sojourner4Christ

Thank you. I am encouraged that I came across as “very clear.” “Rant on”??? That’s your opinion; in fact, that‘s your presumption. And it is a sin to deal presumptuously with others. "But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people." - Num. 15:30 "And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously." - Deu. 17:13 "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression." - Psa. 19:13 Presumptions or accusations are based on natural reason (unless it's an unrebuttable presumption where, in fact, you have committed evil, and there's a witness). Presumptions are something that the natural man has created. The natural man comes up with a presumption and they cast a burden on you to prove otherwise. Another, more typical example, of a presumptuous question would be something like, "Have you beaten your wife lately?" Either a "yes" or "no" answer is bad. This question "presumes" you have beaten your wife already. If you answer "yes," you admit guilt. If you answer "No," you still admit to having beat your wife, just not lately. Their presumptuous questions steer your mind to the answers they want. In scripture, you don't find where God asks a leading question or makes a leading statement. The only reason for secrecy is to hide evil, so please, if you have an issue with ANY of my posts (“hidden” or otherwise), then bring it out into the light or hold your peace. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." - Pro. 18:13 I have not “decided to condemn people...,” and you have not proven that I have. I never claimed that and, again, you have not proven that I have. There are many who would say they are saved/Christians/whatever, but we know that they are not. How do we know? Because the Lord tells us that many will cry “Lord! Lord!”, yet they are eternally damned. It’s not my opinion -- it’s scripture. Now that’s a fair statement. In addition to my 27March quote that you cited, and to further clarify the “Christian” name issue (with scripture and other documentation), the following is provided. Some would cite 1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." First of all, keep in mind this is the one and only place in the entire scripture this word is used by any man of God. Secondly, Peter did not label the followers of Christ a "Christian" in the passage. Read it again, very carefully. He said they were to be "as a Christian." This is very important. The word as means "like or similar to," but it does not mean one is that word. For example: Genesis 49:9, "...he couched as a lion," does not mean Judah was a lion when he couched! Exodus 15:5, "...they sank into the bottom as a stone," does not mean they were a stone when they sank. Matthew 17:20, "...If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed," does not mean faith is a mustard seed. Matthew 23:37, "...gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens," does not mean God's children were chickens. Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ," does not mean husbands are Christ when they love their wives. And, therefore: 1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian," does not mean man is a Christian when they suffer. When someone is "as" something else, it does not mean one is that something. It means we are similar, in some way, to that name, but we are not literally that name. You see, the heathens are the ones who called the followers of Christ "Christians" (Acts 11:26; 26:28). When Peter was referring to the title "Christian, " it is in the context of suffering, and is in reference to the name as imposed upon them by their enemies, because our enemies want us to suffer. "Christian: A follower of the religion of Christ [Note carefully that Christ never started a religion - John 7:16]. It is probable that the name Christian, like that of Nazarenes and Galileans, was given to the disciples of our Lord in reproach or contempt. What confirms this opinion is, that the people of Antioch in Syria, Acts 11:26, where they were first called Christians observed by Zosimus, Procopius, and Zonaras, to have been remarkable for their scurrilous jesting. Some have indeed thought that this name was given by the disciples to themselves; others, that it was imposed on them by divine authority; in either of which cases we should have met with it in the subsequent history of the Acts, and in the Apostolic Epistles, all of which were written some years after; whereas it is found but in two more places in the New Testament, Acts 26:28, where a Jew is the speaker, and in 1 Peter 4:16, where reference appears to be made to the name as imposed on them by their enemies. The word used, Acts 11:26, signifies simply to be called or named, and when Doddridge and a few others take to imply a divine appointment, they disregard the usus loquendi [established acceptation of the term] which gives no support to that opinion. The words Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero, are remarkable, ‘vulgus Christianos appellabat,’ ‘the vulgar call them Christians.’ Epiphanius says, that they were called Jesseans, either from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is much more probable, from the name of Jesus, whose disciples they were. They were denominated Christians, A. D. 42 or 43; and though the name was first given reproachfully, they gloried in it, as expressing their adherence to Christ, and they soon generally accepted it." Richard Watson, Watson’s Bible Dictionary (1832), p. 233. "Cristianos, Christian: a word formally not after the Greek but after the Roman manner, denoting attachment to or adherents to Christ. Only occurs as used by others of them, not by Christians of themselves. Tacitus (A.D. 96) says (Annals 15, 44), ‘The vulgar call them Christians. The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate.’" Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 152. "This name (Christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is never used by Christians of themselves, only as spoken by or coming from those without the church. The general names by which the early Christians called themselves were ‘brethren,’ ‘disciples,’ ‘believers,’ and ‘saints.’ The presumption is that the name ‘Christian’ was originated by the heathen." Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths (1882), page 567, note 3. "The name (Christian) given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch." Easton’s Bible Dictionary. "Egypt, which you commanded to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about every breath of fame. The worshippers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ." The Emperor Adrian to Servianus, written A.D. 134. If you go to Zodhiates Word Studies, he tells you that when they were called Christians at Antioch, using the word ‘crematezo,’ it was a "divine warning." In other words, be forewarned, avoid this word and the use of it. And that’s what the apostles did. You will never read any of these New Testament writers using the term ‘christian’ to describe themselves. That is truly encouraging. I wouldn’t know about “Facebook, Google Groups or Yahoo”, as I have not been called to participate in any of that. And I’m not into opinions. I’ve read them both, and I’ve just now read them again. I found no conflicts there, even though by design, the application is heavily weighed in WCF’s favor. I accepted the package when I was directed here. If you recall, the initial mention of this “Christian” label issue was in the context of the “gay Christian” topic. My point was/is that, if one wants to walk truly free, there will be problems when one appropriates EITHER label (“gay” or “Christian”). And there was another poster who intimated that, as well, prior to the thread being locked. Either we endeavor to seek the truth, or we pander down to the P.C. thing and remain in bondage, knowingly or otherwise. The truth is always vehemently opposed at first. If we don’t want to discuss where the “Christian” label came from, then we’ve already declared our priority, haven’t we?

