Hidden In Him

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.

Rev. 17:18 “And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

There was no doubt what city Peter was referring to, because it was well known among the Church of his time that Babylon was code for Rome. (The Babylon of old was an uninhabited ruin by that date.) Calling Rome "Babylon" was a reference to it's spiritual whoredom, which in his time had not yet overcome the Church.

Wow. I was just skimming along and I came to this. VERY interesting. I've probably read past 1 Peter 5:13 several times without actually noticing his use of the term Babylon here, but now that I'm taking a look it carries some weight.  Tradition connects the apostle Peter with Rome in the latter part of his life, and early Christian writers also state 1 Peter was written from there.

The primary argument against this position is that Revelations was written much later than 1st Peter, so to make that connection would be invalid. But I no longer regard the Book of Revelation to have been written in 90 A.D. There's too much internal evidence to suggest it was written in the early 60s A.D. This all the more confirms it.

Thanks for posting this. I have no great interest in getting into the debate over the Catholic Church, but thought I should at least give you a public thank you for this post.   

3 hours ago, iamlamad said:

HOW LONG IS THE DAY OF THE LORD

For the Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion. (Isa 34:8)

To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God (Isa. 61:2)

For the day of vengeance was in My heart, And My year of redemption has come. (Isa. 63:4)

It's an interesting hypothesis. 

It's been a while since I covered end-time prophecies, and I'm not sure if I'm ready to get into it, but you may have a case. I can promise you the pre-tribulationists will take issue with a one-year wrath period because they maintain the rapture occurs before the 7-year tribulation begins. The post-tribulation crowd will likewise also take issue with it because most of them maintain that when He returns there will be no time left in the tribulation period; all will be consummated.

I hold to neither of those views, however, so I find your argument has some plausibility to it.

3 hours ago, Acacia said:

Yes that is how we grow ? . The scripture is one I have been holding dear to my heart lately. 

 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers with me of grace. Philippians 1:6-7 

That's a good pair of verses. 

So what gifts are you hoping to "step into," or don't you really have any sense about that just yet?

18 minutes ago, Wayne222 said:

He could be a muslim. The jews dont recognized him. He takes jerusalem by force.

The fact that numerous Islamic leaders have called for the complete extermination of the Jews is also one of the selling points of the idea that the Antichrist may be Muslim; that, and the fact that they behead non-believers.

There are others - It's been a while since I studied the subject - but those two stand out in my memory.  

Here.

This is the thread I was referring to. This person sounds like you in some ways, so maybe you two would have something in common to talk about.

Anyway, read my response in it. It would be similar for your situation as well.

Just now, Yowm said:

Um, sigh, an undogmatic yes. lol

Ok, LoL. I held to this for a long time, too. I eventually started giving thought to the theory the Antichrist would be Muslim and the Beast the coming caliphate. This made more sense out of a lot of things for me.

But at issue would be some of things we're talking about here. If he would have to be recognized by the Jews as their Messiah, that all but completely eliminates the possibility of him being a Muslim. 

6 minutes ago, Hidden In Him said:

Thanks for the response, WN. 

My question here would be, don't these verses all presuppose they apply only to those who honor God's Lordship? The Antichrist will clearly enter the temple by force, as other Antichrist figures in Israel's past did, in defiance of the Most High God. 

I'm just saying that the Antichrist will have no need to honor these laws. The people of God will be given into his hands, and he will seek to change the laws (Daniel 7:25)...

OH! I see, you are saying that he will presumably enter the temple BEFORE he breaks the covenant. I think that would be the next thing you would have to prove then. I've always assumed he would only fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and other verses after breaking the covenant, at which time he would be under no obligation to any Jewish law, including the need to be a Jew to enter the inner sanctuary.

Is there/ are there verses that suggest he will fulfill this prophecy before the covenant is broken?

Btw, sorry about all the typos in that one. I think I have it cleaned up now, LoL.

