Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 250

Thread: Like a Thief in the Night

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,978
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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.
    You hoist yourself on your own reasoning - the CONCRETE REALITY....
    The point is that when John wrote these words there was NO concrete (or stone) reality, for that temple was gone. So people who hold your view are then forced to claim that Revelation was written BEFORE the temple was destroyed. John wrote this as a REAL temple being in existence. Without a REAL temple then the statements are MEANINGLESS.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    You hoist yourself on your own reasoning - the CONCRETE REALITY....
    The point is that when John wrote these words there was NO concrete (or stone) reality, for that temple was gone. So people who hold your view are then forced to claim that Revelation was written BEFORE the temple was destroyed. John wrote this as a REAL temple being in existence. Without a REAL temple then the statements are MEANINGLESS.
    Not at all. I believe Revelation took place *after* the temple had been destroyed and was no longer a concrete reality. Reference to the temple, therefore, was a vision of what *used to be* a concrete reality. It is a portrait of the OT temple, and was used as an illustration of what *used to be* genuine worship under the Law.

    And so, in my view, the temple worship in Rev 11 displays true worshippers in the NT period who like their counterparts in the OT observed the Law of God meticulously. That's why it was measured, to ensure that worship was being done in exact accord with God's law.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,978
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Not at all. I believe Revelation took place *after* the temple had been destroyed and was no longer a concrete reality. Reference to the temple, therefore, was a vision of what *used to be* a concrete reality. It is a portrait of the OT temple, and was used as an illustration of what *used to be* genuine worship under the Law.

    And so, in my view, the temple worship in Rev 11 displays true worshippers in the NT period who like their counterparts in the OT observed the Law of God meticulously. That's why it was measured, to ensure that worship was being done in exact accord with God's law.
    Wow. So if the temple is gone and John is writing to churches in Gentile lands, WHY is he using OT imagery of something you claim is past? It is meaningless.
    Additionally Rev 11 makes a DISTINCTION between the worshippers and the building, yet you make NO allowance or explanation as to why this is.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Wow. So if the temple is gone and John is writing to churches in Gentile lands, WHY is he using OT imagery of something you claim is past? It is meaningless.
    Additionally Rev 11 makes a DISTINCTION between the worshippers and the building, yet you make NO allowance or explanation as to why this is.
    The distinction between the worshippers and the building is to portray the relationship that existed, in the OT era, between worshippers and their meticulous observance of temple law. Only those who devoted themselves, meticulously, to the observance of God's Law were considered faithful in God's sight. It is no different in the NT era. Only those who devote themselves, meticulously, to the righteousness of Christ are considered faithful in God's sight.

    The reason OT symbolism is used in the Revelation is because it was written not longer after the era of OT Law had passed. It was still the Christian Bible, and served to show aspects of Christ's ministry that are important to the Christian. We are to devote ourselves, meticulously, to the righteousness of Christ. This is aptly demonstrated in the temple law, where attention was paid, with great sobriety, to the importance of Christ's atonement, as well as to the importance of his righteousness.

    Throughout the book of Revelation we are given OT symbols of the temple, which we know are no longer concrete realities on the earth. We are told about the altar, the ark, and here, the temple. They represent the works of Christ in atoning for our sins, and in transmitting to us his spiritual righteousness.

    The overrunning of the Outer Court, in this vision, is a throwback to Christ's prediction that the temple would be destroyed by the pagan Gentiles. And John is here reasserting that truth, that the pagan Gentiles would continue to overrun Israel's national life and OT worship.