I have not “criticized.” The scriptural explanation for why I do not appropriate the world's label of "Christian" was previously posted Your argument is not with me. Again, the scripture that declares it, as I previously posted is: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Mat. 7:13-14) What else do you wish to know? For Tinky's sake, perhaps we should start another thread on The Power of Words.

shiloh357 said: That’s an integral part of the problem i.e. “I just want...” Don’t freak out; I won’t “launch.” My opinion is no better than anyone’s. Rather, the body of Christ deals in truth -- not opinions. In any case, you certainly have the liberty to appropriate any label you “want.” I can’t know that with certainty; neither can you. ROFL! You’re joking, right?

By his grace through my faith, yes I am. I am a born again follower of Jesus Christ. (And I do not appropriate the world's label of "Christian.") Let's endeavor to bump up the numbers, shall we?

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Mat. 7:13-14)

The OP begs the question of the doctrine of “original sin” (another heresy). Indeed @ that agenda, but... ...the truth is that there is only a miniscule, a remnant, that is truly born again in Jesus Christ. Tragically, many who appropriate the worldly label of “Christian” are not born again, and the majority are on the broad path to destruction. There is no warrant to attempt to skew that statistic in favor of us, the readers, simply because this would be a ”Christian” site. God’s judgment is upon USA Inc. Many are about to be destroyed, but not because “Those who are His [are doing as] He directs...”

Welcome, Daniel2015, and yes, I have been there, too. From Daniel2015’s OP: That is absolutely 100% correct. Let’s start closing doors to demonic influence. The first step in overcoming is to avoid accepting the worldly labels that are temptingly laid out for you by the god of this world. Words matter. Those who speak like the world are presumed to be of the world. Do not compare yourself with the number; those who do so are not wise. “Gay Christian” is an unwise label to appropriate. Now, to continue with that thought i.e. words matter, I do not call myself a Christian, either, and for the same reason. I do not claim that worldly title. Such labels are the way that the world makes its attachment to you. Hitler claimed to be “Christian,” George Bush claims to be “Christian,” etc. etc. The term 'Christian' was used to describe a follower of Christ in terms of the world, from the world’s point of view. The pagans at Antioch called the apostles "Christians" first (Acts 11:26; 26:28) and used it derogatorily because the apostles didn’t follow the commercial world of the pagans. "Christian" is an adjective, not a noun. The substance is not in the word "Christian", the substance is in the heart of the man it is attempting to describe, and which the pagan user cannot see. Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians. Christ never used an adjective to describe himself. So how are we to identify ourselves then? The disciples called each other, "brethren", "disciples", "apostles", "servants", "believers", "followers", "the faithful", "the elect", "the called", and "saints." We can also identify ourselves as "bondservants" of Christ. Some of you won’t be able to get past your conditioning to accept that. So be it. If you believe I am in error, prove it, with scripture. Otherwise, hold your peace. That is all good. and Yes. And some might consider the local church to be one such “private” place -- at least, based on Daniel2015’s experiences with it. Also AA might likewise be considered a “secretive” organization for the same reasons. It’s that fleshly ‘hidden knowledge/occultic/enlightenment’ perspective that so much of the world is promoting these days. Daniel2015, yet another “network” can’t hold its own against the enemy. The all-inclusive AA model tells you to call on your ‘higher power’; for some, that would be satan. (Paul wasn’t killed because he preached Jesus Christ; Paul was killed because he preached the exclusivity of Jesus Christ.) With the AA model, drunkards are not healed; they stand up at each meeting, after 20 years of being sober, and still say, “Hi, my name is Joe and I’m an alcoholic.” These guys never truly heal; they are reduced to becoming mere professional AA attendees for life. There you go, we’re right back to accepting the “gay Christian” label and the open door it creates to keeping one in bondage. This is spiritual warfare. We need to drop all the worldly labels and committees and bust out our respective knee pads before the King of glory. He stands by, ready and able; only he can sort this out for you. Are you ready to lay it all out before him and him alone?

Rather, here are the facts, no "conspiracy:" We have a screen capture, that was taken at 10:44:36. It includes THE FIGHTER JET ESCORTS: AND BELOW, WE HAVE THE EDITED REPORT, WITH THE FIGHTER JETS REMOVED. If they get put back into the story and lies are hatched for damage control, it is TOO LATE. The fact they chose to expunge this information irrevocably proves they never wanted these fighter jets to be mentioned, and THAT SAYS IT ALL. TOO LATE, BUSTED:

It's even more odd that my previous post in this thread was deleted. Read the details for yourself (Link removed)

It is early morning here. I woke up about an hour ago. While checking my emails, I saw the news about the French plane crash. Last night, I had a dream that a plane had crashed in a remote mountainous area. Three bodies were pulled out of the wreckage who appeared to be alive. Pray for survivors.

You started this thread with an unassuming post, and you have maintained that demeanor. Thanks for posting another forthright response. Well, these guys (those of satan's kingdom) play for keeps -- there's no guesswork there. To answer your statemement, no, you do NOT "have to be in subjection to government authorities." The child of God is to place himself in subjection to Godly authority, and not the counterfeit. You make your choice and render accordingly. Recall that there is a form of obedience that leads to death: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? -- Romans 6:16 Many stumble with the reality that there is a counterfeit “authority” seeking our obeisance. Satan said, “I will be like the most High” (Isaiah 14:14). It is Satan’s “higher power” which is behind the merchants, the rich men of the earth, the present temporal “governing authorities.” In reply to the blind opinion that all kings, princes, and governments are set up and "ordained" by God, we will quote the following passage, which is spoken into the ears of Hosea by God Almighty himself. We pray that those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will no longer engage in such opinions: They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not. (Hos 8:4) Also, Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." (Psa 2:1-3) There's no Godly ordination there. When scripture speaks of obeying and submitting ourselves to those who have the rule over us, God’s word is not talking about heathen governments, but those "rulers" within Jesus Christ's assembly. Notice carefully this verse says these rulers "watch for your souls." Governments of men cannot govern or watch for anyone's souls, for they can only govern outward acts, not the inward being. But true spiritual leaders do watch for our souls Those who "have the rule over you" at Hebrews 13:17 is specifically defined a few verses earlier in Hebrews 13:7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation." As we can see, scripture itself defines these "rulers" as those who speak the word of God and have faith. Secular governments avoid, and often forbid, speaking the word of God within their system through outlawing prayer in their schools and replacing it with such unrighteousness as "the theory of evolution," and by taking down the "Ten Commandments" from their courtrooms. These are not the rulers we are to submit to. Are we to be men pleasers, or God pleasers? And God has not given his people the foul spirit of fear (one of Satan's boys), but of power and of love and of a sound mind. In Romans 13, does verse 1 say, "let every soul be subject unto all governments"? Or does it say, "let every soul (including governing authorities such as kings, judges, police, etc.) be subject unto the Higher Power"? Who do souls belong to? God says: Ezekiel 18:4, "Behold, all souls are mine." And the second part of verse 1 tells us Who the Higher Power is: "...For there is no power but of God." The souls of the governmental powers belong to God, and they are not the higher powers, the higher powers are held by Christ himself (Matthew 28:18). Is our Lord not the higher power, then, if all power has been committed unto him (John 17:2)? Christ is the governor among the nations (Psalms 22:28). All power over earthly kings has been given unto him (Romans 14:9). All judgment has been given unto him (John 5:22, 27). Notice the separation of Power in Romans 13:1. All power comes from, and belongs to, God (Psalm 62:11) and not the one exercising it. And remember that most men, especially those constituting the "governing authorities," usually deny that power given to Jesus (2 Timothy 3:5). If your reaction to being told that there are faults in Caesar's statutes is to rush to defend them, it is because you cannot envision life without them. This is normal for someone who can only see one kingdom: the kingdom of this world. Yet this world is passing away, as are our own bodies. There is only one thing in life more certain than Caesar's taxes. So we are really here as a test of whether we can “see” and then choose those things that have eternal value. Are our energies devoted to laying up earthly treasures, or treasures in heaven? Are we slaves devoted to building the kingdom of this world, or are we seeking first the kingdom of God? We cannot even know where to begin unless we can see God's kingdom, which is the true meaning of being born again. God in his sovereignty has provided the perfect means of testing whether we can make the distinction between the two kingdoms. Caesar has usurped God's authority, but his kingdom is built entirely with our consent and by using legal fictions. His authority over us is imaginary. We do not have to render ourselves to him unless we believe that we belong to him. Most people believe with all their heart that they do, for they cannot see the alternative. But if you know that you belong to God, along with your labor, your family, and everything else you have, then you will already have a deep-seated unease with the multitude of demands Caesar makes on you. If this is the case, then make a list of those things that rightly belong to God but you have in ignorance given to Caesar. Then develop a plan of action for returning them to their rightful owner. This is not easy, but it is necessary. You will need to learn much more about God's Law so that you can discern what true obedience requires of you. If you trust the State to provide for your needs rather than trusting God, it should be clear which master you are serving. As no man can serve two masters, you have a choice to make. Scripture is clear that obedience to God comes at a price, and we must first count the cost. But once you can see the eternal kingdom, you will realize that any price is worth it. The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. (Mat 13:44)

Henry offers lots of speculation, qualifiers, generalizations, and just plain guesswork. He's in the dark. Firstly, Christ didn't pay any tribute -- SIMON DID. It's a tough nut to crack, re: the 'Jesus paid taxes' heresy. Repeat any lie often enough and ppl will believe it. The power of the lie is strong. Nothing there from Henry, either, to answer the OP's querry about the presence, the necessity of, the fish aspect -- no connection to the fact that Simon Peter, as a former commercial fisherman, had a persona as one OF the world. When Simon Peter said "Yes" to the tax men, a contract was established. And that point, payment was a foregone conclusion i.e. IT WAS A DONE DEAL. THIS ILLUSTRATES THE DANGER OF GODLY MEN JOINING THEMSELVES TO UNGODLY AUTHORITY. Like the majority in the USA Inc. today, who are serving two masters and thus living in fear of gov't jack-booted thugs who are banging down their castle doors AS WE SPEAK to haul ppl away to "indefinite detention" and worse, THIS is what RENDERING TO CAESAR is all about. When you look to Caesar as your authority, you will render to Caesar. When Hitler's troops came to ppl's houses in the middle of the night to take them away to concentration camps, torture, and death, they did nothing illegal! The laws in place at that time allowed for that scenario. And Hitler didn't seize power -- he was elected! Now imagine, for a second, after Simon was PREVENTED by Jesus from paying that tax because a genuine child of God is free from that, Simon goes back to those guys and sheepishly says, 'Look guys, I goofed. My master and I don't really pay taxes, because the children of God are free. Sorry about that!' LOL IT'S TOO LATE! This is precisely why the ONLY reason, as per scripture, that Jesus gave time to the dead thing the tax men were tempting Simon with, was because at this point, to now refuse, after Simon had already contracted to pay, would only cause OFFENSE. The potential to cause OFFENSE is the only reason why Jesus handled it the way he did. A man's word is his bond, and Simon's witness (if any) would have been thoroughly shot in the foot, to say the least, if he were now to attempt to refuse to pay after he already agreed to pay. Simon did indeed goof i.e. he made a deal, he "struck hands" with the ungodly gov't and now he must leave his standing as an ambassador of Christ, a sovereign-in-Christ sojourner, a stranger in Caesar's land of which he is not a citizen - AND NOW RETURN to that commercial world ruled by the ungodly, familiar to him formerly as a commercial fisherman, in order to satisfy his incurred obligation to those OF the world. It's irrelevant what kind of tax Caesar may require from his subjects. One does not owe Caesar a plugged nickel if one does not partake of Caesar's 'benefits packages.' It's a question of authority. Who do you look to, for the authority to do the things you do? Most ppl are busy rendering to Caesar what is rightfully due Christ. It's a worldly protection racket based in vain deceit. "My ppl are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

I will share what the Lord has shown me on this. From the OP: Short answer to #1: Jesus was teaching Peter a lesson. Short answer to #2: Peter, not Jesus, incurred the obligation. Also from the OP: Indeed... Exactly. Exactly. Exactly, and more. Yes. And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. Let's break this passage down. Verse 24: The tax collector, approaching the softer target, asked Simon Peter if Jesus paid taxes. Verse 25: Peter said, "yes". But "Jesus prevented" Peter from paying the tax. Why did Jesus prevent Peter from paying taxes? Verse 26: Jesus said "Then are the children free" from paying taxes. This is why, because we are now free. But we must not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness. Verse 27: However, to avoid "offending" this tax collector (since, as was the habit of Peter, he opened his mouth too soon without really thinking and obligated Jesus by his statement that Jesus did pay taxes), Jesus told Peter to cast a hook into the sea, and catch a fish, and take out money from its mouth and pay it. Even though Jesus provided a coin to Simon for this tax, it was to avoid "offending" the collector, and because Peter rashly agreed to pay it, not because we are bound to pay taxes by Law. Jesus made the point to stress that the children are free from taxes. But notice, Simon Peter and Jesus did not give him any of their own money, but that which came from the fish! It is interesting to note that Peter was a commercial fisherman (a fisher of fish) before being called to be an apostle of Christ (a fisher of men), and when Peter opened his mouth before thinking (as he often did), Christ basically chastised him by having Peter return to his old life to pay his debt! He had to be a fisher of fish to catch that fish with the coin in its mouth. Thus, the lesson for us is: When you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world again to meet those obligations. Additionally, Jesus could not have fulfilled prophecy if he was to go to prison, which might have happened if he didn't pay that tax after Peter "volunteered" for him. It was not his time to go to prison yet. Likewise, Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to his rescue, but because the scriptures would not have been fulfilled if he did, he refrained from doing that act (Matthew 26:53-54). Jesus taught that we are free from paying taxes if we are children of the king (Matthew 17:24-26), meaning the children of King Jesus (Acts 17:7, 1 Timothy 1:17). Now, for clarification, if a government is acting strictly as a minister of God, then it is lawful to pay taxes to that government (Romans 13:6), because that "silver coin" which belongs to God also belongs to God's ministers, as they are acting in his name and doing his will. However, if a government is not a minister of God, then there is no duty to give taxes to it. So now we know that Jesus did not ‘pay taxes.’ Rather, Jesus cleverly provided a coin to Simon Peter with which to satisfy Simon’s foolishly incurred obligation and thus teach him (and us) a lesson. [About me: I don't pay taxes, neither do I owe any man anything but love. I am not a citizen of any earthly country, not a resident, not any of those legal person-alities. I am married and have three home birthed and home schooled daughters -- all "unpapered," i.e. no birth cert's, passports, etc. They are not citizens of any earthly country; they are sovereign in Christ. Caesar (i.e. man's ungodly government) cannot touch them, although the spirit behind them would kill us (and you). My family lives, moves, and has its being in Christ -- not in Caesar. I tell you this as one who has been through many trials with man’s ungodly government. I have been incarcerated many times. My FBI report lists nine arrests and no convictions. (It was an exciting and privileged time in my life when I was given those opportunities to stand for Christ and gain true wisdom.) Caesar is always trying to pull me back into his world, always presuming that I am still one of his citizens, one of his “right and duty bearing units.” The “coin in the fish’s mouth” passage remains a watershed issue for me in my walk with the King.]

