|
Post by cwood85 on Apr 16, 2018 13:31:43 GMT -6
Mike, I have had the same question. If there is no physical temple for someone to sit in, then what? If it's spiritual, it doesn't make sense to me. Believers, being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, could not also house the Antichrist spirit. Please do not think I am picking on you with what I am going to state. I truly am not, just looking at the possible logic behind this verse based on the words and their meanings that are used and thinking about them. The word used is man of Lawlessness or Sin.lawlessness; the utter disregard for God's law (His written and living Word). 458 /anomía ("lawlessness") includes the end-impact of law breaking – i.e. its negative influence on a person's soul (status before God). As we can see the above verse does not state antichrist nor is the word found in the verse. Being lawless or sinful does not mean one is antichrist, which is the complete denial and believing in Jesus. Religions of Judaism or Islam, or atheist are all antichrist as both do not believe in Jesus as our savior and the son of God. Islam has created their own version Jesus and Judaism denies Him entirely. The was this word is used in this verse is being sinful or lawless that negatively affects ones soul or well being particularly at the end impact (breaking point). So if this verse does have a spiritual meaning (which I am under the opinion that it is) impacting ones soul through sin and lawlessness is certainly spiritual. If one through lawlessness causes themself grief and negatively impacts their soul and state of well-being, anyone can do that. If we obsess over cars and ignore God even as a Christian we are rising our idol above Him. If we commit adultery even as a Christian, we are sinful and lawless. I hope that makes sense. The only time the actual word Anti-christ is used is here in 1 John 2:18-19 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. This verse also does not state that the (as in singular) antichrist shall come, but that antichrist shall come. There is not plural for anti christ. Hope that makes sense
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Apr 16, 2018 12:12:30 GMT -6
Purely speculation on my part, but I think it might easily come true, but if "they" do find out for sure there are chemical weapons stored under the city of Damascus, chemical warfare being such a heinous act, I can see "them" dropping a nuke on it, which would definitely make it no more a city. Of course that may be the 'water breaking' event, d4l spoke of. edit: Could the "Glory of the Children of Israel" be equated to the Pillar of Fire(by day) that led them through the wilderness? If so, that may be the explanation of Verse 3 " The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria:" A nuke would cause the 'fortress' to cease as well as Damascus and the remnant that is left of Syrians. Ephraim was one of the 12 tribes of Israel and a territory that no longer exist and its previous location is uncertain.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Apr 16, 2018 9:39:23 GMT -6
cwood85 nice to see you again (maybe I missed some of your posts) I may have asked this before at some point in another thread but a comment/question about our bodies being a living temple of God. Believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. I dont believe that this applies to non-believers do you (or others)? If so why would that be? I guess my confusion or lack of understanding is how can lawlessness "sit down" in a temple that is not a temple. Unbelievers arent the temple believers are. OR does this support the verse prior to it where those who "fall away" are led into deliberate, perpetual sin, living no longer for Him, but for self allowing the "lawlessness" to reign? The Greek here for sit is: kathizó. While it does mean to sit, sat or take a seat, it also means to set, settle in, or appoint. It is used as verb in the speech. Verb: a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen. So in a sense it can mean he places or appoints himself as the same level of God within the temple. Just some thoughts. Also the other Greek word for physically & literally sitting down is: kathezomai
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Apr 16, 2018 8:48:34 GMT -6
Not following your thought on this. You think Daniels 70th week is not 7 years? The Bible says in the midst of the week the AC will set up the AoD. If he sets it up by the middle of 7 years, there has to be 1260 +\- some years afterward. And if it’s setup in the midst of 7, there must be time afforded for the AC to conquer and place himself into the beast as the 11th horn before the AoD therefore expanding time of the week on the front half. These are my studies and opinions on Daniel 9:26-27: My studies have been on the last key verses in Dan. 9 that everyone tends to think is a peace treaty with Israel and some other country/entity. The definitions are in parentheses besides key words. Pay particular attention to the word covenant and how it is defined. This covenant is only made with a sacrifice.... not a signed agreement. 