11 minutes ago, Yowm said:

No, Messiah cut off refers to Jesus' crucifixion. People of the prince to come were the Romans in 70AD, which makes my best estimate Of the antichrist to be a Roman.

Oh, I see.

Ok, I understand... So do you take the view that the Beast will be a revival of the Roman Empire, in something like a future version of the EU?

25 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Ezekiel 44  Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east. And it was shut. 2 And the Lord said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it. Therefore it shall remain shut.3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord. He shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.”

 

And to make it clear that access to the temple is restricted from all non-Jews or anyone who does not practice Judaism, there is this.

 

Ezekiel 44:6 And say to the rebellious house, to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: O house of Israel, enough of all your abominations, 7 in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations. 8 And you have not kept charge of my holy things, but you have set others to keep my charge for you in my sanctuary.

9 “Thus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.

 

Only those who fit this requirement are allowed inside the sanctuary.

 

Ezekiel 44:15 “But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me. And they shall stand before me to offer me the fat and the blood, declares the Lord God. 16 They shall enter my sanctuary, and they shall approach my table, to minister to me, and they shall keep my charg

Thanks for the response, WN. 

My question here would be, don't these verses all presuppose they apply only to those who honor God's Lordship? The Antichrist will clearly enter the temple by force, as other Antichrist figures in Israel's past did, in defiance of the Most High God. 

I'm just saying that the Antichrist will have no need to honor these laws. The people of God will be given into his hands, and he will seek to change the laws (Daniel 7:25)...

OH! I see, you are saying that he will presumably enter the temple BEFORE he breaks the covenant. I think that would be the next thing you would have to prove then. I've always assumed he would only fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and other verses after breaking the covenant, at which time he would be under no obligation to any Jewish law, including the need to be a Jew to enter the inner sanctuary.

Is there/ are there verses that suggest he will fulfill this prophecy before the covenant is broken?

52 minutes ago, Yowm said:

It would pose a big problem for the Orthodox Jew, but I suppose, so would a Roman.

Daniel 9:26 NKJV
[26] "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

'People of the prince'  who destroyed the Temple were the Romans, so the 'prince who is to come' would also be Roman. That's my best, from Scripture.

If I understand you correctly, you would be applying the word "Messiah" here to the Antichrist, and therefore reading the verse as referring to a false Messiah, yes?

Forgive me if I am completely misunderstanding you, LoL. Just trying to understand your application of the verse.

Just now, wingnut- said:

 

I think what Yowm is getting at, is that the Jews have to believe he is the messiah, which means he has to be a Jew.  This would also be necessary for him to gain access to the temple in order to desecrate it. 

Ok. Hopefully, you have him right, as I'm guessing he'd get a little peeved if not, LoL.

But if so, where is the interpretation that the Jews will believe he is the Messiah coming from? 2 Thessalonians 2:4?

2 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Problem with that, is how in the world would he ever convince the Jews being an overt Muslim?

Convince them of what? Maybe you are referring to a verse somewhere that I'm not aware might apply here, but so far as I understand it, the only thing scripture says the Antichrist will convince the Jews of is to form a covenant of peace with him for seven years, and then break it after 3 1/2. 

What do you mean?

14 hours ago, Yowm said:

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
(Dan 11:36-39)

I believe a case could be made that "the god of forces" here will be the god of Islam, who has always been a militaristic god who spread his religion by the sword. This, in my mind, would make the Antichrist someone with a non-Islamic religious background who turns to Islam, and then ascends to increasing prominence within the Islamic community over time. I think secretly he will actually be a Satanist, but may come from what appears to be a family of Christians (possibly Catholic or Anglican), which would all the more make selling Islam as the one true religion credible, since he had cast aside "Christianity" in favor of becoming a Muslim.

Just a theory. Not presenting it as something I'm as of yet set in stone about.  

7 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

Wow. how offensive.

What do you mean? I'm simply leveling with you that you come off as contentious. If someone tells me that, I apologize for giving them that impression, and in a Spirit of love reassure them that's not the case with me at all.

9 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

So you are happy to make statements, but not happy to back them up? What a shame.

 

No offense, Kiwi, but if I had taken the conversation seriously to begin with I wouldn't have posted about it here. And while I'm not trying to offend you, in all honesty, if I were to have a serious discussion on it it would be with someone like Butero, whose responses suggest he would not easily get into contentious debate over the issue, despite having his own opinions on the matter.  

14 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

What was HIS translation?

Kiwi, the OP asked us specifically not to open up debates on this thread, but to just have fun here.

So in keeping with that statement...

Da Jesus Book. 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/da-jesus-book-is-the-best-bible-translation?utm_term=.hwpOVkzRBz#.vgDRP5yOQy

Just now, wingnut- said:

Awww brother, I was not accusing you, I was just pointing out that this is precisely the position the preterists point to, that these things were fulfilled in 70ad.  Don't feel bad, it was not meant that way.  Oddly enough, you are the first person I can recall thinking that I was a preterist lol.

 

LoL. 

2 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Agreed, this is not the right thread to hash everything out in regards to overall views.  My response is to the OP, she will get plenty of responses about the other positions, I am not interested in a debate on the matter.  Perhaps in the future we will learn more about what the other believes.

God bless

Thanks. I had to back out on another thread I got involved in at another Forum about a month ago cuz it started turning into a mental monstrosity on me that I really didn't have the time or energy for. And when it comes to that, heavily-involved discussions on eschatology can be just about the worst, LoL.

Hopefully He gives me time and space down the road to fully consider your position. There are some things there I've certainly never considered before, at the very least. 

44 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The odd thing about this statement is, you're actually supporting a preterist view by stating they have been held accountable. 

I do believe that's the first time I've ever been accused of being a preterist, LoL. 

Ok, I can see our interpretations of so many verses are in conflict with one another that we may need to just hang it up for now.

Chalk it up as a brief introduction to each other on this topic.  Maybe we can continue it another time.

5 hours ago, wingnut- said:

First thing is, her plagues come in a single day, and while she is burned up with fire, it is the Lord God judging her, not the ten kings.  In verse 9 you will notice the kings are sad about this, and in verse 10 they are standing far off from her.  Also, note that fire is not the only thing involved as we look further.

Not quite sure I understand your point here. So you're saying the ten kings are the same kings who then become sad at her torment and stand afar off?

5 hours ago, wingnut- said:

That's not exactly what it says in Revelation 18, take a closer look at some excerpts, because I think this idea is based on inference than fact.

Revelation 18:8 For this reason her plagues will come in a single day,
    death and mourning and famine,
and she will be burned up with fire;
    for mighty is the Lord God who has judged her.”

9 And the kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning. 10 They will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say,

“Alas! Alas! You great city,
    you mighty city, Babylon!
For in a single hour your judgment has come.”

First thing is, her plagues come in a single day, and while she is burned up with fire, it is the Lord God judging her, not the ten kings.  In verse 9 you will notice the kings are sad about this, and in verse 10 they are standing far off from her.  Also, note that fire is not the only thing involved as we look further.

Revelation 18:21 Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying,

“So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence,
    and will be found no more;

When God judges her, is the second woe, and the third woe comes quickly.  This is all the end game, the ten kings only have authority for one hour, the same amount of time it takes for the city to be destroyed.  The place they are standing is where they have been gathered to fight Jesus, which is why they are outside the city and can see it burning from far off.  When the angel throws that great millstone into the sea, you get the great earthquake.

I read through this response several times, but you'll have to forgive me that I don't fully follow the point you're making here. You appear to be arguing that the expression "will be found no more" is either figurative or temporary. Can you clarify for me?

4 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints,
    and of all who have been slain on earth.”

Now, what city can make such a claim?  Let's start first with something Jesus said.

Matthew 23:34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

Now this confirms that Jerusalem is Babylon, it is the only city in all of scripture that this is said of, and it can only apply to one city on earth. 

Though not addressed to me, I read through this as well. In response here I would argue that these two passages do not equate historically (unless you are a preterist). Rev 18:24 speaks prophetically of the blood that Mystery Babylon will be held accountable for, whereas Matthew 23:35 addresses the blood for which Jerusalem has already been held accountable (in 70 AD).

Are you a preterist, Wingnut?

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

I find am wrong when I take on the attitude that the gathering of the saints in corporate worship is not God's will for me.

Further that if I forego that wonderful opportunity to be obedient to God's will to share in the blessings of gathering together, I suffer and am at great risk of eternal shame, even as a saint saved by Grace alone. 

 As I read the excerpt from Paul, I am convinced that worshipping together is very important to God! My own denial of that privilege as a saint in Christ, likely grieves God even as it hardens me against comforting the very souls I will spend eternity with , all those saved by the grace of God. I do not want to suffer that eternal shame. The idea that I had found the gathering together to be superficial and therefore not worth my time, not even when God came to die on a cross and suffer my shame? No, I cannot allow myself to buy into that folly.

Instead; I will read the fuller context and the excerpt below  of the inspired of God message from Paul, and then praise God as I await eagerly the next corporate worship time, and times, to come. Praise God for His allowing me to be part of His corporate worship and for the opportunity to do that which brings glory and pleasure to Him. And praise God for the presence of the comforter the Holy spirit as I await  the night my soul is require dof me or the return of my Lord for me. I also pray  pray deeply  that when i suffer my own times of doubt as to worship and the value of "church" I will always be challenged by the Holy Spirit and brought back to that stage of deep appreciation of the time pent amongst the brothers and sisters in hearing the word together and of the holy Spirit's presence among us. Whether it be two or three gathered, or two or three thousand or more, may the Holy Spirit lift me, and convict me each time of the value of the gathering  of the bond-servants of Christ Jesus.

 

Then this is why I am absolutely in support of you attending. I hope you don't assume that what I was saying applied in my situation applies to yours, or to anyone else's specifically. I was simply sharing my own perspective to the OP, in case they are in a similar situation to me.

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

When I too feel flat in my joy

Please understand, Neighbor, in my case this is not about simply feeling "flat in my joy." This is about wasting hour after hour, service after service, not being spiritual edified or ministered to (at all). My Lord will hold me accountable for where I spent my time, and I will not be able to stand before Him and give the excuse that I was "obeying what the word said." I will know better than that, and so will He. But please don't take offense with me in this. It is not my intention to discourage anyone from membership in a church. In fact, I envy anyone who finds a church that ministers to them, and am very happy for them. It is just not my circumstance anymore, so I post my own perspective in hopes of encouraging these who going through similar things to what I am now.

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

excerpt; from the God inspired letter from Paul to the Hebrews

Trust me. If I should find a fellowship operating in true New Testament practice anywhere near me, with strong leadership who are humbly submitted to His Lordship, you can REST ASSURED I'd be in attendance. I'm only concerned with making sure I don't waste the time I have left. I've had more than three decades now of both dealing with and observing local churches, and I will stand judgment for wasting time in some of them already; months of my life that I cannot get back, and will now be held accountable for.

I would love to be pleasing to all men, especially all Christians if at all possible, but in the end I will not have to give account before any of them. Nor will I be able to use the excuse before the True Judge that I was doing what others said He was telling me to do, when my conscience was very clearly telling me something different.

Just please don't assume this is in any way a judgment upon you, or what you are doing, or what you believe. I am not that type of person. I'm again simply hoping there is also consideration for what I and others like me are going through as well.

1 hour ago, KiwiChristian said:

"apparently"?

 

Or do you KNOW what he meant?

 

Did he SAY which texts?

 

He was outright telling me publicly that we should agree to use his English translation alone for any debate. The implication behind this statement is that he regards his English translation as superior to any Greek text, including the one his English translation was based on.

3 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Simple rule of thumb for me, is always look in scripture for the symbolic references found in scripture.

 

I understand, and as it goes this is an excellent rule of thumb. I take this position as well much of the time, but I also take into account what the Spirit is saying to the churches (through prophetic utterances), as there are sometimes things which are revealed through prophecy, visions and dreams. The revelation that the gospel was to be extended to the Gentiles is a good example of this (Acts 10:3, 10-16).

3 hours ago, wingnut- said:

The difference here in thinking is, nowhere in scripture does it state anything about Rome or a Christian denomination becoming a spiritual whore in His eyes.  The connection to Rome is always tied to the city on seven hills, which also points to Jerusalem, a city on seven hills.

 

I think the issue here for me would simply be one of consistency. Revelations states that the ten kings will hate the whore and burn her with fire. In one hour will her utter destruction come by fire, and she will be cast down, never to be seen again (Revelation 18:21).

Firstly this would seem to be inconsistent with what scripture says about the reign of the Antichrist. He will rule from Jerusalem until he is destroyed at the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ from Heaven, rather than by the ten kings.

Secondly, that Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed so as to never be seen again seems inconsistent with Revelation 21:2. I realize the "New Jerusalem" could be interpreted as a different city entirely, but it seems inconsistent to say that Jerusalem will never be seen again only to talk about a New Jerusalem existing forever soon thereafter.

But I certainly have no issue with the RCC personally. In fact, I kinda cringe when I think that Catholic friends might be reading a post like that. It's sad what will become of Rome in many ways, so I don't believe what I do out of spite for the RCC or any Catholic. I simply believe it's the proper interpretation of scripture.

Thanks for your kind and courteous reply. Much appreciated.  

50 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Give Ezekiel 16 a read, there is no mystery.  Also, I would add, the RCC did not exist when the church began.

Actually, Wingnut, WilliamL's answer comes the closest to the truth in my opinion.

Jerusalem became a spiritual whore in God's eyes (Ezekiel 16), just as a unified Christian denominational movement led by Catholicism will become a spiritual whore in His eyes during the end-times.

That she will lead any movement that unifies the Christian denominational world is only logical, as she is the largest, and this is why she will be called "the Mother of the harlots, and the abominations of the earth." The argument that the Catholic Church did not exist when this prophecy was spoken and therefore cannot be its fulfillment supposes that the Lord does not prophecy well beyond the times in which the prophecy itself is delivered, but we know that not to be the case. Most end-time prophecies have not yet come to fulfillment.

51 minutes ago, Blue Lulu said:

How can I battle sarcasm and not be rude or jaded in return?

Pray that the Lord allows you to distance yourself a little from these situations. Even if he is your husband, and she is your boss, He will. But Satan wants you to feel trapped. Yet if you ask Him to reveal to you how, He will begin showing you things you can do; maybe it will be cooking some things where you know EXACTLY how long it is going to take, LoL. Maybe He will empower you to do things exactly the way she likes it done...

But the reason why you want to create a little distance is to give yourself time to readjust your thinking. I've worked for some real jerks before myself (not saying that about your husband or your boss. Just saying), and the irritation was enough to potentially make me lose my job (or worse) if I acted on it. But by seeking the Lord and asking Him for His help when at home in my private time, He turned those situations around completely every time. He empowered me to treat them with forgiveness, kindness and respect, which in turn created changes in the way they treated me and viewed me.

The principle is to overcome evil with good, and in some cases you may find out that they didn't even realize how much what they were doing was effecting you. But even if they do, show them the power of God operating in your life by praying to become empowered with His mercy, love and forgiveness. It will have its effect on them, so long as you keep praying for God to empower you (and not just praying for a "miracle" to happen in their lives or something, LoL).