Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 223

Thread: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

  1. #166

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post

    Again, only according to your book, which also makes the case that "gentiles have replaced Israel".
    The New Testament does not make the case that "gentiles have replaced Israel".

    "Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.
    And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!"
    (Matthew 21:8-9).

    They were all Jews.

    "And when He had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him as He was teaching, and said, By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?" (Matthew 21:23).

    During Jesus' response to them, Jesus tells them a parable about a vineyard (Israel) and the vine-dressers (the chief priests and elders of Israel) (Matthew 23:33-42). The vine-dressers had beaten the servants of the owner of the vineyard who came to collect the fruit, and eventually they killed his son when his son was sent.

    It was to the people Jesus was addressing (the leaders) that He said,

    "Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits." (Matthew 21:43).

    Again in Matthew chapter 23:13-35 Jesus is speaking only to the leaders of the nation (not the nation itself), when He states,

    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under *her* wings, and you would not!
    Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
    For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
    (Matthew 23:37-39).

    Take a look at the words in Mat 23:39, spoken to the leaders of the nation, and compare it with what crowds of Jews had said when Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey.

    Compare that with the fact that Jesus was speaking to the leaders when He said the Kingdom would be taken from *them* and given to a nation (of leaders) bearing its fruits.

    Paul states that Gentiles who believe in Jesus are grafted into Israel among the remnant of believing Jews (Romans 11:17).

    Nowhere in the New Testament does it teach that "Israel of Jews" was "replaced" by Israel of Gentiles, unless you choose to read it that way.

    Sadly, Jews who do not believe in Jesus do not have a covenant relationship with God anymore, and yes - are broken off from Israel - because the New Covenant in Christ's blood was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Jer.31:31).

    The New Covenant has replaced the covenant God made with the Israelites "in the day He took them by the land to lead them out of Egypt".

    That covenant was broken not by God, but by the people, (because they too, are men prone to sin and disobedience, just like any son of Adam), and so now that the New Covenant has come, Jews who refuse it, are refusing not only God's forgiveness and grace, but they are refusing God Himself, whether or not they believe they are doing so, and whether or not they believe the New Covenant has not come yet.

    It's a tragedy. Paul bewailed it, and warned the Gentiles who had received mercy, and who been grafted into Israel among the remnant of believing Jews that they ought not to be haughty, but to fear, because if God did not spare the natural descendants of Jacob, he will not spare us either.

    None of this means that God's New Testament (New Covenant) has replaced "Jewish" Israel with "Gentile" Israel.. It's a fallacy. Jesus was speaking to the leaders, the vine-dressers. He was not creating a new and Gentile Israel.

    Compare:

    "For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Matthew 23:39), with:

    "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me. If another shall come in *his* own name, him you will receive." (John 5:43).

    The Jews who do not believe are going to believe in "another Messiah", and bring destruction upon themselves even worse than the destruction they brought upon themselves the first time (70 AD).

    Why?

    Because you guys, like most Gentiles, are stubborn. You have closed your eyes and blocked your ears.

    I have an idea most Gentiles are going to hail your coming false Messiah too - but God and His only true Messiah knows those who are His.

    Insulting?

    That depends on whether or not you believe God is insulting.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,123

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    No, my friend. It is not. Everyone here acts like the NT is some impartial source of facts. It's a holy book, written by people who believed a certain thing and wanted other people to believe that thing too. That calls into question everything within. Mind you, the same is true of my own bible. Or any holy book.
    No, I don't believe that. There are holy books of false religions. And then there is the holy book of the one true God. They are not the same. I've taken comparative religions courses, and I've looked at a number of religions. But the only way I could properly compare them was by beginning with the one true God, and then looking outward.

    One must have a grid through which to measure error, a light by which to judge lies. The Scriptures give us the truths of God, the Sprit of Deity joining together with written words so that we can see and hear God in our minds. That's what revelation is--it's the ability to read truth and see God simultaneously.

    And truth is objective and real. We can see the coincidental workings of God both in nature and in history. We just need a measure by which to judge what the cause and the purpose is. But if you want to see all religions as the same, that's your notion--not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    Again, only according to your book, which also makes the case that "gentiles have replaced Israel". So saying that the Jews were bad is not just a random observation, but the whole raison detre of the books in question. Again, this makes them partial.
    Initially the Church believed, I think, that Israel would find her place as God's chosen nation again, among the community of Christian nations. After all, Christians believe that the international Church is the fulfillment of what Israel only began, being God's called nation.

