abomination of desolation

[Stormcrow]

Then again, there's Ezekiel's temple. When was something that humongous ever built? Historically is never existed.

I won't listen to any other spiritualizations until the Preterists answer the challenge on Ezekiel's temple. I am losing patience with this song and dancing around the question.

Great! Then perhaps you'd like to furnish some Biblical reference(s) to your question so that no one has to read your mind? 2

 

[Stormcrow]

Why do I now believe John of Gischala fits the profile of "man of sin" and "son of perdition?"

1. Nero never sat in Herod's temple, nor even had any effigies of himself there. John occupied the temple as the would-be savior and "king of the Jews" (he had actually got himself a purple robe and put it on!)
2. He was a reputed liar who deceived the Jews in Jerusalem into revolting against Rome, and then used violence against them to support his insurrection.
3. Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians is believed to have been written around 52AD, with his second letter to them coming a few months after the first. The "mystery of lawlessness" that was already at work was the result of any number of seditions that were continually rising against Roman rule over Judea. Such seditions were even prevalent during Jesus' earthly ministry, as Pilate freed Barabas - a known insurrectionist - over Jesus during Christ's trial before him. It makes sense, then, that the utter embodiment of the "man of lawlessness" would lead his people into the kind of ultimate destruction that only the "son of destruction" could.
4. Titus was not "brought to an end" by Christ's coming in judgment on Jerusalem, but was rather the instrument of it.
5. John of Gischala carried out the execution of Ananus and Jesus, the two priests who opposed him, leaving their bodies unburied. These - as I have indicated in another post - are the two "witnesses" mentioned in Revelation 11.

Finally, John of Gischala fits within the prophetic timetable Christ set forth in Matthew 23 and Luke 21 concerning the vengeance that would come on that generation.

There you go. Have at it.

 

[Stormcrow]

The bible is every specific regarding Ezekiel's temple

How specific is the Bible regarding the New Covenant and we, the members of His body, being His sanctified temple?

Unless you're going to argue that God will reinstitute the Old Covenant to justify the building of an edifice as the only place on earth sanctified by His presence, it seems pointless even to raise the issue of any new temple at all, Ezekiel's or any other!

Get past the Old Covenant. God did. :yes

 

[n2thelight]

1. 1. John of Gischala carried out the execution of Ananus and Jesus, the two priests who opposed him, leaving their bodies unburied. These - as I have indicated in another post - are the two "witnesses" mentioned in Revelation 11.

You kidding right?

And did this happen also?

Revelation 11:11 "And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them."

Revelation 11:12 "And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them."

 

[Stormcrow]

You kidding right?

And did this happen also?

Revelation 11:11 "And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them."

Revelation 11:12 "And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them."

I don't know. I wasn't there. How do you know it didn't?

 

[tim-from-pa]

How specific is the Bible regarding the New Covenant and we, the members of His body, being His sanctified temple?

Unless you're going to argue that God will reinstitute the Old Covenant to justify the building of an edifice as the only place on earth sanctified by His presence, it seems pointless even to raise the issue of any new temple at all, Ezekiel's or any other!

Get past the Old Covenant. God did. :yes

Actually, I would bring that point up. I believe that for specific reasons. So this temple is in the future. :yes

But neither of you have an alternative explanation of the temple in these many posts as the issue is clearly being avoided, so I safely concluded you effectively truncated that from your bible, which BTW must be a lot thinner and easier to carry than mine. So you can just debate with the rest here how "the bible does not say anything about a future temple" and meanwhile sweeping this other stuff under the rug.

I have better things to do right now, like teaching my cats calculus with better success, so I'm off now. Bye.

 

[Lehigh3]

Actually, I would bring that point up. I believe that for specific reasons. So this temple is in the future. :yes

But neither of you have an alternative explanation of the temple in these many posts as the issue is clearly being avoided, so I safely concluded you effectively truncated that from your bible, which BTW must be a lot thinner and easier to carry than mine. So you can just debate with the rest here how "the bible does not say anything about a future temple" and meanwhile sweeping this other stuff under the rug.

