when we come before YHWH, should not cause any distractions, should not be constricting in any way, and most of all should not cause one to "sweat" due to an improper kind of FEAR (not the proper "godly fear" out of respect but rather "a fearfulness" coming from guilt and causing us to draw away, bind up, spiritually "sweat"). In other words the garments are the CONSCIENCE. The supernal-spiritual understanding undoubtedly speaks of spiritual linen garments which are devoid of any lingering guilt from a guilty conscience caused by the "wool of sin" in a garment analogy which is similar to the "leaven of sin" bread analogy.

Acts 24:14-16 KJV
14. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15. And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
16. And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

Hebrews 10:21-22 KJV
21. And having an high priest over the house of God;
22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Daniel 9:27 Confirmation of the Covenant

"So I take it you don't wear mixed fiber clothing, don't shave,"

Nope, nor razors; neither upon my head, neither upon my face.

"So I take it you don't wear mixed fiber clothing, don't shave, don't eat shellfish"

Nope, in fact, the only physical "meat" I eat is fish with scales that swarm in schools.

"So I take it you don't wear mixed fiber clothing, don't shave, don't eat shellfish and don't go near women during their menstrual cycle then?"

Absolutely not, in fact, the sons of your age marry, and are given in marriage: but those accounted worthy to obtain the next age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more; for they are isangeloi, and are the sons of God, being the sons of the resurrection.

And now my second question to you in addition to the one you did not answer is this: Do you at least abstain from all forms of blood as commanded in Acts 15:19-29? This includes any beef, steaks, and surely hamburgers, because it is not possible to completely drain the blood and the soul resides within the blood. So do you abstain from all forms of blood in any amounts whatsoever? or are you also an eater of souls like most here?

Acts 15:19-29 KJV
19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23. And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25. It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26. Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29. That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Fare ye well . . .