    But as time passed, and Israel's hostility towards Christianity continued, Christians gave up hope in Israel's restoration. They began to think God had another plan, to replace Israel with the new Christian nations. I don't personally believe that, but I understand this Replacement Theology.

    Many of those in Replacement Theology and many who do not hold to that theology still accept that Jews can still be joined to God's People. But many of us who reject Replacement Theology still believe that Israel will, in the future, be restored both politically and spiritually. And we believe it will be by conversion of Israel into a Christian nation.

    The problem, often, is that we judge large groups of people by the "bad applies." Jews judge Christians by what the wicked ones have done. And Christians judge Jews by what the wicked ones have done among them. We should stop judging the entire group by the few bad examples. Nor should we judge what a group can become even after there has been mass wickedness, if reform is allowed to come.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    Ehhh it really doesn't matter what the majority believed. It's what the people in power believed.

    SDAs and JWs and Mormons also insist that they're Christian, although nobody here seems to believe that.
    They are called by doctrinally orthodox believers "cultic, or heretical Christians." They are not Christians in the traditional sense, since they are not spiritually united with what we consider true believers. If the doctrine changes too much, the "God" changes as well. Jews and Mormons may believe in the idea of a monotheistic God, but the "God" they worship is not the same God as Christianity's God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    That's not true. I reject your message but think you're a stand-up guy. Compartmentalizing is possible.
    And I admire your willingness to declare your faith in a sometimes-hostile environment. I often look for truth in different neighborhoods, believing that truth is universal, and that truth exists in greater or lesser degrees in good people of all faiths. My main interest, however, is in leading those in other religions to the faith I've come to know. The major benefit is simply in knowing God up close and personal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    I don't think the Pharisees hated him at all. Yes, I know that's what your book says. But it's also reflecting tensions of a later era. The Sadducees would have hated him, as they were the entrenched power in Jerusalem who would have been overthrown. But the NT hardly dwells on them at all. Strange, that.
    Yes, that's a worthy subject to explore. I have my own ideas, but they would reflect some ignorance, no doubt. I would think that in any other less corrupt time period the Pharisees would've been of more interest to Christians, because their religion would've been more intellectual and more devoted to religion than the Sadducees, whose power rested on hierarchy and the temple structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    You're ignoring my point. Jesus was rejected by other sects in the same way they rejected each other. You make it sound like he was unique in this regard.
    Judaism didn't persecute Christians. They were in conflict with other sects of Judaism. When Christianity became a separate, gentile majority religion, it ceased to be of importance to Jews.
    Paul was a Pharisee who seemed to travel to find Jewish believers to persecute, because they invaded Jewish synagogues in other countries. I do think that although there are always dogmatic reasons for one religion to reject another, it is an entirely different thing for a religious group to hate the conviction of a prophet-religion. And that's what I think Christianity is, when it is functioning properly. It functions like one of your ancient prophets, who confronted sin, whether in Judaism or in any other religion that has fallen into corruption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    You've invented this phenomena of "up and down cycles" in this very post it seems.
    No, even the Canaanites could not be destroyed until they had arrived at the depths of sinfulness. Leaven spreads and consumes an entire society, if left alone.

    Gen 15.2 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    Judaism does not advocate that we love our enemies. We are required to treat them fairly however. Having said that, some consider the IDF the most moral army in the world. Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan: "The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."
    Yes, the idea of Christian fairness comes from our experience of the love of God. God executes justice even upon the wicked out of a heart of love. His love is in fact justice. To destroy the wicked is to preserve the innocent and to save the victims. It is only love for the wicked in the sense of removing them from the ability to continue in their evil deeds. It is all about the heart, and about the wish to do right by God and by our neighbors.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    973

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I concede that you are right. Apollyon is the beast that was and is not. Thanks for clarifying.
    It is rather confusing, but it does indeed come together. We have to overcome Men's Traditions. Thanks

    On the origin of the Antichrist and where he will come from, your exegesis is more conjecture than scripturally factual. Furthermore, there is nothing in Dan 11 that pertains to the future Antichrist.
    This actually seems pretty simple to me. When a Little Horn is deemed to come out of the Fourth Beast AND one of the Four Generals Kingdom in the LATTER TIMES, it's quite obvious to me that if people just put off former understandings and just take the words from Daniel/Gabriel we can understand the riddle. The Little Horn has to BOTH come out of the Fourth Beast AND one of the Four Generals Kingdom in the End Times. We are given a huge clue as to where the Little Horn comes from in Daniel chapter 8 because we are given the DIRECTION he comes from !! These things are very important.

