Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That was Herod's temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans...notice that it is to be "trampled under foot" by the Gentiles. The very temple Jesus said would be destroyed.Then what of the temple John was told to measure in Revelation, the one whose outer courts would be dominated by the gentiles?
I am still trying to fit all the pieces together myself, although I lean towards the futurist view since that is what I have been taught.
That was Herod's temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans...notice that it is to be "trampled under foot" by the Gentiles. The very temple Jesus said would be destroyed.
The problem is this belief that Revelation was written in 95 A.D. You will find most think that.
Revelation was written between 64-67 A.D. the temple was still standing at that time and the Church was in the tribulation. Peter and Paul are about to be martyred by Nero and Jerusalem and the temple would be later destroyed.
This is something to search out for yourself though. Think about this curious fact:
If John is writing Revelation in 95 A.D. why doesn't he mention that the temple had been destroyed already? John was there when Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse...how could he leave that out?
No. John is talking about the Herod's temple. John doesn't even speak to a 3rd temple ANYWHERE...nor does Jesus or any other Apostles.Very simple. John (but actually the Holy Spirit) was not talking about Herod´s temple. He was talking about a future temple during the time we call the tribulation.
No. John is talking about the Herod's temple. John doesn't even speak to a 3rd temple ANYWHERE...nor does Jesus or any other Apostles.
The point being this temple he speaks to will be "tread under by the Gentiles 42 months" (as Rev 11 says)...that was on Herod's temple. It correlates to Daniel 7:25.
That would not be true! It certainly was tread under...what do you call what the Romans did to it? Why was it called a Roman/Jewish war that went from 66-70 A.D.?Herod's temple was not "tread under by the gentiles 42 months." The Gentiles were outside the walls until Jerusalem fell. Then, in a very short period of time, measured in days, not months, they completely destroyed the temple, not eve n leaving one stone upon another.
That would not be true! It certainly was tread under...what do you call what the Romans did to it? Why was it called a Roman/Jewish war that went from 66-70 A.D.?
Where the problem is is you don't realize in Revelation 18 when it says "Babylon is Fallen" it's speaking of Jerusalem and the temple! Revelation 18:21-24 should make it obvious that it is Jerusalem:
21 Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.
22 And the sound of harpists and musicians and flute-players and trumpeters will not be heard in you any longer; and no craftsman of any craft will be found in you any longer; and the sound of a mill will not be heard in you any longer;
23 and the light of a lamp will not shine in you any longer; and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will not be heard in you any longer; for your merchants were the great men of the earth, because all the nations were deceived by your sorcery.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth.”
How one can deny this is Jerusalem is beyond me!!! You miss the boat on this when you think Revelation was written in 95 A.D. IT WAS NOT!
This is why Jesus uttered His lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37-39:
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’
The "Fallen Babylon" is that!
Not so! Not wresting...just reading the symbolism properly!Revelation 17 shows us a woman labelled "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." (verse 5)
She is explicitly said to sit "on seven mountains" (verse 9) And verse 18 explicitly says "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
Rome was then, and still is, known as the city of the seven hills, and was unquestionably the city that was reigning over the kings of the earth at the time the Revelation was given.
Since we are so explicitly told that Babylon is Rome, it is simply wresting scripture to claim that it is Jerusalem
No to JLB on making a coherent vision split up. The personage Paul was refering to was a Judaizer and his take over of temple operations, including the assassination of a high priest to do so, on the basis that the temple was corrupt (murder being less corrupt!). Dan 9 is remarkable for its ability to mean both of two figures with only a slight shift of nuance. For ex., to 'make a covenant firm' can mean to 'make the existing terms harsh.' That allows for it to be Christ's new covenant, but also has the echo of harshness that characterised the anti-Gospel Judaizers.
The only quote of Dan 9 in the whole NT is Christ situating it in the conflict in Judea in that generation following him (he had been saying so since 23:36, not jumping to the distant future). All details fit the Jewish War. Josephus even tried to describe 2 unusual things in the final scenes--a loud horrifying sound like a burning wind, and a sword hanging over the city. He was not given to adding such supernatural details for embellishment, so it seems to be plausible.
For Christian believers there, the return was expected 'immediately after' the destruction of Jerusalem, with the allowance, they knew, that only the Father would decide. He decided against the end of the world. That generation saw all these horrifying things, but only the Father would decide the end.
Minor question: what did you mean when you said "Daniel did not mention this word; abomination or desolation"? Both of them are in 26 and 27.
--Inter
Since you use no scripture to validate your "theory", but rather refer to the historical writings of Josephus, did Josephus record:The personage Paul was referring to was a Judaizer and his take over of temple operations, including the assassination of a high priest to do so, on the basis that the temple was corrupt (murder being less corrupt!).
Not so! Not wresting...just reading the symbolism properly!
One has to identify "the woman riding the beast" in Rev 17. She is described and seen in Rev 12! It is clearly Israel.
She goes into the wilderness in Rev 12:14, the next time you see her, John is carried by the Spirit into the wilderness, and he sees "the woman" (Israel) riding this beast (Rome).
That speaks to Israel and Rome being complicit is the killing of the prophets and the saints she is guilty of as stated in Rev 18:21-24.
Furthermore John clearly tells us they are complicit in Rev 17:17, 18;
17 For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.
18The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.
Work with that.
The difference is that God set the table for Israel and Judah through the prophets...calling them both harlots repeatedly.Why would you even imagine that the women of Rev 12 and Rev 17 are the same? The Old Testament prophets called both Israel and the surrounding nations, women.
The difference is that God set the table for Israel and Judah through the prophets...calling them both harlots repeatedly.
The woman in Rev 12 and 17 is identified as the same.
God was not as concerned with the surrounding nations, because he had no covenant with them. Israel was God's light to the nations throughout the OT...and they let their light go out which further led to the divided kingdom...as well as the captivity of both Israel and Judah.
God married Israel...not the nations around them...that's a HUGE difference!
Look at Rev 17:18:
18 The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.”
Any doubt that "the great city" is Jerusalem? I think we're told who that is in Rev 11:7, 8 speaking of the two witnesses:
7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.
I think that makes the point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?