Latest News: The Great Trubulation


Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next > Last »
The Constant Sacrifice
Author Message
ablebodiedman
Member


Posts: 3,641
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #46
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Interpretum Wrote:
(a) The Christians fled in 66AD. Why did they do so, unless they recognized the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, and then withdrawing, as their signal to flee to the mountains and not enter into Jerusalem.

(b) The Roman armies carried with them eagle standards called ensigns, which they treated as gods. Thus, they were literally bringing their gods into a holy place, which was disgusting in God's eyes.


Interpretum,

a/ No special discernment required to see an army surrounding Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ already told them twice to flee when they saw an army surrounding Jerusalem.

b/ The temple in Jerusalem was already disgusting in God's eyes well before it was surrounded by any army. Thats why Jesus Christ proclaimed its downfall. There was no holy place in Jerusalem when the Romans Armies came. Jesus Christ declared that the house had already been abandoned because it was unholy long before any army came to surround Jerusalem.


In Christ

abe


the spiritual man examines all things

Jehovah's Witnesses - The Bible Report
The Unforgivable Sin
09-05-2010 06:56 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
littleone
Member


Posts: 22
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #47
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Hi Interpretum,

Since this is the "reasoning from the scriptures" forum, I hope you do not mind if I give a rebuttal. Of course none of it is aimed as a personal attack. Instead, I only debate the ideas presented.

Quote:
(a) The Christians fled in 66AD. Why did they do so, unless they recognized the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, and then withdrawing, as their signal to flee to the mountains and not enter into Jerusalem.

The main historian that recorded these events is Josephus, or Yosef Ben Matityahu according to his Jewish name. However, what type of person was Josephus? How reliable was he?

In the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus introduces himself as an ethnic Jew... a Priest from Jerusalem. Also, he readily admits that he was a Jewish zealot. Matter of fact, he was a commander of the Galilean forces. He fought against the Roman armies in 66 AD. After the Jewish garrison of Jotapata fell under siege, the Romans invaded, killing thousands. Josephus and 40 other men ended up trapped in a cave. The Romans asked him to surrender once they discovered where he was... but he refused. Therefore, what does he do? He suggests a method of collective suicide. However, what happens? The 40 other men commit suicide, but he does not. Instead, once his buddies are all dead, he decides to surrender to the Romans. This is the type of person Josephus was. He was a sell-out. He would do or say anything to save his own hide. Matter of fact, he was later released by Romans because of using prophesying and predicting that Vespasian would become emperor; this happened in 69 and Josephus was subsequently released. He was a total turncoat. He went from Jewish Priest (Pharisee) to becoming an informant and prophet for the Romans. Matter of fact, he was later used as a negotiator for the Romans during the final siege in 70AD.

So how reliable of a witness is Josephus? Are we really going to accept the viewpoint of a Jewish Pharisee zealot as fact?

What about other evidence from the Bible? Scholars generally agree that all of John's writings were completed after the destruction of Jerusalem. But he doesn't mention it at all. Instead of giving any application to Jesus' prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, he's remarkably silent concerning it. Also Jude is silent concerning it. Most scholars also generally agree that Jude was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.


Quote:
(b) The Roman armies carried with them eagle standards called ensigns, which they treated as gods. Thus, they were literally bringing their gods into a holy place, which was disgusting in God's eyes.

Was Jerusalem and the temple contained in it truly considered a holy place by God at the time? No. Instead, Jesus himself said:

"“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it. 38 Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU." - Matt 23:37,38

The city of Jerusalem and the temple arrangement was abandoned by God. In 66 - 70 AD, Jerusalem and its temple was no more considered a "holy place" than it is today. A "NEW" temple arrangement had been put in place since Pentecost 33. The new temple was the "Christian temple" as spoken about by Paul in Ephesians 2:19-22:

"Certainly, therefore, YOU are no longer strangers and alien residents, but YOU are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and YOU have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him YOU, too, are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit." - Ephesians 2:19-22

By 66 - 70 AD the physical city of Jerusalem and its temple was no longer considered a "holy place" by God. It was already abandoned. As we can see from this scripture, God's spirit was now inhabiting a new temple arrangement. The former was already cast aside... no longer considered "holy".