    So he must come out of the Fourth Beast which will be the E.U. and when they Conquer North Africa, Israel Syria and Lebanon, the New Empire will look EXACTLY like the Roman Empire. They are the MANY mentioned in Dan. 8:25, and 9:27 and again in chapter 11. But he must also come out of one of the Four Generals Kingdoms. The only way this can happen is one of the Four Kingdoms MUST BE inside the E.U. and that would be Greece, and Greece fits the Direction the Beast comes from according to Dan. 8.

    Daniel 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. 9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

    Towards the South, the East and Israel mans he comes forth from the North East which is Greece !!

    We know this is the END TIMES because Gabriel says so.

    Daniel 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. 17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

    The Scriptures say he comes out of one of the Four Generals Kingdom AND the Fourth Beast. And yes, Daniel 11:36-45 is the Anti-Christ. He will have NO GODS bur Antiochus worshiped Zeus, look it up.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    It is rather confusing, but it does indeed come together. We have to overcome Men's Traditions. Thanks


    This actually seems pretty simple to me. When a Little Horn is deemed to come out of the Fourth Beast AND one of the Four Generals Kingdom in the LATTER TIMES, it's quite obvious to me that if people just put off former understandings and just take the words from Daniel/Gabriel we can understand the riddle. The Little Horn has to BOTH come out of the Fourth Beast AND one of the Four Generals Kingdom in the End Times. We are given a huge clue as to where the Little Horn comes from in Daniel chapter 8 because we are given the DIRECTION he comes from !! These things are very important.

    So he must come out of the Fourth Beast which will be the E.U. and when they Conquer North Africa, Israel Syria and Lebanon, the New Empire will look EXACTLY like the Roman Empire. They are the MANY mentioned in Dan. 8:25, and 9:27 and again in chapter 11. But he must also come out of one of the Four Generals Kingdoms. The only way this can happen is one of the Four Kingdoms MUST BE inside the E.U. and that would be Greece, and Greece fits the Direction the Beast comes from according to Dan. 8.

    Daniel 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. 9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

    Towards the South, the East and Israel mans he comes forth from the North East which is Greece !!

    We know this is the END TIMES because Gabriel says so.

    Daniel 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. 17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

    The Scriptures say he comes out of one of the Four Generals Kingdom AND the Fourth Beast. And yes, Daniel 11:36-45 is the Anti-Christ. He will have NO GODS bur Antiochus worshiped Zeus, look it up.
    I'm ever objective, apt to learn and always give way to a better argument. That said, I'm also not gullible enough to be swayed by conjecture cloaked in logical sounding rhetoric - irrespective of how plausible. I'm not being rude to you RevMan! I have indeed learned and seen the hidden truth in some very difficult Revelation prohecies from you. And when you're right, the revelation is mind blowing. But alas, brother, you are human and fallible like everyone else which means there are topics where you are wrong even though you make the same claim "that God revealed" it to you.

    The future AC may probably come from Greece or Turkey. But your case is weakened by your claim the AC is in Dan 11. We've debated Dan 11 a year or so ago and I presented a historically backed argument that proved that Dan 11 is 100% fulfilled. Furthermore, A4E is the little horn of Dan 8 and fulfilled the prophecies thereon. Dan 8:16-27 speaks of Alexander the Great v-21, after his death, his kingdom was divided into four for his 4 top gerenals v-22.

    But out these 4, only two (Seleucid and Ptolemy kingdoms) prevailed. The king of fierce countenance v-23 was fulfiled in Antiochus 4. History is on hand to back this up, so there are zero bases to claim it is the future AC. A phrase that has caused many to misinterpret Daniel is "at the time of the end". Sadly, many have jumped to the conclusion that every 'end' is only the end times, but this is not the case. The context of each reference helps clarify whether it is about a time already fulfilled or still future.

    Dan 11:36-45 is NOT the Antichrist!

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,686

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by m'lo goy View Post
    The New Testament does not make the case that "gentiles have replaced Israel".
    I see you have 100 posts here. Welcome, rookie. I've been told countless times here that yes, the gentiles have replaced the Jews. Take it up with your fellow Christians here.

