Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do you marvel?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by quiet dove View Post
    I am probably out of line but taking that chance, I marvel at that anyone thinks Israel is any of those things in Rev: AC, Babylon, Whore or Rome. I'm sorry but that boggles my mind.
    Jerusalem is the whore. See Ezekiel 16: 1 - 63 where the Lord says so.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Prophecy Countdown View Post
      Jerusalem is the whore. See Ezekiel 16: 1 - 63 where the Lord says so.
      I disagree, I mean, I agree that Jerusalem is called an unfaithful wife and a harlot at times in the OT, but Jerusalem is also called the apple of God's eye, in the OT. Just because Jerusalem is called a whore in the OT does not make her the whore spoken of in Revelation.

      Within the text of Ez 16 the teaching is that by turning from God and worshiping false idols, Israel played the harlot, she is compared in her behavior to a whore, the unfaithful wife. But what was her lover, false religion. And the great harlot of Rev is (a) false religion, not Jerusalem, though many in Jerusalem will no doubt follow the great harlot


      sigpic

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by third hero View Post
        At the point of Zechariah's writing, there is no difference between Jerusalem of this earth, and the "New Jerusalem" of Revelation 21-22.
        I am not sure your reasoning here.......But all true prophets like Zechariah are given the understanding and write of things to come, even New Jerusalem.

        Also, there is no mentioning of Jerusalem being destroyed in this passage, but rather, it's continued survival, even after the nations attacked and captured her, she will not be utterly destroyed (Zechariah 14:12).
        Zec 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

        The verse says there will be "no more" utter destruction which would mean utter destruction had just occurred. Though earthly Jerusalem is destroyed Jerusalem will again be inhabited in the new earth. The battle taking place in the chapter should be in no question the battle of Armaggedon, second coming and the destruction which would follow. Many other passages align with Zech account and give varying details with some speaking of Jerusalem's destruction some speak of the new heavens and earth. This can be easily obtained by just word searching key phrases. "all nation gathered", "day of the Lord" ect....

        Zec 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;

        All nations shall be gathered.

        Isa 66:18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

        Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

        Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.


        Zep 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.


        Besides, the dimensions of New Jerusalem are too big to fit on this planet, as New Jerusalem would be the size of half of this planet.
        [/QUOTE]

        I think New Jerusalem would be 1500 miles square.


        Mark

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by quiet dove View Post
          And the great harlot of Rev is (a) false religion, not Jerusalem, though many in Jerusalem will no doubt follow the great harlot
          The woman is a city not a religon.

          Re 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

          Mark

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ross3421 View Post
            The woman is a city not a religon.

            Re 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

            Mark
            yea, with a false religion


            sigpic

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
              Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

              Your logic here is a little confusing. This is the verse that I was referring to you, and saying that this is referring to Rome, and I said this can't refer to Jerusalem because Jerusalem survives and this verse is saying that Jerusalem is burned with fire, so it cannot be Jerusalem.
              The logic is that yes Jerusalem survives and yes we as born again believers survive but as new. The old is destroyed.

              If the whole old earth is destroyed would that not include current Jerusalem?

              Zep 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.


              Definitely not, there are about 20 verses that are very clear that the earth will NOT be burned with fire when Christ returns , and will survive.
              Can you post some of them for review. There are many which say the opposite.


              He is seeing this vision in the first century AD, when Rome ruled, and Jerusalem had been destroyed.
              OK So are you saying he is was speaking of the previous destruction of Rome or one supposedly to come?


              The symbolism of beasts represent kingdoms, not satan.
              [/QUOTE]

              There are many beasts which can symbolize kingdoms agree but there are also kings of these kingdoms which are referred to beasts as well.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by quiet dove View Post
                yea, with a false religion
                Is there really a "false religion"? I know many state this however I think incorrectly. At the time of Babylon there really is no religion on the earth at all. We have one on the earth one claiming to be God which the premise is not false but the individual. The message would be all those on the earth to worship one God which is false not nessesarily due to the message rather the individual.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ross3421 View Post
                  Is there really a "false religion"? I know many state this however I think incorrectly. At the time of Babylon there really is no religion on the earth at all. We have one on the earth one claiming to be God which the premise is not false but the individual. The message would be all those on the earth to worship one God which is false not nessesarily due to the message rather the individual.
                  Those who receive the mark and worship the beast. And one claiming to be God that is not God makes the message and the person both false doesn't it?