    However, the temple now represents, in the NT era, a new kind of worship that cannot be overrun by pagan Gentiles. This temple is our heavenly worship, I believe. It is now safeguarded by Christ in heaven, who rules over all authority. This is not spelled out here. But I believe it has to be assumed, theologically.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,978
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The distinction between the worshippers and the building is to portray the relationship that existed, in the OT era, between worshippers and their meticulous observance of temple law. Only those who devoted themselves, meticulously, to the observance of God's Law were considered faithful in God's sight. It is no different in the NT era. Only those who devote themselves, meticulously, to the righteousness of Christ are considered faithful in God's sight.
    Wow!
    So John is teaching the future state by saying we need to be diligent to keeping the Law?
    I can't believe you are writing this!
    Also NOWHERE in Rev 11 does it even hint at the rubbish you are suggesting.
    It is NOT a vision giving some bizarre teaching of NT righteousness, but a statement of what John is told to measure because that is what he is shown, and it is stated in relation to the 2W.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Wow!
    So John is teaching the future state by saying we need to be diligent to keeping the Law?
    I can't believe you are writing this!
    Also NOWHERE in Rev 11 does it even hint at the rubbish you are suggesting.
    It is NOT a vision giving some bizarre teaching of NT righteousness, but a statement of what John is told to measure because that is what he is shown, and it is stated in relation to the 2W.
    I'm not sure what you're arguing against, because you're arguing against things I didn't say? I never said Christians are told to keep the Law of Moses! But of course as Christians we still keep the Law of Christ! Do you think we obey no laws at all?

    As I said, NT theology prevents us from reasserting a concrete temple because the OT Law is passé. Revelation is utilizing OT symbolism to express how it has been fulfilled in Christ. It depicts Israel's worship at the temple to show that as there had been true worshipers in Israel during the OT period, so also there will continue to be a remnant of Christian believers in Israel in the NT era.

    Do you ever get tired of calling the views of your opponents "rubbish?"

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,978
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not sure what you're arguing against, because you're arguing against things I didn't say? I never said Christians are told to keep the Law of Moses! But of course as Christians we still keep the Law of Christ! Do you think we obey no laws at all?
    Wow, so you ARE under the Law. You simply substitute one for the other.

    As I said, NT theology prevents us from reasserting a concrete temple because the OT Law is passé. Revelation is utilizing OT symbolism to express how it has been fulfilled in Christ. It depicts Israel's worship at the temple to show that as there had been true worshipers in Israel during the OT period, so also there will continue to be a remnant of Christian believers in Israel in the NT era.
    Why do you continue to assert something without any scripture to support it?

    Do you ever get tired of calling the views of your opponents "rubbish?"
    Not really as rubbish is simply rubbish.
    However when your views are not rubbish then I won't call them that.
    Not everything you put is rubbish, but naturally you pick up on the ones which are highlighted as being so.
    It is COMPLETE rubbish to claim that John would even consider using OT symbolism of something which is ALREADY past and gone and meaningless for his audience. Was John writing to the Jews? Nope. Would any of these people even have been to the Temple?

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Wow, so you ARE under the Law. You simply substitute one for the other.


    Why do you continue to assert something without any scripture to support it?


    Not really as rubbish is simply rubbish.
    However when your views are not rubbish then I won't call them that.
    Not everything you put is rubbish, but naturally you pick up on the ones which are highlighted as being so.
    It is COMPLETE rubbish to claim that John would even consider using OT symbolism of something which is ALREADY past and gone and meaningless for his audience. Was John writing to the Jews? Nope. Would any of these people even have been to the Temple?
    Of course John was writing to Jews--he was writing to Jewish believers. All of the 12 Apostles were told by Jesus to preach the Gospel, beginning in Jerusalem. That was among the Jews. And the early Christian Bible, of both Jews and Gentiles, had to be the OT Bible. They all utilized OT symbols to understand NT truth. Serving the Law of Christ is not the same as serving the Law of Moses.

    Calling of views of others rubbish will not accomplish anything for you. I suggest you take seriously the thoughts of others--even if they sound silly to you.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,978
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Of course John was writing to Jews--he was writing to Jewish believers. All of the 12 Apostles were told by Jesus to preach the Gospel, beginning in Jerusalem. That was among the Jews. And the early Christian Bible, of both Jews and Gentiles, had to be the OT Bible. They all utilized OT symbols to understand NT truth. Serving the Law of Christ is not the same as serving the Law of Moses.
    Actually when John wrote Revelation he was NOT writing to the Jews. He was writing to seven GENTILE churches. Now it can be argued there were also some Jews in those congregations, and more importantly it should be accepted that there is a HUGE amount of OT imagery in revelation, which therefore requires Gentiles to dig into the OT and get an understanding of it.
    However John was NOT deliberately obscuring things, nor was he worried about what the Romans might think. It is called Revelation, because it is meant to reveal things.
    Utilising a OT temple, which had been destroyed 20 years ago, and then describing it as if it was around in place of describing the church as it was is simply a nonsense argument.

