|
|
Post by mike on Sept 13, 2018 11:37:02 GMT -6
As for you being singled out...I can see where you may feel that way at times.
Your views on things are not traditional, which in and of itself do not present a problem. You diligently search things out and that is to be respected.
Where I think (just me) you run into issues is delivery. Some of what I've read (again just me) of your posts can be read as "this is the correct view, yours isn't accurate" type of reply. Maybe when you read it, before clicking "reply" it makes perfect sense to you and doesn't come off that way. I get that. But to another reader it doesn't and I get that too.
For the few months you've been here and many many posts I have a better understanding of your delivery. If I had to bet I'd say Fitz does too! But that doesn't mean everyone will or currently does.
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Sept 13, 2018 12:31:39 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 13:53:17 GMT -6
After rereading my last post here (thank you mike and venge) and thinking twice about the meaning of the word 'neglect' I must state that I obviously misinterpreted the true sense... Sorry for stirring up trouble here, it was my fault. Should have asked my translator for the proper meaning of this word.... I simply confused 'neglect' with 'negate'. But of course one does typically have an opinion and tries to focus on the main interpretation when defending it. This does not neccessarily mean to ignore or neglect other possible interpretations. They are only just not mentioned right now. And it is clear that we all have a preferred view we tend to defend. I for one learned last year just here on Unsealed to be open to other interpretations. And this is something I see here all over this great forum in virtually all members. BTW, it is indeed very difficult to communicate with written words. The more I try, the more I see the greatness of God's written Word the bible. |
|
|
|
Post by nana on Sept 13, 2018 14:43:38 GMT -6
To my understanding the only thing stopping the Temple sacrifices currently are the land/place they want for the Temple and the red heifer for purification. Everything else is ready.
They could use a tent like in the days they wandered and maybe a different piece of land but without the red heifer nothing is a go.
I don't think the ark is needed but if found it would have to be put in the Temple according to their law(s).
Edited to put the h in nothing and delete an o and replace with an a in wandered |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 13, 2018 17:02:57 GMT -6
We have the upcoming meeting at the UN nana. That could get interesting |
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Sept 13, 2018 17:07:18 GMT -6
nana said: I don't think the ark is needed but if found it would have to be put in the Temple according to their law(s). was this not the proof to the world when the veil was torn at the temple At the last breath of Jesus, it revealed the ark had not been there? Please correct me because the veil torn at the temple in the scriptures immediately around the account do not say anything about the ark. But sermons I have heard mention this was one thing that God revealed to expose the deception the pharisees were committing upon the people...so my question here is, if they have no ark as of today, how do they complete a temple? red heifer aside...
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Sept 13, 2018 18:03:56 GMT -6
I could be wrong (see my ETA), but just because it didn't say anything about the ark doesn't mean it wasn't there. However, it is not something I have researched to know when the ark disappeared. I always assumed it was around 70AD. The High Priests would have had no reason to go behind the veil if the ark was gone. It would have been them fooling the people and not the Pharisees. Right? There have been rumors that someone knows where it is. Why would they keep it hidden though? Because there is no temple? ETA: Seems the ark has been missing for quite awhile. Temple Institute But the Temple Institute claims someone knows where it is hidden, but digging there would insight the Muslims. I'm guessing that the second temple was probably built but didn't have the ark in it. So, I guess the priests would still go in and do whatever it is that they would do, but the ark was absent. I still don't think the Pharisees hid the fact from the people. I'm sure the sad fact of having a temple without the ark would have been well known. But I am just speculating. We know how the truth can be hidden from people (thinking of the truth of Isaiah 53 and some of the things the Catholic Church has done). |
|
|
|
Post by nana on Sept 14, 2018 2:59:38 GMT -6
We have the upcoming meeting at the UN nana . That could get interesting Yes, September 25th.... and 7 days after/later is Shemini Atzeret according to the calendar, October 1/2
Is this our 7 day warning... Like Noah was given? I don't know but I am watching still.