25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree ( command/order) to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two * weeks ( notice the seven weeks is listed before the sixty two weeks for a total of 69); it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. ( I believe this is referring to the building of the second temple and restoring Jerusalem after the Babylonians destroyed it.)26 "Then after the sixty-two * weeks ( keep in mind the seven weeks was listed BEFORE the 62 weeks that is being mentioned in this verse before in verse 25, so at this point of time there is 69 weeks completed) the Messiah will be cut off ( this is defined as destroy or consume to confirm a covenant by cutting flesh into two pieces to cause death to complete the covenant. i.e. such as a sacrifice. Not a paper signed agreement.) and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its ( the city & sanctuary or temple) end will come with a flood ( with overflowing/overwhelming force, used figuratively) ; even to the end there will be war; desolations ( judgmental destruction from God, this is specific for the way it is used here) are determined. 27 "And he ( Jesus) will make a firm covenant with the many for one week ( completing the 70 weeks because this week is listed after the 7 & 62 weeks), but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering ( Jesus dying on the cross put a stop to this for all); and on the wing of abominations ( this is defined and used in a way to describe something as blasphemous, filthy & disgusting. Especially in the sense of something idolatrous being the blasphemy, is the way it is used in this verse) will come one who makes desolate ( an extreme destruction or ruining), even until a complete destruction (To complete or bring to an end by destruction. Utterly consume), one that is decreed ( ordered/commanded. So this destruction that is completed is ordered) , is poured out on the one who makes desolate.( Poured out on the one who causes the destruction and causing them who started and completed the first destruction, to be destroyed)" That is my take/breakdown on the Daniel 9 verses that are used to describe a "peace treaty" being signed. I don't see that at all here imo. EDIT: I colored the definition sections so they are easier to read.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Apr 16, 2018 8:13:20 GMT -6
venge I have done a lot of research on the word Anthropos in Greek for man or mankind. Here is the post that goes in depth in another thread. "3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" It is interesting that the ESV translation translates the word to "that" instead of "the." In the greek it is definitely the (ho). NASB Version: Let no one in any way deceive you, for [it will not come] unless the apostasy (This is interesting the word apostasy/apostasia is translated this way. I know this word has been discussed frequently. My keyword study bible has some very interesting details regarding this word. In some other translations it is translated as the falling away or even departure. However it notes the verb that is used for this word is to place oneself away or stand away from someone. Not in the sense of removal either, but as a distance. It is used to mean the purpose of not incurring the dangers of that association. It states the understanding behind this was people who called themselves Christians on the outside, but once persecution started, these people no longer associated themselves as a Christian. In other words, those who are not really faithful.) comes first, and the man (or men as in humans/mankind?) of lawlessness (sin or opposed to Christ) is revealed, the son (this is also used for descendant (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. Who is described as sharing the nature of their father the devil? The pharisees/unbelievers who had no faith and relied on their works and status to be "holy" or do not believe at all) of destruction (this word is interesting as well in the Greek: apṓleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being. Not so much as a destroyed type of destruction.) , 4who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. I hope I am not coming across as being combative or anything of that sort, and I am no language expert. I just think there is a whole lot more to these verses than what is being understood. And I think from the above details given, that is somewhat clear. It is also interesting to note that anytime the word himself it is used in one of these verses, the verb in the language is actually neuter, not defining male or female. That is something I am looking more into. In regards to the Holy Spirit and our bodies being the temple of God and Paul being the one who is stating this in his letters that if he is referring to the temple of God wouldn't we naturally assume that is what he means? In other passages when Paul goes to the temple in Jerusalem, the word that is used is specifically for the temple (hieron) in Jerusalem or a physical location. However when he describes us as being the temple of God, he uses a different word entirely (naos: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides. properly, a sanctuary (divine dwelling-place); a temple (sacred abode), the place of divine manifestation.) This is also the same word he uses to describe the one of lawlessness who is sitting in the temple of God in 2 Thess. 2:4. God will not be dwelling in the future/third temple that the Jewish people are trying to build. Naos only refers to a temple that God actually dwelling in. Hieron just means a temple building. Just some opinions and researching that I have done regarding these verses. Editing to comment on the quoted Revelation verses. The same word NAOS is used in those verses as well, not a physical temple building. So would that make the temple being measured us? Read more: unsealed.boards.net/user/112/recent#ixzz5CnJKjCSt I quoted myself because I found the additional information I posted regarding the above post on 2nd Thessalonians 2:3. Here is that information: The Greek for the word "man" in that verse is not of an individual or single man, but both male and female as in mankind. Here is the strongs definition: 444 (anthrōpos) relates to both genders (male and female) as both are created in the image of God – each equally vested with individual personhood and destiny The word for man as an individual in Greek is anēr, which refers to a male individual of the human reace, and anthrōpos (the one used in the above verse) which is the racial, generic term, and which has the general idea of 'mankind' " Also this verses cannot be referring to a literal man made temple because I do believe Paul had referenced our bodies as being the true temple of God. Not a real man made temple. I will double check when I have time tonight if was Paul who said this in another book. If a third temple was built now, would it be the temple of God? Would God honor it? No, as it would be blasphemy when sacrifices where being done in it. Would we as Christians call it a temple of God? I hope not. Read more: unsealed.boards.net/user/112/recent#ixzz5CqOxmSKx
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Apr 15, 2018 19:40:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Apr 15, 2018 19:27:16 GMT -6
venge I have done a lot of research on the word Anthropos in Greek for man or mankind. Here is the post that goes in depth in another thread. "3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" It is interesting that the ESV translation translates the word to "that" instead of "the." In the greek it is definitely the (ho). NASB Version: Let no one in any way deceive you, for [it will not come] unless the apostasy (This is interesting the word apostasy/apostasia is translated this way. I know this word has been discussed frequently. My keyword study bible has some very interesting details regarding this word. In some other translations it is translated as the falling away or even departure. However it notes the verb that is used for this word is to place oneself away or stand away from someone. Not in the sense of removal either, but as a distance. It is used to mean the purpose of not incurring the dangers of that association. It states the understanding behind this was people who called themselves Christians on the outside, but once persecution started, these people no longer associated themselves as a Christian. In other words, those who are not really faithful.) comes first, and the man (or men as in humans/mankind?) of lawlessness (sin or opposed to Christ) is revealed, the son (this is also used for descendant (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. Who is described as sharing the nature of their father the devil? The pharisees/unbelievers who had no faith and relied on their works and status to be "holy" or do not believe at all) of destruction (this word is interesting as well in the Greek: apṓleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being. Not so much as a destroyed type of destruction.) , 4who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. I hope I am not coming across as being combative or anything of that sort, and I am no language expert. I just think there is a whole lot more to these verses than what is being understood. And I think from the above details given, that is somewhat clear. It is also interesting to note that anytime the word himself it is used in one of these verses, the verb in the language is actually neuter, not defining male or female. That is something I am looking more into. In regards to the Holy Spirit and our bodies being the temple of God and Paul being the one who is stating this in his letters that if he is referring to the temple of God wouldn't we naturally assume that is what he means? In other passages when Paul goes to the temple in Jerusalem, the word that is used is specifically for the temple (hieron) in Jerusalem or a physical location. However when he describes us as being the temple of God, he uses a different word entirely (naos: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides. properly, a sanctuary (divine dwelling-place); a temple (sacred abode), the place of divine manifestation.) This is also the same word he uses to describe the one of lawlessness who is sitting in the temple of God in 2 Thess. 2:4. God will not be dwelling in the future/third temple that the Jewish people are trying to build. Naos only refers to a temple that God actually dwelling in. Hieron just means a temple building. Just some opinions and researching that I have done regarding these verses. Editing to comment on the quoted Revelation verses. The same word NAOS is used in those verses as well, not a physical temple building. So would that make the temple being measured us? Read more: unsealed.boards.net/user/112/recent#ixzz5CnJKjCSt
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Apr 14, 2018 12:19:26 GMT -6
barbiosheepgirl “those who are left in Israel; they shall do no injustice and speak no lies, nor shall there be found in their mouth a deceitful tongue. For they shall graze and lie down, and none shall make them afraid." -Zephaniah 3:13 This came to mind
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Mar 2, 2018 20:32:10 GMT -6
kjs What translation do you use?
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Feb 28, 2018 11:16:57 GMT -6
cwood85 , I think we also need to consider the rest of the verses in 2 Thes which do point to this being an individual. I dont disagree with you in that the 'spirit of anti-christ' is prevalent and waxing for the last 2000 years. Well I cant definitively prove that so I will say the waxing has been occurring for the last couple decades for sure " 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" Now the text tells us the man is a he, a son or the son of perdition - we've already covered the "man" definition in the greek and could agree that either a single man or man-kind be applied. But the word for son sheds more light as hyios is used. 5207 hyiós – properly, a son (by birth or adoption); (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son). In the NT, 5207 /hyiós ("son") equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28). 5207 /hyiós ("son") emphasizes likeness of the believer to the heavenly Father, i.e. resembling His character more and more by living in faith ("God's inwrought persuasons," see 4102 /pístis). 5207 /hyiós ("son") highlights the (legal) right to the Father's inheritance, i.e. as the believer lives in conformity with the Father's nature (purpose). NOTE - Thayers also seems to support the idea of son having a "student-teacher" type relation One other note for now...I may add more later as I am still reviewing and gathering thoughts...the temple. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit arent we? But isnt that notion only applied to those who believe? Can we say that those who are blinded, defiant and remain in unbelief as a temple of the Holy Spirit? 1 Cor 6:19 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"1 Cor 3:16-17 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are."Now contrast this withRev 11:1 & 19 "And there was given me a reed like to a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein." 19 And the temple of God which is in heaven was openedIMO - We shouldnt blanket state that we, believers are the temple that the anti-christ spirit is (going to be) defiling as there are examples of temples in the NT that are physical as well as non-believers not being true "temples" "3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" It is interesting that the ESV translation translates the word to "that" instead of "the." In the greek it is definitely the (ho).
NASB Version: Let no one in any way deceive you, for [it will not come] unless the apostasy ( This is interesting the word apostasy/apostasia is translated this way. I know this word has been discussed frequently. My keyword study bible has some very interesting details regarding this word. In some other translations it is translated as the falling away or even departure. However it notes the verb that is used for this word is to place oneself away or stand away from someone. Not in the sense of removal either, but as a distance. It is used to mean the purpose of not incurring the dangers of that association. It states the understanding behind this was people who called themselves Christians on the outside, but once persecution started, these people no longer associated themselves as a Christian. In other words, those who are not really faithful.) comes first, and the man ( or men as in humans/mankind?) of lawlessness ( sin or opposed to Christ) is revealed, the son ( this is also used for descendant (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. Who is described as sharing the nature of their father the devil? The pharisees/unbelievers who had no faith and relied on their works and status to be "holy" or do not believe at all) of destruction ( this word is interesting as well in the Greek: apṓleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being. Not so much as a destroyed type of destruction.) , 4who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. I hope I am not coming across as being combative or anything of that sort, and I am no language expert. I just think there is a whole lot more to these verses than what is being understood. And I think from the above details given, that is somewhat clear. It is also interesting to note that anytime the word himself it is used in one of these verses, the verb in the language is actually neuter, not defining male or female. That is something I am looking more into. In regards to the Holy Spirit and our bodies being the temple of God and Paul being the one who is stating this in his letters that if he is referring to the temple of God wouldn't we naturally assume that is what he means? In other passages when Paul goes to the temple in Jerusalem, the word that is used is specifically for the temple ( hieron) in Jerusalem or a physical location. However when he describes us as being the temple of God, he uses a different word entirely ( naos: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides. properly, a sanctuary (divine dwelling-place); a temple (sacred abode), the place of divine manifestation.) This is also the same word he uses to describe the one of lawlessness who is sitting in the temple of God in 2 Thess. 2:4. God will not be dwelling in the future/third temple that the Jewish people are trying to build. Naos only refers to a temple that God actually dwelling in. Hieron just means a temple building. Just some opinions and researching that I have done regarding these verses. Editing to comment on the quoted Revelation verses. The same word NAOS is used in those verses as well, not a physical temple building. So would that make the temple being measured us?
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Feb 27, 2018 15:57:55 GMT -6
perhaps it is because we equate the man of lawlessness as the incarnate version of the lawlessness we see all over scripture? we all know the reference but why not throw it in here Thes 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:The KJV and YLT indicate this is a man, son, Lawless One (YLT), so it seems clear that there is an individual. There is clearly a system of the beast but this point to an individual. The Greek for the word "man" in that verse is not of an individual or single man, but both male and female as in mankind. Here is the strongs definition: 444 (anthrōpos) relates to both genders (male and female) as both are created in the image of God – each equally vested with individual personhood and destiny The word for man as an individual in Greek is anēr, which refers to a male individual of the human reace, and anthrōpos (the one used in the above verse) which is the racial, generic term, and which has the general idea of 'mankind' " Also this verses cannot be referring to a literal man made temple because I do believe Paul had referenced our bodies as being the true temple of God. Not a real man made temple. I will double check when I have time tonight if was Paul who said this in another book. If a third temple was built now, would it be the temple of God? Would God honor it? No, as it would be blasphemy when sacrifices where being done in it. Would we as Christians call it a temple of God? I hope not.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Feb 26, 2018 22:25:14 GMT -6
I don't think there is going to be a one world ruling anti christ. Anti christ has been here from the beginning after Jesus was crucified as stated in 1st John, and has always been a corporate entity. To me and what I have read does not indicate a one super power supreme ruling individual...
Anti Christ literally means to deny Christ. Religions do that, individual non believers do that, people who solely believe in their works over Christ are anti Christ and so on. Religions offer flattery, riches, false gospels, all with lying wonders to get people and give their money to their mega church. The TV preachers who "healed" people and were found to be frauds and just filling their pockets. Not saying the healing power of God isn't real.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Feb 26, 2018 11:30:06 GMT -6
I just saw the post about this being under another thread. Please feel free to move it
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Feb 26, 2018 6:37:43 GMT -6
It is interesting that you bring this up. Because I feel very strongly that the covenant of Daniel 9:27 is not about the antichrist but rather about Messiah. I think it has dual fulfillment in the Covenant of His Blood at the cross and then the marriage covenant of Ezekiel 16 (with Israel- this will be the second time the Lord passes over her, the first being her birth in 1948). Both of these strengthen/confirm the Abrahamic Covenant (Romans 15:8-9). I believe the Church age is at the midpoint of Daniel’s 70th week... the grand pause is between Christ’s resurrection and ours. Christ’s death made the sacrifice and offering cease in the middle of the week. And our living sacrifice on earth will also cease in the middle of the week with the rapture. Therefore I believe the abomination will happen very soon, and it will be something we don’t expect. I think it has to do with the church and false doctrines or possibly the antichrist revealing himself and performing miracles of some sort. I believe this is why we are told to have plenty of oil and pray we are able to stand (why else would those two warnings be included in scripture regarding the end times if we’re just going to disappear in our sleep one night?!?). Those who have the Holy Spirit will, I think, recognize the abomination and will groan at it and consequently be sealed with the tav mark like the young men in Ezekiel 9 when judgment comes. It doesn’t seem like this idea has really been confirmed by anyone here, and I know it’s not valid unless there are many witnesses. But like I said I feel pretty strongly about it. It will be interesting to see what comes in the next week or so. If I’m right, the abomination will happen soon and then perhaps your point about Gog and Magog needing to be after the abomination would be very valid but also everyone who sees it happening at the beginning is also validated. I'm trying to understand - get clarity. I realize that there are differing views - both with valid points re the Covenant --[ For example , To whom is "He" referring? is it the messiah, or the AC. ?? Was this partially fulfilled with Christ's death mid-week, and/or does this refer to the Abomination of desolation by the AC. ?? etc.]
While there are myriads of views with different shades and nuances, I think there is most widespread agreement on several key points. ***I'm not trying to "pigeon-hole" anyone, and I totally get that some people think the Tribulation is 3 1/2 years. - There is a defining mid point, and a defining start point.
- We have very clear day counts
- We have multiple clear markers - signs or events that happen in the first part of the tribulation.
- Whether the "Fuse event" happens just before, or just prior to the rapture, there will be something that starts the clock / starts the chain of dominoes - ***Very differing views on what the Trigger event is/ but almost universal agreement that there will be something that sets the tribulation in motion. **In other words, it doesn't just randomly start in the middle of the workday, in June or September, and the whole world is unaware that it started 7 months ago.
There has been no treaty between Israel and the surrounding nations - **I realize that many believe the covenant is not a peace treaty - but we haven't seen that. There has not been a major nuclear war or WW III, Damascus is not quite a heap of ruins, [but getting closer every day- literally] and it's not uninhabitable. No rapture - no harpazo event. No ginormous - earthquake, volcano, that affects Jerusalem, and multiple continents. Not like a Revelation scale of calamity. No ginormous - apocalyptic Tsunami or meteor crash into earth. No major - world-leader emerge - claiming to be the Messiah, or even one whom the Jewish leaders could agree might be the messiah, No massive- Biblical proportion - plague killing millions. No massive collapse of the government or economy or stock market. The so-called 'crash' of two weeks ago was a correction and almost all of the drop has been regained in two weeks time. No Electro Magnetic Pulse ***We haven't seen any decision by UN or any world-recognized entity to divide Israel, and **We haven't seen any official start by Israel or Knesset, or Sanhedrin to actually start construction of the 3rd temple No calls by the UN, or any world body for a one-world money system, or mandatory RFID, micro-chipping. ***No two witnesses who preach, breathe fire, perform miracles. We have an explicit day count for these guys, and social media would be exploding. Cat memes couldn't hope to compare with live feeds of "Ninja Prophets".
I see multiple signs and converging of signs, and prophecies being fulfilled right before our eyes, and in keeping with this thread - I think the Embassy in Jerusalem is inseparable , and I consider the blood moons, and recent solar and total lunar eclipse, and Super, Blue Blood Moon, -- and the 70th Anniversary of Israel as a Nation on May 14th, - all as being signs that we are seeing labor pains. I'm not setting dates, but I feel very strongly we are seeing countless confirmations that we are at the very edge but I don't see a single sign anywhere that the tribulation has begun. Not from the list above, and nothing I can see from scripture even indicates that the tribulation has started.
Can you help me understand how or why you think the tribulation has started, or maybe I mis-heard what you mean.
When I see the "Godzilla brothers" I'm more than happy to publically proclaim that I've just moved my game piece to "Mid-tribulation".
Blessings, Disciple4life.
My studies have been on the last key verses in Dan. 9 that everyone tends to think is a peace treaty with Israel and some other country/entity. The definitions are in parentheses besides key words. Pay particular attention to the word covenant and how it is defined. This covenant is only made with a sacrifice.... not a signed agreement. 25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree (command/order) to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two * weeks (notice the seven weeks is listed before the sixty two weeks for a total of 69); it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 "Then after the sixty-two * weeks (keep in mind the seven weeks was listed BEFORE the 62 weeks that is being mentioned in this verse before in verse 25, so at this point of time there is 69 weeks completed) the Messiah will be cut off (this is defined as destroy or consume to confirm a covenant by cutting flesh into two pieces to cause death to complete the covenant. i.e. such as a sacrifice. Not a paper signed agreement.) and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its (the city & sanctuary or temple) end will come with a flood (with overflowing/overwhelming force, used figuratively) ; even to the end there will be war; desolations (judgmental destruction from God, this is specific for the way it is used here) are determined. 27 "And he (Jesus) will make a firm covenant with the many for one week (completing the 70 weeks because this week is listed after the 7 & 62 weeks), but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering (Jesus dying on the cross put a stop to this for all); and on the wing of abominations (this is defined and used in a way to describe something as blasphemous, filthy & disgusting. Especially in the sense of something idolatrous being the blasphemy, is the way it is used in this verse) will come one who makes desolate (an extreme destruction or ruining), even until a complete destruction (To complete or bring to an end by destruction. Utterly consume), one that is decreed (ordered/commanded. So this destruction that is completed is ordered) , is poured out on the one who makes desolate. (Poured out on the one who causes the destruction and causing them who started and completed the first destruction, to be destroyed)"That is my take/breakdown on the Daniel 9 verses that are used to describe a "peace treaty" being signed. I don't see that at all here imo. EDIT: I colored the definition sections so they are easier to read.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Feb 25, 2018 23:43:50 GMT -6
Third to agree on this assessment. I and it sounds like a few others have spent a good deal picking this verse apart and have come to similar conclusions not knowing we were coming to these conclusions. Here is the translation I found in the Jubilee translation of the Bible. Which by the way has some fascinating history behind it!
27"In one week (they are now seventy) he shall confirm the covenant by many: and at the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and because of the many abominations, desolation shall come, even until complete destruction shall be poured out upon the abominable people."
I have over four pages of notes that I have done on this verse alone comparing various translations to one another and searching out the meanings of the words. This imo is not referring to a mid period abomination during the current tribulation theology. This verse is referring to the first and the second coming of Jesus Christ. It is all about Him. Those who cause an abomination will have utter destruction brought down on them by a decree/command as translated in other versions.
Barb is right, any sort of sacrifices that are started with or without a temple are going to be an abomination in the Lords eyes. I am no scholar but I am someone who have very much so been praying for truth and understanding. I know we all do about this stuff. I think though maybe sometimes things are made to be more complicated than they really are.
|
|