    The Jews who do not believe are going to believe in "another Messiah", and bring destruction upon themselves even worse than the destruction they brought upon themselves the first time (70 AD).
    Ah, another one. You mean the last 20 centuries of Jewish persecution weren't enough? Something even worse is going to happen?

    Because you guys, like most Gentiles, are stubborn. You have closed your eyes and blocked your ears.
    You know, religious Jews do worship God. They may not be doing it in the same way as you, but they believe.

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,686

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, I don't believe that. There are holy books of false religions. And then there is the holy book of the one true God. They are not the same. I've taken comparative religions courses, and I've looked at a number of religions. But the only way I could properly compare them was by beginning with the one true God, and then looking outward.
    Of course you say that as a believer. But c'mon, let's be honest. The NT isn't unbiased, because no holy book can be unbiased. I'm a religious person and I say that about my bible too.

    And truth is objective and real. We can see the coincidental workings of God both in nature and in history. We just need a measure by which to judge what the cause and the purpose is. But if you want to see all religions as the same, that's your notion--not mine.
    You're really not capable of seeing this, are you? That's a shame. I consider you on the more intellectual side and thought you'd appreciate the line of thinking, but I suppose not.


    Initially the Church believed,
    Initially when? There was no church in the year 30. Timeframe?

    But as time passed, and Israel's hostility towards Christianity continued,
    Again, when? Israel stopped being hostile when Christianity ceased to be a Jewish movement. Or maybe you consider Jews not converting en masse to be hostile?


    Many of those in Replacement Theology and many who do not hold to that theology still accept that Jews can still be joined to God's People. But many of us who reject Replacement Theology still believe that Israel will, in the future, be restored both politically and spiritually. And we believe it will be by conversion of Israel into a Christian nation.
    Well, that's your belief....

    The problem, often, is that we judge large groups of people by the "bad applies." Jews judge Christians by what the wicked ones have done
    Yes, that's true. But Jews don't judge Christianity by what Christians have done. Jews judge Christianity by its message and its holy books, and find it lacking.


    They are called by doctrinally orthodox believers "cultic, or heretical Christians." They are not Christians in the traditional sense, since they are not spiritually united with what we consider true believers. If the doctrine changes too much, the "God" changes as well. Jews and Mormons may believe in the idea of a monotheistic God, but the "God" they worship is not the same God as Christianity's God.
    That's great. So "Messianic Jews " are not worshipping the Jewish God, but the Christian one. Hence, they are Christian.


    And I admire your willingness to declare your faith in a sometimes-hostile environment.
    Thank you. Back to the point, someone could reject Jesu's message but not "hate him" or whatever we are accused of.


    Yes, that's a worthy subject to explore. I have my own ideas, but they would reflect some ignorance, no doubt. I would think that in any other less corrupt time period the Pharisees would've been of more interest to Christians, because their religion would've been more intellectual and more devoted to religion than the Sadducees, whose power rested on hierarchy and the temple structure.
    And yet the NT is very critical of them. Much more than the Sadducees or say the Herodians. Which is historically odd.



    Paul was a Pharisee
    He claims, anyway.

    who seemed to travel to find Jewish believers to persecute, because they invaded Jewish synagogues in other countries.
    Which is odd because he had no authority in other countries. Or even Judea really.

    I do think that although there are always dogmatic reasons for one religion to reject another, it is an entirely different thing for a religious group to hate the conviction of a prophet-religion. And that's what I think Christianity is, when it is functioning properly. It functions like one of your ancient prophets, who confronted sin, whether in Judaism or in any other religion that has fallen into corruption.
    No, Christianity is not like the prophets of old. They criticized the Jews, yes, but yet remained Jewish. They didn't create a new religion or "go to the gentiles".

    No, even the Canaanites could not be destroyed until they had arrived at the depths of sinfulness. Leaven spreads and consumes an entire society, if left alone.

    Gen 15.2 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.
    The Canaanites didn't have an "up".

  7. #172
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    973

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I'm ever objective, apt to learn and always give way to a better argument. That said, I'm also not gullible enough to be swayed by conjecture cloaked in logical sounding rhetoric - irrespective of how plausible. I'm not being rude to you RevMan! I have indeed learned and seen the hidden truth in some very difficult Revelation prohecies from you. And when you're right, the revelation is mind blowing. But alas, brother, you are human and fallible like everyone else which means there are topics where you are wrong even though you make the same claim "that God revealed" it to you.