|
|
|
|
Post by nana on Sept 14, 2018 3:28:39 GMT -6
nana said: I don't think the ark is needed but if found it would have to be put in the Temple according to their law(s). was this not the proof to the world when the veil was torn at the temple At the last breath of Jesus, it revealed the ark had not been there? Please correct me because the veil torn at the temple in the scriptures immediately around the account do not say anything about the ark. But sermons I have heard mention this was one thing that God revealed to expose the deception the pharisees were committing upon the people...so my question here is, if they have no ark as of today, how do they complete a temple? red heifer aside... The High Priest only entered the inter Holy of Holies once a year during Feast of Atonement to atone for the Jews sins for the year. The light in there was only when God was present in there at that time and when Jesus died the curtain was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, those were very tall curtains and could not have been torn from top to bottom by man, it was the hand of God that did that. This torn curtain showed/signified there was no light behind it any longer and no more/longer did anyone have to go through the priest, they could go directly to God through Jesus. I believe the ark was not there and had been moved to underneath the ground/cave where Jesus was crucified to catch his blood when the spear was thrust into his side and it was sprinkled on the ark which caught his blood. The earth quaked when he died and I believe this opened a crack for his blood to go down to the ark which was under his feet in the ground/cave. He was the final sacrifice and without the sheading of blood there was no remissions of sins.
|
|
|
|
Post by nana on Sept 14, 2018 3:43:27 GMT -6
I could be wrong (see my ETA), but just because it didn't say anything about the ark doesn't mean it wasn't there. However, it is not something I have researched to know when the ark disappeared. I always assumed it was around 70AD. The High Priests would have had no reason to go behind the veil if the ark was gone. It would have been them fooling the people and not the Pharisees. Right? There have been rumors that someone knows where it is. Why would they keep it hidden though? Because there is no temple? ETA: Seems the ark has been missing for quite awhile. Temple Institute But the Temple Institute claims someone knows where it is hidden, but digging there would insight the Muslims. I'm guessing that the second temple was probably built but didn't have the ark in it. So, I guess the priests would still go in and do whatever it is that they would do, but the ark was absent. I still don't think the Pharisees hid the fact from the people. I'm sure the sad fact of having a temple without the ark would have been well known. But I am just speculating. We know how the truth can be hidden from people (thinking of the truth of Isaiah 53 and some of the things the Catholic Church has done). I have read that too that someone knows where the ark is but I wonder when Jesus told Mary in John 20:17-Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. I wonder if he took the ark to heaven to take his blood to present to God as the final sacrifice which he bought us with and paid our sin debt in full. Did he take it and if so did he bring it back to earth after, I don't know but I do believe his blood landed directly on the ark when he died.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Sept 14, 2018 9:13:47 GMT -6
nana I heard the same type of sermon that you just mentioned regarding the tearing of the veil/curtain and top to bottom because no man could have done that. I imagine it was made of wool or linen which are super strong fabrics. You can not tear a woven wool blanket, nor linen (which is flax). And I agree too or it makes spiritual sense that God was to show this tearing that now the way to Him was thru Jesus, the New Covenant. However you then went on to say this: I would need some scripture for this thought. I have never heard that. Were there caves below Skull Hill? This seems too physical a thing for "God" to do, meaning, who would have stolen the ark except some believing high priests who would have had access? however, you have me curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Sept 14, 2018 9:46:13 GMT -6
Here is a quote from the Temple Institute that I linked in my previous response. I found this last night:
Could the tunnels lead under Golgatha? I don't know the landscape of Israel in order to answer that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Sept 14, 2018 9:51:05 GMT -6
Here is a video Barry Scarborough shared (it's from the Temple Institute). It's only a minute long.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Sept 14, 2018 11:59:07 GMT -6
I will watch the video a bit later today, Nat, but I have this question; and my apologies if our beloved Barry explains this all. In the meantime this is the question I have at the moment:
If the Temple of God is one not made with hands, meaning it is composed of a multitude of stones (believers) and the chief cornerstone being Jesus, why does there need to be a physical Ark found? If they do uncover it, what meaning will it have? The need for a physical ark seems to counter the events surrounding New Jerusalem Revelation:
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will never again leave it. Upon him I will write the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from My God), and My new name.
Would not a "new Ark" be implied here as well? And with that if we are talking about the ark of the covenant, do we not have a NEW covenant, with no need to be housed in an ark?
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Sept 14, 2018 12:23:03 GMT -6
.
|
|