Quote:
( c) The Roman armies were also the agents bringing desolation to Jerusalem and the Temple - that is why it is described as "the abomination that causes desolation" (NIV).

There is no doubt that the Jewish zealots considered the Romans to be a "disgusting thing" or an "abomination that causes desolation". However, concerning God's faithful, the Roman armies were meting out divine justice. They were not disgusting in God's eyes at all. Matter of fact, they were God's servants. Likewise, when God used the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem, consider what he himself said concerning Nebuchadnezzar:

"And you must say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “Here I am sending and I will take Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will place his throne right above these stones that I have hidden, and he will certainly extend his state tent over them." - Jeremiah 43:10

Quote:
(d) That the "disgusting thing" has God's permission to destroy the holy place and city, does not mean God approves of the wild beast itself. In Revelation, we see the "wild beast" given authority to act against God's people for 42 months... (which I believe was fulfilled 70-73AD)... but this does not mean God approved of its persecution of the holy ones.

Concerning the "Wild Beast" of Revelation 13, unlike the Roman armies, it was not God who gave the wild beast its authority. Instead, the book of Revelation clearly tells us where the "Wild Beast" obtained its authority:

"And the dragon gave to [the beast] its power and its throne and great authority." - Revelation 13:2

This is quite a different scenario isn't it? In the Roman army's case, God used them to mete out divine justice. In the "wild beast's" case, it is the "dragon" who gives it authority. The wild beast always did the bidding of the devil. Never did it do something by divine commission. There is a big difference, wouldn't you agree?


Quote:
Well, this is the problem... people trying to create an "antitype". I do not believe Jesus intended for their to be an antitype. The WTS conditioned us...

The watchtower did not condition me for anything. I was never a Jehovah's Witness or a member of the Watchtower society. Nor did I ever believe their interpretations of the scriptures. However, I do see how you could reach such conclusions. If I had of put up with the things that you put up with in the society, after realizing they were false I would probably readily want to reject each and every thing that the society ever said. If they said the sky was blue, I would want to argue that it was green... so I get it. Yet, let's not even bring the society into any of these debates. Because neither one of us accept them as any sort of authority whatsoever.

But you no doubt do not know my history as never being a Jehovah's Witness. So it makes perfect sense that you would conclude that I was one... as the majority of the members on this site are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, when speaking to witnesses, I use the name "Jehovah". When speaking to various bible students I will use the name "Yahweh" or the anglicized form of the tetragrammation ("YHWH")... When speaking to others I will sometimes simply say "God". It all depends on who I am speaking with. So yeah... I even sound like a witness here.


Quote:
Why do we have this need to put words in Jesus' mouth? He said the prophecy was particularly for those in Judea... why do we feel this need to rip the prophecy out of context and apply it to "our day" all the time?

Who is putting words in Jesus' mouth? I certainly am not. However, Jesus was known for speaking in parables. The bible itself mentions it. Matter of fact, the apostles one time questioned him on his use of parables.


However, please let's reason on this...

Jesus said the following in Matthew 24:15

“Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,)" - Matt 24:15

The Greek word used here for "discernment" is: noeō

noeō:
1) to perceive with the mind, to understand, to have understanding
2) to think upon, ponder, consider

What is there to think about or discern, perceive, ponder, consider or understand in your line of reasoning? Instead, it is as simple as knowing Jesus' words... and when seeing the Roman armies, getting out of dodge. Correct? Even the wicked would be very likely to understand these things. There is no mental or spiritual discernment at all is there? However, Jesus himself gives us a clue that things are not as cut and dry as they may seem. Instead, he tells us we will need to "discern, perceive, understand, ponder or consider" what is taking place. It would not be so strikingly observable.

Therefore, should we take the word of secular scholars who have no fear of God at all concerning the fulfillment of this scripture... when Jesus himself says we would need "discernment" to understand it?

09-05-2010 10:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
gogh
Participator


Posts: 3,239
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #48
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Greetings littleone

Thanks for your research and comments.

Re: "Was Jerusalem and the temple contained in it truly considered a holy place by God at the time?"