    The future AC may probably come from Greece or Turkey. But your case is weakened by your claim the AC is in Dan 11. We've debated Dan 11 a year or so ago and I presented a historically backed argument that proved that Dan 11 is 100% fulfilled. Furthermore, A4E is the little horn of Dan 8 and fulfilled the prophecies thereon. Dan 8:16-27 speaks of Alexander the Great v-21, after his death, his kingdom was divided into four for his 4 top gerenals v-22.

    But out these 4, only two (Seleucid and Ptolemy kingdoms) prevailed. The king of fierce countenance v-23 was fulfiled in Antiochus 4. History is on hand to back this up, so there are zero bases to claim it is the future AC. A phrase that has caused many to misinterpret Daniel is "at the time of the end". Sadly, many have jumped to the conclusion that every 'end' is only the end times, but this is not the case. The context of each reference helps clarify whether it is about a time already fulfilled or still future.

    Dan 11:36-45 is NOT the Antichrist!
    I didn't use Dan. 11 to write my blog on where the Anti-Christ must be born at. I used Daniel 7 and 8. I added in Daniel 11 after my months of studying Dan. 11 and 12 and writing a blog on that, which I made a thread of here. I detailed every King of the South and King of the North. during this study I came to know a person called Jason who bribed Antiochus so that he would name him the High Priest, and kill his brother Onias III a pious High Priest. Then Jason tried to Hellenize the Jews, they fought back and defeated their foes. But the win came in 160 BC and meanwhile Antiochus died in 164 BC.

    I verse 30 he is met by a Roman Senator who turned him away from Egypt, this is documented history. He was warned that war with Egypt from this point on would mean war with Rome so he pulled out, went to Judea, and killed 40,000 people and enslaved 40,000 people. Now please tell me brother how you get that verses 36-45 are about AE4? He is shown to Conquer all of North Africa in those verses, but Egypt refused to allow that for starters and we know he never went back to Egypt, we know this via history, he had to go fight the Parthians and he died fighting them via DISEASE.

    King Mithridates I of Parthia took advantage of Antiochus' western problems and attacked from the east, seizing the city of Herat in 167 BC and disrupting the direct trade route to India, effectively splitting the Greek world in two.[citation needed]

    Antiochus recognized the potential danger in the east but was unwilling to give up control of Judea. He sent a commander named Lysias to deal with the Maccabees, while the King himself led the main Seleucid army against the Parthians. Antiochus had initial success in his eastern campaign, including the reoccupation of Armenia, but he died suddenly of disease in 164 BC.

    So how does the King of the South PUSH AT HIM brother in verse 40, and how does he defeat Egypt etc. etc. and how does he push against the Holy Land ? He was already ruling the Holy Land by that time. So your understanding has him Conquering Egypt, even though the Romans told him in verse 30 to leave Egypt alone or else, then he goes to Judah and kills many people, then in verses 32-35 we have the Maccabean Revolt, and AE4 dies 4 years before the Revolt ends. But somehow verses 36-45 are about Antiochus who is already dead and has been warned about coming against Egypt. And guess what ? After he left Egypt he never came against them again, and he died fighting the Parthians, not the King of the South in a Syrian War Battle.

    Verses 36-45 can not be Antiochus and thus can only be the Anti-Christ. The very fact that AE4 never went back to Egypt proves that those final verses in Dan. 11 can't be Antiochus. He also served Zeus, the Anti-Christ in verses 36-45 us shown to serve no gods. Jason Hellenized the Jews and thus a War ensued between the Traditionalists and the Hellenists, and Antiochus took the Hellenists side and demanded that they stop worshiping their God, thus will also happen via the Anti-Christ.

    Read the History, verses 36-45 can not be Antiochus.

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    In His Service
    Posts
    3,331

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    I see you have 100 posts here. Welcome, rookie. I've been told countless times here that yes, the gentiles have replaced the Jews. Take it up with your fellow Christians here.

    Ah, another one. You mean the last 20 centuries of Jewish persecution weren't enough? Something even worse is going to happen?

    You know, religious Jews do worship God. They may not be doing it in the same way as you, but they believe.
    And which god might that be Fenris..it certainly isn't God of the bible...

    John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
    A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats.

