Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228270 | ||
I am unable to find in my Bible where 1 Corinthians 15.25 is 'a specific reference to the millennial rule'. There is nothing specific about it at all. It is an interpretation and many would disagree with that statement. It is reading into Scripture what is not there and then calling it specific. Revelation 11.15 specifically refers to the coming eternal reign of Christ. There is no mention of anything else (neither any millennial reign or His present reign as both LORD and Christ - Act 2.34-36). I have found nothing in Scripture about the Temple being rebuilt. In Revelation the Temple is in Heaven both before and after chapter 11. 2 Thessalonians 2.4 probably refers to a pagan Temple in the Roman empire where Caligula did set himself up to be worshipped as theos (it is the Temple of theos, a word which refers to any divinity). Revelation 11 cannot be literally interpreted. It is impossible to conceive of a Temple where the Gentiles control in hostility (trample) the courts of the Temple with the sanctuary alone being occupied by God's people, espcially as it exists for three and a half years. The Gentiles would take over the whole Temple. The Temple must therefore be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the body of Christ. There was no command to build the Temple in Ezekiel. It was not intended to be built. It was on a mountain some distance from Jerusalem.(Jerusalem was defiled) as an encouragement to God's people.. What was to be built was the altar (Ezekiel 43.18). The Temple was a heavenly Temple situated on a mountain some distance from Jerusalem (which like the angelic armies of Elisha were visible only to those gifted with spiritual sight) which demonstrated that God was still with His people even though there was no physical Temple. That altar was built by Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezra 3.2). I know of no Scripture which says that the Messiah will build a Temple. Perhaps you can enlighten me. We must be careful not to stretch Scripture so as to fit it into our own theories. We must look at what is ACTUALLY said. |
||||||
2 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | Holmes | 228287 | ||
Hi Biblicalman, You wrote: “I know of no Scripture which says that the Messiah will build a Temple. Perhaps you can enlighten me.” The Messiah said that He will build His temple and rule from His throne. He also said that this temple will be greater than Solomon’s temple. Zechariah 6:12-13 Then say to him, Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.” Haggai 2: 6-9 For thus says the LORD of hosts, “Once more in a little while, I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land. I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,” says the LORD of hosts. “The silver is Mine and the gold is Mine,” declares the LORD of hosts. The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former,” says the Lord of hosts, “and in this place I will give peace,” declares the LORD of hosts. You wrote: “I am unable to find in my Bible where 1 Corinthians 15.25 is 'a specific reference to the millennial rule'. There is nothing specific about it at all. It is an interpretation and many would disagree with that statement. It is reading into Scripture what is not there and then calling it specific.” The answer to this is in the original post. Cuhigher pointed out apparent contradictions in various scriptures. Your explanation does not address those contradictions. All scripture must be in harmony. You wrote: “Revelation 11 cannot be literally interpreted. It is impossible to conceive of a Temple where the Gentiles control in hostility (trample) the courts of the Temple with the sanctuary alone being occupied by God's people, especially as it exists for three and a half years. The Gentiles would take over the whole Temple. The Temple must therefore be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the body of Christ.” Are the arms of the LORD short? I’m sure it was also impossible to conceive that Judea would be reestablished in 1948 after not existing for nearly 1900 years, or that the Jews would capture control of the ancient city of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, as a result of the 6-Day War in 1967. These events had to occur prior to the Messiah's return, just as a third temple must also be built. After His return, He will build His own temple. Anyone who reads Ezekiel 40-48 can quickly discern that the Temple will be a physical structure, located in Jerusalem. For your consideration, Holmes |
||||||
3 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228290 | ||
Hi Holmes Zechariah 6.12 must be read in context. We are actually TOLD who the Branch is there. It is Joshua the High Priest. Joshua lived at amazing times. There was no Temple, no Judah. He did build the Temple of the Lord (Ezra 5). And he did bear the glory of ruling over God's people when Zerubbabel was for some reason removed, either through death or through replacement. From then on the high Priests had great power. We must not ignore what Scripture actually SAYS. I have already explained Haggai 2 in a previous post. Perhaps you missed it? Haggai 2 was referring to the second Temple built as a result of Haggai's ministry, and to the greater glory of Herod's Temple which followed. They may be lost in history to you, but they were vital for the people of God. Perhaps you will kindly explain how my answer does not 'remove the contradictions'. My view is that it removes them completely. All Scriptuer is in harmony. It is dishonest to make statements like that without justifying them. Sit down and argue your case like I do and you will find that you are distorting the situation. 1 Corinthians 15.24-25 refers to the time when Christ's reign as Messiah will come to an end because His work of redemption is totally completed, and from then on the Godhead, which includes Himself will reign for ever and ever. Revel;ation says He will reign for ever and ever. I see no contradiction in that. There is nothing there about a millennial rule. The argument that God can do absolutely anything is a last resort for failed doctrine. God has revealed how He carries out His work and He does not resort to 'doing anything'. He works to His own pattern as revealed in Scripture. I don't see why it was impossible for what you call Judea to be established in 1948. It was in fact established in the 19th century when the Zionists moved into an empty Palestine long before the so-called Palestine nation (an invention of 1967) existed. 1948 was just the next step. People who have existed for long periods with a political goal in mind have often surprised the world. And the Jews captured the Temple mount. But they did not get control of it. Let them try to dismantle the Mosque of Omar (the Dome of the Rock) then I will accept that they have control of it. But of course that would be politically fatal. And as Islam grows in power to become the final empire of the end days it will become even more unlikely. But this is Israel in unbelief. They have still not responded to their Messiah. The Scripture speaks of them returning in faith, a return that incidentally took place in 538 BC and 458 BC. God may yet have an intention to bring many Jews to Himself and to their Messiah but it is not necessary for Scripture to be fulfilled. Israel has continued on since Messiah came, and it is in the form of His true people, the remnant of Israel which accepted the Messiah and gradually incorporated Gentile proselytes into their nation in what we call the church. The church is not a replacement for Israel, it is true Israel as the early church recognised from the beginning. (Matthew 21.43; John 15.1-6; Galatians 3.29; 6.16; Romans 11.16-24; Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.9; James 1.1 and so on). It was founded on the Jewish Messiah, and the foundation of twelve believing Jews (the Apostles) and a wholly Jewish church of considerable numbers which existed for a number of years as an Israel within Israel before it incorporated Gentile proselytes (as Israel had also previously done). It was the true remnant of Israel, the true Vine (John 15.1-6), the congregation of the Messiah (Matthew 16.18). If you think that the Ezekiel Temple will be located in Jerusalem then you have not read Ezekiel 40-48 through. You simply pick out verses that suit your case. Ezekiel 40-48 specifically cites his Temple as being outside Jerusalem. I suggest you reread it for yourself. See Ezekiel 40.2 where it was on a high mountain with the city to the south. And the graphic description in Ezekiel 45 where the Ezekiel Temple stands on its own outside the city, surrounded by large tracts of land. It depends on what you call a physical structure. Are angels physical? Then yes the heavenly Temple was a physical structure, But it was not built by man. For your consideration |
||||||
4 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | Holmes | 228311 | ||
Hi Biblicalman, You wrote: - “If you think that the Ezekiel Temple will be located in Jerusalem then you have not read Ezekiel 40-48 through. You simply pick out verses that suit your case. Ezekiel 40-48 specifically cites his Temple as being outside Jerusalem. I suggest you reread it for yourself. See Ezekiel 40.2 where it was on a high mountain with the city to the south.” Ezekiel 40:2 – 3 “In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, and on it to the south there was a structure like a city. So He brought me there; and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze, with a line of flax and a measuring rod in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway.” Please note: The earth will undergo tremendous changes prior to Christ return. Revelation 16: 18-20 And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. 19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. Ezekiel 38:19 In My zeal and in My blazing wrath I declare that on that day there will surely be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. Isaiah 40:9 Get yourself up on a high mountain, O Zion, bearer of good news, Lift up your voice mightily, O Jerusalem, bearer of good news; Lift it up, do not fear. Say to the cities of Judah, “ Here is your God!” You wrote: - “Zechariah 6.12 must be read in context. We are actually TOLD who the Branch is there. It is Joshua the High Priest.” Note: That is incorrect, it does NOT say Branch is Joshua the High Priest. Branch is a Messianic name. Joshua the High Priest was never King, and being a Levi, was not of the House of David. The Branch is Christ, a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek. Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. Jeremiah 33:15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. Zechariah 3:8 [ The Branch ] Now listen, Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who are sitting in front of you—indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the Branch. Zechariah 6:12-16 Then say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.” You wrote: - “Haggai 2.7, 9, ‘I will shake all nations, and the desirable things of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory -- the latter glory of this house will be greater than the former --- and in this place will I give peace. - With regard to the desirable things of the nations coming see my previous post on Isaiah 60.14 re the riches that poured in to Jerusalem. They specifically came to the Temple of which Haggai was speaking. And the latter house was greater than the former when Herod built his magnificent structure, which was the admiration of the world. People gasped when they saw its beauty.” God would not allow King David to build His Temple because David was a man of war. So the Temple was built by King Solomon, chosen by God Himself. This Temple contained God’s Shekinah, the Ark of the Covenant and contents, and the Urim and Thummim. Herod’s Temple was built by a non-Hebrew for his own purposes. It lacked the Shekinah, the Ark, and the Tablets of the Law. How can it be possible that Herod’s Temple is greater than Solomon’s? How did Jesus give peace in Herod’s Temple? For your consideration, Holmes |
||||||
5 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228316 | ||
I wrote: - “If you think that the Ezekiel Temple will be located in Jerusalem then you have not read Ezekiel 40-48 through. You simply pick out verses that suit your case. Ezekiel 40-48 specifically cites his Temple as being outside Jerusalem. I suggest you reread it for yourself. See Ezekiel 40.2 where it was on a high mountain with the city to the south.” Holmes reply: Ezekiel 40:2 – 3 “In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, and on it to the south there was a structure like a city. So He brought me there; and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze, with a line of flax and a measuring rod in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway.” My reply It is no good just citing a Scripture, you have to demonstrate that it says what you mean. You are assuming that ‘there’ means the city. But in fact it means the high mountain. It is a repetitive phrase typical of the Old Testament. ‘So he brought me there’ is referring back to ‘he brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain’. Now you do not have to accept my word for it. The ground plan is made plain in Ezekiel 45. Holmes says Please note: The earth will undergo tremendous changes prior to Christ return. Revelation 16: 18-20 And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. 19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. My reply: If you had said AT Christ's return I would have agreed with you. Great changes indeed. No more mountains (so how can the Temple be on a mountain?), the islands are probably also to be seen as having disappeared, or at the best moved hundreds of miles. Every city in the world is affected by it. Babylon is divided into three parts. Have you considered what other catastrophes would follow? The huge tsunamis. The great floods. Do you really think that mankind could survive a catastrophe on such a major scale? An even more vivid description is found in Revelation 6. 12-17. There even the heavens are rolled up like a scroll and the stars fall from Heaven. Do you notice when it takes place? ‘The great Day of their wrath is come and who will be able to stand’. It is in fact describing in vivid terms the coming judgment at the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. So no they don’t survive it. It is the Day of wrath. The end of time. Nothing could follow this. Revelation 6 is in fact the description of world history from the first coming of Christ to the end of time. So yes there will be great changes. Mankind will not survive them. But of course any knowledgeable scholar will point out that this is apocalyptic. It is not inended to be taken literally. That is why Revelation is called ‘the Apocalypse’. |
||||||
6 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228317 | ||
Hi Holmes I wrote: - “Zechariah 6.12 must be read in context. We are actually TOLD who the Branch is there. It is Joshua the High Priest.” Holmes says: Note: That is incorrect, it does NOT say Branch is Joshua the High Priest. Branch is a Messianic name. Joshua the High Priest was never King, and being a Levi, was not of the House of David. The Branch is Christ, a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek. My reply: Well lets see what it does say, shall we? “Take from them silver and gold and make crowns and set them on the head of Joshua -- the High Priest, and speak to HIM saying ‘Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out of his place, and he will build the Temple of the Lord.’ Notice the play on words. He is called the branch because he branches out of his place to such an extent that he builds the Temple of the Lord. That is why he is called the Branch. Now that is quite clear to me. I do not deny that Branch can be a Messianic name (it can also be many other things). And I suppose that as Joshua was a kind of ‘type’ of the Messiah, it could be said to be so here. But there really is no denying, if we take the verse to mean what it says, that the Branch was the High Priest, Joshua, the priest ruler who was the first of many. And who was it who built the Temple of the Lord? It was Joshua, the High Priest, along with Zerubbabel (Ezra 5.2). I see no mention here of ‘king’. Nor indeed of the house of David. It says ‘He will be priest upon his throne’. So it makes clear that he is a Levite. Sadly there is too much expanding of Scripture to make it fit into a prophetic straitjacket. Now we will move on to a more positive note. Yes the coming Son of David will also be called ‘the Branch. So you correctly cite the Scriptures: Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. Jeremiah 33:15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. Both are of course looking back to the idea of ‘the root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11.1. Now these undoubtedly teach that the coming King will also be described as ‘the Branch’, and there it is in context. So on that I happily agree with you. But you cannot take such verses and say that anyone who is called ‘the Branch’ elsewhere in another context is the Messiah. Thus in Isaiah 4.2 we read, ‘In that Day shall the Branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the Fruit of the earth excellent and comely, for those who are escaped of Israel’ That is not speaking of the Messiah but of the God given fruit of the ground. But if you cited it out of context you could soon give the impression that it was referring to the Messiah. Jesus said ‘I am the vine, you are the branches’ On that basis there would be many Messiahs. You cite Zechariah as though you could simply apply these verses to the coming king because of the word Branch. But as we have already seen Zechariah 6.12-16 applies to Joshua the High Priest Best wishes |
||||||
7 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | Holmes | 228324 | ||
Hi biblicalman You wrote: You cite Zechariah as though you could simply apply these verses to the coming king because of the word Branch. But as we have already seen Zechariah 6.12-16 applies to Joshua the High Priest “ See Zechariah 6:13 “Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.” Joshua the High Priest never sat or ruled from a throne. He is not the “Prince of Peace,” nor did he ever serve as High Priest and King, “the two offices.” Where in scripture is the fulfillment of this prophesy that Joshua the High Priest is sitting on and ruling from his throne? Holmes |
||||||
8 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228338 | ||
Hi Holmes, Holmes says: You cite Zechariah as though you could simply apply these verses to the coming king because of the word Branch. But as we have already seen Zechariah 6.12-16 applies to Joshua the High Priest “ See Zechariah 6:13 “Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.” Joshua the High Priest never sat or ruled from a throne. He is not the “Prince of Peace,” nor did he ever serve as High Priest and King, “the two offices.” Where in scripture is the fulfillment of this prophesy that Joshua the High Priest is sitting on and ruling from his throne? My reply: The High Priests certainly ruled over Israel for a considerable period of time, and there can be no doubt that Zerubbabel and Joshua 'ruled' together, prior to Zerubbabel disappearing. That is why they are constantly mentioned together (Ezra 3.2; 5.2). Thus he was 'ruling'. The Hebrew word for 'throne' simply means any kind of seat. I presume that you will accept that he sometimes sat down when making his decision? Thus he ruled from his seat. But in fact he did more than that because after Zerubbabel the governorship passed to a Persian, as we know from the Elephantine texts. And following Persian methods he would leave detailed administration (ruling) to native leaders, that is at this time, the High Priest. And Joshua was the High Priest. Thus he ruled Israel and i suspect most would see his seat as a throne. I see no mention of a Prince of Peace. Perhaps you will direct me to the version which has that in? It is not in the Hebrew text. The two offices are not priest and king. They are priest and ruler. And Joshua combined the two offices. And the emphasis is on him being the PRIEST on his throne.The point is that religious and civic duties will be carried on in harmony. As Scripture does not deal with the period after the building of the second Temple, (there is a gap of some sixty years between Ezra 6 and Ezra 7) we would not expect to find the total fulfilment mentioned. But it tells us sufficient to see that Joshua did rule alongside Zerubbabel. Are you suggesting that no prophecy is valid if its fulfilment is not mentioned in Scripture? I would not say it too loudly if I were you :-)) It would rob teachers on prophecy of nine tenths of their material. Best wishes |
||||||