There are two opposing perspectives of this abomination of desolation. When the deceived church sees the resumption of the Jewish sacrifice, they will believe they are about to be raptured. They won't believe the event they've just witnessed is the abomination, for they've been taught that won't occur until 3.5 years later with the cessation of the sacrifice. The true believer will instead recognize the event as the abomination itself. They won't be expecting to be raptured because they know that Christ said when "ye shall see the abomination of desolation" it will then be time for them to flee into the mountains -- or quickly activate any contingency plans they've made to be preserved during the immediately ensuing destruction. The individual who inaugurates the resumption of the sacrifice is the Antichrist. The book of Daniel even tells us that the abomination is NOT the cessation of the sacrifice. At the very end of the book, the angel tells Daniel that "...from the time [that] the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, [there shall be] a thousand two hundred and ninety days." (Dan. 12:11). This verse clearly tells us that the 'setting up' of the abomination and the cessation of the sacrifice are separated by a period of 1,290 days. If you look at it closely, you'll see the verse strongly infers that the resumption of the sacrifice IS the abomination of desolation. It's because the passage approaches the chronological events in reverse that it's somewhat veiled. Again, it reads "from [or between] the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away... and the [setting up of the] abomination," there will be a period of just over 3.5 years. The final aspect of the Beast's revealing will only occur at Christ's second coming. The truth is, the abomination of desolation is the resumption of animal sacrifices for the sins of mankind when the precious blood of God's only begotten son has already been shed for our desperate sinful condition. Christians are actually being taught that when they help to promote the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, it's a way of hastening the rapture! Dispensationally-oriented Christian prophecy teachers crisscross the country on speaking engagements (I've heard a few) urging believers to unilaterally support Israel on this matter. They speak frequently of the "Temple Mount Faithful," a group focused on rebuilding the temple. Messianic Jewish Christians lavishly promote tours to Israel and the Temple Mount for this very purpose. Certain prophecy teachers (e.g. Monte Judah of Lamb and Lion Ministries) have even warned Christians that when the sacrifice is resumed, they must not speak against it, or they will be violating the will of God! This resumption of the ancient sacrificial system IS THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION that will be blessed by the Antichrist and his False Prophet from their seat of power in Jerusalem, at which time huge numbers of Christians will be of one mind with the Antichrist. Meanwhile, the true remnant believers, already ostracised by the harlot churches they've come out of, will look on at the ghastly spectacle of the church spiritually embracing the global event even as the Antichrist then takes his place and "sits" in the now likeminded spiritual "temple of God." Under the guise of religious tolerance and pluralism of this age, Christians are already embracing the idea of the Jews reverting to the Old Covenant practice of animal sacrifice. Through a distorted interpretation of the promises of blessing made to Abraham, Christians have been taught that the Jews are still the chosen people. Genesis 12:3 reads: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." This verse has been distorted and misinterpreted more than any other single verse in the bible! Christians simply don't realize that this promise of blessing applies to them, not to the unbelieving Jews. By dividing God's promises into "dispensations," vast numbers of well-meaning believers have bought the lie that the promises of God have been inherited by the Jews in spite of the fact that the Old Covenant people rejected and crucified their Saviour. The New Testament says "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:14). Blanket acceptance of all things Jewish is a terrible error. Ask yourself how many times you've heard about the "Judeo-Christian" culture or society that we live in? The Bible is very clear on the subject. Speaking of the Jews, the book of Romans says "As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies FOR YOUR SAKES..." The only society that I'm really interested in living in is a Christian one! Liberal and so-called conservative Christianity is into "bridge-building" as a way to reconcile Christians with Jews. They've published religiously-correct Bibles that twist the verses. They sponsor religiously-correct institutions of learning that fail to warn all that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. There are even pastors that are now teaching Jews can be saved by following the Old Covenant! This IS the great falling away, as the antichrist encroaches into the true temple of God. It's neither the way of the Apostles, nor the remnant church of Jesus Christ. To diplomatically label the truth as being unpalatable, the religious institutions and scholars have placed believers in the position of keeping quiet about the one thing they must never keep quiet about. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the Jews, as well as everyone else. The writer of Hebrews sums it up: "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ... For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more [shall not] we [escape], if we turn away from him that [speaketh] from heaven." (Heb. 8:6,7, 12:25). Also, here

Daniel's 70-weeks prophecy is broken up into 3 time periods (49 years, 434 years, and 7 years). Jesus Christ has 70 weeks to accomplish all that is listed in the summary (Dan 9:24). Following the "day for a year" principle: The first period = 49 years (49 days, or 7 weeks) The second period = 434 years (434 days, or 62 weeks) The third period = 7 years (7 days, or 1 week) Due to a widespread misread of this prophecy, a majority of Christians presently believe the yet-to-come tribulation period is 7 years in length. Allow me to briefly address the truth of the matter. In the seventy weeks prophecy, each "week" is predictive of a 7-year period -- thus seventy 7-year periods is 490 years -- another recurring cyclical period in prophecy. In Daniel's prophecy described in his 9th chapter, the seventy weeks are allocated to "make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness..." (Dan 9:24), among other things. The Messiah is the one who accomplishes everything listed in the prophetic summary found in the prophecy (Dan 9:24) -- and the Antichrist is never mentioned in the entire chapter. The text tells us that sixty-nine 7-year periods (483 years) will mark the arrival of the Messiah. Once Jesus arrives, He begins to accomplish the many facets of His mission as specified in the prophecy. Thus, at the arrival of the Messiah, the last 7 years of the seventy-week prophecy commences as the prophecy specifies that the various aspects of the prophecy, including the finishing of "the transgression" and the making "an end of sins" (Dan 9:24) work of the Messiah is to occur within the framework of the seventy weeks. The pre-trib rapturists attempt to make Christ's entire ministry take place in a contrived 'gap' they've inserted between the 69th week and the 70th week. They then seek to say the last "week" -- i.e. the last 7 years -- is yet to begin; thus the idea that the last 7 years is the tribulation. However, the prophecy is very clear that Christ is the only one that can accomplish the list of items that must be achieved within the 70 weeks. It is Christ that makes "reconciliation for iniquity" and it is Christ that brings in "everlasting righteousness." (Dan 9:24) He accomplished all of these things during his 3.5-year ministry -- which must then be seen as a part of the seventy weeks. Thus, the ministry of Jesus Christ occupies the first half of the last 7-year period. The text then tells us that after the time interval that precedes His arrival, the "Messiah [shall] be cut off" -- and the very next verse tells us this will occur "in the midst of the week." (Daniel 26, 27) That would be in the midst of the last "week" or halfway through the seventieth week. Once again, this would be a period of 3.5 years -- precisely the length of the ministry of Jesus Christ. By attempting to distort the truth of this last "week" of the prophecy and seeking to assign it to the Antichrist, the pre-trib rapturists have severely diminished at least part of the impact of this striking prophecy. To put it another way, this amazing prophecy actually tells us the Messiah will be killed after His 3.5-year ministry! But there is much, much more. The prophecy also re-affirms the covenant that is made with mankind -- the "many" specified in Daniel 9:27. Christ's one-time sacrifice "causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan 27) -- and there is no '7-year treaty' ever mentioned. There is no Antichrist anywhere in this prophecy, and there is certainly no 7-year tribulation! There is, however, an unaccounted for last half of the final 7-year period. This is the 3.5-year period we would usually refer to as the tribulation. Jesus Christ hinted at the symmetry that is found in this passage when He said "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." (John 5:43) As Christ's ministry was "determined" (Dan 9:24) to be 3.5 years, the Antichrist's "ministry" will also be of a similar tenure. In Revelation, the prophet tells us of the Beast that "power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." (Rev 13:5) The pre-trib rapturists have claimed that this period begins at the halfway point of their unscriptural 7-year tribulation, at the point that the Beast supposedly betrays the theoretical 7-year "treaty" that he has supposedly made with the Jewish people. All of this is based on the misread of Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy that I previously noted. In essence, the so-called "church" has taken critical passages dealing with the covenant that Jesus Christ made, and turned them into a treaty made by the Antichrist! In short, with this incredible deception, it is now clear that most Christian leaders cannot tell the difference between Jesus Christ and the Antichrist. This "strong delusion" is precisely what has been prophesied to occur, and recognizing the truth of this prophecy is crucial to every believer's spiritual survival. The truth of the matter is, the 42-month term that is specified for the Antichrist is not related to any so-called "treaty" with the Jews -- indeed, no treaty is ever mentioned in Daniel's prophecies! The passage does focus on a covenant -- but since when is a "covenant" a treaty? Daniel's prophecy in the 9th chapter deals exclusively with the Messiah. It states that "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Dan 9:27) -- the "one week" representing the last 7 years of the allotted seventy-week prophecy. Since the Antichrist is never mentioned in the passage and the entire passage is about the work that will be accomplished by JESUS CHRIST, we might ask ourselves what "covenant" would the LORD confirm? The covenant made between God and man to redeem us from our sins. Isaiah wrote about this when the LORD said through the prophet "... I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them." (Isa 61:8) In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul writes about "the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ..." (Gal 3:17) This is an absolutely amazing statement, for it clearly connects Daniel's 70-week prophecy with Jesus Christ -- compelling scriptural evidence that Daniel's famous prophecy has nothing to do with a supposed 7-year treaty made with the Jewish people. In fact, the passage in Galatians telling us that Christ is the one that "confirmed" the covenant is definitively linked to the "covenant" that was made with Abraham. That covenant, referred to in the text by the Lord as "an everlasting covenant... between me and thee and thy seed after thee" (Gen 17:7), is the basis for the entire system of salvation that exists in Jesus Christ. Indeed, Galatians and Hebrews tell us that Jesus Christ is the only seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16; Heb 2:16), so the covenant between God and Abraham was confirmed in Christ. Once we recognize that the arrival of Jesus Christ commenced the countdown of the 70th week, it is not difficult to see that the last half of that 7-year period (the 70th "week") must still be ahead of us. The Preterists (those who teach the tribulation already happened in 70 AD) teach that the 2nd half of the last 7-year period occurred in the 3.5-year siege of Jerusalem that began in 66 AD and culminated in 70 AD. Although they are in serious error, it should be obvious that since the "tribulation" that occurred in ancient Jerusalem was indeed 3.5 years in length, a pattern was clearly emerging. The simple fact is, there is still a final 3.5-year period that must elapse before the "70 weeks" can be concluded. Within that period will be the 42 months of the Antichrist. Revelation tells us that when the Beast arrives, "power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." (Rev 13:5) The fact that the Antichrist is plainly in view in this verse has not discouraged the pre-trib rapturists -- they simply continue to teach a 7-year tribulation and claim this 42-month period must be the 2nd half of their still future 7-year period! In other words, they are essentially saying 'our minds are made up, don't try to confuse us with any Scripture!' The 42-month period is further obscured by the fact that the two witnesses of that same book of Revelation are said to have a ministry term of "a thousand two hundred and threescore days" (Rev 11:4). This period of 1,260 days is also 3.5 years. Although some would seek to place the two periods, 42 months and 1,260 days, in a consecutive order -- thus totaling 7 years -- the text doesn't support such an arbitrary placement. Indeed, since the two witnesses are prophets that will ultimately be killed by "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit" (Rev 11:7), at least a partial overlap of the two periods is required. This fact is confirmed as the two witnesses die in Jerusalem where the Beast sets up his throne. Furthermore, because the witnesses are scheduled to provide "testimony," one might ask what it is they are to witness? It should be apparent that God has these two prophets on hand in order to bear WITNESS as to what is done during this dreadful period -- and what they will most certainly bear witness against would be the violation of God's law by the Antichrist and the False Prophet. Obviously, this would require the 1,260 days coincide, at least partially, with the 42 months of the Beast's term.