    ~ Charles Spurgeon


  9. #174
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,686

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Jude View Post
    And which god might that be Fenris..it certainly isn't God of the bible...
    So Jews are idol worshippers?

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,526
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    So Jews are idol worshippers?
    This is what happens when you get stuck in the KJVO cult

  11. #176
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,123

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Of course you say that as a believer. But c'mon, let's be honest. The NT isn't unbiased, because no holy book can be unbiased. I'm a religious person and I say that about my bible too.
    With all due respect, it is not *your bible* but *our bible.* We consider that the Jewish Bible is an integral part of the development of the Christian Bible. And so, we interpret the Jewish Bible as much inspired by God, and as truthful, as our Christian Bible. As such, no, they are not biased in the least. The truth is impartially expressed and applied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    You're really not capable of seeing this, are you? That's a shame. I consider you on the more intellectual side and thought you'd appreciate the line of thinking, but I suppose not.
    I suppose not. My intellect is devoted to Christian revelation, and I'm biased, if anything, towards one true God. Can I make mistakes thinking "through revelation?" Of course! It can become presumption in all of my humanness.

    But it is illogical to view all religions the same. Are there common truths in all religions? Of course. It is completely irrational to say religions that state diametrically opposite things are equal or common religious truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    Initially when? There was no church in the year 30. Timeframe?
    Historically Premillennialism reigned in the Early Church for the 1st couple of centuries. And about the time of Origen in the 3rd century "Israel" began to be allegorized. The Jews were given up on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    Again, when? Israel stopped being hostile when Christianity ceased to be a Jewish movement. Or maybe you consider Jews not converting en masse to be hostile?
    No, I specifically referenced the fact Paul (Saul) was sent out into *other countries* to persecute Christianity advancing *outside of Israel.* This was *not* a threat to the Jewish religion *within Israel.* That's the point. As long as Christians were vulnerable, some elements of Judaism went after them--not just in Israel but in other countries as well. But when Christianity came to be rooted within the Roman Empire, and when Israel was essentially destroyed by the Romans, the rage lessened. But this was not a choice to lessen the hostility against Christianity, nor was it a decision to let Christianity be in other countries. Rather, this was a pragmatic choice, in light of the diminishing power of the Jewish leadership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    Well, that's your belief....

    Yes, that's true. But Jews don't judge Christianity by what Christians have done. Jews judge Christianity by its message and its holy books, and find it lacking.

    That's great. So "Messianic Jews " are not worshipping the Jewish God, but the Christian one. Hence, they are Christian.
    What we have with Mormons and JWs is a mixture of monotheism and a heretical form of Christianity. With Judaism we have a mixture of monotheism and obedience to a God that still requires observance of the Law. That also would be a "false God" to Christians. But the monotheistic part of all these religions is conceptually representative of the true God.

    No, MJs are *not* worshipers of the Jewish God, from my pov. They try to convey that, but it isn't true. If the true God required obedience to the Law of Moses, then MJs would be worshiping the wrong God!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    Thank you. Back to the point, someone could reject Jesu's message but not "hate him" or whatever we are accused of.
    Please let me reiterate that what Jews did in the 1st century to Jesus and to Christians is *not* what Jews have done throughout history and certainly not today. I do think a lot of Jews likely hate Christianity. But I find this in every ethnic group on earth. Christianity is not a popular religion. It's great expanse is due to its appeal to the conscience, and not due to it being "appealing" to the sensual part of man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    And yet the NT is very critical of them. Much more than the Sadducees or say the Herodians. Which is historically odd.
    To him who is given much, much is expected. The Pharisees were probably closest to what Jesus believed, in the legal sense of the Law. But Jesus may have been more sympathetic to more "spiritual" sects within Judaism, whoever they may have been? Again, the Pharisees cannot be judged for all time by what they were in a single generation!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    He claims, anyway.

    Which is odd because he had no authority in other countries. Or even Judea really.
    Jewish communities in other nearby countries were likely thought to be part of the Jewish fold. As such, the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem may have felt they had authority, under Roman jurisdiction, to manage overseas communities of Jews belonging to their fellowship? But this is hardly your notion of Jewish toleration of Messianic Jews outside of their own local community!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    No, Christianity is not like the prophets of old. They criticized the Jews, yes, but yet remained Jewish. They didn't create a new religion or "go to the gentiles".
    The Hebrew Prophets went wherever God sent them, and not just to Israel. Remaining Jewish was certainly necessary as long as the Law remained in effect. But once that structure was rendered obsolete, and other groups were allowed in, there was no need to remain Jewish. That some have chosen to remain in Jewish communities is a good thing, notwithstanding the fact I wouldn't want them to remain in Judaism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris
    The Canaanites didn't have an "up".
    I'm not sure what you mean by that? But the Canaanites at one time were not bad enough to be destroyed by God. When their sins reached full measure God gave the entire civilization over to genocide. It was necessary. We don't understand that today because we don't often see sin completely reaching its "full measure." Think Nazi Germany. Think the Islamic State. Think Japan in WW2. Even these countries were spared. We may have less of a sense of how bad the Canaanites were?

    When Israel became that bad they were given over to the brutal Assyrians and Babylonians. Even then God spared them, preparing them over time for a new beginning. That's why I say the Jews in Jesus' time are not a measure of what Jews were in history and are now.

    I don't know how much you represent Orthodox Judaism, but your own practice is clearly peaceable and diplomatic. Although bad things get said all the time on this forum, you take is fairly well. I certainly have more work to do!

    I'm just saying you shouldn't try to defend Jews in the 1st century--not anymore than you should defend Israel immediately before the captivities. Different time, different place. It's the same with Christian history. I can't defend what many Christians have done in the name of their Messiah.

  12. #177

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Welcome, rookie.
    Likewise. I see in your understanding of God, you will remain a rookie until you finally believe Him (if you do not believe His Son you do not believe Him).

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    I've been told countless times here that yes, the gentiles have replaced the Jews. Take it up with your fellow Christians here.
    But I've already seen that you choose what to "hear" and what you won't "hear" when you read what people say (and I'm only a rookie here). So already I will never believe what you say when you tell me what "they" say, because it's all "hear"say, and what "they" are actually saying is not always what you choose to hear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Ah, another one. You mean the last 20 centuries of Jewish persecution weren't enough? Something even worse is going to happen?
    Antisemitism card ignored. Rather give it to someone who owns it. I have no use for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    You know, religious Jews do worship God. They may not be doing it in the same way as you, but they believe.
    .

    Yes, I've met Jewish Christians a few times and like all Christians, we don't necessarily worship God in the same way. Some clap a lot, some love Jewish style praise songs, some prefer traditional European hymns, etc. Of course, we all know that the only way to god is through Christ, and we all desire the salvation of those who worship false gods thinking they're worshiping God.

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,686

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by keck553 View Post
    This is what happens when you get stuck in the KJVO cult
    Most people here won't answer the question "Are Jews idol worshippers?"

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,123

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Most people here won't answer the question "Are Jews idol worshippers?"
    I rarely have problems answering questions. It's just that they aren't always the right answers!

    I don't at all view the Jewish People as idol worshipers. They lost that bad habit during the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities.

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,686

    Re: The Day of the Lord: the actual meaning of the word YOWM

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    With all due respect, it is not *your bible* but *our bible.* We consider that the Jewish Bible is an integral part of the development of the Christian Bible. And so, we interpret the Jewish Bible as much inspired by God, and as truthful, as our Christian Bible. As such, no, they are not biased in the least. The truth is impartially expressed and applied.
    You know, I have never, not once in my lifetime approached someone and told them "You must believe my bible as the impartial truth". It would never have even occurred to me. It's so obviously true only for those who already believe.



    I suppose not. My intellect is devoted to Christian revelation
    That's really a shame. There are interesting ideas out there to be appreciated, even if we don't accept that as the absolute truth.

    Historically Premillennialism reigned in the Early Church for the 1st couple of centuries.
    Ummm you're really not providing any information here. Christian followers in the year 30 looked nothing like Christian followers in the year 230.



    No, I specifically referenced the fact Paul (Saul) was sent out into *other countries* to persecute Christianity advancing *outside of Israel.*
    Who sent him, and on what authority?


    This was *not* a threat to the Jewish religion *within Israel.* That's the point. As long as Christians were vulnerable, some elements of Judaism went after them--not just in Israel but in other countries as well.
    You know... so this is one of those parts of the NT that I just don't believe. The high priest sending people into other countries to harass Christians?


    What we have with Mormons and JWs is a mixture of monotheism and a heretical form of Christianity. With Judaism we have a mixture of monotheism and obedience to a God that still requires observance of the Law. That also would be a "false God" to Christians. But the monotheistic part of all these religions is conceptually representative of the true God.

