Futurism

[Guest clancy]

My question is, how can anyone lose faith ,if they have the indwelling Holy Spirit?

Faith gets stronger as you grow in Christ, sorry if I’m off topic, tell me off and I’ll be quiet.?

[Justin Adams]

19 minutes ago, clancy said:

My question is, how can anyone lose faith ,if they have the indwelling Holy Spirit?

Faith gets stronger as you grow in Christ, sorry if I’m off topic, tell me off and I’ll be quiet.?

This is the reason for most of my topics. I see how far we have come (down) from the early church. The falling away was already happening in the 2nd century and like my 'Futurist' post has been going downhill ever since. If you realized the origins of what your pastor has taught you, you might find it cringe-worthy. People refuse to study the old stuff mostly. For instance, read 'the sins of Augustine' and see what our seminaries are teaching today. People have long trusted in others to tell them what to think and that is a great shame. 

"Let my people think". That was Ravi's famous phrase. He died recently. RIP.

[Guest clancy]

1 minute ago, Justin Adams said:

This is the reason for most of my topics. I see how far we have come (down) from the early church. The falling away was already happening in the 2nd century and like my 'Futurist' post has been going downhill ever since. If you realized the origins of what your pastor has taught you, you might find it cringe-worthy. People refuse to study the old stuff mostly. For instance, read 'the sins of Augustine' and see what our seminaries are teaching today. People have long trusted in others to tell them what to think and that is a great shame. 

"Let my people think". That was Ravi's famous phrase. He died recently. RIP.

Amen, about let my people think!...

No one can tell me what to think, Justin, not now anyway.....as a new babe, definitely...I was so confused at times, but the Lord got me through,I put my faith and trust in him...thanks for this post, it really spoke to me.

[Diaste]

23 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

We already have a third temple. It is us collectively and individually. A temple not built with stone and a circumcision not made with hands.

I have often wondered how the above truth and reality necessarily precludes a Third Temple built by a people that do not hold Jesus in the highest esteem as their personal or collective Savior.

If that were true why so many millions of 'temples' built by the followers of the Way?

More interesting is the Jews have collected everything needed to build the Temple. Even heard some imams say the Jews should have a Temple. Just this past week or so a mock Passover was held in every detail except the ritual slaughter of a Lamb, on the Temple Mount.

These nationalistic Jews are not believers in Jesus. They think their messiah is a man that can only come to save once the Temple stands again.

None of which proves that a Temple will be rebuilt but they are ready; there is constant pressure, a new party dedicated to building the Temple has won an influential share of seats in the Knesset, and it's necessary for the national and religious identity of the Jews and Israel. 

A new Temple doesn't mitigate or abrogate the work of the Savior Jesus Christ to the billions that believe in and on Him. A temple, no matter where it is built, saves no one and nothing and if one knows their OT, it never did.

It cannot be ignored that Jesus said, "...stand in the holy place..." and "...stand where it ought not...". Paul said the day of Christ's return could not take place until the man of sin sits in the Temple proclaiming that he is God. Neither of these two events occurred in 70 AD. 

 

 

[Diaste]

2 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Diaste, I have to disagree with you here.

The perfect sacrifice of the Messiah indeed caused the sacrifices to cease!

Just because many Jews did not accept Him and continued their ceremonial practices has absolutely no bearing on those 6 requirements in 9:24 to have been fulfilled!

They can continue all they want... but from God’s Plant of Salvation they certainly did cease. 

And the “he” is without a doubt “HE”. Chapter 9 speaks of the Messiah and what HE must fulfill in Daniel’s 70th week and despite being “cut off” in “the midst of the week”, HE fulfilled them all. 

I would ask you to go back through this topic and read some of the responses... rather than repeat the same answers... 

Thanks, Charlie 

 

Oh, you think ritual sacrifice and blood pleased God? What about all the believers in God that were counted righteous before the law was given? Like Abraham and Noah?

And what of this? 

“The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the LORD. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats." Isaiah 1

"For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." Psalm 51

"For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’" Jer 7

"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10

This is just a mere sample of all the instances God said similar things to His people.

Jesus came to actually cover all sins by the shedding of His blood. He and only He could do such a thing and make it work. Some act as though the blood of beasts took away sins! So there was no need to stop a thing of nonexistent efficacy because it never was effective!

That shreds to tatters the argument of some necessary halt to Temple liturgy as Jesus replaced it. The reality is the Jews replaced true salvation with blood and fat because of arrogance and rebellion. Like Christians do today. 

Since the tasks in Dan 9 were determined on the people of Daniel it seems more than outrageous to assign them to the Savior. Since when would Jesus need to atone for transgression? 

And you would pour out destruction on Jesus? Seems forces are at play here which should not be.

 

 

 

 

[Diaste]

2 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Diaste, with all due respect, I don't know how you could NOT find the Messiah in chapter 9 and think the purpose of the 70 weeks were designed by God to reveal the "restoration" of the Jews and that God would use this restoration of His people, His land, His buildings and the city and the Temple to bring the Messiah to the earth where He would be the ONE to restore the HOLY Presence back into the Temple - where Jeremiah had hidden the ARK prior to their captivity.

 

Generally because of comprehension but specifically because your proposal doesn't exist in Dan 9 or anywhere.

"Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place."

To place this on Jesus when the text says, "...for your people and your holy city..." is the definition of unbiblical.

What ever you are getting at must be written somewhere else.

[Charlie744]

9 minutes ago, Diaste said:

I have often wondered how the above truth and reality necessarily precludes a Third Temple built by a people that do not hold Jesus in the highest esteem as their personal or collective Savior.

If that were true why so many millions of 'temples' built by the followers of the Way?

More interesting is the Jews have collected everything needed to build the Temple. Even heard some imams say the Jews should have a Temple. Just this past week or so a mock Passover was held in every detail except the ritual slaughter of a Lamb, on the Temple Mount.

These nationalistic Jews are not believers in Jesus. They think their messiah is a man that can only come to save once the Temple stands again.

None of which proves that a Temple will be rebuilt but they are ready; there is constant pressure, a new party dedicated to building the Temple has won an influential share of seats in the Knesset, and it's necessary for the national and religious identity of the Jews and Israel. 

A new Temple doesn't mitigate or abrogate the work of the Savior Jesus Christ to the billions that believe in and on Him. A temple, no matter where it is built, saves no one and nothing and if one knows their OT, it never did.

It cannot be ignored that Jesus said, "...stand in the holy place..." and "...stand where it ought not...". Paul said the day of Christ's return could not take place until the man of sin sits in the Temple proclaiming that he is God. Neither of these two events occurred in 70 AD. 

 

 

On one hand you state correctly that the Jews of today may indeed build a 3rd Temple... with all the vessels and pieces of furniture.... and this can not save anyone .... does not and could not have the presence of God within it...... and this is certainly true - God died on the Cross for all and His coming ended all the ceremonial laws and practices that were meant to point to His coming were to represent those things He would fulfill - Perfect sacrifice, High Priest, True Temple, etc.,

Then you continue on with a verse from Paul about the man of sin sitting in a Temple proclaiming he is God..... Do you really believe God is concerned or worried about a character who will sit in a Temple that has no value, meaning, Holiness, etc., to Him?  He certainly would not be offended by this ... it would be just another slap in His face by those who have already rejected Him. 

Jesus certainly stood in the Holy Place (2nd Temple) their rejection of the Messiah and the crucifixion was indeed the most abominable act man could ever do on this earth.... ARE YOU REALLY EXPECTING ANOTHER ACT THAT WOULD BE A GREATER ABOMINATION THAT HIS CRUCIFIXION?  DID NOT HIS CRUCIFIXION (ABOMINATION) CAUSE THE COMPLETE DESOLATION OF THE JEWS, THEIR LAND, THEIR BUILDINGS, THEIR CITY AND THEIR TEMPLE?

Isn't it just possible that Daniel and Revelation and other verses in the NT have been grossly corrupted in both a purposeful (little horn) manner or ignorance of many interpreters who have simply followed them down the rabbit hole?

As I said, if you look for the Messiah in Daniel you will find Him and not some boogeyman labeled the AC..... and then take those interpretations forward to all the NT books.... they will stick and present a much different picture.. 

Charlie 

[Diaste]

2 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

I understand and agree with you that each one must be comfortable with their own understandings and interpretations

And that is the problem with the whole of Christianity today. 

"Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight." Isaiah 5

But that's a nice contemporary spin on the darkest regions of the heart.

This however is a faulty understanding of what I was saying. I do not condone personal interpretations in any way or form. If a 100 people have 100 various ideas on scripture then at least 99 are not being led by the Spirit of God. 

 

[Diaste]

3 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

If you read Josephus carefully, you might find that it was Jewish factions that set fire to the temple and killed each other in droves before the Romans put and end to it all.

I don't doubt it as there were several factions in Jerusalem at the time of the siege.

[Charlie744]

10 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Oh, you think ritual sacrifice and blood pleased God? What about all the believers in God that were counted righteous before the law was given? Like Abraham and Noah?

And what of this? 

“The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the LORD. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats." Isaiah 1

"For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." Psalm 51

"For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’" Jer 7

"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10

This is just a mere sample of all the instances God said similar things to His people.

Jesus came to actually cover all sins by the shedding of His blood. He and only He could do such a thing and make it work. Some act as though the blood of beasts took away sins! So there was no need to stop a thing of nonexistent efficacy because it never was effective!

That shreds to tatters the argument of some necessary halt to Temple liturgy as Jesus replaced it. The reality is the Jews replaced true salvation with blood and fat because of arrogance and rebellion. Like Christians do today. 

Since the tasks in Dan 9 were determined on the people of Daniel it seems more than outrageous to assign them to the Savior. Since when would Jesus need to atone for transgression? 

And you would pour out destruction on Jesus? Seems forces are at play here which should not be.

 

 

 

 

Diaste, I am sorry but I can not follow your thought process and that does not mean you are wrong or incorrect... it is just too difficult for me to follow and comment on..... no offense intended .... really, Charlie