Scripture(s) came to mind:

"But Jesus let out a loud cry and expired. And the curtain of the sanctuary was rent in two from top to bottom." (Mark 15:32...)

"Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way through the curtain, that is, his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with true hearts in the full assurance of faith, having had our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and our bodies bathed with clean water. Let us hold fast the public declaration of our hope without wavering, for he is faithful that promised." (Hebrews 10:19...)

It seems the temple in Jerusalem, after our Lord Jesus death, was anything/everything but holy.


I hope these scripture references are relevant to the discussion,

Christian love and appreciation,

gogh


"......."This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Keep listening to him!" Luke 9:35
09-05-2010 10:39 PM
Find all posts by this user
ablebodiedman
Member


Posts: 3,641
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #49
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

littleone,

Thanks for sharing some of your background in the above post.

It is interesting to me that you have come to these conclusions without having been indoctrinated by the Watchtower Society.

Any people reading this thread who may now be having a change in heart over what is happening to Christianity are probably in a state of shock. Either that or denial.

I optimistically hope that it might "wake up" some Christians.

If you consider what has been posted above there should now be some very important and difficult questions raised if anyone now realizes they have been a victim.

I am surprised no one has asked those questions.

I believe that properly identifying the constant feature exposes Satan's unrighteous deception.

Good chance that Satan and his weeds will be very disturbed when they see this reported.

He should realize that his demise is fast approaching.


Daniel 11:44
“But there will be reports that will disturb him, out of the sunrising and out of the north, and he will certainly go forth in a great rage in order to annihilate and to devote many to destruction. 45 And he will plant his palatial tents between [the] grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration; and he will have to come all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him.


In Christ

abe


the spiritual man examines all things

Jehovah's Witnesses - The Bible Report
The Unforgivable Sin
09-06-2010 12:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #50
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

littleone Wrote:
Hi Interpretum,

Since this is the "reasoning from the scriptures" forum, I hope you do not mind if I give a rebuttal. Of course none of it is aimed as a personal attack. Instead, I only debate the ideas presented.

Quote:
(a) The Christians fled in 66AD. Why did they do so, unless they recognized the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, and then withdrawing, as their signal to flee to the mountains and not enter into Jerusalem.

The main historian that recorded these events is Josephus, or Yosef Ben Matityahu according to his Jewish name. However, what type of person was Josephus? How reliable was he?

In the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus introduces himself as an ethnic Jew... a Priest from Jerusalem. Also, he readily admits that he was a Jewish zealot. Matter of fact, he was a commander of the Galilean forces. He fought against the Roman armies in 66 AD. After the Jewish garrison of Jotapata fell under siege, the Romans invaded, killing thousands. Josephus and 40 other men ended up trapped in a cave. The Romans asked him to surrender once they discovered where he was... but he refused. Therefore, what does he do? He suggests a method of collective suicide. However, what happens? The 40 other men commit suicide, but he does not. Instead, once his buddies are all dead, he decides to surrender to the Romans. This is the type of person Josephus was. He was a sell-out. He would do or say anything to save his own hide. Matter of fact, he was later released by Romans because of using prophesying and predicting that Vespasian would become emperor; this happened in 69 and Josephus was subsequently released. He was a total turncoat. He went from Jewish Priest (Pharisee) to becoming an informant and prophet for the Romans. Matter of fact, he was later used as a negotiator for the Romans during the final siege in 70AD.

So how reliable of a witness is Josephus? Are we really going to accept the viewpoint of a Jewish Pharisee zealot as fact?

What about other evidence from the Bible? Scholars generally agree that all of John's writings were completed after the destruction of Jerusalem. But he doesn't mention it at all. Instead of giving any application to Jesus' prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, he's remarkably silent concerning it. Also Jude is silent concerning it. Most scholars also generally agree that Jude was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.


Quote:
(b) The Roman armies carried with them eagle standards called ensigns, which they treated as gods. Thus, they were literally bringing their gods into a holy place, which was disgusting in God's eyes.