    No, MJs are *not* worshipers of the Jewish God, from my pov. They try to convey that, but it isn't true. If the true God required obedience to the Law of Moses, then MJs would be worshiping the wrong God!
    So we can agree that they're not Jews then?



    Please let me reiterate that what Jews did in the 1st century to Jesus and to Christians is *not* what Jews have done throughout history and certainly not today. I do think a lot of Jews likely hate Christianity. But I find this in every ethnic group on earth. Christianity is not a popular religion.
    2 billion followers say otherwise.



    To him who is given much, much is expected. The Pharisees were probably closest to what Jesus believed, in the legal sense of the Law.
    So he was critical of those sects of Judaism closest to his own beliefs while ignoring those that were outright heretical? ok.

    But Jesus may have been more sympathetic to more "spiritual" sects within Judaism, whoever they may have been? Again, the Pharisees cannot be judged for all time by what they were in a single generation!
    I don't even believe that they were bad for that generation either. But it's your holy book, I know.



    Jewish communities in other nearby countries were likely thought to be part of the Jewish fold. As such, the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem may have felt they had authority, under Roman jurisdiction, to manage overseas communities of Jews belonging to their fellowship
    The Jews had no authority to do anything in Judea under Roman jurisdiction. Why would they have authority elsewhere? Even your bible says that they couldn't carry out the death penalty and had to have the Romans do it. But somehow they had the power to arrest people in another country (I don't even think that Damascus was under Roman jurisdiction) and bring them back to Judea? Then what, have the Romans try the person? ok.


    But this is hardly your notion of Jewish toleration of Messianic Jews outside of their own local community!
    I'm tolerant of everyone. It's a free country and everyone may worship as they see fit. What I object to are the Messianic claiming to be practicing Jews, which they are not. In much the same way that you object to SDAs and JWs and LDS calling themselves "Christians".



    The Hebrew Prophets went wherever God sent them, and not just to Israel. Remaining Jewish was certainly necessary as long as the Law remained in effect. But once that structure was rendered obsolete, and other groups were allowed in, there was no need to remain Jewish.
    Once this happened, they were criticizing Jews from the outside and not from the inside. It makes a big difference, you know. Jeremiah and Josephus both called upon Jerusalem to surrender. So why is Jeremiah beloved by Jews and holy writ, while Josephus has a more spotty record? Because Jeremiah was inside the city when he called for the surrender, while Josephus did it from the Roman camp.


    I'm not sure what you mean by that? But the Canaanites at one time were not bad enough to be destroyed by God. When their sins reached full measure God gave the entire civilization over to genocide. It was necessary. We don't understand that today because we don't often see sin completely reaching its "full measure." Think Nazi Germany. Think the Islamic State. Think Japan in WW2. Even these countries were spared. We may have less of a sense of how bad the Canaanites were?
    Again, the Canaanites didn't have an "up". That they were bad and getting worse seems more realistic.

    When Israel became that bad they were given over to the brutal Assyrians and Babylonians. Even then God spared them, preparing them over time for a new beginning. That's why I say the Jews in Jesus' time are not a measure of what Jews were in history and are now.
    And here we are, still to today.

    I don't know how much you represent Orthodox Judaism, but your own practice is clearly peaceable and diplomatic.
    Thank you. I try.
    I'm just saying you shouldn't try to defend Jews in the 1st century--not anymore than you should defend Israel immediately before the captivities. Different time, different place. It's the same with Christian history. I can't defend what many Christians have done in the name of their Messiah.
    I don't defend all first century Jews though. The Sadducee rot had taken hold of the priesthood. The Herodians were only concerned with political power, and followed a man who was probably not even a Jew. The Zealots fought a war that could not be won, and never even attempted to parlay with the Romans, and the year 69 saw four emperors, and who could have ended the war. But the Pharisees had none of these vices, yet they and they alone are singled out for scathing criticism. It's historically wrong and an attack on today's religious Jews, who are at least philosophically descended from the Pharisees...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Meaning of the word STRIPES in this passage
    By Phalanx in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Nov 25th 2008, 07:42 PM
  2. Our Lord...a swear word.
    By MyRock in forum Praise
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Nov 24th 2008, 05:03 PM
  3. The word of the lord; how it comforts us!!
    By livingwaters in forum Devotions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 27th 2008, 03:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •