Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 155

Thread: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,609

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    Symbolic is the opposite of literal. You have interpreted the whore as Rome, and probably believe that is obvious due to the seven hills reference. While the seven hills do refer to Rome, and the hills are on the beasts (Roman Empire's) back, the whore called "Babylon" is also referred to as the whore of the beast. Peter refers to the church in Jerusalem as "She who is in Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). And Jerusalem is often referred to as the city who killed the prophets. The beast and the ten horns hate the whore (Rev 17:16), Rome and her allies cannot hate Rome, so the whore is not Rome, she is Jerusalem in league with Rome.
    Actually Rome moved its location to Constantinople. The Catholic Church did not want to recognize Constantinople as the inheritors of the Roman Empire, preferring the label for itself. And so the RCI influenced western history to regard Constantinople based empires as the Byzantium and Ottoman Empires. They are in fact the Eastern Roman Empire.

    I quoted the verse Rev 17:18 which indicates that Rome is the whore city. I even explained why, maybe you missed that? Sure Rome and Jerusalem represent Babylon/apostate religion, but the detail of Rev 17/18 cannot fit Jerusalem and easily fit Rome.

    Anyway Rome ruled the kings of the land, at the time Rev 17:18 stated that the whore city is the city that rules the kings of the land. How simple is that? Pretty simple really, the Rev 17 city is Rome, the beast and the 10 horns are Turkey based. ISTANBUL/Constantinople inherited the Roman Empire, while for centuries the pope was whoring the religious city of Rome to any warlord that would protect them. Turkey and the 10 horns hate the Vatican and its EU base.

    Western history does not recognize that the Eastern Roman Empire is the Roman Empire, Turkey not Italy.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,209
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    Symbolic is the opposite of literal. You have interpreted the whore as Rome, and probably believe that is obvious due to the seven hills reference. While the seven hills do refer to Rome, and the hills are on the beasts (Roman Empire's) back, the whore called "Babylon" is also referred to as the whore of the beast. Peter refers to the church in Jerusalem as "She who is in Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). And Jerusalem is often referred to as the city who killed the prophets. The beast and the ten horns hate the whore (Rev 17:16), Rome and her allies cannot hate Rome, so the whore is not Rome, she is Jerusalem in league with Rome.
    I fully agree with this I show I see it

  3. #138

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Actually Rome moved its location to Constantinople. The Catholic Church did not want to recognize Constantinople as the inheritors of the Roman Empire, preferring the label for itself. And so the RCI influenced western history to regard Constantinople based empires as the Byzantium and Ottoman Empires. They are in fact the Eastern Roman Empire.

    I quoted the verse Rev 17:18 which indicates that Rome is the whore city. I even explained why, maybe you missed that? Sure Rome and Jerusalem represent Babylon/apostate religion, but the detail of Rev 17/18 cannot fit Jerusalem and easily fit Rome.

    Anyway Rome ruled the kings of the land, at the time Rev 17:18 stated that the whore city is the city that rules the kings of the land. How simple is that? Pretty simple really, the Rev 17 city is Rome, the beast and the 10 horns are Turkey based. ISTANBUL/Constantinople inherited the Roman Empire, while for centuries the pope was whoring the religious city of Rome to any warlord that would protect them. Turkey and the 10 horns hate the Vatican and its EU base.

    Western history does not recognize that the Eastern Roman Empire is the Roman Empire, Turkey not Italy.
    "The scarlet beast and his ten horns all hate the prostitute. They will strip her naked, eat her flesh, and burn her remains with fire." Rev 14:16.

    When was is that the Catholic Church did not want to recognize Constantinople as the inheritors of the Roman Empire? In 324 ancient Byzantium became the new capital of the Roman Empire by order of Emperor Constantine the Great, after whom it was renamed, and dedicated on 11 May 330. It would remain so until the Empire divided into east and west in 395.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,609

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    "The scarlet beast and his ten horns all hate the prostitute. They will strip her naked, eat her flesh, and burn her remains with fire." Rev 14:16.