Was Jerusalem and the temple contained in it truly considered a holy place by God at the time? No. Instead, Jesus himself said:

"“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it. 38 Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU." - Matt 23:37,38

The city of Jerusalem and the temple arrangement was abandoned by God. In 66 - 70 AD, Jerusalem and its temple was no more considered a "holy place" than it is today. A "NEW" temple arrangement had been put in place since Pentecost 33. The new temple was the "Christian temple" as spoken about by Paul in Ephesians 2:19-22:

"Certainly, therefore, YOU are no longer strangers and alien residents, but YOU are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and YOU have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him YOU, too, are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit." - Ephesians 2:19-22

By 66 - 70 AD the physical city of Jerusalem and its temple was no longer considered a "holy place" by God. It was already abandoned. As we can see from this scripture, God's spirit was now inhabiting a new temple arrangement. The former was already cast aside... no longer considered "holy".

Quote:
( c) The Roman armies were also the agents bringing desolation to Jerusalem and the Temple - that is why it is described as "the abomination that causes desolation" (NIV).

There is no doubt that the Jewish zealots considered the Romans to be a "disgusting thing" or an "abomination that causes desolation". However, concerning God's faithful, the Roman armies were meting out divine justice. They were not disgusting in God's eyes at all. Matter of fact, they were God's servants. Likewise, when God used the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem, consider what he himself said concerning Nebuchadnezzar:

"And you must say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “Here I am sending and I will take Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will place his throne right above these stones that I have hidden, and he will certainly extend his state tent over them." - Jeremiah 43:10

Quote:
(d) That the "disgusting thing" has God's permission to destroy the holy place and city, does not mean God approves of the wild beast itself. In Revelation, we see the "wild beast" given authority to act against God's people for 42 months... (which I believe was fulfilled 70-73AD)... but this does not mean God approved of its persecution of the holy ones.

Concerning the "Wild Beast" of Revelation 13, unlike the Roman armies, it was not God who gave the wild beast its authority. Instead, the book of Revelation clearly tells us where the "Wild Beast" obtained its authority:

"And the dragon gave to [the beast] its power and its throne and great authority." - Revelation 13:2

This is quite a different scenario isn't it? In the Roman army's case, God used them to mete out divine justice. In the "wild beast's" case, it is the "dragon" who gives it authority. The wild beast always did the bidding of the devil. Never did it do something by divine commission. There is a big difference, wouldn't you agree?


Quote:
Well, this is the problem... people trying to create an "antitype". I do not believe Jesus intended for their to be an antitype. The WTS conditioned us...

The watchtower did not condition me for anything. I was never a Jehovah's Witness or a member of the Watchtower society. Nor did I ever believe their interpretations of the scriptures. However, I do see how you could reach such conclusions. If I had of put up with the things that you put up with in the society, after realizing they were false I would probably readily want to reject each and every thing that the society ever said. If they said the sky was blue, I would want to argue that it was green... so I get it. Yet, let's not even bring the society into any of these debates. Because neither one of us accept them as any sort of authority whatsoever.

But you no doubt do not know my history as never being a Jehovah's Witness. So it makes perfect sense that you would conclude that I was one... as the majority of the members on this site are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, when speaking to witnesses, I use the name "Jehovah". When speaking to various bible students I will use the name "Yahweh" or the anglicized form of the tetragrammation ("YHWH")... When speaking to others I will sometimes simply say "God". It all depends on who I am speaking with. So yeah... I even sound like a witness here.


Quote:
Why do we have this need to put words in Jesus' mouth? He said the prophecy was particularly for those in Judea... why do we feel this need to rip the prophecy out of context and apply it to "our day" all the time?

Who is putting words in Jesus' mouth? I certainly am not. However, Jesus was known for speaking in parables. The bible itself mentions it. Matter of fact, the apostles one time questioned him on his use of parables.


However, please let's reason on this...

Jesus said the following in Matthew 24:15

“Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,)" - Matt 24:15

The Greek word used here for "discernment" is: noeō

noeō:
1) to perceive with the mind, to understand, to have understanding
2) to think upon, ponder, consider

What is there to think about or discern, perceive, ponder, consider or understand in your line of reasoning? Instead, it is as simple as knowing Jesus' words... and when seeing the Roman armies, getting out of dodge. Correct? Even the wicked would be very likely to understand these things. There is no mental or spiritual discernment at all is there? However, Jesus himself gives us a clue that things are not as cut and dry as they may seem. Instead, he tells us we will need to "discern, perceive, understand, ponder or consider" what is taking place. It would not be so strikingly observable.