                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by quiet dove View Post
                    Those who receive the mark and worship the beast. And one claiming to be God that is not God makes the message and the person both false doesn't it?
                    The person make the message false not nessesarily the message itself. This will be the deception and the strong delusion. The message, the miricles ect... will not contradict scripture other than the person making the claim. Only the Holy Spirit will give those discerment in those days.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ross3421 View Post
                      The person make the message false not nessesarily the message itself. This will be the deception and the strong delusion. The message, the miricles ect... will not contradict scripture other than the person making the claim. Only the Holy Spirit will give those discerment in those days.
                      I'm sorry ross but that contradicts itself, how does a false profit do the miracles of the true God?

                      I am not saying a false prophet can't do false miracles, but the true God will not be any part of that doing of miracles. That would be like when Moses and Aaron did the miracles of God, saying the magicians of Pharoh did the miracles of God to only they were false prophets.

                      None of it is going to contradict scripture and scripture tells us that there is such thing as false signs and wonders, done by false prophets and neither the miracle or the prophet are of God.


                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Prophecy Countdown View Post
                        Jerusalem is the whore. See Ezekiel 16: 1 - 63 where the Lord says so.
                        eth⋅no⋅cen⋅trism

                        /ˌɛθnoʊˈsɛntrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [eth-noh-sen-triz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
                        –noun 1.Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.2.a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.
                        Origin:
                        1905–10; ethno- + cent(e)r + -ism

                        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnocentrism

                        I want you to read the second definition. This is common, especially in eschatology. Many view all scripture as concurrent, and the portions of scripture that were written for a certain time period is missed, because of the idea of concurrency.

                        Ezekiel 16, according to your post, is victim of this error. I am not saying that you are dumb, so please do not go there. I am only highlighting a common mstake that many people have made, whether it be subconscious or otherwise.

                        From what I have read, Ezekiel 16 is the Lord telling Ezekiel to remind the people of the whoredom that Israel had done before the Dispersion to Babylon. The reason why I know this is because of the context of the passage, which can be derived by dating the book. Ezekiel was a prophet for the people during the Babylonian captivity. At that time, God did indeed call Jerusalem a whore, because of all of the things listed in Ezekiel 16. The point of Ezekiel writing this was so that those Israelites who would read that would repent of the sins of their forefathers, and cease from committing the same things that they were guilty of doing. We have a similar reference to Jerusalem in Revelation 11, which is the reason why that city is called "spiritual Sodom and Egypt".

                        However, just because Jerusalem is labeled a whore by God in Ezekiel 16 does not make it the whore in Revelation. The critical identifier is Revelation 17:18, and Jerusalem did not rule over the kings of the world back when John wrote the book.

                        So, if the evidence doesn't match, then the city in question has to be eliminated as a posibility. Although Ezekiel 16 had identified Jerusalem as a whore, the city paid for her sins when Nebachadnezzar destroyed the city and the temple. Ezekiel 16 reminded the Israelites of the reason why God called Nebachadnezzar His hammer.
                        Last edited by third hero; Jan 5th 2009, 05:26 AM. Reason: adding red for reference

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ross3421 View Post
                          I am not sure your reasoning here.......But all true prophets like Zechariah are given the understanding and write of things to come, even New Jerusalem.
                          It is my opinion that it is best to not interject scripture that has been written at least 800 years after the original writing of Zechariah. New Jerusalem is a new testament concept birthed from the book of Revelation. Interjecting "New Jerusalem" into Zechariah is only feesible only if there is substantial evidence that links the passages together. Maybe you see something I do not, but I can only say that I find no scripture that links Zechariah 14 to any portion of Revelation other than chapters 19-20. New Jerusalem is described in chapter 21.

                          Zec 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

                          The verse says there will be "no more" utter destruction which would mean utter destruction had just occurred. Though earthly Jerusalem is destroyed Jerusalem will again be inhabited in the new earth. The battle taking place in the chapter should be in no question the battle of Armaggedon, second coming and the destruction which would follow. Many other passages align with Zech account and give varying details with some speaking of Jerusalem's destruction some speak of the new heavens and earth. This can be easily obtained by just word searching key phrases. "all nation gathered", "day of the Lord" ect....
                          I disagree. The destruction that happens in Zechariah 14 is what happened before the Lord comes, which is the desolation of Jerusalem by the nations that will fight against her, (Zechariah 14:1-2). The destruction of Jerusalem will be the catalyst for the Lord restoring the city, as the Lord is mentioned in verse 3 as being the one who goes after those who attacked and desolated Jerusalem. I have the definition of desolate and desolation in another thread, I think it's Understanding Zechariah 14. I am not sure, but that's my best guess. My point is that in Zehcariah 14:1-2, the destruction of Jerusalem is explained, and in my opinion, there is no difference between desolation and destruction. The "utter destruction" in Zech 14 is not the destruction of the entire world.

                          Besides, in order for your theory to make scriptural sense, you have to factor one thing into the equation. In Zechariah 14, the heathen are mentioned as being in existence, a component absent from Revelation 21-22's version of New Jerusalem. In fact, this is what the Bible says about the folks who are able to enter into New Jerusalem.


                          And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. -Revelation 21:27

                          No one who is of any sort of sin can enter into New Jerusalem, or the new earth that New Jerusalem will sit on. For you see, Revelation 21:7-8 tells us that all of the wicked are in the Lake of Fire. The fact that this Jerusalem that is mentioned in Zechariah 14:16-18 has heathen families going into it tells me that this is NOT the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22. There can not be any sin, refusal to obey God, or any other sinning, because the old system will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire by the time New Jerusalem comes into existence.

                          Zec 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;

                          All nations shall be gathered.

                          Isa 66:18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

                          Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

                          Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
                          Did you just superimpose Isaiah 66 with Zechariah 14:2? How? The context of Zehcariah 14:2 is the idea that they will not only fight against Jerusalem, but there are details of what they are going to do once they attack Jerusalem. There is no connection between Isaiah 66 and Zechariah 14:2. Context is the key here.

                          Moreover, the Lord in Isaiah 66:20 causes all of the nations to bring to Jerusalem the Israelites from their perspective countries. Moreover, the Lord declares in verse 22 that just as the Lord is going to make a new heavens and a new earth, so the Israelites shall remain on the earth. The two are only connected by the declaration that God is going to see to it that the Israelites are going to remain a people on the face of the earth.

                          He is not saying that He is going to make a new heaven and earth, and on that new planet, He will sustain the people of Israel. He is saying that He is going to sustain the families of Jacob, and He bases this promise on the fact that He is going to make a new heaven and a new earth. The context is the key here. God is telling Isaiah that he will have the nations bring to Jerusalem the Israelites that had settled into their countries. This is why verses 1-19 and 21 are so important. These scriptures deal with something else entirely, and not the things in which Zechariah 14 deal with.

                          Bringing the nations to attack Jerusalem is definitely different than breinging Israelites to Jerusalem. This is not a match, and Isaiah 66 has, IMHO, no linkage to Zechariah 14:2. The contexts are too different. The nations in Zehcariah 14:2 are destroying the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the nations in Isaiah 66 are bringing them back to their country of origin. Night and day is what comes to mind.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by quiet dove View Post
                            I'm sorry ross but that contradicts itself, how does a false profit do the miracles of the true God?
                            I did not say he will do miricles of the true God but miricles LIKE a God.

                            Re 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast;

                            None of it is going to contradict scripture and scripture tells us that there is such thing as false signs and wonders, done by false prophets and neither the miracle or the prophet are of God.
                            I am not sure there is such a thing as a "false" miricle rather a deception. But I never said the miricles are of God??

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by third hero View Post
                              New Jerusalem is a new testament concept birthed from the book of Revelation.
                              ??


                              Interjecting "New Jerusalem" into Zechariah is only feesible only if there is substantial evidence that links the passages together. Maybe you see something I do not, but I can only say that I find no scripture that links Zechariah 14 to any portion of Revelation other than chapters 19-20. New Jerusalem is described in chapter 21.
                              And chapter 22. Do you really think these are different?

                              Re 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

                              Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.


                              Besides, in order for your theory to make scriptural sense, you have to factor one thing into the equation. In Zechariah 14, the heathen are mentioned as being in existence, a component absent from Revelation 21-22's version of New Jerusalem. In fact, this is what the Bible says about the folks who are able to enter into New Jerusalem.

                              And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. -Revelation 21:27

                              No one who is of any sort of sin can enter into New Jerusalem, or the new earth that New Jerusalem will sit on. For you see, Revelation 21:7-8 tells us that all of the wicked are in the Lake of Fire. The fact that this Jerusalem that is mentioned in Zechariah 14:16-18 has heathen families going into it tells me that this is NOT the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22. There can not be any sin, refusal to obey God, or any other sinning, because the old system will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire by the time New Jerusalem comes into existence.
                              New Jerusalem contains a city and land surounding which will be inhabited. Both Zech 14 and Rev show there are some which will not be able to enter. I see that there is offspring in the new earth which will choose or serve which satisfies the understanding of the text.

                              The assumption is that sin causes our actions.........It is possible I believe that a person can be disobediant and not have sin. Case in point Adam and Eve, they disobeyed but were not yet with sin. God did not make them with sin. Sin did not enter till they ate from the tree. Man is made with free will to chosse right or wrong with or wiithout sin. Sin (death) is a state and a consequence of our actions.

                              Though there will be an absence of sin (death) in the new earth does not preclude those from still having a free will to choose. The new earth will not be made up of a bunch of robots but filled from generation to generation of inhabinants serving or not serving. God will rule supreme and will discipline those which choose not to serve.

                              Did you just superimpose Isaiah 66 with Zechariah 14:2? How? The context of Zehcariah 14:2 is the idea that they will not only fight against Jerusalem, but there are details of what they are going to do once they attack Jerusalem. There is no connection between Isaiah 66 and Zechariah 14:2.
                              Moreover, the Lord in Isaiah 66:20 causes all of the nations to bring to Jerusalem the Israelites from their perspective countries.

                              He is not saying that He is going to make a new heaven and earth, and on that new planet, He will sustain the people of Israel. He is saying that He is going to sustain the families of Jacob, and He bases this promise on the fact that He is going to make a new heaven and a new earth. The context is the key here. God is telling Isaiah that he will have the nations bring to Jerusalem the Israelites that had settled into their countries. This is why verses 1-19 and 21 are so important. These scriptures deal with something else entirely, and not the things in which Zechariah 14 deal with.

                              Bringing the nations to attack Jerusalem is definitely different than breinging Israelites to Jerusalem. This is not a match, and Isaiah 66 has, IMHO, no linkage to Zechariah 14:2. The contexts are too different. The nations in Zehcariah 14:2 are destroying the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the nations in Isaiah 66 are bringing them back to their country of origin. Night and day is what comes to mind.
                              [/QUOTE]

                              Verse 66:20 speaks of a time already in the new heaverns and earth......"to my holy mountain" here is a reference to God and New Jerusalem. Before Christ returns Israel (ie 144,000) does God's will and fight against this earthly whore Jerusalem. Afterwards, these 144,000 brought back up from the grave "dry bones" then come up to holy Jerusalem to worship.

                              Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

                              Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ross3421 View Post
                                I did not say he will do miricles of the true God but miricles LIKE a God.

                                Re 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast;



                                I am not sure there is such a thing as a "false" miricle rather a deception. But I never said the miricles are of God??
                                Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you then, me sorry.


                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X