The Fifth Trumpet - Jerusalem's Seige

[gdemoss]

What we need to understand about the abomination of desolation is that it is the only place in the whole bible where God thought it needed to be pointed out "let him who readeth understand".

Most historians agree that the gospels of Mark and Matthew were written some time between 50-70 AD. This verse we have here has an expectation attached to it that is explaining to the 'reader' that they ought understand. Both Matthew and Mark were warning their readers to be informed. Do we somehow think God did not know that it would be read for 2000 years?

Consider this: And read it carefully.

1Pe 1:11-12 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

The authors of the OT searched the Spirit which was in them for the answer to the question "who are we writing too?" and received an answer. It was prophetic and written unto a people in the future.

If you can understand this principle and know that Peter also understood it, do you think for one moment that Peter and the other authors of the NT did not search the Spirit in them to understand who they were writing unto? If we have the Spirit in Christ in us, then we ought also be able to search that said Spirit to understand who these writings are too as well.

Let him who has ears to hear, hear.

[Bluefinger]

If you can understand this principle and know that Peter also understood it, do you think for one moment that Peter and the other authors of the NT did not search the Spirit in them to understand who they were writing unto? If we have the Spirit in Christ in us, then we ought also be able to search that said Spirit to understand who these writings are too as well.

Let him who has ears to hear, hear.

If that were the case, Daniel and I wouldn't disagree so much.

I'm of the impression that we don't know who the writers of the OT wrote to, but that the original audience did. If we go back and review the history and consider the circumstances of the original audiences, we find that it isn't so hard to understand the audiences and or agenda of the original writings.

We have dogmas that interfere with our ability to tap into this, making it hard for any of us to agree. A dogma such as the willingness to accuse a man of heresy if he thinks for one moment that a particular book in the Bible wasn't actually written in the time it says it was.

Let's take the Apocryphal book of Susanna for example. It was evidently about the civil war going on between the Pharisees and Sadducees around 100 BCE in contest of the high priesthood. Yet, it claims to have occurred much earlier.

One would also have to consider the possibility that Daniel was a collection of true stories dating back to the exile and a mixture of the author's agenda to endure persecution with dignity during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There is nothing that says we can't think that way. But, boy, do some Christians have very little love for their brothers in letting them know how they feel about it.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Bluefinger

[gdemoss]

If you can understand this principle and know that Peter also understood it, do you think for one moment that Peter and the other authors of the NT did not search the Spirit in them to understand who they were writing unto? If we have the Spirit in Christ in us, then we ought also be able to search that said Spirit to understand who these writings are too as well.

Let him who has ears to hear, hear.

If that were the case, Daniel and I wouldn't disagree so much.

I'm of the impression that we don't know who the writers of the OT wrote to, but that the original audience did. If we go back and review the history and consider the circumstances of the original audiences, we find that it isn't so hard to understand the audiences and or agenda of the original writings.

We have dogmas that interfere with our ability to tap into this, making it hard for any of us to agree. A dogma such as the willingness to accuse a man of heresy if he thinks for one moment that a particular book in the Bible wasn't actually written in the time it says it was.

Let's take the Apocryphal book of Susanna for example. It was evidently about the civil war going on between the Pharisees and Sadducees around 100 BCE in contest of the high priesthood. Yet, it claims to have occurred much earlier.

One would also have to consider the possibility that Daniel was a collection of true stories dating back to the exile and a mixture of the author's agenda to endure persecution with dignity during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There is nothing that says we can't think that way. But, boy, do some Christians have very little love for their brothers in letting them know how they feel about it.

Consider what you have presented here and then consider what I have said about that which is natural comes first followed by that which is spiritual.

[Bluefinger]

If you can understand this principle and know that Peter also understood it, do you think for one moment that Peter and the other authors of the NT did not search the Spirit in them to understand who they were writing unto? If we have the Spirit in Christ in us, then we ought also be able to search that said Spirit to understand who these writings are too as well.

Let him who has ears to hear, hear.

If that were the case, Daniel and I wouldn't disagree so much.

I'm of the impression that we don't know who the writers of the OT wrote to, but that the original audience did. If we go back and review the history and consider the circumstances of the original audiences, we find that it isn't so hard to understand the audiences and or agenda of the original writings.

We have dogmas that interfere with our ability to tap into this, making it hard for any of us to agree. A dogma such as the willingness to accuse a man of heresy if he thinks for one moment that a particular book in the Bible wasn't actually written in the time it says it was.

Let's take the Apocryphal book of Susanna for example. It was evidently about the civil war going on between the Pharisees and Sadducees around 100 BCE in contest of the high priesthood. Yet, it claims to have occurred much earlier.

One would also have to consider the possibility that Daniel was a collection of true stories dating back to the exile and a mixture of the author's agenda to endure persecution with dignity during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There is nothing that says we can't think that way. But, boy, do some Christians have very little love for their brothers in letting them know how they feel about it.

Consider what you have presented here and then consider what I have said about that which is natural comes first followed by that which is spiritual.

Perhaps, but I don't feel logically compelled to believe that such applies for the seals and trumpets.