    When was is that the Catholic Church did not want to recognize Constantinople as the inheritors of the Roman Empire? In 324 ancient Byzantium became the new capital of the Roman Empire by order of Emperor Constantine the Great, after whom it was renamed, and dedicated on 11 May 330. It would remain so until the Empire divided into east and west in 395.
    The Eastern Roman Empire was still the Roman Empire even after 395. It later became known as the Byzantium Empire by western historians, instead of continuously referred to as the Roman Empire. That misnomer is still used today. It should be known as the Roman Empire, not the Byzantium Empire:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
    The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern Istanbul, formerly Byzantium). It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.[1] During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural and military force in Europe. "Byzantine Empire" is a term created AFTER THE END OF THE REALM; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum),[2] or Romania (Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as "Romans"

    Turkey represents the Roman Empire, yet you seem to place it in Rome. That western portion fell a long time ago. The harlot is Rome, Turkey/Istanbul is the Roman Empire of the 10 horns.

  5. #140

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The Eastern Roman Empire was still the Roman Empire even after 395. It later became known as the Byzantium Empire by western historians, instead of continuously referred to as the Roman Empire. That misnomer is still used today. It should be known as the Roman Empire, not the Byzantium Empire:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
    The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern Istanbul, formerly Byzantium). It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.[1] During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural and military force in Europe. "Byzantine Empire" is a term created AFTER THE END OF THE REALM; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia Rhōmaiōn; Latin: Imperium Romanum),[2] or Romania (Ῥωμανία), and to themselves as "Romans"

    Turkey represents the Roman Empire, yet you seem to place it in Rome. That western portion fell a long time ago. The harlot is Rome, Turkey/Istanbul is the Roman Empire of the 10 horns.
    I don't think I've placed Turkey in Rome? I can't change what scripture says, and it illustrates the destruction of the prostitute, Jerusalem was destroyed, Rome was not, and it was not destroyed by Turkey, or any part of the Roman Empire, or any of its allies.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,609

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    I don't think I've placed Turkey in Rome? I can't change what scripture says, and it illustrates the destruction of the prostitute, Jerusalem was destroyed, Rome was not, and it was not destroyed by Turkey, or any part of the Roman Empire, or any of its allies.
    I meant you place the Roman Empire in Rome. History places the Roman Empire in Turkey while for hundreds of years the Pope was trying to keep significance by prostituting religious fame to various city states in Europe. Rome has no actual claim to being the Roman Empire since 395 AD.

    Yet Rev 17:18 describes the harlot city as the city which rules over the kings of the land. Pointing directly to Rome at that time, not Jerusalem. The city of Rome is the harlot city. The Roman Empire is Turkey.

    These are all future prophecies, Jerusalem does not fit the description of the Rev 17/18 city at all, Rev 17/18 says the harlot city is the city that rules over kings, and ascribes huge marine trade to that city. This does not fit Jerusalem during the time of the writing of Rev and during the time of its destruction. It just does not fit at all.

  7. #142

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I meant you place the Roman Empire in Rome. History places the Roman Empire in Turkey while for hundreds of years the Pope was trying to keep significance by prostituting religious fame to various city states in Europe. Rome has no actual claim to being the Roman Empire since 395 AD.

    Yet Rev 17:18 describes the harlot city as the city which rules over the kings of the land. Pointing directly to Rome at that time, not Jerusalem. The city of Rome is the harlot city. The Roman Empire is Turkey.

    These are all future prophecies, Jerusalem does not fit the description of the Rev 17/18 city at all, Rev 17/18 says the harlot city is the city that rules over kings, and ascribes huge marine trade to that city. This does not fit Jerusalem during the time of the writing of Rev and during the time of its destruction. It just does not fit at all.
    Now I see what you mean. But Revelation 17:18 in Young's Literal Translation (YLT) says:
    18 and the woman that thou didst see is the great city that is having reign over the kings of the land.'

    Israel is all about the 'land'. And although there are few Kings today, whether in the land or world, in ancient Israel there were often times when there were several rulers in areas that were parts of Israel, in which Jerusalem, in the form of the Temple priesthood, ruled over them.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,609

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    Now I see what you mean. But Revelation 17:18 in Young's Literal Translation (YLT) says:
    18 and the woman that thou didst see is the great city that is having reign over the kings of the land.'

    Israel is all about the 'land'. And although there are few Kings today, whether in the land or world, in ancient Israel there were often times when there were several rulers in areas that were parts of Israel, in which Jerusalem, in the form of the Temple priesthood, ruled over them.
    Honestly, that was written when Rome ruled over kings, not Jerusalem. The verse does not say, the harlot is the city that once upon a time in history ruled over the kings of the land. Plus the massive marine trade ascribed to the city matched the Rome of old, yet never Jerusalem and Israel which are a land crossroads between Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. Israel was never a major marine influence in the Mediterranean. Yet the current EU fits the Vatican's current political expression judging by the amount of Catholics and priests who run the EU. Both ancient Rome and current Vatican (expressed through the EU) are major sea traders and also closely associated with golden cups and scarlet and purple robes.

    I understand that there is a little confusion when both Jerusalem and Rome are described as Babylon and /or harlots. I just feel this represents the fact that sometimes both these cities have been harlots purporting to represent the true religion of their time, yet instead representing false Gods (Baal/Mother Goddess).

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,638

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I understand Ezekiel 40-48 literally as written, without the need to symbolize 3 chapters of precise measurements and 9 chapters of precise detail.

    Not just Zech 14 and Isaiah 65, but multiple other chapters point specifically to a period after the second coming when surviving nations live on.

    How long is an hour of John 5? Is it 60 minutes long? The other hour in John 5:25 is nearly 2000 years long and still counting, how then can you insist the two resurrections occur within a 60 minute period?

    As for your other verses, yes the resurrection of the righteous occurs at the second coming, and yes there will be various judgements at the second coming, the Bible is clear on that. Eg Edom will become a lake of fire, Israel will become a blessed nation, the armies of Armageddon will all be destroyed at the judgement of Jehosaphat of Joel 3. There will be many judgements at the second coming, but I do not see the GWT judgement occurring then. It occurs 1000 years after the persecution period of the beast according to Rev 20. And we know from Rev 13 and Dan 7 that the persecution period is the last 3.5 years of this age. Surely?

    In summary, you misunderstand that the martyrdom of the beast in Rev 20 would logically match the final 3.5 years of persecution of the beast, your proof verses in your post actually match with my view, and you seem to symbolize multiple detailed chapters that speak of surviving nations after the second coming.
    If you remove a small, very small handful of premill misinterpretted prooftext verses (Isaiah 65, Zech 14, Ezekiel 40); you can easily find that when the second coming occurs; all of the wicked are destroyed; and there are no survivors.

    The idea of survivors, stomps over, and rejects dozens of clear passages, that state there will be no survivors of the 2nd Coming.

    I could joyfully list them, if you have any interest.

    Does it ever trouble you interpretting those very few obsucure set of OT passages as supporting 'wicked survivors' in light of the dozens of other contradicting and clear passages that show no survivors, and show the 2nd Coming to be all climactic in the judgment of the wicked?

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,609

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    If you remove a small, very small handful of premill misinterpretted prooftext verses (Isaiah 65, Zech 14, Ezekiel 40); you can easily find that when the second coming occurs; all of the wicked are destroyed; and there are no survivors.

    The idea of survivors, stomps over, and rejects dozens of clear passages, that state there will be no survivors of the 2nd Coming.

    I could joyfully list them, if you have any interest.

    Does it ever trouble you interpretting those very few obsucure set of OT passages as supporting 'wicked survivors' in light of the dozens of other contradicting and clear passages that show no survivors, and show the 2nd Coming to be all climactic in the judgment of the wicked?
    Its exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

    There are multiple verses clearly showing that there are surviving nations after the second coming.

    Yet a few verses are misinterpreted as everyone dies at the second coming.

    For example two common misinterpretations are as follows :
    1) the rapture is compared to Noah's flood therefore some assume all those left behind die, as per the flood. Yet the text is comparing universal physical death (drowned at the flood) with universal spiritual death (left behind at the rapture). We need to read carefully without throwing our own ideas into the text.
    2) another common error is to see the universal death of all types of military at Armageddon as the whole population of earth dying. Rev 19 is clearly in context of a local battle.

    If I say there was a war outside Jerusalem and everyone died, does this mean the whole planet, or does this mean everyone involved in that war? It's not conclusive but most would understand its a local battle.

    So the universal death verses are misinterpreted, they do not mean universal death. Yet the multiple verses about surviving nations are as clear as daylight.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,209
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Its exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

    There are multiple verses clearly showing that there are surviving nations after the second coming.

    Yet a few verses are misinterpreted as everyone dies at the second coming.

    For example two common misinterpretations are as follows :
    1) the rapture is compared to Noah's flood therefore some assume all those left behind die, as per the flood. Yet the text is comparing universal physical death (drowned at the flood) with universal spiritual death (left behind at the rapture). We need to read carefully without throwing our own ideas into the text.
    2) another common error is to see the universal death of all types of military at Armageddon as the whole population of earth dying. Rev 19 is clearly in context of a local battle.

    If I say there was a war outside Jerusalem and everyone died, does this mean the whole planet, or does this mean everyone involved in that war? It's not conclusive but most would understand its a local battle.
    Jesus wasn't talking about the rapture when He mentioned Noah

    Mt Ch 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

    Notice the words say the flood came and took them away not the flood came and killed them. They were judged. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of man. (Judgment)

    Mt Ch 24:40-41
    40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

    This is also one of the most misunderstood verses in scripture. This is not the rapture, this is judgment. Notice the word used in these two verses taken. Just like the words took them away in verse 39. In Noah’s day It was better to be left like Noah than to of be taken away.

    Jesus tells us we’re they will be taken when He was asked in
    Luke 17:30-37
    30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” [36] [e]

    37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.

    He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

    Thus they were taken in judgement

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,609

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Jesus wasn't talking about the rapture when He mentioned Noah

    Mt Ch 24:39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

    Notice the words say the flood came and took them away not the flood came and killed them. They were judged. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of man. (Judgment)

    Mt Ch 24:40-41
    40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

    This is also one of the most misunderstood verses in scripture. This is not the rapture, this is judgment. Notice the word used in these two verses taken. Just like the words took them away in verse 39. In Noah’s day It was better to be left like Noah than to of be taken away.

    Jesus tells us we’re they will be taken when He was asked in
    Luke 17:30-37
    30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” [36] [e]

    37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.

    He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

    Thus they were taken in judgement
    The spiritually alive are raptured, the rest stay behind with the dead earth, which is then renewed at the second coming.

    Your quotes confirm exactly what I was saying, that the universal death at the flood is compared to the universal being left behind at the rapture. We should stick to that biblical comparison.

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,209
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The spiritually alive are raptured, the rest stay behind with the dead earth, which is then renewed at the second coming.

    Your quotes confirm exactly what I was saying, that the universal death at the flood is compared to the universal being left behind at the rapture. We should stick to that biblical comparison.
    I agree about the rapture but its on the last day of our earth

    I did stick with the biblical comparison Matthew 24:40-41 & Luke 17:30-37 are the same conversation and Jesus answered the question to where they were taken

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,609

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    I agree about the rapture but its on the last day of our earth

    I did stick with the biblical comparison Matthew 24:40-41 & Luke 17:30-37 are the same conversation and Jesus answered the question to where they were taken
    How do you know that the question was about where they were taken, rather than where they were left.

    And the comment about the dead and vultures is open to interpretation.

    What is certainly being compared is that universal death is compared to the rapture which in Matthew 24, 2 Thess 2, and 1 Cor 15 is when the saved rise into the clouds, not the dead.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,638

    Re: Ezekiel's Temple Vision

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    How do you know that the question was about where they were taken, rather than where they were left.

    And the comment about the dead and vultures is open to interpretation.

    What is certainly being compared is that universal death is compared to the rapture which in Matthew 24, 2 Thess 2, and 1 Cor 15 is when the saved rise into the clouds, not the dead.
    Luke 17 better and more detailed explains taken vs left than Matt 24.

    It shows parallels through the verses of the wicked being taken to destruction throughout.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 26
    Last Post: Jan 22nd 2019, 10:51 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: Feb 10th 2015, 11:05 PM
  3. Ezekiel's Vision in Chapter One
    By HJVR23 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep 15th 2014, 04:12 AM
  4. Ezekiel 1 A Vision of Living Beings
    By Barry44 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep 25th 2010, 10:57 PM
  5. Ezekiel's Vision
    By Stephen1 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Apr 6th 2009, 07:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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