I have better things to do right now, like teaching my cats calculus with better success, so I'm off now. Bye.

Oh, btw, I have some wonderful Preterist friends in Pa.! I do know that they were never taken in by dispy fiction!
And, one handy source I have right now- is at least mature in the faith enough to admit that he grew up in dispy circles (poor guy) & studied & realized their error & misguided theology:

Study takes the whole O.T. (a thick Bible) to understand. Dispies just read little passages of the prophets that their unlearned preachers tell them is "proof" & to be literal proof of a literal thousand years - that the Jews in the O.T. NEVER believed in! You need to read the whole O.T. rather than just accuse other systems of interpretation of lack of your few passage evidence! Won't work with Preterist scholars, friend! Sorry, no cigar there either!

Alvis, the Postmillennialist:
http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/Alvisezekiel.pdf

 

[Stormcrow]

Actually, I would bring that point up. I believe that for specific reasons. So this temple is in the future. :yes

But neither of you have an alternative explanation of the temple in these many posts as the issue is clearly being avoided, so I safely concluded you effectively truncated that from your bible, which BTW must be a lot thinner and easier to carry than mine. So you can just debate with the rest here how "the bible does not say anything about a future temple" and meanwhile sweeping this other stuff under the rug.

I have better things to do right now, like teaching my cats calculus with better success, so I'm off now. Bye.

First of all, you NEVER provided any verses to support your claims and somehow expect answers to your vague assertions???

Second, show us the verses that say God will reinstitute the Old Covenant so that He can sanctify a new temple with His presence, when He's already made believers in Christ His new temple!

Third, please justify your position in the light of these words:

{22} I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. Revelation 21:22 (NASB)

What happened to that shiny new "Ezekiel's Temple" that your "THE ANTICHRIST" supposedly defiles sometime off in the distant future???

Do you suppose after allowing it to be built, God changed His mind AGAIN and said, "Nah, we REALLY didn't need that after all!"?

So then let me see if I understand this:

God ushers in the New Covenant through the death of His Son on the cross while keeping the Old Covenant on the "back burner" so that "THE ANTICHRIST" can defile a new temple for the purpose of______________________???

Do you suppose God would drive with one foot on the brake and the other on the gas, too?

My Bible may be thinner, but it sure makes a lot more sense than yours.

 

[Sinthesis]

Ezekiel's Temple was only ever meant to exist spiritually.

 

[Sinthesis]

I see John of Gischala as a frog.:gah

 

[Sinthesis]

Do you suppose God would drive with one foot on the brake and the other on the gas, too?

Professionals do it; why not God?

 

[warfrog]

Do we not agree that the body of man is a temple? It is God's temple He dwells in through the Holy Spirit in promise though the Salvation of Christ Jesus?

So why do we look for brick and morter fullfillment?
When the beast stands in the place he ought not to be standing, the heart of all people not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, claimin himself as God, the people in Judea will flee to the wilderness where they shall be nourished for a time, times and half a time from the presence of the serpent.

all people who dwell on earth will worship him, who are no written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
He will stand where h ought not, in thier hearts as God.

Revelation 12:7-17 is the very description of what Jesus spoke of in Matt,Mark and Luke regarding the abomination, when they see the beast blasphemy againts God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven, Satan hall be cast out of heaven where he will go againts the woman first in great anger, and thy shall flee into the wilderness and be nourished for a tim, times and half a time, in which the serpent will then go to war againts the offspring of the woman, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ, the saints, as the beast will be given authority to wage war againts the saints and overcome them as Daniel 11:32-35 describes.

So when the beast, the man of lawlessness declares himself God and the world places him into their hearts as such, the abomination of desolation will be done and those who are in Judea will flee, not should, they will flee.
The beast will then go to war againts all who follow the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ, and many, many of them will be killed.

 

[Lehigh3]

So when the beast, the man of lawlessness declares himself God and the world places him into their hearts as such, the abomination of desolation will be done and those who are in Judea will flee, not should, they will flee.
The beast will then go to war againts all who follow the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ, and many, many of them will be killed.

