Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 250

Thread: Like a Thief in the Night

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,289
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, what I meant to say is that I see no reason to separate 1260 days, 42 months, and 3.5 years into separate periods of time.
    Pretty much agree but there is a slight difference between the 42 months and 1260 days. The two prophets die, yet the beast is still in power for those 3.5 days so either the two time periods overlap by 3.5 days or the last 3.5 days is still considered part of their ministry of 1260 days which is possible but seems unlikely since they are dead.

    For me, they all look back to the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign in Dan 7. Trying to figure out *why* God distinguished these into days, months, and years is another thing. Good question!
    It's day vs. night, good vs. evil, so days are used for God's people but months (moon) for God's enemies. That's why it was weird for me to see you speak of the two witnesses and say they had 42 months.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,954
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, different activities associated with different descriptions of the *same* time period (as I see it). But yes, the different activities are what's significant. So if I'm right, the different activities associated with the differently described periods should naturally overlap. If not, then I would be wrong.
    As the Two Witnesses are witnessing BEFORE the AC starts His reign of 42 months, so there is no overlap.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,210

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    As the Two Witnesses are witnessing BEFORE the AC starts His reign of 42 months, so there is no overlap.
    I see the 2 Witnesses are prophecying *during* Antichrist's reign, and dying at the end of the 3.5 year period. Apparently the Antichrist/Beast is unable to defeat them during the time of their testimony.

    1) Jerusalem is "trampled" during this period of time.
    2) The miracles of the 2 Witnesses are like Elijah, who stood against Baal, and Moses, who stood against Egypt. They seem to be resisting Antichrist.
    3) The inhabitants of the earth, who likely had chosen to follow the Antichrist, had already been "tormented" by the 2 Witnesses.
    4) The final Woe takes place after the death of the 2 Witnesses, which is the actual end of the age, the coming of Christ's Kingdom.

    The Beast is mentioned as originating from the Abyss, but is not specifically said to arise *after* the reign of the Antichrist.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,954
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I see the 2 Witnesses are prophecying *during* Antichrist's reign, and dying at the end of the 3.5 year period. Apparently the Antichrist/Beast is unable to defeat them during the time of their testimony.

    1) Jerusalem is "trampled" during this period of time.
    2) The miracles of the 2 Witnesses are like Elijah, who stood against Baal, and Moses, who stood against Egypt. They seem to be resisting Antichrist.
    3) The inhabitants of the earth, who likely had chosen to follow the Antichrist, had already been "tormented" by the 2 Witnesses.
    4) The final Woe takes place after the death of the 2 Witnesses, which is the actual end of the age, the coming of Christ's Kingdom.

    The Beast is mentioned as originating from the Abyss, but is not specifically said to arise *after* the reign of the Antichrist.
    Lots of problems with this view.
    1. The temple is NOT trampled whilst the 2W are prophesying. Yet the AC sits in the Temple declaring himself as God. CANNOT be BOTH correct.
    2. The AC is not able to START His reign UNTIL they are defeated.
    3. No one is "following" the AC at this time. Why would they when the 2W have ALL the power?
    4. No the coming of Christ's kingdom is NOT a woe. We are told what the woe is in Rev 12:
    Rev 12:12* Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

    It is ONLY AFTER the 2W are killed that the AC can declare himself as god in the temple.
    When the AC is reigning there is NO safe place, and certainly NOT in Jerusalem.

    The 2W are with the 6th Trumpet, but there next follows ALL the events of the 7th Trumpet, which includes the 7 vials.
    The seals are followed by the Trumpets which are followed by the Vials. There is NO overlap between them, unless you wish to claim the 7 Trumpets are part of the 7th seal, and the 7 vials are part of the 7th Trumpet - which makes no real difference.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,210

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Lots of problems with this view.
    1. The temple is NOT trampled whilst the 2W are prophesying. Yet the AC sits in the Temple declaring himself as God. CANNOT be BOTH correct.
    I believe your view of the temple is incorrect. The trampling of the temple is symbolic of Christianity in Israel during Antichrist's reign, just as Ezekiel's temple represented believing Israel using the symbolism of OT law.

    The sitting in the temple of God, by Antichrist, is a symbolic way of expressing his own deity. By sitting in the *place* of God he is declaring himself to be God. Since there is no longer any temple of God, in a literal sense, this is pure symbolism.

    There is this constant chatter about the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. That temple was condemned and destroyed 2000 years ago, never to be built again. The only temple that matters, since that time, is the temple of Christ and the Church.

    The initial building of the tabernacle, and the initial building of the temple of Solomon, were done with much Scriptural anticipation, and with much regalia. But this constant drumming about a future construction of an OT temple has scarcely any Scripture to rely upon, and that is in itself questionable. What we do know is that the OT law was fulfilled in NT theology. And this appears to prohibit any legitimate restoration of a physical temple. If a temple is built for Antichrist, it certainly won't be a legitimate Jewish temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    2. The AC is not able to START His reign UNTIL they are defeated.
    You are assuming this. It is *not* stated as such. As I pointed out, there is every reason to believe that the ministry of the 2 Witnesses, for 3.5 years, had been in opposition to Antichrist's reign. Their power enabled them to resist a concerted effort to defeat them, until their ministry was finished.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    3. No one is "following" the AC at this time. Why would they when the 2W have ALL the power?
    Why did the Egyptians follow Pharaoh when Moses had all the power?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    4. No the coming of Christ's kingdom is NOT a woe. We are told what the woe is in Rev 12:
    Rev 12:12* Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
    That "woe" is in a different context. In context, the 3rd Woe of ch. 11 is absolutely the destruction taking place as the Kingdom of Christ comes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is ONLY AFTER the 2W are killed that the AC can declare himself as god in the temple.
    When the AC is reigning there is NO safe place, and certainly NOT in Jerusalem.
    I'm not even sure that Antichrist reigns in Jerusalem. He simply declares himself to be God, and reigns over Europe. His attack on Jerusalem takes place after he has declared himself to be God. In fact, his attack on the 2 Witnesses and on Jerusalem is his attempt to confirm his Deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The 2W are with the 6th Trumpet, but there next follows ALL the events of the 7th Trumpet, which includes the 7 vials.
    The seals are followed by the Trumpets which are followed by the Vials. There is NO overlap between them, unless you wish to claim the 7 Trumpets are part of the 7th seal, and the 7 vials are part of the 7th Trumpet - which makes no real difference.
    You are confusing 2 separate visions. The 7 trumpets announce the coming of the Kingdom, and show the associated judgments heralding this event. The 7 vials do the same thing in another way, showing in particular the approaching Battle of Armageddon.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,954
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I believe your view of the temple is incorrect. The trampling of the temple is symbolic of Christianity in Israel during Antichrist's reign, just as Ezekiel's temple represented believing Israel using the symbolism of OT law.
    Huh? Ezekiel's Temple is NOT symbolic.
    No idea how anyone can claim that - a huge amount of detail for something which is merely symbolic. What do the dimensions symbolise?
    The trampling of the temple is CLEARLY related to what we are told by Jesus in Luke 21:
    Luk 21:24* They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    It is also CLEARLY not speaking of the SAME time, as in Rev 11 the Temple does NOT fall, but in Luke 21 the whole city falls and the templ eis destroyed.
    So we have a clear precedent as to how to understand the phrase "trampled".

    The sitting in the temple of God, by Antichrist, is a symbolic way of expressing his own deity. By sitting in the *place* of God he is declaring himself to be God. Since there is no longer any temple of God, in a literal sense, this is pure symbolism.

    There is this constant chatter about the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. That temple was condemned and destroyed 2000 years ago, never to be built again. The only temple that matters, since that time, is the temple of Christ and the Church.
    A whole slew of problems with such a view.
    1) The temple was NEVER condemned, only those who worshipped there. We had a similar thing happen in 586 BC where the temple was destroyed, not because the temple was wrong, but those who worshipped were.
    2) There is NO possible way for the AC to LITERALLY sit in the Temple of God EXCEPT an actual temple is built.
    3) In order for something to be symbolic it MUST be understood. So a nebulous idea such as what you are saying doesn't fit.
    4) Also Paul stated this would be something CLEARLY SEEN, so there needs to be a corollary thing - hence some saw the Pope as the AC, as a form of substitution.