    Calling of views of others rubbish will not accomplish anything for you. I suggest you take seriously the thoughts of others--even if they sound silly to you.
    Not calling a particular view, which IS rubbish, something else also leads nowhere.
    I do take the thoughts of others seriously, but when something is patently rubbish then it does NOT deserve the same attention as something which is not.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually when John wrote Revelation he was NOT writing to the Jews. He was writing to seven GENTILE churches.
    John wrote to both Jews and Gentiles, because he was called, as one of the 12, to preach the gospel to *all nations.* Clearly, he began his ministry in Israel, among the Jews. Who specifically he wrote to, as far as local churches go, does not diminish this fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now it can be argued there were also some Jews in those congregations, and more importantly it should be accepted that there is a HUGE amount of OT imagery in revelation, which therefore requires Gentiles to dig into the OT and get an understanding of it.
    Not only may it be argued, but I *am* arguing it!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However John was NOT deliberately obscuring things, nor was he worried about what the Romans might think. It is called Revelation, because it is meant to reveal things.
    Saying God means to *reveal things* does not mean that God does not at the same time obscure things. Clearly, God came to reveal Jesus to the world as Messiah. And yet Jesus often did not disclose information about himself, and cloaked his sayings in parables.

    The book of Revelation was clearly given symbolism, just as Jesus' parables were. Christians are told to be wise among serpents, and to exercise caution in our walk in an ungodly world.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Utilising a OT temple, which had been destroyed 20 years ago, and then describing it as if it was around in place of describing the church as it was is simply a nonsense argument.
    That is your thoughtless characterization. And I understand it is your opinion. But it is thoughtless because it not only advances no argument, but it erects a further barrier.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not calling a particular view, which IS rubbish, something else also leads nowhere.
    I do take the thoughts of others seriously, but when something is patently rubbish then it does NOT deserve the same attention as something which is not.
    You seem to not know the difference between truth and love.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,978
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    John wrote to both Jews and Gentiles, because he was called, as one of the 12, to preach the gospel to *all nations.* Clearly, he began his ministry in Israel, among the Jews. Who specifically he wrote to, as far as local churches go, does not diminish this fact.
    Who he was writing to is EXPLICITLY stated in Revelation. Just as when Paul wrote to the Galatians he was writing SPECIFICALLY for them:
    Gal 1:1* Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—*
    Gal 1:2* and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

    The point being that the things written are SPECIFICALLY for them even though anyone else can also learn from them.

    Not only may it be argued, but I *am* arguing it!
    You are actually arguing that the FOCUS is for the Jew, but it is NOT. The FOCUS in revelation is for the WHOLE WORLD. The Jews get a small part in Rev 12 and that is about it. Just as Daniel 9 is SPECIFICALLY for the Jew, and for the Gentile it is only a tiny part.

    Saying God means to *reveal things* does not mean that God does not at the same time obscure things. Clearly, God came to reveal Jesus to the world as Messiah. And yet Jesus often did not disclose information about himself, and cloaked his sayings in parables.
    The book of Revelation was clearly given symbolism, just as Jesus' parables were. Christians are told to be wise among serpents, and to exercise caution in our walk in an ungodly world.
    Actually when God reveals things that is EXACTLY what He does.
    Jesus had a SPECIFIC purpose in speaking in parables.
    Now Revelation is indeed full of symbolism, but this is NOT in order to obscure the meaning, but rather to lead us closer to Him.

    That is your thoughtless characterization. And I understand it is your opinion. But it is thoughtless because it not only advances no argument, but it erects a further barrier.
    It isn't a thoughtless characterisation. It is a considered characterisation. It is my opinion, and it is intended to highlight that the VERY IDEA you are presenting is NONSENSE, and that to try to justify such a NONSENSICAL idea does NOT lead anyone forwards.
    I may as well float the idea that really it is about flying pink elephants. It has about the SAME value.

    You seem to not know the difference between truth and love.
    Truth can hurt, and so can love. Simply because you hurt someone does NOT mean you are not loving them. If you are an addict them to have the drugs removed from your system will cause you pain both physically and emotionally. So is it more loving to leave someone addicted to drugs?
    I do note the big difference between truth and love, yet they work best in tandem.
    I reiterate my statement that a claim that a temple which was destroyed 20+ years beforehand in another land; which had no direct connection with the people being written; and who DO have a much clearer example of the church, namely their OWN church; is a better example of the church, is a simple load of rubbish.
    What it actually is seems to be a desperate attempt to try to explain WHY the temple is mentioned, when the view held is that there will be no future temple. IOW it is the preconceived view which DRIVES the claim, and NOT what is actually stated in the passage which leads to the conclusion.
    It is why some are driven to claim that Revelation was written BEFORE 70 AD.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Who he was writing to is EXPLICITLY stated in Revelation. Just as when Paul wrote to the Galatians he was writing SPECIFICALLY for them:
    Gal 1:1* Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—*
    Gal 1:2* and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

    The point being that the things written are SPECIFICALLY for them even though anyone else can also learn from them.
    You seem to be willfully deaf to the point that I've just made! John addressed the Church, which consisted of Jews and non-Jews. I'm done with your absurd arguments. They slide around the point. John was sent to the Jews first, and only afterwards to the Gentiles. You know this!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You are actually arguing that the FOCUS is for the Jew, but it is NOT. The FOCUS in revelation is for the WHOLE WORLD. The Jews get a small part in Rev 12 and that is about it. Just as Daniel 9 is SPECIFICALLY for the Jew, and for the Gentile it is only a tiny part.

    Actually when God reveals things that is EXACTLY what He does.
    Jesus had a SPECIFIC purpose in speaking in parables.
    Now Revelation is indeed full of symbolism, but this is NOT in order to obscure the meaning, but rather to lead us closer to Him.
    Again, it was *both*--it was to obscure the message to wicked pagans, and to reveal the truth to those "with eyes to see."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It isn't a thoughtless characterisation. It is a considered characterisation. It is my opinion, and it is intended to highlight that the VERY IDEA you are presenting is NONSENSE, and that to try to justify such a NONSENSICAL idea does NOT lead anyone forwards.
    I may as well float the idea that really it is about flying pink elephants. It has about the SAME value.
    I could say the same kinds of things about you, but I try to resist, in the interest of congeniality. You seem to suffer from a sociopathy of some kind. If you do, I will give that consideration. Believe me, there are many more people with mild forms of this on a very broad spectrum. Either that, or you just aren't a very good Christian. Christians try to build one another up. You spend virtually every post presenting yourself as the ultimate authority while disparaging the opinions of those you disagree with. This isn't the right attitude, brother--whether you are right or now.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Truth can hurt, and so can love. Simply because you hurt someone does NOT mean you are not loving them. If you are an addict them to have the drugs removed from your system will cause you pain both physically and emotionally. So is it more loving to leave someone addicted to drugs?
    I do note the big difference between truth and love, yet they work best in tandem.
    I'm talking about a *spirit* of love--not rationalizing what you "think" love is. You can argue anything is "loving," if you want to. But is it...really? You don't seem to know what the spirit of love really is? As a Christian I'm sure you've experienced it. But for some reason you rarely communicate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I reiterate my statement that a claim that a temple which was destroyed 20+ years beforehand in another land; which had no direct connection with the people being written; and who DO have a much clearer example of the church, namely their OWN church; is a better example of the church, is a simple load of rubbish.
    You can claim this all you want. I disagree, brother. The temple was used as a symbol of God's dwelling place among His people for many centuries. It works very well as a picture of true worshipers in Christ. They are not just Jews who worship at the temple, but they are "true Jewish worshipers" at God's temple in heaven.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What it actually is seems to be a desperate attempt to try to explain WHY the temple is mentioned, when the view held is that there will be no future temple. IOW it is the preconceived view which DRIVES the claim, and NOT what is actually stated in the passage which leads to the conclusion.
    It is why some are driven to claim that Revelation was written BEFORE 70 AD.
    The preconceived belief that the temple is passé is not only justified--it is biblical. So the working hypothesis is justified, brother. For you to dismiss this is heterodox--however, as a prophetic interpretation we should give latitude, and I do. But I'm not calling you "absurd," or "nonsensical," am I?

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,978
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You seem to be willfully deaf to the point that I've just made! John addressed the Church, which consisted of Jews and non-Jews. I'm done with your absurd arguments. They slide around the point. John was sent to the Jews first, and only afterwards to the Gentiles. You know this!
    No I did not slide around the point. I noted they were a Gentile congregation, which may include a few Jews.
    John was NOT sent to the Jews first. This is a false claim. He was based in Jerusalem for a period of time at the start, yet this was in line with the gospel being preached in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth. There were Gentiles living in Jerusalem.
    Moreover BEFORE Peter has his revelation of Acts 10, we have John (and Peter) going to Samaria:
    Act 8:14* Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,*
    Act 8:15* who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,*
    Act 8:16* for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.*

    Scripture has Peter sent to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles, though Paul started by reaching out to Jews.
    Who did Thomas go to?

    Again, it was *both*--it was to obscure the message to wicked pagans, and to reveal the truth to those "with eyes to see."
    Nope, nothing about obscuring the message to the wicked pagans. In fact I am pretty sure God wants the "wicked pagans" to come to the saving knowledge of His Son:
    Eph 2:11* Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—*
    Eph 2:12* remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.*
    Eph 2:13* But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

    I could say the same kinds of things about you, but I try to resist, in the interest of congeniality. You seem to suffer from a sociopathy of some kind. If you do, I will give that consideration. Believe me, there are many more people with mild forms of this on a very broad spectrum. Either that, or you just aren't a very good Christian. Christians try to build one another up. You spend virtually every post presenting yourself as the ultimate authority while disparaging the opinions of those you disagree with. This isn't the right attitude, brother--whether you are right or now.
    So now I am a Sociopath...
    Sometimes to build you first need to knock down:
    Ecc 3:3* a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

    I'm talking about a *spirit* of love--not rationalizing what you "think" love is. You can argue anything is "loving," if you want to. But is it...really? You don't seem to know what the spirit of love really is? As a Christian I'm sure you've experienced it. But for some reason you rarely communicate it.
    Or perhaps you aren't very good at receiving it?
    Perhaps it isn't in the form you want.
    However this all digresses from the point of the argument, as if my ability to show love to you means my point is valid or not.

    You can claim this all you want. I disagree, brother. The temple was used as a symbol of God's dwelling place among His people for many centuries. It works very well as a picture of true worshipers in Christ. They are not just Jews who worship at the temple, but they are "true Jewish worshipers" at God's temple in heaven.
    It was indeed used in that way for many years among His people, and it will be again. Yet the problem with your view is that you are SIMULTANEOUSLY trying to claim it is NO LONGER valid, whilst still trying to give it validity. I am highlighting the CONTRADICTION in your stance, but you aren't interested. So I note it for others also.

    The preconceived belief that the temple is passé is not only justified--it is biblical. So the working hypothesis is justified, brother. For you to dismiss this is heterodox--however, as a prophetic interpretation we should give latitude, and I do. But I'm not calling you "absurd," or "nonsensical," am I?
    Actually it is NOT Biblical, only a view promulgated by the Jew haters of the post-Nicene era in the Church. It is used by Jew haters ever since.
    The working hypothesis however is NOT justified as it is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed to claim something is BOTH passé AND a relevant valid idea.
    I am not arguing for something heterodox EXCEPT perhaps to those who follow the Catholic church instead of Scriptura.
    I also am not calling you nonsensical, just your argument.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Like a Thief in the Night

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No I did not slide around the point. I noted they were a Gentile congregation, which may include a few Jews.
    John was NOT sent to the Jews first. This is a false claim. He was based in Jerusalem for a period of time at the start, yet this was in line with the gospel being preached in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth. There were Gentiles living in Jerusalem.
    Moreover BEFORE Peter has his revelation of Acts 10, we have John (and Peter) going to Samaria:
    Act 8:14* Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,*
    Act 8:15* who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,*
    Act 8:16* for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.*

    Scripture has Peter sent to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles, though Paul started by reaching out to Jews.
    Who did Thomas go to?
    Once again I reach an impasse with you. The very verses you quote to prove your point are the verses I use to prove my point! Yes, the 12 disciples, including John, were initially sent to witness in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. This proves to me that they were to begin among the Jews, without excluding Gentiles who lived among Jews. It was only after this initial calling that they were to go out among the Gentiles, because the Jews, as a whole, were not worthy and weren't listening.