No, that ain't true, no, no. It's all past. We won - the King of Kings won.

His Peace is yours NOW.

 

[LastSeven]

[*]John of Gischala carried out the execution of Ananus and Jesus, the two priests who opposed him, leaving their bodies unburied. These - as I have indicated in another post - are the two "witnesses" mentioned in Revelation 11.

Wait, what? Was there another Jesus that I don't know about? And who was Ananus?

 

[warfrog]

No, that ain't true, no, no. It's all past. We won - the King of Kings won.

His Peace is yours NOW.

Of course He won, but it isnt over, not until the last enemy is destroyed, For "He has put all things under His feet" But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28

 

[Lehigh3]

Of course He won, but it isnt over, not until the last enemy is destroyed, For "He has put all things under His feet" But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28

"Him" who is excepted in the above verse is God the Father. Jesus co-rules with the Father in heaven.
And the last enemy hasn't been defeated? Well, then He didn't win according to you then.
Preterist -Max King: "This was the future (the end) affirmed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:24, when through the age-changing reign of Christ, DEATH, the last enemy, was destroyed. THEN the reign of God was established eternally in the new heavens and earth. THEN the dead were raised incorruption and the mortal put on immortality the prophecy of Isaiah 25:8 was fulfilled, "Death is swallowed up in victory." THEN, the sting of death forever was removed, because that which was its sting (SIN), and that which was sin's strength (THE LAW) had no place in the new heavens and earth. THEN God's promise to Israel to "make an end of sins" and to "bring in everlasting righteousness" was fulfilled. THEN was won the victory through Jesus Christ. THEN the salvation which is of the Jews came to its full realization and manifestation through the revelation of Jesus Christ. THEN all things written were fulfilled. THEN the mission of the Old Testament in bringing us to Christ was accomplished. NOTHING failed. NOTHING was delayed. NOTHING was postponed. NOTHING was carried into the Christian age unfulfilled." (Hardcopy, p. 70)

That's right. We are living in the "age to come" which Jesus said was coming. The Gospel or New Covenant age has no end. (Eph.3:21)

 

[n2thelight]

"Him" who is excepted in the above verse is God the Father. Jesus co-rules with the Father in heaven.
And the last enemy hasn't been defeated? Well, then He didn't win according to you then.
Preterist -Max King: "This was the future (the end) affirmed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:24, when through the age-changing reign of Christ, DEATH, the last enemy, was destroyed. THEN the reign of God was established eternally in the new heavens and earth. THEN the dead were raised incorruption and the mortal put on immortality the prophecy of Isaiah 25:8 was fulfilled, "Death is swallowed up in victory." THEN, the sting of death forever was removed, because that which was its sting (SIN), and that which was sin's strength (THE LAW) had no place in the new heavens and earth. THEN God's promise to Israel to "make an end of sins" and to "bring in everlasting righteousness" was fulfilled. THEN was won the victory through Jesus Christ. THEN the salvation which is of the Jews came to its full realization and manifestation through the revelation of Jesus Christ. THEN all things written were fulfilled. THEN the mission of the Old Testament in bringing us to Christ was accomplished. NOTHING failed. NOTHING was delayed. NOTHING was postponed. NOTHING was carried into the Christian age unfulfilled." (Hardcopy, p. 70)

That's right. We are living in the "age to come" which Jesus said was coming. The Gospel or New Covenant age has no end. (Eph.3:21)

Okayyyy,so,maybe you can tell me,since nobody else has or can.....Why are we still in flesh bodies if Christ came in 70ad,which according to preterist was the last trump??????

Paul said,we would not all sleep(die)but we would all be changed,where is that change?

 

[Stormcrow]

Wait, what? Was there another Jesus that I don't know about? And who was Ananus?

Let me set the scene for you.

John of Gischala, who has led the people of his town into rebellion against Rome, is besieged in Gischala by Titus and his legions. John strikes a deal with Titus, asking him to pull his troops back for the city's Sabbath observances. Titus agrees, and in the dark of that night, John, several thousand of his men, along with their wives and children, sneak out of the city and head for the safety of Jerusalem.

When morning breaks, Titus learns John has fled the city because the people of Gischala - who want no part of war with Rome - invite Titus and his troops in as a liberator with "great acclamations of joy."

Titus orders his men to hunt down John and the men who fled with him.

In the meantime, John is setting a pace for Jerusalem that he knows the women and children of his "escapees" can't sustain, and when John learns the Romans are pursuing him, he and his men flee even faster, leaving the women and children behind. Those that are not rounded up by the Romans or killed by them are lost in the wilderness between Galilee and Jerusalem.

The Romans quit the pursuit realizing they can't catch him.

John then enters Jerusalem and tells the people there - who hunger for news of what's happening in the north - that the Romans are weak and that he had easily beaten them. They are encouraged by his boldness (and his lies) to take up arms to defend Jerusalem.

John and his men soon find, however, that they are not alone in their hunger for power over Jerusalem, and find competition from another faction of insurrectionists in the city led by a man named Eleazar. These two factions begin warring against each other and killing innocent bystanders and those they suspect of wanting peace with Rome.

John leads his men into the temple where they, though fewer in number, have a tactical advantage because of the towers they can occupy; shooting down at their enemies.

This is seen as an abomination to many of the priests, including high priests named Jesus, and Ananus, whom John had deceived into friendship with him. When Ananus learned that John had taken the temple as a fortress, he musters the ordinary citizens of Jerusalem to put down this "tyrant", who wantonly killed anyone who got in his way.

Ananus then learns that John had sent messengers to the Idumeans (Edomites) to get them to fight on his side in the civil war, and when the Idumeans approach Jerusalem, Ananus orders the gates be locked against them. Jesus, standing on the wall, tells them, "I see that you are come to support the vilest of men against us..."

He was not talking about the Romans as the "vilest of men" rather John of Gischala.

He continued:

But now for these men who have invited you, if you were to examine them one by one, every one of them would be found to have deserved ten thousand deaths; for the very rascality and offscouring of the whole country, who have spent in debauchery their own substance, and, by way of trial beforehand, have madly plundered the neighboring villages and cities, in the upshot of all, have privately run together into this holy city. They are robbers, who by their prodigious wickedness have profaned this most sacred floor, and who are to be now seen drinking themselves drunk in the sanctuary, and expending the spoils of those whom they have slaughtered upon their unsatiable bellies. Josephus.

Later that night, John and his men took saws from the temple (it was undergoing renovation) and cut open the bars that held the gates closed, letting the enraged Idumeans into the city. Here's how Josephus finished their story:

But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered.

He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was.

Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

The Works of Flavius Josephus.

{9} "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Matthew 5:9 (NASB)

Such was the legacy left by Ananus and Jesus.

 

[Stormcrow]

Keep in mind that while the names mentioned in the last post aren't the "big names" we've all come to associate with those tragic events i.e. Nero, Vespasian, Titus, they were nevertheless VERY important players in what was happening inside the city at that time.

I can't be sure Ananus and Jesus were the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11 anymore than I can be sure that John of Gischala was the "man of sin" and "son of perdition" of Second Thessalonians.

HOWEVER, having read the historical accounts of who these men were and what they did during that fateful time, I would not be so quick to dismiss them, either.

 

[n2thelight]

Keep in mind that while the names mentioned in the last post aren't the "big names" we've all come to associate with those tragic events i.e. Nero, Vespasian, Titus, they were nevertheless VERY important players in what was happening inside the city at that time.

I can't be sure Ananus and Jesus were the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11 anymore than I can be sure that John of Gischala was the "man of sin" and "son of perdition" of Second Thessalonians.

HOWEVER, having read the historical accounts of who these men were and what they did during that fateful time, I would not be so quick to dismiss them, either.

I would be very very quick to dismiss them,these two witnesses of yours didn't come back to life and get called to heaven.Your man of sin was not destroyed by the brightness of Christ return...

Revelation 11:12
And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.


2 Thessalonians 2:8
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:




There,idea dismissed