Therefore, should we take the word of secular scholars who have no fear of God at all concerning the fulfillment of this scripture... when Jesus himself says we would need "discernment" to understand it?


Your criticism of Josephus is a little partial. He is considered more reliable than most historians of his day. There is criticism of Josephus when relating to details about himself, but he is considered more reliable than when dealing with other matters. It must also be understood that historians back then didn't bring critical tools to their craft in any modern sense so in the modern sense of recording history it does lack accuracy. It must also be noted that Josephus does provide a crucial extra biblical evidence of the historicity of Jesus. As for his character as a zealot and Pharisee, its no worse than many back then including the disciples. Paul was a murderer and he wrote more of the new testament than any other writer. Also Jesus had zealots and Pharisees as apostles. With all this in mind, I think your view about Josephus is a little heavy handed.

09-06-2010 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user
littleone
Member


Posts: 22
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #51
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Seraphim Wrote:
Your criticism of Josephus is a little partial. He is considered more reliable than most historians of his day. There is criticism of Josephus when relating to details about himself, but he is considered more reliable than when dealing with other matters. It must also be understood that historians back then didn't bring critical tools to their craft in any modern sense so in the modern sense of recording history it does lack accuracy. It must also be noted that Josephus does provide a crucial extra biblical evidence of the historicity of Jesus. As for his character as a zealot and Pharisee, its no worse than many back then including the disciples. Paul was a murderer and he wrote more of the new testament than any other writer. Also Jesus had zealots and Pharisees as apostles. With all this in mind, I think your view about Josephus is a little heavy handed.

Fair enough assessment. There is no doubt that my view is partial. I readily admit it. But why? Because I am a man of faith, rather than being a man of history or science. As a man of faith, I believe that Satan will use every type of unrighteous deception to mislead people... including having one of his own to record the secular events surrounding Jesus' day.

Josephus was not just a regular zealot. He was a commander of the zealots. He had his own men commit suicide on his own advice and orders. However, he himself did not do it. As soon as they were dead, he went and surrendered to the Romans.... using scripture to show himself as a prophet to the Romans so that he would gain their favor. As far as I'm concerned, he was a murderer, a coward, and an agent of the devil. He seemed like the perfect candidate for the Devil to use to record history the way he saw fit. But you're right, I admit to my partiality.

09-06-2010 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #52
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Interesting and honest of you. Your description of Josephus could easily fit the apostles. I'm not sure Satan would have wanted Josephus to provide additional proof that Jesus was a historical figure but he did.

Jas 3:17 However, the wisdom that comes from above is first of all pure, then peace-loving, gentle, willing to yield, full of compassion and good fruits, and without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy.

09-06-2010 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user
ablebodiedman
Member


Posts: 3,641
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #53
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

So if the constant feature that has been removed is Jesus Christs sacrifice then the holy covenant that he inaugurated with his shed blood has been invalidated.

Pretty much what Daniel said would happen:


Daniel 1
“And he will actually go back and hurl denunciations against the holy covenant and act effectively; and he will have to go back and will give consideration to those leaving the holy covenant. 31 And there will be arms that will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will actually profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant [feature].
“And they will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation. 32 “And those who are acting wickedly against [the] covenant, he will lead into apostasy by means of smooth words.



and what Hosea said would happen:


Hosea 8
1-3 "Blow the trumpet! Sound the alarm! Vultures are circling over God's people
Who have broken my covenant

and defied my revelation.
Predictably, Israel cries out, 'My God! We know you!'
But they don't act like it.
Israel will have nothing to do with what's good,
and now the enemy is after them.



and what Jesus Christ alluded to:

Luke 21:37
Trying to take all this in, the disciples said, "Master, where?"
He told them, "Watch for the circling of the vultures. They'll spot the corpse first. The action will begin around my dead body."