    These verses cannot be used by you to prove the opposite, that John's initial call was to the Gentiles. Nor does the fact Revelation was written to 7 Gentile churches prove otherwise. A shift to the Gentiles is not an exclusion of the Jews, but rather, a progression beyond the Jews to the Gentiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, nothing about obscuring the message to the wicked pagans. In fact I am pretty sure God wants the "wicked pagans" to come to the saving knowledge of His Son:
    Eph 2:11* Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—*
    Eph 2:12* remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.*
    Eph 2:13* But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
    We are arguing on opposite sides of the same coin. But in doing so, you are denying the truth of my side of the coin. Yes, God wants all men to come to repentance, and to the saving knowledge of Christ. At the same time it is equally true that God hides the truth from those who are unworthy, who persist in unrighteousness.

    Arguing opposite sides of the same coin is fruitless here, if you're not going to acknowledge that God continues to obscure truth to the godless. This is clearly set forth in the OT Scriptures, and in the life of Jesus. The prophetic revelation is taken from those who reject obedience to God's word. They become spiritually blind, and must remain so until their hearts are softened.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So now I am a Sociopath...
    Sometimes to build you first need to knock down:
    Ecc 3:3* a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
    Quite a few people have damaged consciences. I'm sure I do too. But it mystifies me that you, a studied Christian, argue belligerently without acknowledging the commonality of our faith? Instead of pursuing edification, you rationalize insults as a form of "edification?"

    You either lack manners, being a young Christian, or have a damaged conscience. Your visible lack of tact, displayed on a regular basis, shows not that you are a nonChristian, but that you are a spiritually-weak Christian, having not yet learned to die to yourself and to put others ahead of yourself.

    Christianity is not about winning arguments as much as trying to open more doors for Christ's love to express itself. We *all* have to humble ourselves to receive Christ's love. Brilliance cannot achieve it. Logic cannot achieve it. Only humility can achieve it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Or perhaps you aren't very good at receiving it?
    Perhaps it isn't in the form you want.
    However this all digresses from the point of the argument, as if my ability to show love to you means my point is valid or not.
    Yes, this shows your naivete right here! It is *all about* showing Christ's love. The method is as important as the message--otherwise the message is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It was indeed used in that way for many years among His people, and it will be again. Yet the problem with your view is that you are SIMULTANEOUSLY trying to claim it is NO LONGER valid, whilst still trying to give it validity. I am highlighting the CONTRADICTION in your stance, but you aren't interested. So I note it for others also.
    Your logic here is very weak, and I don't mean to insult you--I know you simply disagree. But to say that the demise of the temple system is equal to the demise of its use as a symbol of the Church is a faulty argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually it is NOT Biblical, only a view promulgated by the Jew haters of the post-Nicene era in the Church. It is used by Jew haters ever since.
    The working hypothesis however is NOT justified as it is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed to claim something is BOTH passé AND a relevant valid idea.
    I am not arguing for something heterodox EXCEPT perhaps to those who follow the Catholic church instead of Scriptura.
    I also am not calling you nonsensical, just your argument.
    This is, I believe, where our disagreement really lies. You don't believe Paul discarded the Law of Moses. And this, I believe, is heterodox. Clearly, the Church has opposed the continuing applicability of the Law since the Early Church. Paul devoted plenty of attention to the subject. Your insistence that the Law of Moses is still relevant and applicable as a system is mind-boggling to me. That is just plain wrong!

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,054
    Blog Entries
    13

    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.
    Will the 42 months of the AC and the 1260 days of the 2Ws run concurrently or consecutively?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 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
  •