A question of religion
Professor Binky
might be able to seek an answer to my question.
The Christian faith believes in revelations and the preachings of many
prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two questions.
As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to
avoid them. For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to meet
with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions. Is
the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to
fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say about
the religion?
Secondly, if as Christians we believe in the book of revelations and that
the world will proceed thus, then we believe that the world and it's history
is predetermined and it does not matter what we do because we were supposed
to do it anyway.
I guess thirdly, if the course of the world is not set, is the difference
between good and evil only the difference between which ending or prophecy
we follow and support.
I would really like a serious answer to these questions or some direction
who can give meaningful answers to these questions.
Gerhard N Thoen
<mat...@accsof.com.au> wrote:
> I wonder if someone could answer me or provide me some direction where I
> might be able to seek an answer to my question.
>
Dear Binky,
Perhaps you could turn from looking at the world and look at individual
people(that is what God does in the scriptures). God's purpose is that
each person has a clear opportunity to choose for themself what destiny
they wish.The main purpose for the predictions is to warn the Christian of
what is coming and why. We are not privy to all that God has for
us(probably couldn't handle it).
Imagine a door placed before you-on your side it says "whosoever will" on
the other side(God's side) it has "Whom I have chosen". We cannot see
God's side but we can see our side and that is where we make our decision.
There is no fatalism in the scripture of God as there is in the other man
made religions. God, who knows everything, has not given us that ablility
but he has given us an instructional manual with which we can know Him.
God is mostly interested in who chooses Him over this world-which He
describes as passing away and being replaced with a new uncursed one and
filled with those who love Him above all else.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Gerhard
Gary
>
> I wonder if someone could answer me or provide me some direction where I
> might be able to seek an answer to my question.
>
> prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two questions.
>
> As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to
> avoid them.
Are we? I don't think we aim to do anything other then follow christ to
the best of our abilities and let the prophecies happen as God wills.
> For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to meet
> with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions.
They are selected to bring forth Jesus' teachings and help His Church do
the will of God.
> Is
> the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to
> fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say about
> the religion?
You don't try to bring about any prophecy. You follow God's word and do
your best to be in His will in all your actions.
> Secondly, if as Christians we believe in the book of revelations and that
> the world will proceed thus, then we believe that the world and it's history
> is predetermined and it does not matter what we do because we were supposed
> to do it anyway.
This is wrong. There is a certain amount of predestination in what will
happen but as individuals we are free to accept God or reject Him and we
must always follow His will in our lives. In addition, our actions
affect the final outcome of history. Most propehcies don't tell us what
will happen they tell us what will happen if we don't follow God (or if
we do follow God)
> I guess thirdly, if the course of the world is not set, is the difference
> between good and evil only the difference between which ending or prophecy
> we follow and support.
Good is what God wills (wants) evil is anything which opposes God's
desires.
Adam Knight
> I wonder if someone could answer me or provide me some direction where I
> might be able to seek an answer to my question.
>
> The Christian faith believes in revelations and the preachings of many
> prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two questions.
>
> As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to
> avoid them.
We are acting to live our lives and expect what was said would
happen to happen. We cannot avoid most things that are prophesied,
unless they state so, so we just live our lives and expect them to come
to be.
>For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to meet
> with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions. Is
The papal elections are held to choose a pope who would lead God's
people the best; nothing to do with prophesey at all.
> the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to
> fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say about
> the religion?
A lot, but I've yet to see a prophesey not come true that was said
to have happened so far. IOW, so far, if it's been said it would
happen, it has. As to the future, I personally expect the same to
happen.
> Secondly, if as Christians we believe in the book of revelations and that
> the world will proceed thus, then we believe that the world and it's history
> is predetermined and it does not matter what we do because we were supposed
> to do it anyway.
The world's history and future are not predetermined. There is a
difference between MAKING the future and KNOWING it. Prophesey is
KNOWING the future. We, man, MAKE the future.
> I guess thirdly, if the course of the world is not set, is the difference
> between good and evil only the difference between which ending or prophecy
> we follow and support.
There is little to do with prophesey in the life of a Christian
other than the fact that we know Christ will come back to us again and
judge the world. Other than that, you can life a Christian life without
regards to prophesy. I have. =)
--
Adam Knight
Computer Science, 2001 -- Baylor University, Waco, TX
Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net
heb...@ibm.net
>
>> The Christian faith believes in revelations and the preachings of many
>> prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two questions.
>>
>> As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to
>> avoid them.
>
to avoid them. The men of Ninevah repented and were spared.
If the prophecies are of blessing we should seek to bring them
about.
To say that prophecied events cannot be averted is to deny
the clear teaching of scripture. To say that we cannot do
anything about some prophecies but that we can about others
is to beg the question.
>>For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to meet
>> with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions. Is
>
Malachi's predictions have nothing to do with the pope or anything else
in this day and age. They were fulfilled in the events of the time of
Christ and conlcluding in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple.
>> the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to
>> fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say about
>> the religion?
>
The prophecies of Revelation did indeed come to pass. Revelation
is a prophecy of the end of the Old Covenant order along with the
city of Jerusalem and the temple. These all came to pass in 70 AD.
Scott
jezreel
> infact that statement is so reprobate uninteligent and insane
> i know you not
> jez7538680
so...@nospam.com
Below are some answers for you , but before I get to them, I'd like
to point out your mis-conception of their number.
As an example of perception, you have stated your questions to be 2
in number.
As devided below, there are 6.
If you (or we) can not even percieve the reality of counting, how
then can we percieve the realities of GOD ??
Certainly GOD is more complex than math.
If you percieve 6 as 2, how then do you percieve GOD ??
Do we ALL do this, forming mathematics to 'fit' our needs ??
Would that indicate further 'forming' in our lives ??
Do we form 'convienient' opinionations, or do we follow the Word of
GOD properly ??
MOST of us like the 'convienience' of thinking the Bible is the word
of GOD, when in reality, it's the word of what MAN says GOD said.
How then can we ask of GOD from references by MAN ??
Would we ask a question about our CAR because we don't know why our
bicycle doesn't work ??
Should we question GODS motives because we don't understand why the
Church does what it does ??
Something to think about.
Here's some answers, as I percieve them:
> As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to avoid them.
.... as Christians we are watching, to see what comes true or not. We
can not move the Hand of GOD, we can only watch.
> Is the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to fruition.[?]
.... no- the Church is actively involved in helping us worship the LORD,
or at least it SHOULD be.
> If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say about
> the religion?
.... what if they come true, and we just don't SEE them coming true ??
> Secondly, if as Christians we believe in the book of revelations and that the world will proceed thus, then we believe that the world and
it's history is predetermined and it does not matter what we do because
we were supposed to do it anyway.
.... that's a statement, not a question, but what you're talking about
is called manifest destiny.
> I guess thirdly, if the course of the world is not set, is the difference between good and evil only the difference between which
ending or prophecy we follow and support.
.... the difference between good and evil has nothing to do with what we
support as Christians. As Christians our efforts SHOULD be to avoid
evil, and follow the good. Irreguardless.
> who can give meaningful answers to these questions.[?]
.... YOU can- IF you follow your HEART, and not what others SAY.
Respectfully-
Rev. Paul-
bee...@javanet.com-
--
The Church of Life was founded in 1973 in Seattle,
and is recognised by the Universal Life Church,
but is NOT associated or affiliated with any
Organization, Group, or other Church.
<)))><
heb...@ibm.net
>In article <35aa8...@news1.ibm.net>, heb...@ibm.net says...
>> >Professor Binky <mat...@accsof.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The Christian faith believes in revelations and the preachings of many
>> >> prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two questions.
>> >>
>> >> avoid them.
>> >
>> to avoid them. The men of Ninevah repented and were spared.
>>
>> If the prophecies are of blessing we should seek to bring them
>> about.
>>
>> To say that prophecied events cannot be averted is to deny
>> the clear teaching of scripture. To say that we cannot do
>> anything about some prophecies but that we can about others
>> is to beg the question.
>>
>> >>For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to meet
>> >> with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions. Is
>> >
>> Malachi's predictions have nothing to do with the pope or anything else
>> in this day and age. They were fulfilled in the events of the time of
>> Christ and conlcluding in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple.
>>
>> >> the religion?
>> >
>> The prophecies of Revelation did indeed come to pass. Revelation
>> is a prophecy of the end of the Old Covenant order along with the
>> city of Jerusalem and the temple. These all came to pass in 70 AD.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
> that is a lie
> infact that statement is so reprobate uninteligent and insane
> i know you not
> jez7538680
This view has been held by many throughout church history.
It is only those who are today ignorant of history that attempt
to place these events off into some unspecified future.
L Michael Francis
I share your thoughts, although perhaps at a more personal level. I have
involved myself in influencing politics as well as individual lives to give
this county and my fellow man opportunity to follow God's best plan for
them. At the same time I realize that God's prophets have spoken of evil
times which will certainly come in the end. So, why do I commit myself to
what I believe is God's good work in me, knowing that this world will
sooner come to an end if evil has run its course in the prophesies of God's
Word? I could wonder whether it would be better to just sit back and watch
as the world spirals to its final end.
I choose to believe that God has more interest in the course of this world
than any of us can imagine...and it is God who has set in motion both the
evil and good to accomplish what He planned from creation. Therefore, I
simply seek God's instruction for me and do my work, and watch God perform
His work. Although it might happen that I could personally play an
important part in God's plan, I don't believe that I am responsible for
making the plan work.
And, if I believe that God knows the count of the hairs on my head, which I
do, then certainly I can trust Him to complete and accomplish His plan,
with or without my help, but prayerfully, with it!
Professor Binky <mat...@accsof.com.au> wrote in article
<90033159...@rigel.accsoft.com.au>...
> I wonder if someone could answer me or provide me some direction where I
> might be able to seek an answer to my question.
>
> The Christian faith believes in revelations and the preachings of many
> prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two
questions.
>
> As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to
> avoid them. For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to
meet
> with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions.
Is
> the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to
> fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say
about
> the religion?
>
> Secondly, if as Christians we believe in the book of revelations and that
> the world will proceed thus, then we believe that the world and it's
history
> is predetermined and it does not matter what we do because we were
supposed
> to do it anyway.
>
> I guess thirdly, if the course of the world is not set, is the difference
> between good and evil only the difference between which ending or
prophecy
> we follow and support.
>
> I would really like a serious answer to these questions or some direction
> who can give meaningful answers to these questions.
>
> mat...@accsoft.com.au
>
>
>
>
>
>
Les Brown
>The prophecies of Revelation did indeed come to pass. Revelation
>is a prophecy of the end of the Old Covenant order along with the
>city of Jerusalem and the temple. These all came to pass in 70 AD.
>
And what a very big prophecy THAT was! Revelation was written well
AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem.
The O.T. prophecised the destruction of Jerusalem. Wasn't that written
BEFORE hand?
It's easy to be wise after the event, isn't it?
Les Brown.
gen...@usit.net
>I wonder if someone could answer me or provide me some direction where I
>might be able to seek an answer to my question.
In existing reality known by few of mankind, is the Living God who has
promised and does enlighten man with Truth concerning these matters.
>The Christian faith believes in revelations and the preachings of many
>prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two questions.
>
>As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to
>avoid them. For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to meet
>with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions. Is
>the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to
>fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say about
>the religion?
A true Christian is taught by God; not man nor the religions of man.
The prophets are "guides" who enlighten man concerning God. The blind
guides are those of the religions who are not taught by God nor given
Truth by God.
>Secondly, if as Christians we believe in the book of revelations and that
>the world will proceed thus, then we believe that the world and it's history
>is predetermined and it does not matter what we do because we were supposed
>to do it anyway.
Not so. God, knowing the mind of "fallen" mankind, has foretold what
the mind of man will lead him into. So also God, who has told man from
the beginning what his latter end shall be.
>I guess thirdly, if the course of the world is not set, is the difference
>between good and evil only the difference between which ending or prophecy
>we follow and support.
Man has not predestined; God has. The "world" which is the social
order of man, shall be destroyed and replaced with the social order
established in, on, and by the principles of God..
>I would really like a serious answer to these questions or some direction
>who can give meaningful answers to these questions.
Any of mankind may give a word concerning this matter. However, the
word may be an opinion, a lie, or the truth. The dilemna of man is his
inability to separate truth from a lie by not knowing nor
understanding the way by whoch truth is known as sure knowledge.
>mat...@accsoft.com.au
>
>
>
>
>
DW Suiter
jezreel
says...
> common sense is hard to find
> anyone who is a real christian understands that the refounding of
> israel is the fig tree ready to blossom
> 1948 began the countdown
> anyone who thinks otherwise is decieved
>
> jez7538680
heb...@ibm.net
>In article <35ac6d62...@news.ocean.com.au>, p...@ocean.com.au
>says...
>> heb...@ibm.net wrote in aus.religion.christian:
>>
>> >The prophecies of Revelation did indeed come to pass. Revelation
>> >is a prophecy of the end of the Old Covenant order along with the
>> >city of Jerusalem and the temple. These all came to pass in 70 AD.
>> >
>> And what a very big prophecy THAT was! Revelation was written well
>> AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem.
>
scholars to have been written prior to 70 AD.
>> The O.T. prophecised the destruction of Jerusalem. Wasn't that written
>> BEFORE hand?
>
Provide some examples for me. PLEASE. The dispensationalists
all project OT prophecies regarding the temple rebuilding and
destruction off into the future. They HAVE to do this otherwise
they have absolutely NO biblical basis upon which to claim that
there will be a rebuilt temple. They are trapped by their own system.
>> It's easy to be wise after the event, isn't it?
>>
Yes it is. And that is the way bible prophecy is usually understood.
And it beats the heck out of all these modern day prognisticators
with all their fancy ideas spawned of their own imaginations. It is
always easier to describe prophecy in terms of the past and
impossible to describe it in terms of the future. So why do people
try? Any attempt to forecast the future whether allegedly based
upon prophecy or not is speculation. There is not one whit of true
evidence that anything with any prophetic significance will happen
in our lifetime and who knows what life and technology will be like
a few years down the road. The Jews may even be wiped out of
Israel, who knows.
Scott
buzz
the middle is in a state of flux. I am no so pompous as to think I will
have an effect of the end, and the beginning is over. God has given us an
intellect and free will, and thus our choice of good or evil==therefore
Heaven or Hell
Professor Binky wrote in message <90033159...@rigel.accsoft.com.au>...
>I wonder if someone could answer me or provide me some direction where I
>might be able to seek an answer to my question.
>
>prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two questions.
>
>As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to
>avoid them. For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to
meet
>with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions. Is
>the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to
>fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say
about
>the religion?
>
>the world will proceed thus, then we believe that the world and it's
history
>is predetermined and it does not matter what we do because we were supposed
>to do it anyway.
>
>between good and evil only the difference between which ending or prophecy
>we follow and support.
>
>who can give meaningful answers to these questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Les Brown
>Nope. ALL the books of the New Testament are now believed by many
>scholars to have been written prior to 70 AD.
Ok.
When do YOU think Revelations was written? And where is YOUR proof?
>
>>> The O.T. prophecised the destruction of Jerusalem. Wasn't that written
>>> BEFORE hand?
>>
>Provide some examples for me. PLEASE. The dispensationalists
>all project OT prophecies regarding the temple rebuilding and
>destruction off into the future. They HAVE to do this otherwise
>they have absolutely NO biblical basis upon which to claim that
>there will be a rebuilt temple. They are trapped by their own system.
Contempory sources record the following event as actually occurring
during the seige of Jerusalem:
DEU 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh
of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given
thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies
shall distress thee.
>Yes it is. And that is the way bible prophecy is usually understood.
>And it beats the heck out of all these modern day prognisticators
>with all their fancy ideas spawned of their own imaginations. It is
>always easier to describe prophecy in terms of the past and
>impossible to describe it in terms of the future. So why do people
>try? Any attempt to forecast the future whether allegedly based
>upon prophecy or not is speculation. There is not one whit of true
>evidence that anything with any prophetic significance will happen
>in our lifetime and who knows what life and technology will be like
>a few years down the road. The Jews may even be wiped out of
>Israel, who knows.
Whilst I cannot find any proof of any N.T. prophecy coming to fruition
in our times, the O.T. has quite a few, the most obvious one being:
DEU 30:3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have
compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the
nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
DEU 30:4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of
heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence
will he fetch thee:
DEU 30:5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy
fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee
good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
I as much as I am more of a biblical zionist than a political one, I
cannot help but see the Hand of G-d in the gathering of Jewish exiles
from all over the world back to the Land of Israel and a very obvious
fulfillment of a biblical prophecy in our time. I think myself
fortunate indeed to have witnessed such a tremendous miracle in my
lifetime.
Whilst it is still true that we Jews my be removed from the Land of
Israel in times to come if we do not uphold the values and the laws
contained within the O.T., such a vacancy will only ever be temporary
as it says:
CH1 23:25 For David said, The LORD God of Israel hath given rest unto
his people, that they may dwell in Jerusalem for ever:
Les Brown
Christian Graus
>>>> The O.T. prophecised the destruction of Jerusalem. Wasn't that written
>>>> BEFORE hand?
>>>
>>Provide some examples for me. PLEASE. The dispensationalists
>>all project OT prophecies regarding the temple rebuilding and
>>destruction off into the future. They HAVE to do this otherwise
>>they have absolutely NO biblical basis upon which to claim that
>>there will be a rebuilt temple. They are trapped by their own system.
>
>Contempory sources record the following event as actually occurring
>during the seige of Jerusalem:
>
>DEU 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh
>of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given
>thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies
>shall distress thee.
>
Jesus prophecied the events in question also, why do you then reject
Him if His prophecy came to pass ?
( I agree BTW, that this did occur, and the Jews will not rebuild the
temple, such belief is based on misinterpretation of Daniel to justify
the literal reading of Revelations which results in the ridiculous
secret rapture/antiChrist figure doctrine. )
<snip a bit about Jews going to Jerusalem>
Christian
Les Brown
aus.religion.christian:
>On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:33:11 GMT, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) wrote:
>
>>>>> The O.T. prophecised the destruction of Jerusalem. Wasn't that written
>>>>> BEFORE hand?
>>>>
>>>Provide some examples for me. PLEASE. The dispensationalists
>>>all project OT prophecies regarding the temple rebuilding and
>>>destruction off into the future. They HAVE to do this otherwise
>>>they have absolutely NO biblical basis upon which to claim that
>>>there will be a rebuilt temple. They are trapped by their own system.
>>
>>Contempory sources record the following event as actually occurring
>>during the seige of Jerusalem:
>>
>>DEU 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh
>>of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given
>>thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies
>>shall distress thee.
>
>Jesus prophecied the events in question also, why do you then reject
>Him if His prophecy came to pass ?
Because, if the Gospels did write about it before the event, which I
doubt, then, how could it have been prohpetic when the prophecy was
well know for at least 1,500 before hand. It's hardly "His" isn't it?
>
>( I agree BTW, that this did occur, and the Jews will not rebuild the
>temple, such belief is based on misinterpretation of Daniel to justify
>the literal reading of Revelations which results in the ridiculous
>secret rapture/antiChrist figure doctrine. )
Do you also misinterpret the O.T. as well when it specifally states
that one of the things the messiah will do is rebuild the Temple?
I agree with you that I find very little proof in Revelation for the
Temple to be rebuilt (Revelations speaks more of a heavenly Temple
than an earthly one). Rather, Acts is the place were it seems to think
it will be rebuilt:
ACT 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the
tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the
ruins thereof, and I will set it up.
Then again, the N.T. does copy the O.T. extensively.
It seems as though the writers of the N.T. realised they had trouble
with the O.T.'s requirement of the messiah in that he should rebuild
the Temple. Jesus did not achieve this, so they "postponed" the
rebuilding to his "second coming". The N.T. seems to be hoping that
the reader will accept its account that the messiah will rebuild the
Temple sometime in the next 2000 years rather than in the more
immediate future as required by the O.T. as being shortly after the
messiah is known.
Your selective understanding of your own texts is in consonance with
your selective understanding of my post. I did say:
CH1 23:25 For David said, The LORD God of Israel hath given rest unto
his people, that they may dwell in Jerusalem for ever.
Which hardly implies that it will NEVER be rebuilt. For a more
explicit statement that the messiah will rebuild the Temple we need to
go elsewhere:
ZEC 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up
out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
This is one of the reasons why Jesus was rejected by the Jews as the
messiah; a/ He is supposed to have died BEFORE the Temple was
destroyed (died in c. 30ce., Temple destroyed in c. 70 ce.) and b/ It
has never been rebuilt since his death. Perhaps this is the reason for
Mat 26:61 and Mark 15:29. Was it only a 'rumour" that the messiah
would rebuild the Temple?
BTW, We Jews have a fast day (Tisha B'Av) coming up on Sunday 2nd
August (no food or water for 25 hours) as a memorial for the Temple's
destruction. If anyone feels like joining in, let me know.
Les Brown
Christian Graus
>Do you also misinterpret the O.T. as well when it specifally states
>that one of the things the messiah will do is rebuild the Temple?
Your post and comments in general exhibit an inability to understand
the Spiritual nature of Jesus' comments. The temple of God is within
every Christian, as the OT can be shown to prophecy, and as Jesus also
promised. God does not dwell in buildings made with hands......
Christian
Stan Summay
heb...@ibm.net wrote in message <35aac...@news1.ibm.net>...
>In <MPG.101458ce...@news.cgocable.net>, jez...@cgocable.net
(jezreel) writes:
>>In article <35aa8...@news1.ibm.net>, heb...@ibm.net says...
>>> >Professor Binky <mat...@accsof.com.au> wrote:
>>> >
many
>>> >> prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two
questions.
>>> >>
>>> >> As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying
to
>>> >> avoid them.
>>> >
>>> to avoid them. The men of Ninevah repented and were spared.
>>>
>>> If the prophecies are of blessing we should seek to bring them
>>> about.
>>>
>>> To say that prophecied events cannot be averted is to deny
>>> the clear teaching of scripture. To say that we cannot do
>>> anything about some prophecies but that we can about others
>>> is to beg the question.
>>>
>>> >> with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the
predictions. Is
>>> >
>>> in this day and age. They were fulfilled in the events of the time of
>>> Christ and conlcluding in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple.
>>>
>>> >> fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this
say about
>>> >> the religion?
>>> >
>>> is a prophecy of the end of the Old Covenant order along with the
>>> city of Jerusalem and the temple. These all came to pass in 70 AD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> that is a lie
>> infact that statement is so reprobate uninteligent and insane
>> i know you not
>> jez7538680
>
>This view has been held by many throughout church history.
>It is only those who are today ignorant of history that attempt
>to place these events off into some unspecified future.
>
>
Just because this view has been held by many does not make it right. Simply
it was impossible at the time to make sure all corners of the earth had
heard the gospel preached to them. This one fact makes it impossible for
Revelation to have been fulfilled. It is the truth of the scriptures that
guild me and all of the scriptures not what a man or even several men tell
me I should believe.
Stan Summay
been taught the Gospel then and it wasn't even possible then. Why does
everyone that believes this forget that fact.
heb...@ibm.net wrote in message <35aa8...@news1.ibm.net>...
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote in message <35aac...@news1.ibm.net>...
>
>it was impossible at the time to make sure all corners of the earth had
>heard the gospel preached to them. This one fact makes it impossible for
>Revelation to have been fulfilled. It is the truth of the scriptures that
>guild me and all of the scriptures not what a man or even several men tell
>me I should believe.
>
says on this subject then and let that be your guide?
NAS Col 1:5,6 because of the hope laid up for you in
heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of
truth, the gospel, which has come to you, just as in all
the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing,
even as it has been doing in you also since the day you
heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;
NRS Col 1:23 provided that you continue securely established
and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope
promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been
proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul,
became a servant of this gospel.
Are we to call Paul a liar? Are we to say that his words
must not be taken in their literal sense?
Also, Jesus told his disciples that they would NOT finish
going through all the towns of Israel (Mt 10:23).
Scott
NAS 1Cor 15:25-26 For He must reign
until He has put all His enemies under
His feet. The last enemy that will be
abolished is death.
heb...@ibm.net
>Wrong Scott.. They could not have come about in 70 AD as all men had not
>been taught the Gospel then and it wasn't even possible then. Why does
>everyone that believes this forget that fact.
>
what Paul himself states on this point? Could it be because
they do not want to believe it?
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote in aus.religion.christian:
>
>When do YOU think Revelations was written? And where is YOUR proof?
>
O.K. But before we head down this path we need to come to
an understanding. Are we agreed that NO ONE can actually
PROOVE any given date for the writing of the Revelation,
either before OR after 70 AD?
How then can we arrive at some idea of when it was written?
What guidelines shall we follow and what rules will we use?
What would you be willing to accept as "proof". If there
is no proof that you will accept because you are convinced
it was written after AD 70 then I would be wasting my time,
correct?
Stan Summay
earth has been already told about the gospel. That is impossible. Who
witnessed to the people in the Americas. Surely you do not believe that
someone came here and did that (Mormon beliefs aside). Since it is a
requirement that the temple be rebuilt before Jesus's return when was that
done.
But let us go back to this word creature for this is the key to
understanding what Paul is saying. Just because one can read English does
not mean you can understand what was trying to be said.
The Greek word that is used here is ktisis. You must also remember that
Paul did not have Greek as his native language. This Greek word refers to
an original creation. It is most often used to refer to the creation one
becomes after hearing the gospel. In other words the born again Christian.
So what is Paul trying to really say here.
That the teachings he is bringing this church are the same as to ones he as
taught to all the churches and the new creations that have excepted his
teaching. In other words he is giving them his credentials to be a
minister. Read the entire chapter and this is quite clear.
heb...@ibm.net wrote in message <35b27...@news1.ibm.net>...
>In <9uos1.1439$iV6.1...@news2.randori.com>, "Stan Summay"
<ssu...@mis.net> writes:
>>heb...@ibm.net wrote in message <35aac...@news1.ibm.net>...
>>
>>Just because this view has been held by many does not make it right.
Simply
>>it was impossible at the time to make sure all corners of the earth had
>>heard the gospel preached to them. This one fact makes it impossible for
>>Revelation to have been fulfilled. It is the truth of the scriptures that
>>guild me and all of the scriptures not what a man or even several men tell
>>me I should believe.
>>
>Why do you not familiarize yourself with what scripture
>says on this subject then and let that be your guide?
>
>NAS Col 1:5,6 because of the hope laid up for you in
>heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of
>truth, the gospel, which has come to you, just as in all
>the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing,
>even as it has been doing in you also since the day you
>heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;
>
>NRS Col 1:23 provided that you continue securely established
>and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope
>promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been
>proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul,
>became a servant of this gospel.
>
>Are we to call Paul a liar? Are we to say that his words
>must not be taken in their literal sense?
>
>Also, Jesus told his disciples that they would NOT finish
>going through all the towns of Israel (Mt 10:23).
>
heb...@ibm.net
>You surely can not be claming that Paul is stating that every creature on
>earth has been already told about the gospel. That is impossible. Who
>witnessed to the people in the Americas. Surely you do not believe that
>someone came here and did that (Mormon beliefs aside). Since it is a
>requirement that the temple be rebuilt before Jesus's return when was that
>done.
>
My question being, is he to be believed or not? Your
response, I take it is that Paul is NOT to be believed
because no one had yet witnessed to those in the
Americas, etc. (You do not actually know this of
course, any more than I do). Your argument is not
with me, it is with Paul. No, I am not Mormon <g>,
I am an orthodox christian.
There is NO requirement for a rebuilt temple before the
return of Jesus. Where do you get this?
>The Greek word that is used here is ktisis. You must also remember that
>Paul did not have Greek as his native language. This Greek word refers to
>an original creation. It is most often used to refer to the creation one
>becomes after hearing the gospel. In other words the born again Christian.
>So what is Paul trying to really say here.
>
>That the teachings he is bringing this church are the same as to ones he as
>taught to all the churches and the new creations that have excepted his
>teaching. In other words he is giving them his credentials to be a
>minister. Read the entire chapter and this is quite clear.
>
I guess that is one way to explain the verse, I will have to
do some study to see if it is an acceptable one. Is that the
historical understanding of this verse in church history?
Even if that is acceptable it still does not explain
Col 1:5,6 unless you are going to maintain that the
"all the world" that Paul mentions also only applies
to the new creation. To do that would turn all of
scripture on it's head so I notice you avoided dealing
with Col 1:5,6 other than to ridicule the idea that
it means what it says.
Rather than bounce this topic back and forth let me
propose that perhaps the use of the word "world"
refers to what would have been considered "the
known inhabited world". But if you accept this
definition of world here then you must also be willing
to accept it elsewhere, including the verses that
you claim require the gospel to be proclaimed "to
everyone, everywhere, throughout the entire earth".
If you do that, it places us right back where we are
today, but it would still remain that my claim is valid
that the prophecy was fulfilled in Paul's day.
Therefore you cannot admit this because it would
mean the death knell for this pillar of your system.
You are forced to deny scripture and ridicule those
who believe scripture has been fulfilled in order to
maintain what you believe.
What's a man to do?
What do you say about Matt 10:33?
Scott
Les Brown
aus.religion.christian:
>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 04:25:31 GMT, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) wrote:
Sorry Graus, but you've written a cop-out. Whilst Rev talks about a
heavenly temple, the O.T. talks in terms of an acutal physical one. If
you can't see that, then the O.T. might as well be the Code of
Hammurabi for all the relevance it has to you. You seem to totally
miss the point that a physical Temple was to be the centre of earthly
manifestation of the Divine Presence and a symbol of mankind's
connectedness to his Creator.
You seem to have no trouble believing in a god-on-earth but find it
impossible to believe in a building built to His commandments.
Les Brown
Les Brown
>I believe that Revelation was written some years PRIOR to 70 AD.
>
>O.K. But before we head down this path we need to come to
>an understanding. Are we agreed that NO ONE can actually
>PROOVE any given date for the writing of the Revelation,
>either before OR after 70 AD?
It is far easier to prove that Revelations was written after 70CE. If
it mentions a heavenly temple, then it would imply that the physical
one had already been destroyed.
>
>How then can we arrive at some idea of when it was written?
>What guidelines shall we follow and what rules will we use?
>
>What would you be willing to accept as "proof". If there
>is no proof that you will accept because you are convinced
>it was written after AD 70 then I would be wasting my time,
>correct?
Can you make any inference from Rev. that them temple was still
standing at the time it was written? From what part of the the text
could you do this and be beyond reasonable doubt?
What are your reasons for think that Rev. was written prior to 70CE?
Les Brown
heb...@ibm.net
Actually it is you who have copped out. The method Graus uses is
clearly the same as that followed by the New Testament authors.
Not only do they write that the temple of God is "within" man but
they also write that believers are being built up into a temple with
Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone.
The New Testament nowhere prophecies a rebuilt temple and all
Old Testament texts referring to a rebuilt temple were written
prior to the building of the Herodian temple which was destroyed
in 70 AD.
Rev chapter 11 quite clearly describes an earthly temple.
You seem to totally miss the point that a physical Temple was
never intended to be the centre of earthly manifestation of the
Divine Presence. It is man himself who is to be this center.
The earthly physical temple WAS a symbol of mankind's
connectedness to his Creator. Now that the reality is here
there is no more need for the old symbol.
Messiah has come, he is building his temple now.
John 4:20-24:
20 "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
21 Jesus *said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when
neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father.
22 "You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know,
for salvation is from the Jews.
23 "But an hour is coming, and now is,
when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such
people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and
truth."
This woman was somehow intelligent or spiritual enough to connect
this cessation of Jerusalem based temple worship and worship in
spirit to the coming of the Messiah, today we still argue about it.
NAS John 4:25 The woman *said to Him, "I know that Messiah
is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes,
He will declare all things to us."
robt
Les Brown wrote in message <35b365c9...@news.ocean.com.au>...
>heb...@ibm.net wrote in aus.religion.christian:
>
>>I believe that Revelation was written some years PRIOR to 70 AD.
>>
>>O.K. But before we head down this path we need to come to
>>an understanding. Are we agreed that NO ONE can actually
>>PROOVE any given date for the writing of the Revelation,
>>either before OR after 70 AD?
>
>It is far easier to prove that Revelations was written after 70CE. If
>it mentions a heavenly temple, then it would imply that the physical
>one had already been destroyed.
"possibility" not "imply"
heb...@ibm.net
How would one go about "proving" a post 70 AD date?
What is acceptable to you as "proof" of a date either
before or after 70 AD?
If it easy to prove a post 70 AD date why has it not been
attempted. The assigning to Revelation of a post 70 AD
date is based entirely upon "tradition" which is based
entirely upon a single quote from Irenaeus.
I am still willing to enter into a discussion of the date of
Revelation but wish to develop some parameters so that
I will not be wasting my time. If you are absolutely
convinced of it's post AD 70 date then what use is it to
either of us for me to present evidence to the contrary?
For example, John writes in Rev. 17:9-10 that "the seven
heads... are seven kings; five have fallen, one is..."
To whom do you ascribe these seven kings, assuming a
post 70 AD date? Domitian hardly makes any sense here.
Respectfully,
Scott
Christian Graus
>cgr...@southcom.com.au (Christian Graus) wrote in
>aus.religion.christian:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 04:25:31 GMT, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) wrote:
>>
>>>Do you also misinterpret the O.T. as well when it specifally states
>>>that one of the things the messiah will do is rebuild the Temple?
>>
>>Your post and comments in general exhibit an inability to understand
>>the Spiritual nature of Jesus' comments. The temple of God is within
>>every Christian, as the OT can be shown to prophecy, and as Jesus also
>>promised. God does not dwell in buildings made with hands......
>>
>Sorry Graus, but you've written a cop-out. Whilst Rev talks about a
Newsflash - all people who cannot have the decency to call me by my
first name after I commented that I felt calling me Graus was rude
will be ignored.
Christian
kat
Revelations.
kat
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> In <35b06f35...@news.ocean.com.au>, p...@ocean.com.au (Les Brown) writes:
> >heb...@ibm.net wrote in aus.religion.christian:
> >
> >When do YOU think Revelations was written? And where is YOUR proof?
> >
> I believe that Revelation was written some years PRIOR to 70 AD.
>
> O.K. But before we head down this path we need to come to
> an understanding. Are we agreed that NO ONE can actually
> PROOVE any given date for the writing of the Revelation,
> either before OR after 70 AD?
>
> How then can we arrive at some idea of when it was written?
> What guidelines shall we follow and what rules will we use?
>
> What would you be willing to accept as "proof". If there
> is no proof that you will accept because you are convinced
> it was written after AD 70 then I would be wasting my time,
> correct?
>
kat
of Isreal because Jesus knew that their lives would be cut off before
their time.
kat
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
><snipped>
> Also, Jesus told his disciples that they would NOT finish
> going through all the towns of Israel (Mt 10:23).
>
Derrick Ryals
wrote what The Holy Spirit led them to write. To believe in the Bible, we
must first agree that it is God inspired and man written. In other words,
the words came from the mouth of God but were written by man.
Yes, God was there in the beginning and yes, God was there at the end.
He knows what has happened and He knows what will happen. And in the Word of
God, He gave us an idea of what will happen. There is no doubt that these
things will come about.
As human beings, now we have to decide what we will do about these
revelations of the future. It's like God is telling us,"Look, this is what
will happen to this side and this is what will happen to that side. Now,
which side are YOU going to be on?"
As christians, we have already chosen sides. We have chosen to love,
worship, and honor God. So if we love Him, then we should do the things He
told us to do and win as many souls as we can to His side to prevent them
from suffering the same fate as those poor souls who chose the wrong side.
So if we help win even ONE soul to Him, then yes my friend, we have made a
difference. I sincerely hope this helps you.
Your Brother in Christ,
Ricky Ryals
>Professor Binky wrote in message
<90033159...@rigel.accsoft.com.au>...
>>I wonder if someone could answer me or provide me some direction where I
>>might be able to seek an answer to my question.
>>
>>The Christian faith believes in revelations and the preachings of many
>>prophets. One comes to mind is Malachi. From this fact comes two
questions.
>>
>>As Christians, are we aiming to bring about the prophecies or trying to
>>avoid them. For example, when a new pope is elected, are they chosen to
>meet
>>with Malachi's predictions or are they chosen to avoid the predictions. Is
>>the church actively involved in bringing the book of revelations to
>>fruition. If the predictions do not come true, then what does this say
>about
>>the religion?
>>
heb...@ibm.net
>What years was John imprisioned on Patmos? That is when he wrote
>Revelations.
>
>kat
>
except God.
Since we do not know the answer we must attempt to arrive
at a method that we can agree upon to try to give us some
idea of when it was written. The alternative is for each of us
to believe whatever we wish in this regard.
One thing I would like to point out, while the date of Revelation
if known, could considerably strengthen the preterist view, it
can in no way strengthen the futurist view.
The inescapable fact remains that John was told that the things
he saw would occur SOON and that the time was NEAR. Unless
we are willing to ignore and reinterpret these passages which
occur throughout Revelation, we must conclude that the events
it describes are past history. Just because we may not be able
to put an exact description upon every item in Revelation does
not negate the language of our Lord in telling the seven churches
in Asia that these things would soon come to pass.
From this perspective it matters not whether the prophecy was
given before 70 AD or around 96 AD.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>Maybe Jesus told them they wouldn't be able to go through all the towns
>of Isreal because Jesus knew that their lives would be cut off before
>their time.
>
This is possible but I personally cannot accept it because
it would have Jesus contradicting himself.
Matt 16:27-28:
27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of
His Father with His angels; and WILL THEN RECOMPENSE
EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.
28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are
standing here who shall not taste death until they see the
Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
I know that you have probably been told all your life that this
passage applies to the end of the world, but look at what
Jesus says, some of his disciples will NOT taste death
before he comes in his kingdom.
Perhaps this "coming in his kingdom" refers to a different
event than what we have commonly been taught.
Why is this pasage relevant to our discussion?
Let's look at Matt 10:23 again:
NAS Matt 10:23 "But whenever they persecute YOU in
this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to YOU, YOU
shall not finish going through the cities of Israel,
until the Son of Man comes.
It is relevant because he seems to be speaking of
the SAME event in both passages and at least SOME
of his disciples would still be ALIVE to see it.
WOW. Can this be true? AlI ask is that you ponder it.
These passages become so simple to understand if we
just take them to mean what they say without trying
to figure out how such things could be so after all that
we have been told.
These passages fit perfectly into the time frame of
the "this generation" that Jesus spoke of. The
coming judgement upon Israel for their rejection
of Jesus and the persecution of his messengers
also occurred withing the frame of "this generation".
One is not required to re-interpret or explain away
these texts as referring to some future event as
yet unfillfilled but of which there is no clue or
mention in the text itself.
I prefer the preterist rendering for it's beauty, simplicity,
and for the way it holds true to the Word.
Steve Moroz
Hi all, I am new to this NG. I am a previous believer in the soon to be
Great Tribulation, who now believes that this was refering to the ending
of the age (the Old Testament sacrifical age), when Jerusalem was
destroyed in 70 A.D. I believe one of the keys is to interepret that the
coming of the Lord-meant a coming in judgement, not a physical
visitation. I am looking forward to the discussion on this NG. BTW, a
church that is "waiting for Jesus to come and fix everything," is a
church that is inactive and asleep- very convienent for the evildoers.
kat
the first king, or the head of the image.
kat
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> In <35b52f41...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>, mauriti...@hotmail.com (Alan Craft) writes:
> >On 21 Jul 1998 23:29:13 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
> >
> >>In <35B3C3B2...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >>>What years was John imprisioned on Patmos? That is when he wrote
> >>>Revelations.
> >>>
> >>From this perspective it matters not whether the prophecy was
> >>given before 70 AD or around 96 AD.
> >>
> >
> > An addendum if I may...the forward to the Book of Revelation
> >in the New American(Catholic) Bible suggests that it was written
> >near the end of the reign of the emperor Domitian (81-96 A.D.), a
> >vicious persecutor of Christians.
> >
> >Alan
>
> Hi, I am aware of things like this. My bible is the same <g>.
> Modern scholarship is showing that the persecution of
> Christians during the reign of Domitian was not as widespread
> as was previously thought.
>
> The 96 AD date for Revealtion is based upon ONE single source.
>
> Domitian makes no sense for the 6th king (5 have fallen, one is),
> while Nero fits perfectly as the 6th, beginning with Julius Ceasar.
>
> Just a few morsels for thought.
kat
come with His army of angels? No.
Just like the Jews wouldn't accept Jesus as their Messiah because He
didn't come and wipe out the Romans, so you are limiting the meaning of
scripture. For we know what has happened and we know what is still to
happen.....and I can't see any part of Revelations that has been
fulfilled.
kat
kat
lifespan, 24 hour days, whereas God is looking at the world from outside
our time-space. Soon to us means almost right now, within our concept of
24 hour days, but to God, who is in eternity, soon might be a thousand
or two years. There are pre-requisitions that need to be fulfilled
before this soon and near can happen, from God's view point, and these
are listed throughout the Old and New Testaments.
If Revelations was written in 96 AD, when did the events contained
therein happen? Actually, I have read Revelations a couple of times and
find it very easy to understand in this modern age.
kat
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> In <35B3C3B2...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >What years was John imprisioned on Patmos? That is when he wrote
> >Revelations.
> >
> >kat
> >
> This is a good question. Truthfully no one knows the answer
> except God.
>
> Since we do not know the answer we must attempt to arrive
> at a method that we can agree upon to try to give us some
> idea of when it was written. The alternative is for each of us
> to believe whatever we wish in this regard.
>
> One thing I would like to point out, while the date of Revelation
> if known, could considerably strengthen the preterist view, it
> can in no way strengthen the futurist view.
>
> The inescapable fact remains that John was told that the things
> he saw would occur SOON and that the time was NEAR. Unless
> we are willing to ignore and reinterpret these passages which
> occur throughout Revelation, we must conclude that the events
> it describes are past history. Just because we may not be able
> to put an exact description upon every item in Revelation does
> not negate the language of our Lord in telling the seven churches
> in Asia that these things would soon come to pass.
>
> From this perspective it matters not whether the prophecy was
> given before 70 AD or around 96 AD.
>
> Scott
Alan Craft
>In <35B3C3B2...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>>What years was John imprisioned on Patmos? That is when he wrote
>>Revelations.
>>
>>kat
<snip>
>From this perspective it matters not whether the prophecy was
>given before 70 AD or around 96 AD.
>
>Scott
An addendum if I may...the forward to the Book of Revelation
heb...@ibm.net
>
>>In <35B3C3B2...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>>>What years was John imprisioned on Patmos? That is when he wrote
>>>Revelations.
>>>
>>given before 70 AD or around 96 AD.
>>
>
>in the New American(Catholic) Bible suggests that it was written
>near the end of the reign of the emperor Domitian (81-96 A.D.), a
>vicious persecutor of Christians.
>
>Alan
Hi, I am aware of things like this. My bible is the same <g>.
Modern scholarship is showing that the persecution of
Christians during the reign of Domitian was not as widespread
as was previously thought.
The 96 AD date for Revealtion is based upon ONE single source.
Domitian makes no sense for the 6th king (5 have fallen, one is),
while Nero fits perfectly as the 6th, beginning with Julius Ceasar.
Just a few morsels for thought.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote in aus.religion.christian:
>
>standing at the time it was written? From what part of the the text
>could you do this and be beyond reasonable doubt?
>
accepted is another question <g>.
In Rev. 11:1-2 John is instructed to measure the Temple of God
(literally, the inner sanctuary of the Temple, the holy place).
He is instructed to "cast out the court that is outside the Temple",
and is specifically commanded: Do not measure it.
Measuring is a symbolic action used in scripture to "divide
between the holy and the profane" and thus to indicate divine
protection from destruction (see Ezek. 22:26; 40-43; Zech. 2:1-5;
cf. Jer. 10:16; 51:19; Rev. 21:15-16).
Referring to only the inner tabernacle brings to mind
Heb. 9:2-3,8 while "Cast out..." is reminiscent of Gal 4:30.
This only makes sense in light of a temple that has not yet
come under destruction.
>What are your reasons for think that Rev. was written prior to 70CE?
>
In addition to the significance of the measuring of the temple
mentioned above it is easily shown that Nero was the 6th in
line of Roman Caesars beginning with Julius. John is told
that "the seven mountains are also seven kings, 5 have fallen,
one is".
Nero Caesar in Hebrew letters quite convieniently computes
to six hundred and sixty-six. In it's latinized version transliterated
to Hebrew it computes to 616. Some manuscripts read 616 rather
than 666 which is easily explained if the identification is made with
Nero. Otherwise the appearance of 616 in some manuscripts
remains a mystery.
The Revelation can quite easily be shown to parallel the events
described in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Jesus prophecied
that those events would come upon the generation alive at
that time. This only makes sense with a pre 70 AD date for
Revelation unless one is prepared to claim that the Revelation
is history being written as prophecy, as is sometimes claimed
of Daniel.
I am sure there can be found many other significant arguments
which we will have to hold for another post. But this should get
you thinking at least.
Les Brown
aus.religion.christian:
>>Sorry Graus, but you've written a cop-out. Whilst Rev talks about a
>
>Newsflash - all people who cannot have the decency to call me by my
>first name after I commented that I felt calling me Graus was rude
>will be ignored.
>
Fine by me Graus.
Brown.
Les Brown
>Hello Les,
>
>Actually it is you who have copped out. The method Graus uses is
>clearly the same as that followed by the New Testament authors.
>Not only do they write that the temple of God is "within" man but
>they also write that believers are being built up into a temple with
>Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone.
[sigh!]
Rev speaks of a heavenly temple external to man and time:
REV 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him
day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall
dwell among them.
REV 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither
shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
It seems to me here that the writer is referring to a heavenly temple
where the souls of the sinless reside. If it were a temple "within"
man then one could hardly believe that the sun will not fall upon
them, could one?
Perhaps REV 11:19 is better explains it:
"And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in
his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and
voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail"
Hardly a temple "within" isn't it?
Perhaps you migh like to quote the verse from Rev that best expresses
the "within" concept you claim.
>
>The New Testament nowhere prophecies a rebuilt temple and all
>Old Testament texts referring to a rebuilt temple were written
>prior to the building of the Herodian temple which was destroyed
>in 70 AD.
>
It does! Try ACT 15:16:
"After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of
David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof,
and I will set it up".
I think you will find the expression "tabernacle of David" is another
expression for the Temple where the Ark of the Covenant resided.
>Rev chapter 11 quite clearly describes an earthly temple.
Yeh, even though it refers to G-d as having opened up His Temple in
heaven? Oh, common, should I be reading earth when I see heaven? And
how do you explain the word "heaven" in 11:19? Or perhaps you do not
think it is necessary to explain it?
>
>You seem to totally miss the point that a physical Temple was
>never intended to be the centre of earthly manifestation of the
>Divine Presence. It is man himself who is to be this center.
>The earthly physical temple WAS a symbol of mankind's
>connectedness to his Creator. Now that the reality is here
>there is no more need for the old symbol.
>
"Never intended"? Strong words. How do you explain EXO 25:8
"And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them".
if G-d "never intended" to reside in it?
>Messiah has come, he is building his temple now.
Ho hum. Whatever.
>
>John 4:20-24:
What has this got to do with prophecies of Temple destruction in Rev?
And you accuse me of missing the point!
> 20 "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in
>Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
> 21 Jesus *said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when
>neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father.
> 22 "You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know,
>for salvation is from the Jews.
> 23 "But an hour is coming, and now is,
>when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such
>people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
> 24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and
>truth."
>
>This woman was somehow intelligent or spiritual enough to connect
>this cessation of Jerusalem based temple worship and worship in
>spirit to the coming of the Messiah, today we still argue about it.
John was written well after the destruction, it is hardly meaningful
or pertinent. But, if it makes you feel good........be my guest (:-)
You seem to have changed the topic somewhat. Do you remember what you
originally wrote? The paragraph below, in part, is what I replied to:
>Malachi's predictions have nothing to do with the pope or anything else
>in this day and age. They were fulfilled in the events of the time of
>Christ and conlcluding in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple.
I maintain that it was hardly a prophecy bearing in mind that; a/ It
was predicted in the O.T. many centuries previously, and b/ Rev was
most likely writtten well after the event. You can not/have not
furnish/ed any proof-text that would imply that the Temple existed at
the time it was written.
>NAS John 4:25 The woman *said to Him, "I know that Messiah
>is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes,
>He will declare all things to us."
>
DEU 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams,
and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
DEU 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake
unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not
known, and let us serve them;
DEU 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or
that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know
whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all
your soul.
Les Brown
ZEC 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to
pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all tongues of the nations,
even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We
will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
Les Brown
>>It is far easier to prove that Revelations was written after 70CE. If
>>it mentions a heavenly temple, then it would imply that the physical
>>one had already been destroyed.
>
>
>
>"possibility" not "imply"
>
whateva
heb...@ibm.net
>>>it mentions a heavenly temple, then it would imply that the physical
>>>one had already been destroyed.
I would have to disagree with this.
There has ALWAYS been a heavenly temple, therefore the
existence of one in no way implies anything about the
earthly temple.
There is no doubt that there is a "heavenly" temple in
Revelation. That is not the question. The question is
what is the significance of the temple that John sees
in Rev 11:1-2.
a.) Is he measuring a temple that is to one day be rebuilt?
b.) Is he measuring the temple as a type of preserving the
true temple of God while proclaiming judgement on the
earthly temple. "Cast out the outer court..." (Rev. 11:2)
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>And did they go through the cities of Israel? No. Has the Son of Man
>come with His army of angels? No.
>
Is it at all possible that you misunderstand what Jesus meant
when he said he would come with the angels?
For example, he said the following to the High Priest:
Matt 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself;
nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see THE SON
OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING
ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
Now, we all KNOW that the High Priest and those with him
did not actually SEE this, right?
Does this make Jesus a liar? NO! It means we don't
understand it if we attempt to interpret it literally.
SEEING in scripture is not alway related to ocular
vision, it is often used in terms of UNDERSTANDING.
You do agree with that statement do you not? Can
this be Jesus' meaning here?
Are you aware that God is often spoken of as "coming"
in the Old Testament and that these often relate to a
coming in JUDGEMENT and not a physical coming?
Would you like me to post some scriptures that show this?
Or perhaps you can look into it as part of your own studies.
I'll bet the following passage sounds just like
it came straight from Revelation. It didn't.
7 Then the earth shook and quaked;
And the foundations of the mountains
were trembling And were shaken,
because He was angry.
8 Smoke went up out of His nostrils,
And fire from His mouth devoured;
Coals were kindled by it.
9 He bowed the heavens also, and
came down With thick darkness under
His feet.
10 And He rode upon a cherub and
flew; And He sped upon the wings of
the wind.
11 He made darkness His hiding place,
His canopy around Him, Darkness of
waters, thick clouds of the skies.
12 From the brightness before Him
passed His thick clouds, Hailstones and
coals of fire.
13 The LORD also thundered in the
heavens, And the Most High uttered His
voice, Hailstones and coals of fire.
14 And He sent out His arrows, and
scattered them, And lightning flashes in
abundance, and routed them.
15 Then the channels of water
appeared, And the foundations of the
world were laid bare At Thy rebuke, O
LORD, At the blast of the breath of Thy
nostrils. (Psalms 18:7-15)
heb...@ibm.net
>Please start back in Daniel which clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar was
>the first king, or the head of the image.
>
1st Mountain/King - Nebuchadnezzar
So who were the 2nd through 6th then?
Fair question, right? I told you who I thought
kings 1 - 6 were.
Nebuchadnezzar spoke the following words:
34 I blessed the Most High and
praised and honored Him who lives
forever; For His dominion is an
everlasting dominion, And His kingdom
endures from generation to generation.
35 "And all the inhabitants of the earth
are accounted as nothing, But He does
according to His will in the host of
heaven And among the inhabitants of
earth; And no one can ward off His
hand Or say to Him, 'What hast Thou
done?'
37 "Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise,
exalt, and honor the King of heaven, for
all His works are true and His ways just,
and He is able to humble those who
walk in pride." (Dan 4:34-35,37)
Hardly sounds like blasphemy to me.
Here is what God had to say to Nebuchadnezzar's son:
Dan 5:22 "Yet you, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled
your heart, even though you knew all this.
Not sure how Nebuchadnezzar fits the blasphemous nature
of the kings of the beast.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>You are looking at this SOON and NEAR from a three score and ten
>lifespan, 24 hour days, whereas God is looking at the world from outside
>our time-space. Soon to us means almost right now, within our concept of
>24 hour days, but to God, who is in eternity, soon might be a thousand
>or two years. There are pre-requisitions that need to be fulfilled
>before this soon and near can happen, from God's view point, and these
>are listed throughout the Old and New Testaments.
>
from scripture. What use is prophecy if it does not have
immediate impact upon it's hearers? Prophecy is primarily
ethical in nature and is not "history in advance".
Why should the Ninevites repent if God is following some
cosmic "god time" rather than relation to them in earth
years.
Why should Lot leave Sodom if the judgement was not
near but was on "god's cosmic time clock".
The idea that God follows some clock other than human
time when relating to humans through prophecy cannot
be supported by scripture. I invite you to prove that
what you say is a valid thesis supported by scripture.
>If Revelations was written in 96 AD, when did the events contained
>therein happen? Actually, I have read Revelations a couple of times and
>find it very easy to understand in this modern age.
>
hehe. too many books by popular authors and not enough
time in scripture itself. I used to read them all too but
eventually began to see their fallacies.
What you fail to acknowledge is that people throughout
all ages have found it easy to understand in the light
of their own age. Any research on your part into this
will show it to be true.
What is even more important to admit, is the very real
possibility that the first century church to whom it was
written also understood it. And probably understood it
even better than we do today, particularly in light of
the fact that it was written to them.
Why do we choose to overlook that one simple fact?
Scott
Sean McHugh
<snip>
> Hi all, I am new to this NG. I am a previous believer in the soon to
> be Great Tribulation, who now believes that this was refering to the
> ending of the age (the Old Testament sacrifical age), when Jerusalem
> was destroyed in 70 A.D. I believe one of the keys is to interepret
> that the coming of the Lord-meant a coming in judgement, not a
> physical visitation. I am looking forward to the discussion on this
> NG. BTW, a church that is "waiting for Jesus to come and fix
> everything," is a church that is inactive and asleep- very
> convienent for the evildoers.
That is the great thing about divine scripture, just like astrology,
crystal ball reading and palmistry, it's so flexible and you can read
into it whatever you like. Doomsday prophets have been reinterpreting
it for thousands of years.
So, what does "The coming of the Lord" mean? I think it means he's
going to come onto this NG. What will be the Great Tribulation? That
will be his thread with Graeme. What will be the judgement? That will
be when Andrew Bromage cautions Jesus for using ad hominem.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Gary
>
> In <35B57612...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >You are looking at this SOON and NEAR from a three score and ten
> >lifespan, 24 hour days, whereas God is looking at the world from outside
> >our time-space. Soon to us means almost right now, within our concept of
> >24 hour days, but to God, who is in eternity, soon might be a thousand
> >or two years. There are pre-requisitions that need to be fulfilled
> >before this soon and near can happen, from God's view point, and these
> >are listed throughout the Old and New Testaments.
> >
> This is a common argument but it cannot be supported
> from scripture. What use is prophecy if it does not have
> immediate impact upon it's hearers? Prophecy is primarily
> ethical in nature and is not "history in advance".
I don't know about the particular scripture you're talking about but the
comming of Jesus was prophsied hundreds of years before it happened.
So, prophesy can be something that will happen in the distant future.
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>> In <35B57612...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>> >You are looking at this SOON and NEAR from a three score and ten
>> >lifespan, 24 hour days, whereas God is looking at the world from outside
>> >our time-space. Soon to us means almost right now, within our concept of
>> >24 hour days, but to God, who is in eternity, soon might be a thousand
>> >or two years. There are pre-requisitions that need to be fulfilled
>> >before this soon and near can happen, from God's view point, and these
>> >are listed throughout the Old and New Testaments.
>> >
>> This is a common argument but it cannot be supported
>> from scripture. What use is prophecy if it does not have
>> immediate impact upon it's hearers? Prophecy is primarily
>> ethical in nature and is not "history in advance".
>
>I don't know about the particular scripture you're talking about but the
>comming of Jesus was prophsied hundreds of years before it happened.
>So, prophesy can be something that will happen in the distant future.
>
example. He is told to seal up the scroll for the time is not yet.
Notice that he IS given a TIME indicator and it is RELEVANT to him.
It is not some cosmic "god-clock".
Contrast this with what John was told. "Do NOT seal up the words of
this prophecy for the TIME is NEAR. Quite a difference eh? The implications
are clear.
The New Testament gives us MANY time indicators for it's prophecies.
For example, how many times did Jesus use the phrase "this generation".
So, the point still remains that God has NEVER been in the practice
of giving prophecies that use some other time standard than what
is normal and customary to humans.
In Revelation and elsewhere in the New Testament Jesus confirmed
on many occasions that the time was NEAR and CLOSE. The conclusion
is inescapable, the TIME of these things was long ago.
As to the pre-requisites that you mention post a couple
for me and I'll see what I can tell you about them. Most
dispensationalists believe that there are NO signs that
will appear before the rapture.
Hanz
Sean McHugh wrote in message <35B801...@shoal.net.au>...
>Steve Moroz wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Hi all, I am new to this NG. I am a previous believer in the soon to
>> be Great Tribulation, who now believes that this was refering to the
>> ending of the age (the Old Testament sacrifical age), when Jerusalem
>> was destroyed in 70 A.D. I believe one of the keys is to interepret
>> that the coming of the Lord-meant a coming in judgement, not a
>> physical visitation. I am looking forward to the discussion on this
I would respond to this as follows:
"They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly
two men dressed in white stood beside them. 'Men of Galilee,' they said,
'why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been
taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him
go into heaven'" (Acts 1: 10-11)
Was the ascension of Jesus a physical departure? Yes. If he "will come
back in the same way as you have seen him go" then his return will also a
physical.
Hanz.
heb...@ibm.net
>
>Was the ascension of Jesus a physical departure? Yes. If he "will come
>back in the same way as you have seen him go" then his return will also a
>physical.
>
I still cannot physically ascend into the sky and
I have been trying for years.
I think you read too much into the pasage.
Jesus said he would come "on the clouds".
He also said "every eye would see him".
These two events can conclusively be equated
to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Scott
CB
Hanz wrote:
> Sean McHugh wrote in message <35B801...@shoal.net.au>...
> >Steve Moroz wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Hi all, I am new to this NG. I am a previous believer in the soon to
> >> be Great Tribulation, who now believes that this was refering to the
> >> ending of the age (the Old Testament sacrifical age), when Jerusalem
> >> was destroyed in 70 A.D. I believe one of the keys is to interepret
> >> that the coming of the Lord-meant a coming in judgement, not a
> >> physical visitation. I am looking forward to the discussion on this
> [prune]
I agree.
>
>
> I would respond to this as follows:
>
> "They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly
> two men dressed in white stood beside them. 'Men of Galilee,' they said,
> 'why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been
> taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him
> go into heaven'" (Acts 1: 10-11)
>
> Was the ascension of Jesus a physical departure? Yes.
How do you know it was a physical departure?What makes you think that Christ has
not already returned?
Judgement was evidently passed on Jerusalem, just as Christ had prophesied in
Matthew 24,
in the year 70 AD.
Christ said His Kingdom is "not of this world".
Why would anyone think that He would come back here to set up a Kingdom when His
Kingdom has already been established? (A spiritual Kingdom)
> If he "will come
> back in the same way as you have seen him go" then his return will also a
> physical.
>
> Hanz.
--
"But grandfather, are the gods not just?"
"Oh no, child. What would become of us if they were?"
Till We Have Faces_ by C.S. Lewis
CB
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
> In <6pp5pm$cd...@burn.videotron.ab.ca>, "Hanz" <webme...@v-wave.com> writes:
> >
> >Was the ascension of Jesus a physical departure? Yes. If he "will come
> >back in the same way as you have seen him go" then his return will also a
> >physical.
> >
> I would hardly call that a "physical" experience.
>
> I still cannot physically ascend into the sky and
> I have been trying for years.
>
> I think you read too much into the pasage.
>
> Jesus said he would come "on the clouds".
> He also said "every eye would see him".
>
> These two events can conclusively be equated
> to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
>
> Scott
Thank you Scott.A lot of people think that Matthew 24 refers to the end of the
world but careful study of that chapter can only mean the destruction of
Jerusalem in the year 70 AD just as Christ had prophesied
heb...@ibm.net
>
>For one thing, have a look at Zechariah 14:4 and tell me if you think
>this has been fulfilled. When that occurs there will be sea right from
>the Mediterranean to Jerusalem and down to the Red Sea. That hasn't
>happened yet.
>
Graeme, perhaps the best way I can respond to this is to
include here a responses which I made to a different post.
The reason I did not reply to Fred Stover on this point is that it
is impossible to get an ultra-literalist such as he to understand such
passages. What can I say? If you would be willing to admit to me that
when the scripture speaks of a third of the stars falling to the earth
that it is not speaking of literal stars falling to the literal earth,
then you and I can probably have an intelligent conversation. This was
not possible with Fred.
>Agree with you there, but, let's backtrack to the OT passage that was
>quoted by Fred Stover..I think you either overlooked what it said, if
>not, then could you please tell me how you interpret it.
>
The book of Zechariah has obvious references to the first coming in it.
Do you agree? Therefore, I have to ask why it is that people assume
that the book also deals with the end of the world or to some time
totally unrelated to the first coming of Christ.
>The passage was...Zechariah16... And it shall come to pass, [that]
>every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem
>shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of
>hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
>
This makes particular sense in light of the interpretation that I gave
regarding tabernacles. This passage has a very close relationship to
a passage in Revelation (Rev 20:22), which there speaks of the New
Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem was the manner in which John envisioned
the Bride of Christ, the Wife of the Lamb (Rev 21:9).
New Jerusalem is the church. It is contrasted as a "spiritual" city from
above which is free as against the earthly Jerusalem which is in bondage.
Galatians 4:21-31.
>17 And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the
>families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of
>hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
>
Rain in scripture is a known and accepted type for the Holy Spirit.
>18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no
>[rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the
>heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
>I noted that it says the Nations which came AGAINST Jerusalem. Not
>the Jews who were scattered among the nations when the Temple was
>destroyed in 70 AD. Now, to put some context around this.
>
Agreed. Jerusalem is now spiritual rather than earthly.
>1. These Nations would recieve no rain.
>
No knowledge of God. No Holy Spirit.
>2. If we go back a few verses, we also find... Then shall the LORD go
>forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day
>of battle.
>
Non-believers. obviously.
>3.And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which
>[is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall
>cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and
>there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall
>remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
>
Will be divided from the believers.
>4. And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the
>people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume
>away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume
>away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their
>mouth.
>
And shall be destroyed by fire.
Any of that sound familiar? Many parables in the New Testament
parallel this exactly. Wheat and Tares, Fish, Sheep and Goats, etc.
>Now, my question simply is this, if this is not a yet future
>occurence, then where is the record of such calamitous events?
>Your interpretation please?
>
The calamitous events are all around us as people reject the
wonderful Gospel of Jesus Christ. God is at war with these
nations and they WILL be consumed. There is NO standing
against His kingdom. Hopefully we will soon recognise this
and get back to work discipling the nations rather than waiting
for Jesus to come from the sky and do it all for us.
Hope I gave you some things to think about.
>>Judgement was evidently passed on Jerusalem, just as Christ had prophesied in
>>Matthew 24, in the year 70 AD.
>
>That is incorrect. The judgement of Matthew 24 has to do with the Jews
>and is still future. The judgement of AD 70 is referred to by Luke,
>not Matthew.
>
This is so strange a statement it is almost beyond me.
You agree that Luke was fulfilled in AD 70. We all know that the
events of Luke came upon the Jews. But then you go on to argue
that the events of Matt 24 annot be the same as Luke because
Matt 24 must come upon the Jews. Strange logic indeed.
>>Christ said His Kingdom is "not of this world".
>
>Not of this cosmos, literally. The cosmos is the devil's kingdom, he
>is the ruler of this world today. The cosmos [world] is Satan's
>system.
>
Then why isn't the devil physically here reigning over "his" kingdom?
Christ must no more be physically present to reign than does Satan.
>God has promised in His four unconditional covenants to israel that He
>will set up a kingdom on earth. he has promised them a land that will
>extend from the Euphrates down into North Africa.
>
Are these covenants eternal and without end or do you believe that
they will end after 1000 years and are not therefore eternal?
The only way that something can be eternal is in Christ, that is why
the covenants are fulfilled in Christ and not in the fleshly, natural,
temporal, corrupt, mortal seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
heb...@ibm.net
>
>Thank you Scott.A lot of people think that Matthew 24 refers to the end of the
>world but careful study of that chapter can only mean the destruction of
>
I have published a number of posts that have as yet to be refuted.
I don't understand how those who believe otherwise can continue
to believe in a system that they cannot even adequately defend,
but many persist.
This message is being crossposted to a number of groups, which
newsgroup are you reading it in?
Scott
kat
snipped
> In addition to the significance of the measuring of the temple
> mentioned above it is easily shown that Nero was the 6th in
> line of Roman Caesars beginning with Julius. John is told
> that "the seven mountains are also seven kings, 5 have fallen,
> one is".
Sneaky! seven kings.......5 have fallen...and waht verse are you
referring to????????????
Rv:17:9: And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are
seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rv:17:10: And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and
the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short
space.
The proper way to read this scripture is there are seven mountains on
which the women sits. The women is the one world religion that will
exist during these seven years of tribulation. There are ALSO seven
kings......the one who is was the Roman Empire that was in power during
the time that John wrote Revelations and the one that is to come is the
revived Roman Empire which has arisen today as the European Union.
kat
kat
kat
>
> In <35B57612...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >You are looking at this SOON and NEAR from a three score and ten
> >lifespan, 24 hour days, whereas God is looking at the world from outside
> >our time-space. Soon to us means almost right now, within our concept of
> >24 hour days, but to God, who is in eternity, soon might be a thousand
> >or two years. There are pre-requisitions that need to be fulfilled
> >before this soon and near can happen, from God's view point, and these
> >are listed throughout the Old and New Testaments.
> >
> This is a common argument but it cannot be supported
> from scripture. What use is prophecy if it does not have
> immediate impact upon it's hearers? Prophecy is primarily
> ethical in nature and is not "history in advance".
Would you call the prophecies of Jesus' coming as the Son of Man
"ethical in nature" or were they "history in advance?"
>
> Why should the Ninevites repent if God is following some
> cosmic "god time" rather than relation to them in earth
> years.
>
> Why should Lot leave Sodom if the judgement was not
> near but was on "god's cosmic time clock".
>
> The idea that God follows some clock other than human
> time when relating to humans through prophecy cannot
> be supported by scripture. I invite you to prove that
> what you say is a valid thesis supported by scripture.
God is certainly moving at His own time, which has nothing to do with
how we experience time.
>
> >If Revelations was written in 96 AD, when did the events contained
> >therein happen? Actually, I have read Revelations a couple of times and
> >find it very easy to understand in this modern age.
> >
> hehe. too many books by popular authors and not enough
> time in scripture itself. I used to read them all too but
> eventually began to see their fallacies.
hehe....no....reading Revelations with a modern understanding of what
John seen, but did not have the words to describe.
>
> What you fail to acknowledge is that people throughout
> all ages have found it easy to understand in the light
> of their own age. Any research on your part into this
> will show it to be true.
Not true!!! I read Revelations in the 1950's and it was all Greek to me.
It is only since the late 1980's and onward that the events that will
happen in the future and that are prophesied in Revelations have been
understood by me.
>
> What is even more important to admit, is the very real
> possibility that the first century church to whom it was
> written also understood it. And probably understood it
> even better than we do today, particularly in light of
> the fact that it was written to them.
How could they understand what even John seeing things from this age
could not describe!!
>
> Why do we choose to overlook that one simple fact?
>
> Scott
I have started to realize that you are here trying to deceive and very
sneakily, I must say, which is a favourite trick of satan's.
kat
kat
>
> In <35B572EE...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >And did they go through the cities of Israel? No. Has the Son of Man
> >come with His army of angels? No.
> >
> kat,
>
> Is it at all possible that you misunderstand what Jesus meant
> when he said he would come with the angels?
>
> For example, he said the following to the High Priest:
>
> Matt 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself;
> nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see THE SON
> OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING
> ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
>
> Now, we all KNOW that the High Priest and those with him
> did not actually SEE this, right?
The reason the High Priest and those with Him did not actually SEE this,
yet, is that it hasn't happened YET! But He will come in the clouds as
soon as what was prophecied in Revelations has come to pass.
kat
Rv:1:7: Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and
they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail
because of him. Even so, Amen.
Rv:19:11-21
11: And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat
upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth
judge and make war.
12: His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns;
and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13: And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is
called The Word of God.
14: And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses,
clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15: And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should
smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he
treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16: And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF
KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17: And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud
voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and
gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18: That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and
the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit
on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and
great.
19: And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies,
gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and
against his army.
20: And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought
miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the
mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were
cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21: And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the
horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were
filled with their flesh.
CB
g, Graeme wrote:
> CB <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> >> In <6pp5pm$cd...@burn.videotron.ab.ca>, "Hanz" <webme...@v-wave.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >Was the ascension of Jesus a physical departure? Yes. If he "will come
> >> >back in the same way as you have seen him go" then his return will also a
> >> >physical.
> >> >
> >> I would hardly call that a "physical" experience.
> >>
> >> I still cannot physically ascend into the sky and
> >> I have been trying for years.
>
> But you don't have a resurrection body!
>
> >>
> >> I think you read too much into the pasage.
> >>
> >> Jesus said he would come "on the clouds".
> >> He also said "every eye would see him".
> >>
> >> These two events can conclusively be equated
> >> to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
>
> How did "every eye see him" in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed?
Of course you didn't see him. The people that saw him were destroyed.
> The book of Revelation was written 26 years AFTER the destruction of
> the temple in AD 70. Rev. 1:7 says "and every eye shall see him,"
Revelation wasn't about the destruction of Jerusalem. It was written to the seven
churches in Asia(none of which exists today). It had to do also with the fall of the
Roman Empire. It is a book of "revelation" not a book of "secrets". It was
concerning things that were to "shortly come to pass".
> future tense. The destruction of the temple was past tense.
>
> >>
> >> Scott
>
> >Thank you Scott.A lot of people think that Matthew 24 refers to the end of the
> >world but careful study of that chapter can only mean the destruction of
> >Jerusalem in the year 70 AD just as Christ had prophesied
>
> Would you care to tell us why it can only mean the destruction of the
> temple in AD 70?
because that's when Christ's prophecy was fulfilled, when every stone was thrown
down.What other meaning could there be?
Of course if you want to read Hal Lindsey's book of fiction & actually believe it ,
you can come up
with all kinds of scenarios, aall of them false.
>
>
> Graeme
g
>Hanz wrote:
>> Sean McHugh wrote in message <35B801...@shoal.net.au>...
>> >Steve Moroz wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> Hi all, I am new to this NG. I am a previous believer in the soon to
>> >> be Great Tribulation, who now believes that this was refering to the
>> >> ending of the age (the Old Testament sacrifical age), when Jerusalem
>> >> was destroyed in 70 A.D. I believe one of the keys is to interepret
>> >> that the coming of the Lord-meant a coming in judgement, not a
>> >> physical visitation. I am looking forward to the discussion on this
>> [prune]
>I agree.
>>
>>
>> I would respond to this as follows:
>>
>> "They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly
>> two men dressed in white stood beside them. 'Men of Galilee,' they said,
>> 'why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been
>> taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him
>> go into heaven'" (Acts 1: 10-11)
>>
>> Was the ascension of Jesus a physical departure? Yes.
>How do you know it was a physical departure?What makes you think that Christ has
>not already returned?
For one thing, have a look at Zechariah 14:4 and tell me if you think
this has been fulfilled. When that occurs there will be sea right from
the Mediterranean to Jerusalem and down to the Red Sea. That hasn't
happened yet.
>Judgement was evidently passed on Jerusalem, just as Christ had prophesied in
>Matthew 24, in the year 70 AD.
That is incorrect. The judgement of Matthew 24 has to do with the Jews
and is still future. The judgement of AD 70 is referred to by Luke,
not Matthew.
>Christ said His Kingdom is "not of this world".
Not of this cosmos, literally. The cosmos is the devil's kingdom, he
is the ruler of this world today. The cosmos [world] is Satan's
system.
>Why would anyone think that He would come back here to set up a Kingdom when His
>Kingdom has already been established? (A spiritual Kingdom)
God has promised in His four unconditional covenants to israel that He
will set up a kingdom on earth. he has promised them a land that will
extend from the Euphrates down into North Africa.
>> If he "will come
>> back in the same way as you have seen him go" then his return will also a
>> physical.
>>
>> Hanz.
Right.
Graeme
g
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>> In <6pp5pm$cd...@burn.videotron.ab.ca>, "Hanz" <webme...@v-wave.com> writes:
>> >
>> >Was the ascension of Jesus a physical departure? Yes. If he "will come
>> >back in the same way as you have seen him go" then his return will also a
>> >physical.
>> >
>> I would hardly call that a "physical" experience.
>>
>> I still cannot physically ascend into the sky and
>> I have been trying for years.
But you don't have a resurrection body!
>>
>> I think you read too much into the pasage.
>>
>> Jesus said he would come "on the clouds".
>> He also said "every eye would see him".
>>
>> These two events can conclusively be equated
>> to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
How did "every eye see him" in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed?
The book of Revelation was written 26 years AFTER the destruction of
the temple in AD 70. Rev. 1:7 says "and every eye shall see him,"
future tense. The destruction of the temple was past tense.
>>
>> Scott
>Thank you Scott.A lot of people think that Matthew 24 refers to the end of the
>world but careful study of that chapter can only mean the destruction of
>Jerusalem in the year 70 AD just as Christ had prophesied
Would you care to tell us why it can only mean the destruction of the
temople in AD 70?
Graeme
g
>In <6pqogs$obp$1...@news.wave.co.nz>, g,hu...@wave.co.nz (Graeme) writes:
>>
>>For one thing, have a look at Zechariah 14:4 and tell me if you think
>>this has been fulfilled. When that occurs there will be sea right from
>>the Mediterranean to Jerusalem and down to the Red Sea. That hasn't
>>happened yet.
>>
>Graeme, perhaps the best way I can respond to this is to
>include here a responses which I made to a different post.
Hi there Scott,
I didn't realise that it was you I had replied to. Last time we met
was in a different ng.
Actually, I think our discussions last time proved that we have very
different stances on this topic and I really see no point in persuing
it again. We will have to agree to differ. May I suggest you ask your
Dad, he is a wise man who I am sure will give you the same answers I
would :-) I'm pretty sure from what you have told me that he holds to
the same views as me.
Regards,
Graeme
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>> In <35B572EE...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>> >And did they go through the cities of Israel? No. Has the Son of Man
>> >come with His army of angels? No.
>> >
>>
>> when he said he would come with the angels?
>>
>> For example, he said the following to the High Priest:
>>
>> Matt 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself;
>> nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see THE SON
>> OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING
>> ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
>>
>> Now, we all KNOW that the High Priest and those with him
>> did not actually SEE this, right?
>
>The reason the High Priest and those with Him did not actually SEE this,
>yet, is that it hasn't happened YET! But He will come in the clouds as
>soon as what was prophecied in Revelations has come to pass.
>
Is Jesus talking about the rapture here?
How will ANYONE see him if they are DEAD?
How did Jesus "keep" the Church of Philadelphia from the hour
of testing that was to come upon the whole earth?
By letting them all die out?
Sorry, I just don't buy that.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>> But you don't have a resurrection body!
>
>> How did "every eye see him" in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed?
>
>Of course you didn't see him. The people that saw him were destroyed.
>
First you need to learn your Greek and your theology. The term
"see" does not refer to what can be viewed with the physical eye.
It is synonymous with "understanding". Do you see it now?
>> The book of Revelation was written 26 years AFTER the destruction of
>> the temple in AD 70. Rev. 1:7 says "and every eye shall see him,"
>
>Revelation wasn't about the destruction of Jerusalem.
>
I might actually believe this if anyone would aver respond to my
posts showing that Revelation is indeed speaking of the Temple
and Jerusalem, along with the evidence that I have been presenting
for an early date for the book.
So far I only receive unsupported claims against what I say
without any analysis or direct refutation. Tends to make me
think that either I am correct or my opponents don't know
what they are talking about. Most just resort to name calling
and slander so I respect anyone who will actually debate
the topics while refraining from such behavior.
>> Would you care to tell us why it can only mean the destruction of the
>> temple in AD 70?
>
I have dont this a number of times without any of my cliams
yet being refuted. Those who wish to disagree had better
begin producing contrary evidence or they are going to lose
the battle.
Anyone who wishes to attempt to refute that Matt 24, Mark 13,
Luke 21 and Revelation deal with the destruction of Jerusalem,
The Temple, and the Old Covenant, let your voice be heard
and I will present you with the materials you need to refute.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>> In addition to the significance of the measuring of the temple
>> mentioned above it is easily shown that Nero was the 6th in
>> line of Roman Caesars beginning with Julius. John is told
>> that "the seven mountains are also seven kings, 5 have fallen,
>> one is".
>
>Sneaky! seven kings.......5 have fallen...and waht verse are you
>referring to????????????
>
can actually help someone see the point if I sneak them into
admitting it first. This wasn't such a case.
>Rv:17:9: And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are
>seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
>
>Rv:17:10: And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and
>the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short
>space.
>
>The proper way to read this scripture is there are seven mountains on
>which the women sits. The women is the one world religion that will
>exist during these seven years of tribulation. There are ALSO seven
>kings......the one who is was the Roman Empire that was in power during
>the time that John wrote Revelations and the one that is to come is the
>revived Roman Empire which has arisen today as the European Union.
>
So you place a HUUUGGGGEEEEEE gap between the 6th king,
"the one who now is" and the seventh king?
So what does the "beast" represent if not Rome?
So what do the heads represent if not Roman rulers?
If we assume that the seven heads are seven Caesars beginning
with Julius and the 6th being Nero, do you have any idea how
long the "seventh" king/Caesar ruled? The one John describes
as "he must continue a short space"?
Are you saying the heads are NOT kings, but empires?
If they ARE kings, are you saying the 6th was indeed Nero?
You aren't really clear on this and I hope you'll forgive me
but I get criticized all the time for not being able to supply
every little detail to the satisfaction of my opponents.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>> >You are looking at this SOON and NEAR from a three score and ten
>> >lifespan, 24 hour days, whereas God is looking at the world from outside
>> >our time-space. Soon to us means almost right now, within our concept of
>> >24 hour days, but to God, who is in eternity, soon might be a thousand
>> >or two years. There are pre-requisitions that need to be fulfilled
>> >before this soon and near can happen, from God's view point, and these
>> >are listed throughout the Old and New Testaments.
>> >
>> This is a common argument but it cannot be supported
>> from scripture. What use is prophecy if it does not have
>> immediate impact upon it's hearers? Prophecy is primarily
>> ethical in nature and is not "history in advance".
>
>Would you call the prophecies of Jesus' coming as the Son of Man
>"ethical in nature" or were they "history in advance?"
>
connection to the righteous and the unrighteous. Judgement,
which is what this phrase represents, is always ethical in nature.
>> Why should the Ninevites repent if God is following some
>> cosmic "god time" rather than relation to them in earth
>> years.
>>
>> Why should Lot leave Sodom if the judgement was not
>> near but was on "god's cosmic time clock".
>>
>> The idea that God follows some clock other than human
>> time when relating to humans through prophecy cannot
>> be supported by scripture. I invite you to prove that
>> what you say is a valid thesis supported by scripture.
>
>God is certainly moving at His own time, which has nothing to do with
>how we experience time.
>
Begs the question. Show that when God deals with man that it
is not in man's terms and in man's time.
>> >If Revelations was written in 96 AD, when did the events contained
>> >therein happen? Actually, I have read Revelations a couple of times and
>> >find it very easy to understand in this modern age.
>> >
>> hehe. too many books by popular authors and not enough
>> time in scripture itself. I used to read them all too but
>> eventually began to see their fallacies.
>
>hehe....no....reading Revelations with a modern understanding of what
>John seen, but did not have the words to describe.
>
A thesis used by all generations INCLUDING ours but always wrong.
This was also the thesis of Mr. Lindsey's latest work of fiction
called "Apocalypse Code" which he accidentally refuted in his
own book. Read the posts on the "bible codes" or read the review
on www.amazon.com.
John was not seeing 20th century technology, he was
seeing a spiritual vision concerning spiritual things.
>> What you fail to acknowledge is that people throughout
>> all ages have found it easy to understand in the light
>> of their own age. Any research on your part into this
>> will show it to be true.
>
>Not true!!! I read Revelations in the 1950's and it was all Greek to me.
>It is only since the late 1980's and onward that the events that will
>happen in the future and that are prophesied in Revelations have been
>understood by me.
>
I'll try to get the time to post some examples. I can also
recommend some books that deal with the topic. I commend
anyone who will educate themselves with the facts.
>> What is even more important to admit, is the very real
>> possibility that the first century church to whom it was
>> written also understood it. And probably understood it
>> even better than we do today, particularly in light of
>> the fact that it was written to them.
>
>How could they understand what even John seeing things from this age
>could not describe!!
>
You see. This is a very foolish way to approach scripture.
You completely ignore the fact that it WAS written to them.
You do not even attempt to approach it from the perspective
of those to whom it was written. Else you make the Holy Spirit
a liar and say that it was NOT written to them when He says
plainly that it was.
>I have started to realize that you are here trying to deceive and very
>sneakily, I must say, which is a favourite trick of satan's.
>
A false statement, be careful. If I was publishing false and
deceptive information it would be easy to disprove. When
people cannot they resort to statements such as this.
Before you make such accussations you had better actually
catch me in the act, which you have not done.
Be careful to whom you attribute the works of Satan.
I forgive those who accuse me falsely and have not
yet cried out to God for justice, but he still knows
what is going on and will not let those who slander
his Spirit go unpunished.
You are following a path that can be shown to be a
favorite of all who oppose the truth. It ends in them
attributing the works of God to the devil. You should
know this from scripture and you should know better.
Scott
bj...@bellsouth.net
=======Snip===>>
>The idea that God follows some clock other than human
>time when relating to humans through prophecy cannot
>be supported by scripture. I invite you to prove that
>what you say is a valid thesis supported by scripture.
Hello Scott, the book of Hebrews says the OT patriarchs
all died,[in Faith] having seen the promises afar. God
prophycied in Genesis of a "seed" that would crush the
serpent [satan] and as we all know, there is considerable
time span between the Prophecy and it's fulfillment in
Christ.As Paul says..Galations 3:16 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.
Best Regards,
Bob
bj...@bellsouth.net
==========SNIP===>>
>>What are your reasons for think that Rev. was written prior to 70CE?
>>
>In addition to the significance of the measuring of the temple
>mentioned above it is easily shown that Nero was the 6th in
>line of Roman Caesars beginning with Julius. John is told
>that "the seven mountains are also seven kings, 5 have fallen,
>one is".
supposed to be ROME? EVERYBODY knows that.....(G)
I've heard you [I think it was you] say Jerusalem sits on
seven hills too? I can't seem to find a reference to this.
>Nero Caesar in Hebrew letters quite convieniently computes
>to six hundred and sixty-six. In it's latinized version transliterated
>to Hebrew it computes to 616. Some manuscripts read 616 rather
>than 666 which is easily explained if the identification is made with
>Nero. Otherwise the appearance of 616 in some manuscripts
>remains a mystery.
Hmmm....well, as Carson said to Macmahan..."I DIDN"T KNOW THAT!"
>The Revelation can quite easily be shown to parallel the events
>described in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Jesus prophecied
>that those events would come upon the generation alive at
>that time. This only makes sense with a pre 70 AD date for
>Revelation unless one is prepared to claim that the Revelation
>is history being written as prophecy, as is sometimes claimed
>of Daniel.
What about the "TRUMPET" when Christ returns, [Mat24] and the
"Last Trump" 1st Cor 15:52 and "Trump and shout" 1st Thess 4:16
How do they parallel with Revelation?
Best Regards,
Bob
bj...@bellsouth.net
=======Snip=====>>
>There is no doubt that there is a "heavenly" temple in
>Revelation. That is not the question. The question is
>what is the significance of the temple that John sees
>in Rev 11:1-2.
>
>a.) Is he measuring a temple that is to one day be rebuilt?
>b.) Is he measuring the temple as a type of preserving the
>true temple of God while proclaiming judgement on the
>earthly temple. "Cast out the outer court..." (Rev. 11:2)
>
>Scott
So, what do you think about the present day nation of Israel?
Just a freak, coincedence? Work of Man, satan? The fact that
the Jews were scattered 2k years and now have a state again,
you don't see any handi-work of God, or Prophecy in there?
*
Best Regards,
Bob
heb...@ibm.net
Having spoken of the ills that were to overtake the city, and of the trials
of the apostles, and that they should remain unsubdued, and should overrun
the whole world, He mentions again the Jews' calamities, showing that when
the one should be glorious, having taught the whole world, the others should
be in calamity.
And see how He relates the war, by the things that seem to be small setting
forth how intolerable it was to be. For, "Then", saith He, "let them which be in
Judea flee into the mountains." Then. When? When these things should be,
"when the abomination of desolation should stand in the holy place." Whence
he seems to me to be spaeking of the armies.
- Chrysostom, Homily LXXVI sec.1, on Matt XXIV. 16-18.
(Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10 p.456)
As does Luke:
NAS Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by
armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand.
To Chrysostom, the abomination was past history.
Scott
CB
bj...@bellsouth.net wrote:
All the prophecies of the bible were fulfilled almost 2000 years ago
except one: the end of the world.There is no reason to equate
coincidence with prophesy.
CB
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
Scott, I agree that Matthew 24 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem but I
believe that revelation refers tothe fall of Rome.
It is generally agreed that Revelation was written around 96 AD & the
destruction of Jerusalem
was in the year 70AD.
heb...@ibm.net
Hello Bob,
At least you are thinking. Did God give any "time" indicators as
to when the prophecy to which you refer would take place?
I think we both know the answer to that. No.
So when DID God give a time indicator regarding that prophecy?
The answer is in Daniel and the seventy weeks. Was each "day"
of those seventy weeks 1000 years each? Hardly, "seventy sevens"
or 70 Weeks equals 490 years, sounds like man years to me.
God spoke in man time not some ethereal God time.
heb...@ibm.net
>On 22 Jul 1998 07:08:37 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>==========SNIP===>>
>>>What are your reasons for think that Rev. was written prior to 70CE?
>>>
>>In addition to the significance of the measuring of the temple
>>mentioned above it is easily shown that Nero was the 6th in
>>line of Roman Caesars beginning with Julius. John is told
>>that "the seven mountains are also seven kings, 5 have fallen,
>>one is".
>
>Yes, but SCOTT!!, what about them SEVEN HILLS?! Ain'T they
>supposed to be ROME? EVERYBODY knows that.....(G)
>I've heard you [I think it was you] say Jerusalem sits on
>seven hills too? I can't seem to find a reference to this.
>
in their most literal sense but the allusion to Jerusalem which
also sat on seven hills would not have been missed by John's
readers. I can give you an encyclopedia reference for the
seven hills if you like. Maybe I can look them up and post them.
>>Nero Caesar in Hebrew letters quite convieniently computes
>>to six hundred and sixty-six. In it's latinized version transliterated
>>to Hebrew it computes to 616. Some manuscripts read 616 rather
>>than 666 which is easily explained if the identification is made with
>>Nero. Otherwise the appearance of 616 in some manuscripts
>>remains a mystery.
>
>Hmmm....well, as Carson said to Macmahan..."I DIDN"T KNOW THAT!"
>
It's one of those preterist secrets. You can now consider yourself
an "initiate" into the mystical knowledge (gnosis) of preterism. lol!
>What about the "TRUMPET" when Christ returns, [Mat24] and the
>"Last Trump" 1st Cor 15:52 and "Trump and shout" 1st Thess 4:16
>How do they parallel with Revelation?
>
I'll pick these up in a later post.
Regards,
heb...@ibm.net
>On 22 Jul 1998 19:06:05 GMT, heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>=======Snip=====>>
>>There is no doubt that there is a "heavenly" temple in
>>Revelation. That is not the question. The question is
>>what is the significance of the temple that John sees
>>in Rev 11:1-2.
>>
>>a.) Is he measuring a temple that is to one day be rebuilt?
>>b.) Is he measuring the temple as a type of preserving the
>>true temple of God while proclaiming judgement on the
>>earthly temple. "Cast out the outer court..." (Rev. 11:2)
>>
>
>Just a freak, coincedence? Work of Man, satan? The fact that
>the Jews were scattered 2k years and now have a state again,
>you don't see any handi-work of God, or Prophecy in there?
>*
of God at all. God is not out in the world, he is in his people.
As long as the Jews remain apart from Christ they are not
His people. But I also believe that God is in control of
everything, so what can I say? Was he in control of Hitler?
Now, I also very confidantly believe that the return of the Jews
to Palestine is NOT in fulfillment of any prophecy. Even those
who think this is God's plan for the Jews agree that there is no
specific prophecy of a return to the land after 70 AD.
Basically I think it is the work of man. Many believers thought the
return was of God and helped to support it and that helped bring
it about but did not make it of God nor did it make it a part of His
plan. There is ONLY ONE work that God is doing in the world
today, and that is Jesus Christ. All others are imposters.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>How did "every eye see him" in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed?
>The book of Revelation was written 26 years AFTER the destruction of
>the temple in AD 70. Rev. 1:7 says "and every eye shall see him,"
>future tense. The destruction of the temple was past tense.
>
*sigh* This one is getting tiring especially in light of the fact that
I am constantly refuting it.
"Seeing" does not have to mean ocular sight. It can mean "understanding".
I hope you can at least agree with this statement even if you do NOT
think it applies to this particular pasage.
NAS Matt 13:13 "Therefore I speak to
them in parables; because while seeing
they do not see, and while hearing they
do not hear, nor do they understand.
NAS Matt 13:14 "And in their case the
prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled,
which says, 'YOU WILL KEEP ON
HEARING, BUT WILL NOT
UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP
ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT
PERCEIVE;
As to your dating of the book of Revelation, upon what do you base
your date? Have you read any of my posts regarding when it was
written?
>>Thank you Scott.A lot of people think that Matthew 24 refers to the end of the
>>world but careful study of that chapter can only mean the destruction of
>>Jerusalem in the year 70 AD just as Christ had prophesied
>
>Would you care to tell us why it can only mean the destruction of the
>temople in AD 70?
>
Simply, because that is the CONTEXT of the entire passage.
Refer to Matt 24:3.
Additionally because Luke described what the "abomination" was
in Luke 21:20.
Thirdly, this interpretation was considered to be the correct one
by the church fathers. Hope you are reading my quotes of
Chrysostom.
Further, Jesus bracketed the entire discourse, beginning and
ending, with two time text, stating that all these things would
come to pass on THAT generation.
Need any more reasons?
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>
>Scott, I agree that Matthew 24 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem but I
>believe that revelation refers tothe fall of Rome.
>It is generally agreed that Revelation was written around 96 AD & the
>destruction of Jerusalem
>was in the year 70AD.
>
the defeat of ALL nations. It's primary purpose however is directed
toward Israel/Judea, Jerusalem and the Temple. I would be glad
to carry on a discussion on those topics if you like.
As I point out to you WHY it MUST be Jerusalem that is the "whore"
you will come to understand that it MUST have been written prior
to AD 70.
The late date of 96 AD is ENTIRELY dependent upon a questionable
quote from Irenaeus. That is the entire basis for the claim.
What makes better sense than that the beast is Rome, the heads
are Caesars and the 6th Caesar was Nero (five have fallen, one
now is, the seventh must remain a short while), while the seventh
was Galba, who had a very short reign?
Nero Caesar in it's Hebrew form calculates to 666.
The "double portion" is ONLY poured out on Israel in scripture.
The Temple in ch. 11 is NOT "the Temple of God in heaven",
so what is it?
Jesus says these things will SHORTLY come to pass.
The Church in Philadelphia is promised it will be KEPT
from the hour of testing ABOUT TO COME.
The "woman" was DRUNK on the blood of the prophets.
When did Rome ever kill the prophets. Jesus said the
blood of the prophets would be required of THAT generation.
Am I beginning to make a case yet? Is it beginning to fit?
Regards,
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
"Babylon" of John's Revelation should be identified with
Jerusalem of the first century. As yet, none of these
points have been refuted since I began posting them.
There is considerable support for assigning Revelation a
date prior to 70 AD:
In support of the early date, the Syriac version of the New Testament
(dating back to the 2nd century A.D.) says the book was written during
the reign of Nero. The Muratorian Fragment (170-190 A.D.) and the
Monarchian Prologues (250-350 A.D.) claim that Paul wrote to seven
churches following the pattern of John's example in Revelation, placing
the book of Revelation even before some of the Pauline epistles
(cf. Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 12; p. 406).
Jesus said the prophecy would "shortly come to pass"
and that the time was near (at hand).
Rev. 1:1; Rev 22:10.
The Church in Philadelphia is promised protection.
The time is "about to come".
Rev 3:10.
Jesus said to "cast out" the outer court for it was to be
trodden down by the Gentiles. This only makes sense in
light of the Temple destruction in 70 AD.
Rev 11:2; Gal 4.30
Jerusalem is "the great city".
Rev 11:8.
It was Jerusalem which "shed the blood of the prophets".
Rev 18:24.
Double destruction is poured out only on Jerusalem.
Rev 18:6.
It is Jerusalem who is a harlot.
It is Jerusalem who is drunk.
Babylon is symbolic of captivity. The present Jerusalem is in slavery.
Gal 4:25
Not only does Rome sit on seven hills but so does Jerusalem.
Rev. 17:9
The most logical choice for the sixth king "which now is"
is Nero, the 6th in line from Julius Caesar, which also most
logically explains "five have fallen", the preveious five Caesars.
Rev. 17:10.
The most logical choice for the seventh king is Galba who
"must remain a little while", and had but a short reign.
Rev. 17:10
Nero Caesar in it's Hebrew form (Neron Kesar) calculates to 666.
Rev. 13:18.
Nero Caesar in an alternate Hebrew form (Nero Kesar) calculates to 616,
a variant found in some manuscripts.
Rev. 13:18.
Tertullian says Daniel's seventy weeks are fulfilled and
were completed in 70 AD with the destruction.
Chrysostom says "the end" in Matt. 24 refers to the destruction
of Jerusalem.
Scott
CB
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
Somewhat yes. I believe we agree on most everything.We are dealing with symbols. The number 6 represents falling short of completion
and victory.
The number 7 represents completion.
several times in Scripture a particular number was multiplied, thus 666
In John's day it looked like satan was winning, but God defeated him through Christ.
This is an extensive subject & would take considerable time to study in any NG
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>
>Somewhat yes. I believe we agree on most everything.We are dealing with symbols. The number 6 represents falling short of completion
>and victory.
>The number 7 represents completion.
>several times in Scripture a particular number was multiplied, thus 666
>In John's day it looked like satan was winning, but God defeated him through Christ.
>This is an extensive subject & would take considerable time to study in any NG
>
Yes, basically I argue that Matt 24 and Revelation are fulfilled.
Once we accept that we can stop arguing and get back to the
gospel. There is so much division and speculation just over
this alone.
Scott
CB
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
I agree. Some people believe that "revelation" really means "secret" :)Revelation 21:6 says "it is done"
All prophecies have been fulfilled except one.
kat
physical reign.
You trying to ascend into the sky.....you, with your puny humanness?
Hanz was talking about our Almighty God and Saviour.
kat
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> In <6pp5pm$cd...@burn.videotron.ab.ca>, "Hanz" <webme...@v-wave.com> writes:
> >
> >Was the ascension of Jesus a physical departure? Yes. If he "will come
> >back in the same way as you have seen him go" then his return will also a
> >physical.
> >
> I would hardly call that a "physical" experience.
>
> I still cannot physically ascend into the sky and
> I have been trying for years.
>
> I think you read too much into the pasage.
>
> Jesus said he would come "on the clouds".
> He also said "every eye would see him".
>
> These two events can conclusively be equated
> to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
>
> Scott
kat
31: Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image,
whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof
was terrible.
32: This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of
silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33: His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34: Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote
the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to
pieces.
35: Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold,
broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer
threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found
for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain,
and filled the whole earth.
36: This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof
before the king.
37: Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given
thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38: And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field
and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made
thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
Daniel intreprets the dream and tells Nebuchadnezzar that he is the head
and the kingdom of Babylon reigned!
39: And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee,
The Medes and Persians were the second kingdom.
and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the
earth.
Alexander the Great and the Greeks became the third kingdom to rule the
world.
40: And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron
breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh
all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
Then we have the Romans Empire that conquered the world and was never
defeated, but instead just disintregrated into immorality.
41: And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay,
and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it
of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed
with miry clay.
42: And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so
the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
43: And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle
themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to
another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
The toes of this beast are the revived Roman Empire, which shall rise up
in the last days right before the second coming of Christ.
44: And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be
left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these
kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45: Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain
without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the
clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the
king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and
the interpretation thereof sure.
The stone is Jesus Christ and He will retuen and rule and reign.
Nebuchadnezzar fits the blasphemous nature of the kings of the beast?? I
don't know what you are talking about either, since Neb was just the
head of the beast and turned to God and declared the God of Daniel to be
the one true God.
kat
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> In <35B576E4...@sk.sympatico.ca>, kat <ki...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >Please start back in Daniel which clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar was
> >the first king, or the head of the image.
> >
>
> 1st Mountain/King - Nebuchadnezzar
>
> So who were the 2nd through 6th then?
>
> Fair question, right? I told you who I thought
> kings 1 - 6 were.
>
> Nebuchadnezzar spoke the following words:
>
> 34 I blessed the Most High and
> praised and honored Him who lives
> forever; For His dominion is an
> everlasting dominion, And His kingdom
> endures from generation to generation.
> 35 "And all the inhabitants of the earth
> are accounted as nothing, But He does
> according to His will in the host of
> heaven And among the inhabitants of
> earth; And no one can ward off His
> hand Or say to Him, 'What hast Thou
> done?'
> 37 "Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise,
> exalt, and honor the King of heaven, for
> all His works are true and His ways just,
> and He is able to humble those who
> walk in pride." (Dan 4:34-35,37)
>
> Hardly sounds like blasphemy to me.
>
> Here is what God had to say to Nebuchadnezzar's son:
>
> Dan 5:22 "Yet you, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled
> your heart, even though you knew all this.
>
> Not sure how Nebuchadnezzar fits the blasphemous nature
> of the kings of the beast.
>
> Scott
interested
passage that describes Israel's "seventy weeks." These "weeks" are
clearly 7-year periods. The "seventy weeks," therefore, are 490 years.
The first 69 "weeks" (483 years) take us from the decree of Artaxerxes
in 445 BC (Nehemiah 2:5) until the "cutting off" of the Messiah (Daniel
9:26). This is, by almost universal consent, a reference to Christ's
crucifixion. The Romans under Titus fulfilled the rest of verse 26 by
destroying Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.
In this passage we encounter the Antichrist--the one called "the prince
who is to come." He will "confirm a covenant with many [Daniel's people,
the Jews (v.24)] for one week [7 years]." This is the "seventieth week,"
the time when God will resume His special dealing with Israel.
Antichrist, in keeping with his character, will break his treaty after 3
1/2 years ("the middle of the week" [v. 27]) and instigate a reign of
terror that will desolate the city of Jerusalem. But he will meet his
doom when Christ returns to earth.
kat
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
snipped
> So when DID God give a time indicator regarding that prophecy?
> The answer is in Daniel and the seventy weeks. Was each "day"
> of those seventy weeks 1000 years each? Hardly, "seventy sevens"
> or 70 Weeks equals 490 years, sounds like man years to me.
>
> God spoke in man time not some ethereal God time.
>
interested
Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be
born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her
children.
Ezek:37:1:14 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the
spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was
full of bones,
3: And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I
answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest.
4: Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them,
O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.
5: Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath
to enter into you, and ye shall live:
7: So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a
noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his
bone.
11: Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of
Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we
are cut off for our parts.
12: Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up
out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
13: And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your
graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
14: And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place
you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it,
and performed it, saith the LORD.
Amazing what is in the Bible when one looks for it.
kat
heb...@ibm.net
>
>Then we have the Romans Empire that conquered the world and was never
>defeated, but instead just disintregrated into immorality.
>
were not defeated by a SINGLE world power tells us nothing, unless
it tells us that the time of a single nation ruling the entire world is
over, and that all rulership has been given over to Christ.
Tell me. Has ONE nation ruled the world since Rome?
Have we truly reached an end to Nebuchadrezzar's
image then? Perhap's the stone has indeed struck
the ten toes and it only remains for it to grow and fill
the whole earth.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>The time-frame for endtime chronology is found in Daniel 9:24-27, the
>passage that describes Israel's "seventy weeks." These "weeks" are
>clearly 7-year periods. The "seventy weeks," therefore, are 490 years.
>The first 69 "weeks" (483 years) take us from the decree of Artaxerxes
>in 445 BC (Nehemiah 2:5) until the "cutting off" of the Messiah (Daniel
>9:26). This is, by almost universal consent, a reference to Christ's
>crucifixion. The Romans under Titus fulfilled the rest of verse 26 by
>destroying Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.
>
>In this passage we encounter the Antichrist--the one called "the prince
>who is to come." He will "confirm a covenant with many [Daniel's people,
>the Jews (v.24)] for one week [7 years]." This is the "seventieth week,"
>the time when God will resume His special dealing with Israel.
>Antichrist, in keeping with his character, will break his treaty after 3
>1/2 years ("the middle of the week" [v. 27]) and instigate a reign of
>terror that will desolate the city of Jerusalem. But he will meet his
>doom when Christ returns to earth.
>
>kat
>
year days idea. So when Jesus told John that the vision was
"soon to come to pass", what did he mean?
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
What connection do you see between Ezekiel's vision and the
statement of Isaiah? Ezekiel nowhere mentions travail.
Also, why does the vision of Ezekiel not refer to the return
of the Jews that took place after the Babylonian captivity?
That is more in keeping with the time during which Ezekiel
prophecied.
Lastly, I do find a woman in travail, she is in Revelation 12.
Why do you not make the connection between that woman
and the woman of Isaiah?
Amazing ideed. Sometimes people don't look in the most
obvious of places.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>> Yes, basically I argue that Matt 24 and Revelation are fulfilled.
>>
>> Once we accept that we can stop arguing and get back to the
>> gospel. There is so much division and speculation just over
>> this alone.
>
>I agree. Some people believe that "revelation" really means "secret" :)Revelation 21:6 says "it is done"
>All prophecies have been fulfilled except one.
>
NAS 1Cor 15:25-26 For He must reign
until He has put all His enemies under
His feet. The last enemy that will be
abolished is death.
Here is the ONE that I see as unfulfilled. And you?
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>Jesus also said that He will reign for 1000 years and that will be a
>physical reign.
>
>You trying to ascend into the sky.....you, with your puny humanness?
>Hanz was talking about our Almighty God and Saviour.
>
>kat
>
trees to meet Jesus in the air. They too thought he was coming
back soon. They thought if they timed it just right they could
meet him. I was parodying this foolishness.
Jesus said no such thing. Show where he said his reign would
be a literal reign of 1000 years on earth in which he would be
here in His physical presence. You cannot, so it will be interesting
to see your response.
kat, I used to enjoy trading posts with you but the things you are
writing are getting more and more absurd. Now you are attributing
things to the mouth of Jesus Christ which he NEVER said.
Scott
CB
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
Christ conquered death with His resurrection.
In verse 24 it says that Christ will deliver the Kingdom(church) to God at the end.
I would like your take on this please.
kat
kat
heb...@ibm.net
>Chrysostom, as you didn't know what he was talking about.
>
Your attitude has become increasingly arrogant and bitter and you
now contradict the very Word of God.
NAS Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by
armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand.
Chrysostom, as do I, base our understanding on Luke 21:20.
You on the other hand base yours on nothing but your own
imagination. You may just as well have said that Luke doesn't
know what he was talking about either, and by inference, the
Holy Spirit and God.
You are becoming more and more abusive and anti-God. You
may think you are taking a position against me, but go back and
read what Luke wrote. If you want to ignore it, fine. But don't tell
me that Chrysostom and I do not know what we are talking about.
We are just quoting the scripture, which you seem to have a
significant problem doing yourself.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>> In <44F60D852AB65338.550A79C2...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, CB <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, basically I argue that Matt 24 and Revelation are fulfilled.
>> >>
>> >> Once we accept that we can stop arguing and get back to the
>> >> gospel. There is so much division and speculation just over
>> >> this alone.
>> >
>> >I agree. Some people believe that "revelation" really means "secret" :)Revelation 21:6 says "it is done"
>> >All prophecies have been fulfilled except one.
>> >
>>
>> until He has put all His enemies under
>> His feet. The last enemy that will be
>> abolished is death.
>>
>
>Christ conquered death with His resurrection.
>In verse 24 it says that Christ will deliver the Kingdom(church) to God at the end.
>I would like your take on this please.
>
been abolished. I notice that he does NOT say that it has not
been conquered, only that it has not been abolished. So I think
that we still look for the abolishment of death.
I think that the plan of God is that he might be all in all.
Who even can comprehend what this may mean?
Regards,
Scott
CB
heb...@ibm.net wrote:
OK, I agree. I believe that when Christ delivers the Kingdom to God That will be the end of the world &death will have been conquered. Do
you agree?
heb...@ibm.net
>
>> Well, Paul in Corinthians takes the position that death has NOT
>> been abolished. I notice that he does NOT say that it has not
>> been conquered, only that it has not been abolished. So I think
>> that we still look for the abolishment of death.
>>
>> I think that the plan of God is that he might be all in all.
>> Who even can comprehend what this may mean?
>>
>
>been conquered. Do you agree?
>
of semantics. I like the optimistic approach <g>.
Scott