    The initial building of the tabernacle, and the initial building of the temple of Solomon, were done with much Scriptural anticipation, and with much regalia. But this constant drumming about a future construction of an OT temple has scarcely any Scripture to rely upon, and that is in itself questionable. What we do know is that the OT law was fulfilled in NT theology. And this appears to prohibit any legitimate restoration of a physical temple. If a temple is built for Antichrist, it certainly won't be a legitimate Jewish temple.
    Actually incorrect.
    The tabernacle was as per God's instructions, but the Temple was initially a thought of King David and was NOT prophesied or commanded by God.
    The rebuilding of the Temple was also NOT originally commanded by God, nor initially prophesied.
    Now Haggai and Zechariah both prophesy about him, yet this was AFTER he had returned and made a start on the Temple. IWO the confirmation came afterwards.
    Herod's destruction and rebuilding of the Temple was also NOT commanded nor prophesied, YET Jesus accepted that Temple as the House of God.

    The ONLY scripture is that of prophecy and the prophetic mentions a Temple as a FACT, even though when revelation was written the Temple was GONE.
    As the Temple will NOT be built for the AC, but will be built BEFORE the AC comes to power so that claim can also be laid to rest.

    You are assuming this. It is *not* stated as such. As I pointed out, there is every reason to believe that the ministry of the 2 Witnesses, for 3.5 years, had been in opposition to Antichrist's reign. Their power enabled them to resist a concerted effort to defeat them, until their ministry was finished.
    What IS stated is that the Inner court of the Temples is SAFE DURING the period of the 2W, something which is NOT true DURING the reign of the AC, therefore it is NOT needed to be directly stated.
    Further NOWHERE is ANY believer able to resist the AC whilst he reigns as clearly stated in Rev 13
    Rev 13:7* Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation,

    This therefore ALSO shows that it is NOT the same time.

    Why did the Egyptians follow Pharaoh when Moses had all the power?
    Actually Pharaoh initially could replicate what Moses did (first 3 plagues), after that Moses was seen as having the true power and Egyptians started to respond to what Moses did, so that some brought in their animals from the fields. When the Israelites were to leave they gave gifts etc.
    This is a different picture to what happens with the 2W, who people will HATE and so celebrate their deaths.

    That "woe" is in a different context. In context, the 3rd Woe of ch. 11 is absolutely the destruction taking place as the Kingdom of Christ comes.
    Nope, the CONTEXT is as stated:
    ev 12:10* And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.*And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.*Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”
    The CONTEXT is 100% that of the salvation, power and KINGDOM of God and His Christ HAVE COME!

    His return is NOT a "woe" for the earth or sea.
    Rev 8:13* Then I looked, and I heard an eagle crying with a loud voice as it flew directly overhead, “Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, at the blasts of the other trumpets that the three angels are about to blow!”*
    Note that we will still be dwelling on the earth at this time.

    I'm not even sure that Antichrist reigns in Jerusalem. He simply declares himself to be God, and reigns over Europe. His attack on Jerusalem takes place after he has declared himself to be God. In fact, his attack on the 2 Witnesses and on Jerusalem is his attempt to confirm his Deity.
    I don't think he will reign from Jerusalem, He will simply conquer it and kill all he can who are Jews.
    As Jerusalem will be already in the AC's control (as Rev 11 states:
    Rev 11:2* but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.)
    So it is ONLY the final bastion that remains, and which the 10 kings CANNOT take.

    You are confusing 2 separate visions. The 7 trumpets announce the coming of the Kingdom, and show the associated judgments heralding this event. The 7 vials do the same thing in another way, showing in particular the approaching Battle of Armageddon.
    Nope, this is but ONE overarching vision - 7 seals, 7 trumpets and 7 vials.
    The 7 vials do NOT fit with the 7 trumpets but MUST come afterwards.
    Note for example the 2nd trumpet:
    Rev 8:8* The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood.*
    Rev 8:9* A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

    The destruction is limited to 1/3. Yet when we read the 2nd vial:
    Rev 16:3* The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became like the blood of a corpse, and every living thing died that was in the sea.*

    Notice that EVERY living thing died.

    Really the ONLY reason to claim that the 7 vials do NOT follow AFTER the 7 trumpets is the IDEA that the 7th trumpet is the same as the Last Trumpet.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,210

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Huh? Ezekiel's Temple is NOT symbolic.
    No idea how anyone can claim that - a huge amount of detail for something which is merely symbolic. What do the dimensions symbolise?
    There was a lot of detail to the actual construction of the tabernacle. Every detail was *symbolic!*

    We have every reason to suppose Ezekiel's temple was symbolic...
    1) It was never built, and is an OT structure. NT theology prohibits any OT structure.
    2) Ezekiel had this vision while the temple was destroyed and was told this was written for the people of his own time, to convict them about how the Law should've worked with respect to Israel's future glory.
    3) We are told that the OT structure was designed to symbolize Christ and NT theological truth.
    4) Every building built according to God's word had great attention paid to the event. There is no such attention given to the building of a future building except the account of the New Jerusalem, which clearly is symbolic, and not even close to resembling Ezekiel's temple!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The trampling of the temple is CLEARLY related to what we are told by Jesus in Luke 21:
    Luk 21:24* They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
    No doubt! Why would I dispute that?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is also CLEARLY not speaking of the SAME time, as in Rev 11 the Temple does NOT fall, but in Luke 21 the whole city falls and the templ eis destroyed.
    So we have a clear precedent as to how to understand the phrase "trampled".
    There is nothing "clear" about your claims here.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A whole slew of problems with such a view.
    1) The temple was NEVER condemned, only those who worshipped there. We had a similar thing happen in 586 BC where the temple was destroyed, not because the temple was wrong, but those who worshipped were.
    2) There is NO possible way for the AC to LITERALLY sit in the Temple of God EXCEPT an actual temple is built.
    3) In order for something to be symbolic it MUST be understood. So a nebulous idea such as what you are saying doesn't fit.
    4) Also Paul stated this would be something CLEARLY SEEN, so there needs to be a corollary thing - hence some saw the Pope as the AC, as a form of substitution.
    None of your arguments apply to my position. And you conflate a number of things. We are talking about 1) Ezekiel's temple, 2) the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, 3) Antichrist sitting in the temple of God, and 4) worshipers being noted worshiping at a temple in Rev 11.

    I don't, for example, believe Antichrist actually sits in a temple, or if he does, it is not an OT temple structure. I'm aware some Jews want to rebuild the temple. If they do, it certainly won't be recognize by God, since His ideal temple is Christ and the Church.

    It is likely, in my view, that saying Antichrist "sits in God's temple" is Paul's way of expressing Antichrist's self-confessed "Deity." Put another way, "Antichrist believes himself to be Divine by putting himself in God's place." Paul *knew* the OT temple would be destroyed. And he *knew* Christ permanently replaced the old temple of t he Law.

    Rev 11 refers to the temple as symbolic of true worshipers in Israel. We know that because that's how Ezekiel used the temple as well, to show who could practice true worship. In Ezekiel's time, it was a matter of meticulous attention to details of the Law, combined with faith. In our time, it is seeing Christ as the fulfillment of the old temple.

    The temple destroyed in 70 AD is what Jesus referred to in his Olivet Discourse. And the trampling of that temple does indeed continue throughout the current NT age. That is, the temple *will not* be restored! Israel will not be restored until after terrible national judgment against Israel, leaving only a humble remnant willing to embrace Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually incorrect.
    The tabernacle was as per God's instructions, but the Temple was initially a thought of King David and was NOT prophesied or commanded by God.
    The rebuilding of the Temple was also NOT originally commanded by God, nor initially prophesied.
    Now Haggai and Zechariah both prophesy about him, yet this was AFTER he had returned and made a start on the Temple. IWO the confirmation came afterwards.
    Herod's destruction and rebuilding of the Temple was also NOT commanded nor prophesied, YET Jesus accepted that Temple as the House of God.
    I can't agree with any of this. God plainly foretold that Cyrus would announce the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. This was the rebuilding project, which was, in fact, ordained by God.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The ONLY scripture is that of prophecy and the prophetic mentions a Temple as a FACT, even though when revelation was written the Temple was GONE.
    As the Temple will NOT be built for the AC, but will be built BEFORE the AC comes to power so that claim can also be laid to rest.

    What IS stated is that the Inner court of the Temples is SAFE DURING the period of the 2W, something which is NOT true DURING the reign of the AC, therefore it is NOT needed to be directly stated.
    This is just your view--not mine. It does not follow, from my pov.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Further NOWHERE is ANY believer able to resist the AC whilst he reigns as clearly stated in Rev 13
    Rev 13:7* Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation,
    The Bible, and prophecy especially, speak in universal terms, even though actual application is local. Grandiose statements are made for great emphasis, and does not necessarily imply universal application. I believe the Antichrist rules only over 10 nations in Europe. That's where the Christian resistance will be completely put down. Elsewhere, nations will fear Antichrist until after the 1260 days. Then Armageddon will develop. There will be lots of resistance to his rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This therefore ALSO shows that it is NOT the same time.


    Actually Pharaoh initially could replicate what Moses did (first 3 plagues), after that Moses was seen as having the true power and Egyptians started to respond to what Moses did, so that some brought in their animals from the fields. When the Israelites were to leave they gave gifts etc.
    This is a different picture to what happens with the 2W, who people will HATE and so celebrate their deaths.


    Nope, the CONTEXT is as stated:
    ev 12:10* And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.*And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.*Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”
    The CONTEXT is 100% that of the salvation, power and KINGDOM of God and His Christ HAVE COME!
    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here? We were talking about Rev 11--not Rev 12! In ch. 11 the 3rd Woe brings us to the end of the current age, and to the establishment of Christ's Kingdom. In ch. 12 we are informed that the account can be summarized as events that lead to the coming of Christ's Kingdom, as well. We can assume the same timeline for the Kingdom exists in ch. 12 as in ch. 11.

    The fall of Satan is a precursor to the establishment of Christ's Kingdom, or what is called our "Salvation." There is no real explanation about a time interval in between Satan's fall and the coming of the Kingdom. Satan's fall is simply indicating that "now" the Kingdom can come. That is, Satan's fall is a necessary precursor to that event.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    His return is NOT a "woe" for the earth or sea.
    Rev 8:13* Then I looked, and I heard an eagle crying with a loud voice as it flew directly overhead, “Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, at the blasts of the other trumpets that the three angels are about to blow!”*
    Note that we will still be dwelling on the earth at this time.
    I disagree. Christ's coming takes place at the time of Armageddon. That is definitely a "woe" for those who follow Antichrist.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I don't think he will reign from Jerusalem, He will simply conquer it and kill all he can who are Jews.
    As Jerusalem will be already in the AC's control (as Rev 11 states:
    Rev 11:2* but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.)
    So it is ONLY the final bastion that remains, and which the 10 kings CANNOT take.
    I have no idea at this point? Since you might conflate prophecy about Antiochus 4 with prophecy about the Antichrist, you may be basing your assertions on false premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, this is but ONE overarching vision - 7 seals, 7 trumpets and 7 vials.
    The 7 vials do NOT fit with the 7 trumpets but MUST come afterwards.
    I do better keeping the visions separate and independent from one another. Conflating them causes confusion. They are separate visions, even though they belong to a single narrative.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Note for example the 2nd trumpet:
    Rev 8:8* The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood.*
    Rev 8:9* A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

    The destruction is limited to 1/3. Yet when we read the 2nd vial:
    Rev 16:3* The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became like the blood of a corpse, and every living thing died that was in the sea.*

    Notice that EVERY living thing died.

    Really the ONLY reason to claim that the 7 vials do NOT follow AFTER the 7 trumpets is the IDEA that the 7th trumpet is the same as the Last Trumpet.
    Yes, I have indeed noted the changes from trumpets to vials. I have lots of ideas, but also lots of questions.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,954
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    There was a lot of detail to the actual construction of the tabernacle. Every detail was *symbolic!*
    Really, so the writer of Hebrews got it wrong and Moses was wrong to think the instructions for the Tabernacle were literal?
    Heb 9:1* Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.*
    Heb 9:2* For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place.*
    Heb 9:3* Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place,*
    Heb 9:4* having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.*
    Heb 9:5* Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

    Exo 25:8* And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.*
    Exo 25:9* Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.

    So God was speaking ONLY symbolically? Moses didn't really have to make it EXACTLY as God showed him?
    Don't think I can go along with you on that idea.

    We have every reason to suppose Ezekiel's temple was symbolic...
    1) It was never built, and is an OT structure. NT theology prohibits any OT structure.
    2) Ezekiel had this vision while the temple was destroyed and was told this was written for the people of his own time, to convict them about how the Law should've worked with respect to Israel's future glory.
    3) We are told that the OT structure was designed to symbolize Christ and NT theological truth.
    4) Every building built according to God's word had great attention paid to the event. There is no such attention given to the building of a future building except the account of the New Jerusalem, which clearly is symbolic, and not even close to resembling Ezekiel's temple!
    Let's consider your reasoning:
    1) Where does ANY NT theology prohibit a Temple being built? Further who says it is for Man to build?
    2) This vision was indeed received 14 years after the city and temple was destroyed, yet nowhere in this prophecy does it say it was written FOR the people of his own time, nor was it for HOW the Law should've worked. Ezekiel was taken somewhere and shown a BUILT Temple. Making assertions without scriptural support is a dangerous thing to do.
    3) Where in Ezekiel or elsewhere are we told that the Temple symbolises Christ or NT theological truth? Paul does the opposite and shows how as Christians we function as the Temple did, which some them argue means we have replaced the Temple. You can argue that the Temple on earth is a shadow of the Temple in heaven, but the heavenly Temple has not been destroyed nor passed away, and nor is it the Christian church.
    4) So you don't believe there will be a New Jerusalem? Further which building are you referring to that was built according to God's Word? Once the building was built then it was consecrated and this was a great event.

    None of the above points argue for Ezekiel's Temple to be symbolic.

    No doubt! Why would I dispute that?
    Glad you agree, but then this leads to a problem for you as Jerusalem was literally trampled upon, which points to the Temple in rev 11 also literally being trampled upon, and yet you claim there is NO such temple which could be trampled.

    There is nothing "clear" about your claims here.
    What is UNCLEAR? Are you arguing that the temple being trampled in Rev 11 was the event of Luke 21? I thought you have just agreed with my point above!?! perhaps what is unclear is your own understanding. The claim is quite simple and clear. Jerusalem was trampled, and in the same manner so the Temple in Rev 11 will be trampled, but not the inner court.

    None of your arguments apply to my position. And you conflate a number of things. We are talking about 1) Ezekiel's temple, 2) the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, 3) Antichrist sitting in the temple of God, and 4) worshipers being noted worshiping at a temple in Rev 11.

    I don't, for example, believe Antichrist actually sits in a temple, or if he does, it is not an OT temple structure. I'm aware some Jews want to rebuild the temple. If they do, it certainly won't be recognize by God, since His ideal temple is Christ and the Church.

    It is likely, in my view, that saying Antichrist "sits in God's temple" is Paul's way of expressing Antichrist's self-confessed "Deity." Put another way, "Antichrist believes himself to be Divine by putting himself in God's place." Paul *knew* the OT temple would be destroyed. And he *knew* Christ permanently replaced the old temple of t he Law.

    Rev 11 refers to the temple as symbolic of true worshipers in Israel. We know that because that's how Ezekiel used the temple as well, to show who could practice true worship. In Ezekiel's time, it was a matter of meticulous attention to details of the Law, combined with faith. In our time, it is seeing Christ as the fulfillment of the old temple.

    The temple destroyed in 70 AD is what Jesus referred to in his Olivet Discourse. And the trampling of that temple does indeed continue throughout the current NT age. That is, the temple *will not* be restored! Israel will not be restored until after terrible national judgment against Israel, leaving only a humble remnant willing to embrace Christ.
    They ALL apply to your position.
    1) Who says we are saying the Temple in Rev 11 is Ezekiel's temple? You say it isn't, and I also do not claim it to be.
    2) Exactly, you do NOT believe the AC sits in a literal temple, this then is a problem for you as the temple in Rev 11 is stated as a literal temple - for it can be measured, has an inner and outer court, has worshippers measured separately to the dimensions of the structure. Actually God has a Temple in Heaven. We are told about it repeatedly in Revelation and this temple is NOT Christ and His church.
    Rev 11:19* Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

    Nope, Rev 11 does NOT speak about a temple as symbolic of worshippers. Not in verse 1 nor in verse 19. Two temples mentioned, one on earth and the other in heaven.
    You seem to KNOW something from Ezekiel which Ezekiel did NOT know, nor was Ezekiel told. Amazing the things that people know without scriptural support for this knowledge.

    As for the point about the temple being trampled. How long is the temple trampled from 70 AD? Luke records what Jesus said:
    Luk 21:24* They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.*

    So when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled THEN the trampling will cease.
    What constitutes the times of the Gentiles?
    There are two lines of thought:
    1) Israel being ruled over by Gentile nations (this has come to an end in 1967.)
    2) The gospel going out to the Gentile nations. This is soon to be accomplished (if it hasn't already).

    I can't agree with any of this. God plainly foretold that Cyrus would announce the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. This was the rebuilding project, which was, in fact, ordained by God.
    God did foretell that Cyrus would cause the Temple foundations to be laid.
    However it was not mentioned in prophesy that Zerubbabel would build it. Nor when it would be built or its dimensions.
    In fact Zerubbabel built it to different dimensions to Solomon. Herod built it differently again.

    This is just your view--not mine. It does not follow, from my pov.
    You can ONLY hold your pov IF you reject scripture, or IF you can show that any line of my reasoning is faulty. You have failed to do so. You haven't even engaged with the points. I'll repeat them so you have another chance:
    The ONLY scripture is that of prophecy and the prophetic mentions a Temple as a FACT, even though when revelation was written the Temple was GONE.
    As the Temple will NOT be built for the AC, but will be built BEFORE the AC comes to power so that claim can also be laid to rest.
    What IS stated is that the Inner court of the Temples is SAFE DURING the period of the 2W, something which is NOT true DURING the reign of the AC, therefore it is NOT needed to be directly stated.

    The Bible, and prophecy especially, speak in universal terms, even though actual application is local. Grandiose statements are made for great emphasis, and does not necessarily imply universal application. I believe the Antichrist rules only over 10 nations in Europe. That's where the Christian resistance will be completely put down. Elsewhere, nations will fear Antichrist until after the 1260 days. Then Armageddon will develop. There will be lots of resistance to his rule.
    Where in Rev 13:7 does it say Europe?

    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here? We were talking about Rev 11--not Rev 12! In ch. 11 the 3rd Woe brings us to the end of the current age, and to the establishment of Christ's Kingdom. In ch. 12 we are informed that the account can be summarized as events that lead to the coming of Christ's Kingdom, as well. We can assume the same timeline for the Kingdom exists in ch. 12 as in ch. 11.
    The fall of Satan is a precursor to the establishment of Christ's Kingdom, or what is called our "Salvation." There is no real explanation about a time interval in between Satan's fall and the coming of the Kingdom. Satan's fall is simply indicating that "now" the Kingdom can come. That is, Satan's fall is a necessary precursor to that event.
    There is NO woe mentioned in Rev 11 apart from this statement:
    Rev 11:14* The second woe has passed; behold, the third woe is soon to come.

    It is soon to come, which means ALL the events connected with the 7th Trumpet, which includes Rev 12 and 13.

    I disagree. Christ's coming takes place at the time of Armageddon. That is definitely a "woe" for those who follow Antichrist.
    It will indeed be a time of woe for those who follow the AC, but the woe is for those who inhabit the earth as Rev 8 states and also Rev 12.

    I have no idea at this point? Since you might conflate prophecy about Antiochus 4 with prophecy about the Antichrist, you may be basing your assertions on false premises.
    It is almost insulting that you would claim I would conflate TWO prophesies about two different people. Where have I made mention of A4E? A bit of a wild claim.
    I may be basing my assertions on false premises is of course possible, but you are meant to see what of what I claim is such based upon the logic and scripture used. This you don;t seem able to do.

    I do better keeping the visions separate and independent from one another. Conflating them causes confusion. They are separate visions, even though they belong to a single narrative.
    Wow! Says the man who conflates Dan 4 with Dan 7. As the seals and trumpets are mentioned in connection with each other and the vials with the trumpets and as there are SPECIFIC differences so we KNOW they are NOT the SAME vision, so of course we keep them separate, but we also see the connected narrative between them.

    Yes, I have indeed noted the changes from trumpets to vials. I have lots of ideas, but also lots of questions.
    Good to have ideas and questions.
    For me it is simple according to the narrative.
    7th Trumpet is blown and Jesus is crowned King of Kings, and His forces cast Satan down to the earth.
    We then have the 42 months of the AC reign DURING which we have the 7 vials - note it is NOT UNTIL the AC reigns that people take the mark, and the 7 vials differentiates people according to whether they took the mark. In the Trumpets the differentiator is between those who have the seal of God or not.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,210

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Pretty much agree but there is a slight difference between the 42 months and 1260 days. The two prophets die, yet the beast is still in power for those 3.5 days so either the two time periods overlap by 3.5 days or the last 3.5 days is still considered part of their ministry of 1260 days which is possible but seems unlikely since they are dead.



    It's day vs. night, good vs. evil, so days are used for God's people but months (moon) for God's enemies. That's why it was weird for me to see you speak of the two witnesses and say they had 42 months.
    That's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought about! Months do have to do with lunar cycles, and may suggest evil.

    On the matter of the 3.5 extra days, beyond the 1260 days, I've thought this indicates an extension beyond the reign of Antichrist. I believe the 3.5 years, or 1260 days, refer to a time when Antichrist reigns supreme on earth, prior to the beginning of the path towards Armageddon.

    After 1260 days I believe the world will turn on Antichrist, and a world war will develop. How long this period of time will be we aren't told. We're just told that Antichrist contributes to this development by his lies.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,289
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought about! Months do have to do with lunar cycles, and may suggest evil.
    That's why it's weird to see you speak of the AC and use years/days. The AC and his ten horned beast only have 42 months. Only the two witnesses have 1260 days...and as I said, they seem to be offset slightly.

    "On the matter of the 3.5 extra days, beyond the 1260 days, I've thought this indicates an extension beyond the reign of Antichrist. I believe the 3.5 years, or 1260 days, refer to a time when Antichrist reigns supreme on earth, prior to the beginning of the path towards Armageddon."
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,210

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Really, so the writer of Hebrews got it wrong and Moses was wrong to think the instructions for the Tabernacle were literal?
    ...So God was speaking ONLY symbolically? Moses didn't really have to make it EXACTLY as God showed him?
    Don't think I can go along with you on that idea.
    No, I refer to the following...

    Heb 8.5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Let's consider your reasoning:
    1) Where does ANY NT theology prohibit a Temple being built? Further who says it is for Man to build?
    2) This vision was indeed received 14 years after the city and temple was destroyed, yet nowhere in this prophecy does it say it was written FOR the people of his own time, nor was it for HOW the Law should've worked. Ezekiel was taken somewhere and shown a BUILT Temple. Making assertions without scriptural support is a dangerous thing to do.
    3) Where in Ezekiel or elsewhere are we told that the Temple symbolises Christ or NT theological truth? Paul does the opposite and shows how as Christians we function as the Temple did, which some them argue means we have replaced the Temple. You can argue that the Temple on earth is a shadow of the Temple in heaven, but the heavenly Temple has not been destroyed nor passed away, and nor is it the Christian church.
    4) So you don't believe there will be a New Jerusalem? Further which building are you referring to that was built according to God's Word? Once the building was built then it was consecrated and this was a great event.

    None of the above points argue for Ezekiel's Temple to be symbolic.
    1) NT theology prohibits the use of an OT structure.
    2) Ezekiel's temple was never built in the OT era. It can never be built according to OT standards. Thus, it is symbolic.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Glad you agree, but then this leads to a problem for you as Jerusalem was literally trampled upon, which points to the Temple in rev 11 also literally being trampled upon, and yet you claim there is NO such temple which could be trampled.
    This is why I claim the Rev 11 is a symbolic temple, showing who, in Israel, truly worships God.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What is UNCLEAR? Are you arguing that the temple being trampled in Rev 11 was the event of Luke 21? I thought you have just agreed with my point above!?! perhaps what is unclear is your own understanding. The claim is quite simple and clear. Jerusalem was trampled, and in the same manner so the Temple in Rev 11 will be trampled, but not the inner court.
    As I've said, the temple in the Olivet Discourse was the literal building being trampled. The temple in Rev 11 is symbolic of the continuing trampling of the Jewish People.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    They ALL apply to your position.
    1) Who says we are saying the Temple in Rev 11 is Ezekiel's temple? You say it isn't, and I also do not claim it to be.
    2) Exactly, you do NOT believe the AC sits in a literal temple, this then is a problem for you as the temple in Rev 11 is stated as a literal temple - for it can be measured, has an inner and outer court, has worshippers measured separately to the dimensions of the structure. Actually God has a Temple in Heaven. We are told about it repeatedly in Revelation and this temple is NOT Christ and His church.
    Rev 11:19* Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
    Having actual measurements to a temple does not indicate it is a literal temple necessarily. This certainly applies when the temple is about to be built. But when the temple is not built, or is not intended to be built, but only provides a model for worship, then the details of the temple serve to show how the temple was to be literally used in worship. Every detail was part of the worship. As Jesus said, not one jot or tittle was to be sacrificed in proper observance of the Law.

    The temple in heaven is a place reserved as a meeting place between God and His people. It is our inheritance in God, as well as our existence on the earth. Since the barrier between God and Man has been destroyed, the temple in heaven does represent God together with His People, the Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, Rev 11 does NOT speak about a temple as symbolic of worshippers. Not in verse 1 nor in verse 19. Two temples mentioned, one on earth and the other in heaven.
    You seem to KNOW something from Ezekiel which Ezekiel did NOT know, nor was Ezekiel told. Amazing the things that people know without scriptural support for this knowledge.
    I do believe Rev 11 speaks of the temple as symbolic of true worship. I think Ezekiel's temple did the same thing. We also see that in Eze 9, where God marked Hebrew idolaters for destruction. The temple, and how Israel treated the temple, became the basis for judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As for the point about the temple being trampled. How long is the temple trampled from 70 AD? Luke records what Jesus said:
    Luk 21:24* They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.*

    So when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled THEN the trampling will cease.
    What constitutes the times of the Gentiles?
    There are two lines of thought:
    1) Israel being ruled over by Gentile nations (this has come to an end in 1967.)
    2) The gospel going out to the Gentile nations. This is soon to be accomplished (if it hasn't already).
    I've begun to see the gospel to the Gentiles as fulfilled in the Early Church, prior to 70 AD. It was a warning to the world of what would happen to Israel. If it happened to Israel, it will happen to all nations. The "end" was the end of Israel. It is also possible that the "end" refers to the end of the age.

    I don't see the end of the trampling as being anything short of Christ's 2nd Coming. The Jewish Salvation takes place at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    God did foretell that Cyrus would cause the Temple foundations to be laid.
    However it was not mentioned in prophesy that Zerubbabel would build it. Nor when it would be built or its dimensions.
    In fact Zerubbabel built it to different dimensions to Solomon. Herod built it differently again.
    I disagree. Haggai and Zechariah talk about Zerubabbel. The restored temple was a big deal, and much acclaimed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You can ONLY hold your pov IF you reject scripture, or IF you can show that any line of my reasoning is faulty. You have failed to do so. You haven't even engaged with the points. I'll repeat them so you have another chance:
    The ONLY scripture is that of prophecy and the prophetic mentions a Temple as a FACT, even though when revelation was written the Temple was GONE.
    As the Temple will NOT be built for the AC, but will be built BEFORE the AC comes to power so that claim can also be laid to rest.
    What IS stated is that the Inner court of the Temples is SAFE DURING the period of the 2W, something which is NOT true DURING the reign of the AC, therefore it is NOT needed to be directly stated.
    Already addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Where in Rev 13:7 does it say Europe?
    The Beast is, I believe, the 4th Beast of Daniel, which exists until the coming of Christ's Kingdom (ch. 7). And the 4th Beast is, I believe, Rome, which is in Europe. This Empire separates into a flimsy union of 10 states. This is Europe. Rome devolved into European states.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    There is NO woe mentioned in Rev 11 apart from this statement:
    Rev 11:14* The second woe has passed; behold, the third woe is soon to come.

    It is soon to come, which means ALL the events connected with the 7th Trumpet, which includes Rev 12 and 13.
    I see the 7th trumpet as being the end of the 7 trumpets vision. Rev 12 and 13 is yet another vision, covering similar territory, but different. The 7th trumpet takes us up to the end of the age, and to the beginning of Christ's Kingdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It will indeed be a time of woe for those who follow the AC, but the woe is for those who inhabit the earth as Rev 8 states and also Rev 12.

    It is almost insulting that you would claim I would conflate TWO prophesies about two different people. Where have I made mention of A4E? A bit of a wild claim.
    I may be basing my assertions on false premises is of course possible, but you are meant to see what of what I claim is such based upon the logic and scripture used. This you don;t seem able to do.

    Wow! Says the man who conflates Dan 4 with Dan 7. As the seals and trumpets are mentioned in connection with each other and the vials with the trumpets and as there are SPECIFIC differences so we KNOW they are NOT the SAME vision, so of course we keep them separate, but we also see the connected narrative between them.


    Good to have ideas and questions.
    For me it is simple according to the narrative.
    7th Trumpet is blown and Jesus is crowned King of Kings, and His forces cast Satan down to the earth.
    We then have the 42 months of the AC reign DURING which we have the 7 vials - note it is NOT UNTIL the AC reigns that people take the mark, and the 7 vials differentiates people according to whether they took the mark. In the Trumpets the differentiator is between those who have the seal of God or not.
    I think there is a big problem when we try to run the whole narrative along a time sequence. Revelation has a number of different visions, which relate, but must be kept separate to avoid confusion.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,954
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, I refer to the following...
    Heb 8.5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”
    Which therefore does NOT support your claim, but states the OPPOSITE.
    It shows that EVERY detail was to be followed because it was a copy (not symbol) of what is in heaven. IOW there was a REALITY to every dimension given, yet you make out that there is NO reality. The OPPOSITE is being given as the TRUTH.
    I don;t think I need go on as this ALONE proves you wrong.

    1) NT theology prohibits the use of an OT structure.
    2) Ezekiel's temple was never built in the OT era. It can never be built according to OT standards. Thus, it is symbolic.
    1) There is NO NT theology prohibiting such. As Acts PROVES the disciples USED the OT structure and even made sacrifices and offerings there.
    2) As Ezekiel was shown something which WAS built, for he was told to measure it, unlike Noah who was given directions fro how to build something, or Solomon who was given directions by David, so your claim about it being built is wrong. What I assume you mean is that it has NEVER been seen on earth as Ezekiel saw it in the vision. However what do you mean by "built according to OT standards". Seems to be a new phrase you are coming up with.

    This is why I claim the Rev 11 is a symbolic temple, showing who, in Israel, truly worships God.
    So you are claiming it is symbolic because there presently is no such temple EVEN THOUGH the example is of what WAS real, and the ENTIRE direction is of what is real.

    As I've said, the temple in the Olivet Discourse was the literal building being trampled. The temple in Rev 11 is symbolic of the continuing trampling of the Jewish People.
    Sorry, but symbolically this does NOT fit. What does the measurement of the building signify? And what the worshippers? What does the outer court symbolise and that of the inner? Remember your "symbolic" interpretation MUST fit facts that we know.

    Having actual measurements to a temple does not indicate it is a literal temple necessarily. This certainly applies when the temple is about to be built. But when the temple is not built, or is not intended to be built, but only provides a model for worship, then the details of the temple serve to show how the temple was to be literally used in worship. Every detail was part of the worship. As Jesus said, not one jot or tittle was to be sacrificed in proper observance of the Law.

    The temple in heaven is a place reserved as a meeting place between God and His people. It is our inheritance in God, as well as our existence on the earth. Since the barrier between God and Man has been destroyed, the temple in heaven does represent God together with His People, the Church.
    Really, and on what scripture do you place such a claim? Further what purpose is there in God giving so much time and detail to a non-existent and never to exist temple?
    If no jot or tittle is to be sacrificed, then what doe these chapters (full of such things) signify in DETAIL!

    How do people meet God in His Temple in Heaven? There was no way prior to Jesus' death.

    I do believe Rev 11 speaks of the temple as symbolic of true worship. I think Ezekiel's temple did the same thing. We also see that in Eze 9, where God marked Hebrew idolaters for destruction. The temple, and how Israel treated the temple, became the basis for judgment.
    A very confused and blanket claim with no detail. You have God getting Ezekiel to make a lot of measurements to simply say, this is symbolic of true worship.
    And how can Rev 11 be true worship when part of the temple is being trampled AND the worshippers themselves are measured SEPARATELY to the temple!

    I've begun to see the gospel to the Gentiles as fulfilled in the Early Church, prior to 70 AD. It was a warning to the world of what would happen to Israel. If it happened to Israel, it will happen to all nations. The "end" was the end of Israel. It is also possible that the "end" refers to the end of the age.

    I don't see the end of the trampling as being anything short of Christ's 2nd Coming. The Jewish Salvation takes place at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom.
    I know others who hold a similar idea. I won't debate the ins and outs of that particular point now.
    However the trampling of Jerusalem is NOT connected with Jesus' return. It is EXPLICITLY stated as the time of the Gentiles being fulfilled. It is TOO late for the Jews to have their salvation AFTER Jesus returns, and Rev 12 speaks against that idea also.

    I disagree. Haggai and Zechariah talk about Zerubabbel. The restored temple was a big deal, and much acclaimed.
    I know you disagree, but Haggai and Zechariah only spoke about Zerubabbel AFTER he had already built the foundation and AFTER the altar was in place and AFTER sacrifices were being made.
    They encouraged him to finish what he had started. Note this was in the second year of Darius (for Haggai), and later for Zechariah.
    Ezr 6:14* And the elders of the Jews built and prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by decree of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia;*
    Ezr 6:15* and this house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

    So we read that the prophets encouraged him to finish what was started.

    I see the 7th trumpet as being the end of the 7 trumpets vision. Rev 12 and 13 is yet another vision, covering similar territory, but different. The 7th trumpet takes us up to the end of the age, and to the beginning of Christ's Kingdom.
    What confuses you is that you read the word "Now" and so take it to mean "instantaneously."

    I think there is a big problem when we try to run the whole narrative along a time sequence. Revelation has a number of different visions, which relate, but must be kept separate to avoid confusion.
    There is NO problem when we run it along a time line - especially one given IN Revelation.
    In fact we get a BIGGER problem when we ignore the time line, because then we are left without a key as to where to put the pieces of the visions together.
    They relate and when we understand HOW they relate we have LESS confusion, not more.
    Where visions are connected so we must connect them.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,210

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Which therefore does NOT support your claim, but states the OPPOSITE.
    It shows that EVERY detail was to be followed because it was a copy (not symbol) of what is in heaven. IOW there was a REALITY to every dimension given, yet you make out that there is NO reality. The OPPOSITE is being given as the TRUTH.
    I don;t think I need go on as this ALONE proves you wrong.
    You've turned this into an argument as to whether I believe the temple was a concrete reality? Nice try. What I said was that the temple in the OT, though real, was symbolic of heavenly truths. In the same way, Rev 11 utilizes the temple to express those same spiritual truths.

    However, the difference is, the Rev 11 temple is no longer a concrete reality. The temple is no longer a concrete reality, but it can still be used in a vision of what it had always symbolized in heaven.

    It would be like seeing a vision of Isaac about to be offered up by Abraham to God. Though Isaac no longer lives on earth, ie he is not a "concrete reality" here, he can still be used, in a vision or otherwise, to express, symbolically, the death of Christ. Isaac has always symbolized the death of Christ. And this is true, whether in the time of Isaac or after Isaac passed away.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    1) There is NO NT theology prohibiting such. As Acts PROVES the disciples USED the OT structure and even made sacrifices and offerings there.
    2) As Ezekiel was shown something which WAS built, for he was told to measure it, unlike Noah who was given directions fro how to build something, or Solomon who was given directions by David, so your claim about it being built is wrong. What I assume you mean is that it has NEVER been seen on earth as Ezekiel saw it in the vision. However what do you mean by "built according to OT standards". Seems to be a new phrase you are coming up with.
    No, lots of people would agree with me, and have agreed with me. We are in the NT, and an OT temple cannot, for that reason, be built.

    There is, in fact, NT theology that prohibits OT realities. In fact, Paul castigated those who tried to bring back OT Jewish realities that no longer applied.

    Of course, Paul recognized the ignorance that was still in Israel, and knew that God did not wish to destroy people in their ignorance. For that reason, Paul argued that Christian Jews should maintain a semblance of respect for Jewish culture and laws while they were in Israel or among the Jewish People. This respect enabled Christians to show the spiritual life in them, without prejudicing the Jews against them as "adversaries."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So you are claiming it is symbolic because there presently is no such temple EVEN THOUGH the example is of what WAS real, and the ENTIRE direction is of what is real.
    I'm arguing that 1) NT theology prohibits construction of an OT temple, and 2) the verbiage associated with the Rev 11 temple focuses on maintaining purity of worship, rather than on constructing a building.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry, but symbolically this does NOT fit. What does the measurement of the building signify? And what the worshippers? What does the outer court symbolise and that of the inner? Remember your "symbolic" interpretation MUST fit facts that we know.
    I have been taught on the Tabernacle for decades. And I've had lots of instruction on how the details of the temple construction represents, symbolically, our Christian worship. Every detail, including the size of the doorways, and the height of walls, is significant. For example, some really go to extremes, measuring the square footage of the areas within the temple, indicating they signify definite time periods! Whatever they signify, the details are important, and signify something with respect to Christianity, and not just for their own time.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Really, and on what scripture do you place such a claim? Further what purpose is there in God giving so much time and detail to a non-existent and never to exist temple?
    If no jot or tittle is to be sacrificed, then what doe these chapters (full of such things) signify in DETAIL!

    How do people meet God in His Temple in Heaven? There was no way prior to Jesus' death.
    Heaven represents, to me, a kind of veil over the recognition of God's omnipresence. We are unable to see Him, physically. And yet, the veil in the temple came down, enabling us to have contact with God without any further need of atonement rituals.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A very confused and blanket claim with no detail. You have God getting Ezekiel to make a lot of measurements to simply say, this is symbolic of true worship.
    And how can Rev 11 be true worship when part of the temple is being trampled AND the worshippers themselves are measured SEPARATELY to the temple!
    My point is that in Eze 9 we have true worshipers noted, as distinct from false worshipers. And it all takes place surrounding temple worship. And so, in Rev 11, a temple no longer existent, but still representative of true worship, is used in a vision to show how Israel is still being "trampled" by pagan Gentiles, while true worshipers continue to exist in the Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I know others who hold a similar idea. I won't debate the ins and outs of that particular point now.
    However the trampling of Jerusalem is NOT connected with Jesus' return. It is EXPLICITLY stated as the time of the Gentiles being fulfilled. It is TOO late for the Jews to have their salvation AFTER Jesus returns, and Rev 12 speaks against that idea also.
    Obviously, I disagree. It won't be too late for people to be saved in the Millennium. That is when, I believe, the Age to Come will begin for Israel. That is when their Messianic Hope will be realized.

    However, for those in the present age who are given witness to the truth, it will, in fact, be too late for them. They will be judged for what they know *now.*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I know you disagree, but Haggai and Zechariah only spoke about Zerubabbel AFTER he had already built the foundation and AFTER the altar was in place and AFTER sacrifices were being made.
    They encouraged him to finish what he had started. Note this was in the second year of Darius (for Haggai), and later for Zechariah.
    Ezr 6:14* And the elders of the Jews built and prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by decree of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia;*
    Ezr 6:15* and this house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

    So we read that the prophets encouraged him to finish what was started.
    We are not on the same track here. I thought you indicated Zerubbabel was not referenced in prophecy. That's all.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What confuses you is that you read the word "Now" and so take it to mean "instantaneously."
    The meaning of words is determined *by their context.* When the Kingdom is actually arriving, then "now" means "instantaneously."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    There is NO problem when we run it along a time line - especially one given IN Revelation.
    In fact we get a BIGGER problem when we ignore the time line, because then we are left without a key as to where to put the pieces of the visions together.
    They relate and when we understand HOW they relate we have LESS confusion, not more.
    Where visions are connected so we must connect them.
    The visions are connected via a single narrative, and not by a time line. Instead, we have a series of separate visions, all of them adding truths about a single set of events. To impose a time line between separate visions is confusing them, in my view.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,954
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You've turned this into an argument as to whether I believe the temple was a concrete reality? Nice try. What I said was that the temple in the OT, though real, was symbolic of heavenly truths. In the same way, Rev 11 utilizes the temple to express those same spiritual truths.

    However, the difference is, the Rev 11 temple is no longer a concrete reality. The temple is no longer a concrete reality, but it can still be used in a vision of what it had always symbolized in heaven.

    It would be like seeing a vision of Isaac about to be offered up by Abraham to God. Though Isaac no longer lives on earth, ie he is not a "concrete reality" here, he can still be used, in a vision or otherwise, to express, symbolically, the death of Christ. Isaac has always symbolized the death of Christ. And this is true, whether in the time of Isaac or after Isaac passed away.
    How does a symbolic temple somehow express a DIFFERENT symbolic temple? That is a bit of logic that is really

    The Rev 11 temple has NEVER been a concrete reality (or even a stone and wood reality). However John is told to deal with it AS A real physical temple whihc can be measured physically as well as being measured in the number of worshippers. It is therefore a vision of something yet to be, or else it becomes meaningless.
    It makes no sense for it to symbolise what is in heaven because John was IN Heaven and could see the ACTUAL temple IN Heaven. So why would he need a symbol pf something he could see? Again really poor logic being expressed here.

    Your example also does not fit EXCEPT to show that the temple in Rev 11 is a REAL temple that will be in the future. Isaac after all WAS a real person. He really was offered up to God by Abraham as a sacrifice. IOW for a SYMBOL to have any meaning it MUST speak of a REAL thing, but you have a symbol symbolising something else which some even take to be a symbol in the first place.

    No, lots of people would agree with me, and have agreed with me. We are in the NT, and an OT temple cannot, for that reason, be built.
    Are you going back to arguing based on the number of people who agree? A lot of Catholics agree that Mary ascended to heaven. Doesn't make the view correct.
    There are TWO holes in your argument at least:
    1) You hold the view that the OC has ended - a debate for another thread, though I think we could it sufficiently in a previous one.
    2) That this temple cannot be an NT temple.

    There is, in fact, NT theology that prohibits OT realities. In fact, Paul castigated those who tried to bring back OT Jewish realities that no longer applied.
    You need to pay attention to what Paul actually taught and what Paul ACTUALLY did. Paul went to the "OT" Temple to worship and to purify himself along with 4 others. Nowhere does NT theology PROHIBIT OT theology. In fact NT Theology is BASED entirely on the TRUTH of OT Theology.

    Of course, Paul recognized the ignorance that was still in Israel, and knew that God did not wish to destroy people in their ignorance. For that reason, Paul argued that Christian Jews should maintain a semblance of respect for Jewish culture and laws while they were in Israel or among the Jewish People. This respect enabled Christians to show the spiritual life in them, without prejudicing the Jews against them as "adversaries."
    A false respect...
    Further you didn't deal with point 2 at all.

    I'm arguing that 1) NT theology prohibits construction of an OT temple, and 2) the verbiage associated with the Rev 11 temple focuses on maintaining purity of worship, rather than on constructing a building.
    1) You haven't provided a single scripture which says this, even though I am not even arguing it will be an OT Temple.
    2) Rev 11 makes NO mention of purity of worship. It says MEASURE the building AND the worshippers that are WITHIN the inner court.

    I have been taught on the Tabernacle for decades. And I've had lots of instruction on how the details of the temple construction represents, symbolically, our Christian worship. Every detail, including the size of the doorways, and the height of walls, is significant. For example, some really go to extremes, measuring the square footage of the areas within the temple, indicating they signify definite time periods! Whatever they signify, the details are important, and signify something with respect to Christianity, and not just for their own time.
    So you can share some of that wisdom? You seem to have been taught a load of rubbish, but may be I am being unfair. Could you explain this verse please:?
    Eze 42:3* Facing the twenty cubits that belonged to the inner court, and facing the pavement that belonged to the outer court, was gallery against gallery in three stories.

    How does that verse specifically explain our Christian worship? You seem to be arguing that you have NO idea what those specific details signify, NOR have you been given an explanation for them which you actually hold to yourself. So which time period does that verse speak about, and how can we know this?
    You see to make it a symbol EITHER means it makes the detail irrelevant, OR it makes the details unknowable and any view about them entirely speculation.
    However accept it as a REAL PHYSICAL temple and then it becomes a lot clearer as dimensions which we will see.

    Heaven represents, to me, a kind of veil over the recognition of God's omnipresence. We are unable to see Him, physically. And yet, the veil in the temple came down, enabling us to have contact with God without any further need of atonement rituals.
    So heaven is now down?

    My point is that in Eze 9 we have true worshipers noted, as distinct from false worshipers. And it all takes place surrounding temple worship. And so, in Rev 11, a temple no longer existent, but still representative of true worship, is used in a vision to show how Israel is still being "trampled" by pagan Gentiles, while true worshipers continue to exist in the Church.
    Huh? A no longer existent temple is showing Israel being trampled even though the heart of Israel (the temple) is NOT being trampled. Not sure how you get to that conclusion. And yet the worshippers are separate to the temple.

    Obviously, I disagree. It won't be too late for people to be saved in the Millennium. That is when, I believe, the Age to Come will begin for Israel. That is when their Messianic Hope will be realized.
    However, for those in the present age who are given witness to the truth, it will, in fact, be too late for them. They will be judged for what they know *now.*
    I am sure you are NOT disagreeing with EXPLICIT scripture which states EXACTLY when the trampling of Jerusalem ends.
    I didn't say no one in the nations can be saved, but for Israel this is the defining time.
    The Age to come is NOT for Israel, except for an Israel with Jesus ruling as King over it from the New Jerusalem, just as Isaiah 65 & 66 states.
    Will there be any Jews left alive after the GT? I suppose it may be possible, though scripture ONLY has living Jews (who have fled into the wilderness, and so become His DURING that time, or before), and those who are dead, killed by the AC.

    We are not on the same track here. I thought you indicated Zerubbabel was not referenced in prophecy. That's all.
    You were arguing that in order for the temple to be built (and rebuilt) required a specific prophecy for it to happen.
    I highlighted how this was not the case for Solomon's temple, nor for Zerubbabel's temple (except in general terms of restoration), nor for the temple that Herod built, which Jesus called His Father's house. This means your argument for their not to be another temple built due to a supposed requirement for a prophecy for there to be one is empty.
    Further there are prophecies of restoration of Jerusalem WITH a temple in it, along with the need for an end to the trampling (which also speaks of a temple being built), and Rev 11.

    The meaning of words is determined *by their context.* When the Kingdom is actually arriving, then "now" means "instantaneously."
    Words have meanings (plural), which everyone accepts is there normal meaning. We then get to the CONTEXT and can determine IF the CONTEXT clarifies a SPECIFIC meaning.
    The word "now" does NOT mean "instantaneously" as you claim, from WITHIN the CONTEXT, nor does it from a wider CONTEXT. So your claim is empty.

    The visions are connected via a single narrative, and not by a time line. Instead, we have a series of separate visions, all of them adding truths about a single set of events. To impose a time line between separate visions is confusing them, in my view.
    The visions are connected in multiple ways. There is a time line as well as a narrative. There are connections between parts of the vision. It is NOT confusing to add a time line, which brings much needed clarity, ESPECIALLY as John gives us a framework to use.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,210

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    How does a symbolic temple somehow express a DIFFERENT symbolic temple? That is a bit of logic that is really
    The concrete reality of the OT temple is used, in a NT vision, to express NT truths that fulfil the symbolism of the OT temple. We know the OT temple was modeled after a NT reality, and thus was symbolic of something not concrete in the earthly sense. That same temple can be used in the NT period for the same purpose, to express NT realities.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The Rev 11 temple has NEVER been a concrete reality (or even a stone and wood reality). However John is told to deal with it AS A real physical temple whihc can be measured physically as well as being measured in the number of worshippers. It is therefore a vision of something yet to be, or else it becomes meaningless.
    Measuring something does *not* make it a concrete reality. The OT temple was also measured, and yet represented a heavenly temple, which is not a concrete reality in the earthly sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It makes no sense for it to symbolise what is in heaven because John was IN Heaven and could see the ACTUAL temple IN Heaven. So why would he need a symbol pf something he could see? Again really poor logic being expressed here.
    NT realities fulfil OT symbols. Although we know that as Christians we still see poorly. Even John had trouble seeing clearly. The angels helped him. The book of Revelation is not an easy book to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Your example also does not fit EXCEPT to show that the temple in Rev 11 is a REAL temple that will be in the future. Isaac after all WAS a real person. He really was offered up to God by Abraham as a sacrifice. IOW for a SYMBOL to have any meaning it MUST speak of a REAL thing, but you have a symbol symbolising something else which some even take to be a symbol in the first place.
    Yes, both Isaac and the temple were concrete realities. And yet they both expressed, symbolically, Christ as a heavenly reality. Both images can still be used, in the NT, even though they were concrete realities in the OT era, and represented something completely different in the NT era.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Are you going back to arguing based on the number of people who agree? A lot of Catholics agree that Mary ascended to heaven. Doesn't make the view correct.
    I refer to many agreeing with me to dignify my positions as not the product of a puffed up narcissist. When you or others attack me as "stupid" or "incompetent," I remind you and them that you are calling *all who hold to my position* stupid or incompetent. These positions should be treated with dignity, if indeed they are positions held by many qualified Christian scholars.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    There are TWO holes in your argument at least:
    1) You hold the view that the OC has ended - a debate for another thread, though I think we could it sufficiently in a previous one.
    2) That this temple cannot be an NT temple.
    I don't see the "holes?" My statement is that a temple depicting an OT temple cannot be a reality in the NT era. That is a truism and not illogical at all! It would have to be a vision, and not a concrete reality. God does not honor OT truth anymore. That covenant has lapsed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You need to pay attention to what Paul actually taught and what Paul ACTUALLY did. Paul went to the "OT" Temple to worship and to purify himself along with 4 others. Nowhere does NT theology PROHIBIT OT theology. In fact NT Theology is BASED entirely on the TRUTH of OT Theology.
    My position is that Paul did these things not to dignify OT worship as still legitimate, but rather, to utilize harmless modes of worship to not antagonize the Jews for purposes of evangelism. When it came to expressing OT worship in a Christian sense Paul made it clear that Christians were *not* to accept it as the legal basis for worship, but rather, as a harmless mode of worship, when trying to evangelize the Jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A false respect...
    Further you didn't deal with point 2 at all.

    1) You haven't provided a single scripture which says this, even though I am not even arguing it will be an OT Temple.
    2) Rev 11 makes NO mention of purity of worship. It says MEASURE the building AND the worshippers that are WITHIN the inner court.
    The fact true worshipers are being measured at an OT temple in Rev 11 indicates this is symbolic of Christian worshipers in Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So you can share some of that wisdom? You seem to have been taught a load of rubbish, but may be I am being unfair. Could you explain this verse please:?
    Eze 42:3* Facing the twenty cubits that belonged to the inner court, and facing the pavement that belonged to the outer court, was gallery against gallery in three stories.
    It all could be explained, given enough time and interest. The concrete form of the OT temple was designed to separate God from Israel, while still allowing them some limited access to Him. The height of the wall prevented normal views into the temple complex. The doors limited mass entry into the temple complex, indicating that access to God comes by individual faith, and not by race.

    There are many such views, which express Christian faith. Christ, of course, broke down the walls of this legal separation between God and Israel. The NT, in depicting the OT temple in symbolic fashion, would never reintroduce a division between God and His people. But there is still a separation between God and pagans.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    How does that verse specifically explain our Christian worship? You seem to be arguing that you have NO idea what those specific details signify, NOR have you been given an explanation for them which you actually hold to yourself. So which time period does that verse speak about, and how can we know this?
    You see to make it a symbol EITHER means it makes the detail irrelevant, OR it makes the details unknowable and any view about them entirely speculation.
    However accept it as a REAL PHYSICAL temple and then it becomes a lot clearer as dimensions which we will see.
    You have no idea how much I know about the temple and the tabernacle. I know quite a bit, and it isn't that mystical. The separation introduced by the temple structure has been brought down by Christ. Those who enter into Christ have no more separation between God and themselves. Those who do not enter into Christ still have a separation. But God does not use, any longer, an OT structure, which would indicate He still validates separation between Himself and His people. It would be purely used, in the NT era, for symbolic purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So heaven is now down?
    Jesus already came down to earth. He already sent his Spirit down. And eventually, the New Jerusalem will come down to earth. The Kingdom of God is near to the earth, but it is not yet here. The veil has come down. But we still see dimly.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Huh? A no longer existent temple is showing Israel being trampled even though the heart of Israel (the temple) is NOT being trampled. Not sure how you get to that conclusion. And yet the worshippers are separate to the temple.
    If you're going to use my arguments, you have to represent them properly. I do *not* admit to a concrete OT temple in the NT era! It was trampled, along with Israel, and it remains trampled. The temple has been demolished forever, whereas Israel will be restored, after Christ returns.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am sure you are NOT disagreeing with EXPLICIT scripture which states EXACTLY when the trampling of Jerusalem ends.
    The trampling of Israel ends at the return of Christ, when "the times of the Gentiles come to an end."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I didn't say no one in the nations can be saved, but for Israel this is the defining time.
    The Age to come is NOT for Israel, except for an Israel with Jesus ruling as King over it from the New Jerusalem, just as Isaiah 65 & 66 states.
    I don't understand this statement. The Age to Come is plainly for Israel, since the genesis of this term is from the OT era. It has everything to do with Israel's Future Hope.

    But I agree that Israel will be Christianized after Christ returns. Those who resist this change will be judged.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Will there be any Jews left alive after the GT? I suppose it may be possible, though scripture ONLY has living Jews (who have fled into the wilderness, and so become His DURING that time, or before), and those who are dead, killed by the AC.
    I don't understand. You think *all Jews* who flee into the "wilderness" will be killed by the AC? Personally, I believe Jews are awakened, spiritually, at the return of Christ. This fulfills Zech 13.1.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You were arguing that in order for the temple to be built (and rebuilt) required a specific prophecy for it to happen.
    I highlighted how this was not the case for Solomon's temple, nor for Zerubbabel's temple (except in general terms of restoration), nor for the temple that Herod built, which Jesus called His Father's house. This means your argument for their not to be another temple built due to a supposed requirement for a prophecy for there to be one is empty.
    Further there are prophecies of restoration of Jerusalem WITH a temple in it, along with the need for an end to the trampling (which also speaks of a temple being built), and Rev 11.
    There are a few vague OT prophecies referring to a future restoration of the temple, yes. But inasmuch as they play a much-diminished role, in the larger picture, I feel they are purely symbolic of Israel's full restoration, in a NT sense.

    I disagree with you. There are strong prophecies about the building of the tabernacle, the building of Solomon's temple, and the rebuilding of the temple after the captivities--all the way until the Roman destruction of the temple in the era of Messiah.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Words have meanings (plural), which everyone accepts is there normal meaning. We then get to the CONTEXT and can determine IF the CONTEXT clarifies a SPECIFIC meaning.
    The word "now" does NOT mean "instantaneously" as you claim, from WITHIN the CONTEXT, nor does it from a wider CONTEXT. So your claim is empty.

    The visions are connected in multiple ways. There is a time line as well as a narrative. There are connections between parts of the vision. It is NOT confusing to add a time line, which brings much needed clarity, ESPECIALLY as John gives us a framework to use.
    If we have 3 or 4 separate visions within a single narrative, all depicting the same return of Christ, then it would be confusing to construct a single time line between all of the visions! The 7 seals vision depicts the return of Christ, even as the 6th seal is opened. The 7 trumpets depicts the return of Christ as the 3rd Woe, which is portrayed in the 7th trumpet. The return of Christ is portrayed at Armageddon in the 6th vial. If we place these 3 visions in chronological order, we will have Christ returning 3 separate times! And that would be false.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. As A Thief In The Night, The Real Meaning
    By DavePeace in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Nov 27th 2018, 04:40 PM
  2. as a thief in the night
    By Caleb in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: Jan 11th 2011, 12:25 PM
  3. Thief at our church last night..
    By moonglow in forum Christian Fellowship
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Nov 22nd 2010, 08:19 PM
  4. As a thief in the night
    By markedward in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: Jul 18th 2009, 06:34 AM
  5. a thief in the night
    By markedward in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: Feb 17th 2009, 08:55 PM

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
  •