The action will begin around my dead body ---- his sacrifice or the sons of destruction?


Matthew 24:26
The Arrival of the Son of Man isn't something you go to see. He comes like swift lightning to you! Whenever you see crowds gathering, think of carrion vultures circling, moving in, hovering over a rotting carcass. You can be quite sure that it's not the living Son of Man pulling in those crowds.


Is it Satan pulling in those crowds with the sons of destruction?


The Old Testament seems to put emphasis on "vultures circling" when a covenant is broken.


Jeremiah 34:17
Everyone who violated my covenant, who didn't do what was solemnly promised in the covenant ceremony when they split the young bull into two halves and walked between them, all those people that day who walked between the two halves of the bull—leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, palace officials, priests, and all the rest of the people—I'm handing the lot of them over to their enemies who are out to kill them. Their dead bodies will be carrion food for vultures and stray dogs.

Hosea 8
1-3 "Blow the trumpet! Sound the alarm! Vultures are circling over God's people




Sound the alarm!




In Christ


abe


the spiritual man examines all things

Jehovah's Witnesses - The Bible Report
The Unforgivable Sin
09-06-2010 09:38 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #54
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Never will his blood be invalidated and over my dead body will that be the case.

09-06-2010 10:28 PM
Find all posts by this user
ablebodiedman
Member


Posts: 3,641
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #55
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Seraphim Wrote:
Never will his blood be invalidated and over my dead body will that be the case.



Matthew 24:43
“But know one thing, that if the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into.



In Christ

abe


the spiritual man examines all things

Jehovah's Witnesses - The Bible Report
The Unforgivable Sin
09-07-2010 01:06 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #56
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Taking verses out of context is a pretext.

09-07-2010 07:17 AM
Find all posts by this user
Interpretum
This Space For Rent


Posts: 1,839
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #57
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Hi littleone

littleone Wrote:
Since this is the "reasoning from the scriptures" forum, I hope you do not mind if I give a rebuttal. Of course none of it is aimed as a personal attack. Instead, I only debate the ideas presented.


I don't mind at all, and in fact I appreciate your very reasoned arguments.

Quote:
The main historian that recorded these events is Josephus, or Yosef Ben Matityahu according to his Jewish name. However, what type of person was Josephus? How reliable was he?


Josephus did not actually talk about Christians fleeing Jerusalem, this was discussed by later Christian writers such as the historian Eusebius.

So we are not dependent on Josephus for knowledge that Christians fled Jerusalem. But in any case, Jesus told them to flee when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies (Luke 21), so are you suggesting they didn't do this?

Quote:
So how reliable of a witness is Josephus? Are we really going to accept the viewpoint of a Jewish Pharisee zealot as fact?


Your viewpoint of Josephus is fascinating, because after reading what he has to say, I have come to the exact opposite conclusion to you. I believe he was actually used by God on occasion, and his history seems fairly accurate... although sure, his Pharisee bias does occasionally shine through when discussing theological issues.

Quote:
What about other evidence from the Bible? Scholars generally agree that all of John's writings were completed after the destruction of Jerusalem. But he doesn't mention it at all. Instead of giving any application to Jesus' prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, he's remarkably silent concerning it. Also Jude is silent concerning it. Most scholars also generally agree that Jude was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.


Most scholars also agree Daniel was written in 160's BC, which if Josephus is to be trusted (obviously you have doubts), the Jews showed the book of Daniel to Alexander the Great!

Scholars do not necessarily believe in the divine inspiration of scripture, so if there is a prophecy in there (i.e Mathew 24, Luke 21) they have to assume it was written after the event. They cannot have Jesus actually being a prophet!

As for Revelation, some scholars doubt that the authors of the gospel of John and the Revelation are the same. One example is that John constantly refers to himself as "I, John" in Revelation, where in the gospels and letters he never names himself. Personally, I think it's either a different John ("John the presbyter" rather than the apostle), OR it was written much earlier than the gospel, i.e. in the 60's.

Quote:
Was Jerusalem and the temple contained in it truly considered a holy place by God at the time?


You're right... in God's eyes it was no longer HIS holy place. However, it was still the Jews' holy place.

If we look at Daniel 9, the angel is talking about Daniel's people, Daniel's city, Daniel's holy place. The 70 weeks were determined upon "your people and upon your holy city". It is then a prince (the Roman Vespasian) who bring city and holy place to ruin.

This is perhaps why Jesus referred to this (and the subsequent Daniel 11 prophecy) by saying,

"Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains."

In fact, thinking about it... Jesus' comment "let the reader use discernment" could be precisely pointing out what you're suggesting... that it was no longer a holy place to GOD... but to the Jews, the Temple still was. Thinking about it, I think this is perhaps the more likely reason Jesus said that.

Either way, their lives depended upon understanding this, so there is no way Jesus was going to be highly cryptic here. He was speaking to those in Judea.

Quote:
Concerning the "Wild Beast" of Revelation 13, unlike the Roman armies, it was not God who gave the wild beast its authority. Instead, the book of Revelation clearly tells us where the "Wild Beast" obtained its authority:


You're right that the dragon gave the wild beast authority. But who allowed the wild beast to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple? Answer... God.

Quote:
So yeah... I even sound like a witness here.


My apologies for making those assumptions about you. Me, I'm just a truth seeker now. I have no particular axe to grind with the Watchtower, I just aim to fully understand the prophecies.


Quote:
Who is putting words in Jesus' mouth? I certainly am not. However, Jesus was known for speaking in parables. The bible itself mentions it. Matter of fact, the apostles one time questioned him on his use of parables.


True, but he did also speak plainly at times, especially to his disciples privately. In Mathew 24 and Mark 13 tell us clearly that he was talking to his disciples privately.

Quote:
What is there to think about or discern, perceive, ponder, consider or understand in your line of reasoning?


Two things. First of all, as we've discussed, "a holy place" (namely, the Jewish Temple) was no longer considered a holy place by God... therefore it's quite possible Jesus' comment ("let the reader use discernment") was an allusion to this state of the Jewish Temple by 70AD... still holy to Jews, but no longer to God.

Second, many "scholars" in Jesus' day interpreted Daniel's prophecies about the "disgusting thing" to apply to Antiochus Epiphanes some 200 years earlier. It would take discernment to understand that Jerusalem being surrounded by encamped armies was actually the fulfillment of Daniel.

THAT took discernment, and even today many people seem to struggle with that idea, even though we also have the benefit of hindsight!

Quote:
Therefore, should we take the word of secular scholars who have no fear of God at all concerning the fulfillment of this scripture... when Jesus himself says we would need "discernment" to understand it?


But earlier you accepted those "secular scholars who have no fear of God" to tell you when the Bible books were written. Should we rely on them, or not?


My Blog: The Prophetic Word

Latest post: Daniel 9 And The Seventy (70) Weeks - How Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled.
09-07-2010 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user
Mavos
The pluckiest Christian on the board.


Posts: 1,060
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #58
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him." (Matthew 24:42-44 NIV)

Abe, you've quoted this verse several times now. Notice that verse 43 is sandwiched between two statements of the uncertain time of the Lord's arrival. The illustration of the thief is meant to highlight this point. Just like you don't know when the thief will come at night, so you don't know when the Lord will return. If someone knew his house was going to be broken into by the thief, they would have stayed awake and on the watch, so too, we must be awake and ready because the Lord will come when we don't expect it. Jesus is the thief in this parable. He will come suddenly and we must be ready.

But Abe, I have been studying this stuff all weekend. And there are a few points which I must concede. That the "abomination of desolation" is "the man of lawlessness" and "the beast" is attested to by one of my favorite commentators on Revelation and he made a very good case for it.

Also, the "temple" that the Man of Lawlessness defiles is the church is also a point I have to concede, for yet again, a commentator I like provided some excellent reasons for believing such.

That the Beast in it's final end-times eschatological form isn't Rome also is something that I have to concede.

The Man of Lawlessness is still a person, in my opinion. I think Pharaoh, Ancient Babylon, Antiochus IV and Titus were all examples to show us what this guy is like. He is the Antichrist, the beast. He stands up within the Church and claims to be God. This is the "abomination of desolation". He leads many professing Christians astray, causing many to commit apostasy and follow him. The Antichrist is the leader of the final world empire. Through counterfeit miracles including a fake resurrection, he gets the world to worship him as God. This is a religion that will be enforced by the state. Those who do not bow to him, will be executed. The only thing left in the church is the remnant, and they will be viciously hunted down. However, I believe he is still being restrained at the moment. I believe what restrains him is the preaching of the gospel. I believe that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 took place at the Cross. Satan was bound so that the gospel could go to the gentiles. At the end of this period Satan will be let loose, "to deceive the nations" once Matthew 24:14 is completed. Then verse 15 can take effect. That's just the cliff notes version. However, for the remnant during this period, Jesus Christ is still Lord. His sacrifice is still effectual and propitious for those who are part of the remnant, those who are sealed by the Holy Spirit. However, sacrifice of Christ is ineffectual for those sealed with the mark of the Beast, seeing as they have chosen which side they belong to. Essentially Revelation depicts a false Trinity: a false Father, the Dragon, a false Son, the Beast (Antichrist), and a false Holy Spirit, the false prophet. There is also a false church, the bride of the Antichrist, and his unholy city, Babylon. Babylon finds it's authority on in people who have immersed themselves in the cares and pleasures of the present, passing world. Just as Rome was the city that spread it's culture, pleasures, and emperor worship to the Roman world, so to, the final end times Babylon, the capital city of the Antichrist's empire, will spread the it's culture, pleasures, and worship of the Beast to the world.

Just my thoughts.....


"I remember two things: That I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Saviour." - John Newton
09-07-2010 10:23 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Interpretum
This Space For Rent


Posts: 1,839
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #59
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Hi Abe

ablebodiedman Wrote:
a/ No special discernment required to see an army surrounding Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ already told them twice to flee when they saw an army surrounding Jerusalem.

b/ The temple in Jerusalem was already disgusting in God's eyes well before it was surrounded by any army. Thats why Jesus Christ proclaimed its downfall. There was no holy place in Jerusalem when the Romans Armies came. Jesus Christ declared that the house had already been abandoned because it was unholy long before any army came to surround Jerusalem.


As I said to littleone, maybe Jesus said his bracketed statement because he knew that the "holy place", the Jewish Temple, was not going to be holy to God any more. Re-read his statement with THAT in mind:

"Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains."

Notice it immediately follows "a holy place". I suggest that Jesus was still talking about the Jewish Temple, but he knew that it would no longer be holy, hence his comment.

The discernment wasn't about merely seeing the Roman armies, but discerning that the Jewish Temple was no longer holy... precisely the reason why it would be destroyed. It was God's expression of His anger against the Jews, in fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel.


My Blog: The Prophetic Word

Latest post: Daniel 9 And The Seventy (70) Weeks - How Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled.
09-07-2010 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user
ablebodiedman
Member


Posts: 3,641
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #60
RE: The Constant Sacrifice

Mavos Wrote:
"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him." (Matthew 24:42-44 NIV)

Abe, you've quoted this verse several times now. Notice that verse 43 is sandwiched between two statements of the uncertain time of the Lord's arrival. The illustration of the thief is meant to highlight this point. Just like you don't know when the thief will come at night, so you don't know when the Lord will return. If someone knew his house was going to be broken into by the thief, they would have stayed awake and on the watch, so too, we must be awake and ready because the Lord will come when we don't expect it. Jesus is the thief in this parable. He will come suddenly and we must be ready.



Mavos,

Yes, there are other new testament scriptures which say that Jesus Christ is coming as a thief.

Is he the one that breaks into the house that Christians are supposed to stop or not allow?

I don't think so.

When he does arrive will he find the house has already been broken into?

I think so.

Christians cannot "not allow" Jesus Christ.

They can however, make certain that their house is not found broken into when he does arrive.

If you understand what I have posted above its too late!

The house has been broken into.

The constant feature has been removed and a disgusting thing put in its place.


In Christ

abe


the spiritual man examines all things

Jehovah's Witnesses - The Bible Report
The Unforgivable Sin
09-07-2010 03:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next > Last »

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: