Results 121 - 140 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228335 | ||
Hi Holmes, I wrote of Ezekiel 40.2-3: 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’. You replied: See Ezekiel 40:3 “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.” What was he standing in the “gateway” of? It was the east gate of the temple. See verse 6. The east gate was also the eastern border of the city. My reply. Yes, the Temple on the high mountain had a gateway and an east gate. That in no way indicates that it was in a city. A Gateway would be expected in a Temple wherever it was, and east simply indicates direction. There is no reason why an east gate should have any connection with a city. Best wishes |
||||||
122 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228334 | ||
The questioner specifically asked whether we saw obesity as a sin. And yes, I do see obesity as a sin. Are you then suggesting that I should evade the truth? Are you denying that obesity is due to a lack of self-control? I am sorry but I consider that it is our responsibility as pastors and teachers to guide people aright, and that we will be called to account for not doing so. I would be wary of judging an individual, but I have no hesitation in declaring obesity to be a sin unless it is due to a medical condition. As to tattoos and ultra-fine clothes, the latter were condemned by Paul, and the former is another evidence of self indulgence, to say nothing of a sign of vanity. A Christian being tattooed also gives a wrong impression about Christianity. It suggests concern for one's own vanity rather than for the needs of others. When we are asked on the forum what our view is on such things it is our responsibility to give an honest view. I do not want to face the Master and explain why I failed to draw attention to men's besetting sins simply because I was afraid of what others would think. You may of course view things as you will. I see myself as having a responsibility to direct men's thoughts aright. They are of course quite able to disagree if they wish. I will pass no judgment on them for that. In the end I am only responsible for myself and what I teach. Best wishes. |
||||||
123 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228318 | ||
Hi Holmes I said 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.” you replied 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. My comment Now I in fact question that statement. I do not think that God wanted the Temple to be built (2 Samuel 7.5-7), even though when it was built He graciously recognised the good intent that lay behind it. The house that Solomon was to build in 2 Samuel 7.13 was the house of David, not the house of God. See the whole context. But I will not labour that point. Your further reply 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? my comment Herod was a proselyte to Judaism He WAS therefore a Hebrew by adoption as were all proselytes. Theoretically they were to be treated as to all extent equal. So you not being exactly correct. I am interested to know how you know what was in Herod’s mind. Do you have any grounds for such a statement other than your own assumption? Do you not think that he had one eye on the glory of God and another on his own? Furthermore, do you really think that Solomon solely had in mind God’s glory.? He spent twice as long on building his own house as he did on God’s house. Solomon’s Temple (a good designation) contributed as much to the glory of Solomon as it did to the glory of God. God had said that all He wanted was a tent. Remember God knew what Solomon was going to be, the man who through his extravagance and unfaithfulness would destroy Israel. He was hardly a model Temple builder. Now how do you know that Herod’s Temple lacked the Shekinah? Are you saying that God had totally deserted the Israel to which Jesus came? You make bold assumptions. Clearly it lacked the Ark and the tablets of the Law. But so did the Second Temple which WAS built at God’s direct command. Was that Temple therefore not pleasing to God? But all that is by the way because Haggai was not referring to Solomon’s Temple at all. He was comparing the Second Temple to the one that was coming, that is, to Herod’s Temple. Solomon’s Temple had nothing to do with it. But the real reason why the latter glory of the house would be greater than the former (whatever the former refers to) was because it was to Herod’s Temple would come the greatest glory of all. Through its gates would walk the Son of God, and in its courts would He preach. Could any house have greater glory than that? You say it lacked the Shekinah? He was the Shekinah. Best wishes. |
||||||
124 | 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 |
||||||
125 | 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’. |
||||||
126 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228306 | ||
Hi Searcher, The altar had to be built because it was the means by which the heavenly Temple was accessed. The people as a whole could not see the heavenly Temple just as the people arounnd Elisha could not see the angelic army. But they did need something that they could see to offer sacrifices on. This altar was built in Ezra 3.2-3. It replaced an altar that had previously been built (Jeremiah 41.5). The Temple of the Lord in Jeremiah 41.5 must mean the site with an altar as the Temple had been destroyed. There may of course have been some of its ruins still standing. Yes God built (set up, brought into being) the heavenly Temple, but of course being heavenly it was not of this world. How He did it He was not pleased to tell us. It probably came down already 'built'. Best wishes |
||||||
127 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228303 | ||
thank you Tim I am quite well aware of how sensible people view Bible passages, but I was being challenged in a way that suggested I had to take everything in Revelation literally, and was responding to that attitude. Isaiah chapter 2 is full of hyperbole. There is no way in which all the nations could flow up to the Temple. There would be a continual queue for years. Indeed it would never end. Thus what Isaiah is saying is something that cannot be taken literally even when you remove the imagery. Who then is to decide what should be and what should not be taken literally? I doubt whether spears will be turned into pruning hooks. We thus have to update what is written to the times of our own day. The truth is that the prophets had to speak of the future in terms that they and their hearers could understand. They just did not have the background to be able to speak in spiritual and heavenly terms, and certainly their hearers did not. Indeed in view of the pagan views around them it would have been dangerous. But you only have to trace 'Zion' through Isaiah to discover that much of what he says about Zion could not be literally true. It goes far beyond the physically possible. Thus when he speaks of the Temple here in Isaiah 2 he is really thinking of true worship which to him had to be expressed in terms of the Tample, but he had made clear in 1.11-18 that it had to be a very different thing than the Temple then present. (Indeed his words come very close to what Jesus said in John 4.20-24). That Temple was not worthy of exalting. The point is rather that the people would come to Jerusalem as the dwellingplace of God on earth to worship and seek God in a way exalted above the ordinary, at as time when truth was mainly limited to one nation. But Jerusalem is no longer the dwellingplace of God. The Temple was replaced by the Temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6.18) and the altar by Jesus Himself (Hebrews 13.10) it was to those whom the nations would look and to whom they would respond. Isaiah's imagery goes beyond what you express. There is a deliberate intent to take the Temple nearer to God not just to exalt it in men's eyes. His point was that the Temple would become what it was not, a place of true spiritual worship. But Jesus expanded on that for He said, 'neither here or in Jerusalem shall you worship the Father' (John 4.21). Rather we are to 'worship in Spirit and in truth'. That is what Isaiah was seeking to convey in terms of his own day. And Jesus takes it a step further because by then the ideas could be understood. The New Testament makes clear that this occurred through the Temple becoming a heavenly Temple (as in Revelation), and Jerusalem a heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4; Hebrews 12). I really do not think it can be doubted that the Law going out from Jerusalem means God's truh going out to the nations, and that this occurred through Jesus Christ and the Apostles 'from Jerusalem -- to the uttermost parts of the earth. To try and reproduce it pedantically would be to countermand Jesus' clear teaching and New Testament teaching about the Law. It is amazing how evangelicals who can be so adamant about the place of the Law in relation to the Gospel are quite happy for people of the future to take us back to pre-Gospel days. But that cannot be done. Jesus Christ has come and died and risen again. It is impossible to go back to the Law on the old basis. There is only one way of salvation for ever and that is through faith in Jesus Christ. In the same way it is imposible to offer sacrifices on the old basis. And sacrifices on any other basis are not what the prophets taught in spite of the somersaults some people make in their minds. The prophets NEVER spoke of memorial sacrifices. They would not have understood such things. And the New Testament certainly never does. So they are unscriptural. There is no need for a new Temple because its purpose is redundant. Worship can never be carried on in that way again unless we degrade what Christ has done for us, and for all men of all ages. God wanted us to know that, so He destroyed the Temple and ensured the building of a mosque in its place. The bible knows nothing of a future Gospel other than the one in which we believe. God does not change His requirements, only the way in which they were expressed. In Old Testament days God showed His people a way of worship which was similar to that of other nations but had a deeper meaning and lesson. To take that into the future when no one is offering sacrifices is an anachronism of the worst kind. What we must do is accept the New Testament way of looking at the Old Testament, the way taught by the Holy Spirit. And that does involve recognising that, as with the parables, we must move from the literal to the spiritual, just as Hebrews demonstrates. Best wishes |
||||||
128 | 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 |
||||||
129 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228288 | ||
Hi Searcher (sorry for getting your name wrong previously. My dreadful memory). I have saved the best until last, Daniel 9.24-27. Unfortunately space will not allow me to deal with the passage in full, so I can only give a few pointers. Verse 23 gives us the starting date for the seventy sevens. From the beginning of your supplications the word went forth --’. Thus the commencing date in verse 25 (the going forth of the word) is given in verse 2. It is 538 BC. Unless we ignore the context this is indisputable. We cannot just pick and choose for ourselves when the context gives us the answer. In Daniel ‘sevens’ are an unknown and mystical period of time indicating God’s perfect time period. (There is no mention of ‘years’ and the seventy 'sevens' are in contrast with the seventy 'years' of Jeremiah. ‘Sevens’ replaces years). And there are seventy of them, double perfection. It is the time from 538 BC to the final consummation when verse 24 will be fulfilled. Now I must presume that you are seeing ‘the most Holy’ as referring to the Temple. But in view of what the passage is talking about, the anointing of the Messiah (verse 25), it would appear to me that in context the most Holy is the Messiah, God’s Holy One (Psalm 16.10). In other words by the end of the seventy sevens the Messiah will have been anointed, and all the other things will have been fulfilled. The Messiah is the emphasis of the passage. He is first called ‘the coming anointed Prince’, then ‘the anointed One’, then ‘the Prince Who is coming’, three variations on the Messiah. It is because He has been cut off that His people are mentioned as fulfilling what follows. The word for prince is nagid. This is only used of princes of Israel. Saul was a nagid. David was a nagid. Solomon was a nagid. Furthermore ‘anointed’ is only used of Jews in Daniel. And one other point to notice is that in Daniel treaties and alliances are called just that, they are not called covenants. The only meaning of covenant in Daniel is the covenant with God. Thus the ‘confirming of the covenant’ must refer to a covenant between God and His people. The confirming of the covenant takes place at the end of the sixty ninth seven, when Messiah is cut off, and the covenant is then confirmed with God’s people as the new covenant, confirmed by Jesus in the Upper Room, and later confirmed with all who followed the Messiah as a result of the teaching of the Apostles. The ‘He’ Who causes the sacrifices and oblations to cease is of course God and it possibly He Who confirms covenant. The people of the Prince who will come cannot be an end day king, for Daniel always calls them kings. ‘Prince’ (nagid) is reserved for Jewish princes. Further we have a parallel example to ‘the people of --’ in 7.27 where we have reference to ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’ a parallel phrase to ‘the people of the Prince (nagid) who will come’. And it was in fact the Jews who destroyed Jerusalem, firstly because they slew the Messiah bringing God’s judgment on them, and secondly because so incredible was their behaviour as described by Josephus, who was in close touch with things at that time, that it is clear that they destroyed the city in their conflicts with each other before the Romans ever arrived. Now after His cutting off the city and the Sanctuary will be destroyed (verse 26) and we know that this occurred in 70 AD. In fact it takes place in the midst of the seventieth seven for that was when the sacrifices and oblations were caused to cease (verse 27). From then on the world will go through suffering until the consummation, as in fact Jesus said they would. Thus the only Temple in mind in the passage, if we allow it to interpret itself, and follow the Hebrew closely, is the Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. Of course those who ignore the context and the clear parallels because they want to fit it into their particular schemes will see it otherwise. Best wishes. |
||||||
130 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228286 | ||
Hi Seeker, Your fifth quote was 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. According to verse 23 this shaking of the nations is connected with Zerubbabel. Thus it refers to the activities of the Persian Empire, which God had raised up in order that His people might return to their land. 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. But more wonderful than all was the Temple Whom God sent, Who was destroyed and raised in three days (John 2). And through Him came peace for the world. Best wishes |
||||||
131 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228285 | ||
Hi Seeker, With respect to your third quote Isaiah 60.14 we have to consider the context. Isaiah 60 opens with the words, ‘Arise, shine, for your light is come and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you -- the Lord will arise upon you, and His glory will be seen upon you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.’ Isaiah leaves no doubt about what is in mind here. The One of Whom this is spoken is the One of Whom it was said, ‘The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light, those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, on them has the light shone’ (Isaiah 9.2), in other words it refers to the coming Son of David (9.5-6). Matthew refers to the fulfilment of this when Jesus began to proclaim the Good News (Matthew 4.13-16). Now I take this literally. Do you? So Isaiah 60 begins with reference to the first coming of Jesus. Furthermore He is the Servant, the One Who is given to be, ‘a covenant of the people, a light to the Gentiles’ (Isaiah 42.6). And he says of Him in Isaiah 49.6, ‘Is it too light a thing that you should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel, I will also give you for a light to the Gentiles, that you may be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ In other words He is to be a light to both Jews and Gentiles. And these words are also applied to the Apostles as they went out with the Gospel (Acts 13.47). Jesus Himself constantly emphasised that He was the light of the world, and that He had come to shine on Israel (John 1.4; 3.19-21; 8.12; 12.35-36, 46). So there can be no doubt that Isaiah has Jesus’ first coming in mind. But like all prophecy parts of it will be fulfilled at different times. The prophets saw the future, but not a timetable for the future. Thus Isaiah goes on to describe what will happen before the coming of Jesus. God’s people will return from exile bringing the wealth of the nations. This was fulfilled, firstly in the return of the exiles under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, then in the time of Ezra, and then through the centuries as more and more exiles returned. The riches brought from the Gentiles are strongly emphasised (Ezra 1.6-11; 6.4-5; 7.15-18, 21-22), and some of those riches were to come from the revenues of the province of Beyond the River (Syria, Palestine, Transjordan) in other words from a variety of Gentiles, and it would be brought on camel and ass to Jerusalem. Similar riches would pour in during the successes of the Maccabees, and when Herod’s Temple was being built. Further riches poured in from the Gentiles when Paul made his collection and brought it to Jerusalem. Thus riches poured in from the Gentiles at different times. And in the building of the second Temple, which was twice as large as Solomon’s, and in the building of Herod’s Temple, the glory of Lebanon flooded into them, the fir tree, the pine and the box tree in order to beautify the place of God’s sanctuary (Isaiah 60.14). And of course the submission of the Gentiles was received when the true servants of the Messiah went out from Jerusalem with the message of the Gospel and the nations submitted to them as Messiah’s people, that is, as Israel. And in the first few years they would flock to Jerusalem and bring their treasures with them. Thus it is the Second Temple that is in mind here. Best wishes |
||||||
132 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228280 | ||
Once again I wrote a long explanation on Isaian 60 and when I moved back to make an alteration it was deleted. This site is not very efficient. This has happened to me before. Does anyone else experience this? My next answer will now have to wait until tomorrow. | ||||||
133 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228279 | ||
Hi Searcher, Now let us look at the second of your quotations which you seem to think indicate a Temple in the end times. In Isaiah 2.3 we read, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the highest of the mountains and will be raised above the hills. Now if we take that literally (and a literalist should do no other) then it means that the Temple will be built on a mountain raised higher than Mount Everest. Now I recognise that God could do that, but it would mean the nations flowing uphill for over 29,000 feet. Is that what the Spirit through the prophet was indicating? My view is that the Spirit, speaking to Old Testament people who had no conception of a heaven to which people go, (such beliefs were left to pagans and their gods), was indicating that the Temple would be exalted far above all. The New Testament equivalent is the heavenly Temple in Revelation. It was as a result of the coming of Jesus the first time that God exalted the living Temple of Jesus and of His people, (or don't you believe that God's people are literally the Temple of the Living God?) and that instruction went out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and that as a consequence peace spread throughout the world as a result of the Gospel under the reign of He Who is both judge and Saviour. Now if you do not believe that the Temple will be built in a mountain over 29,000 feet in height you have to deny the literalism. Then ANY interpretation is failing to be literal. |
||||||
134 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228276 | ||
There is no one in the world who takes every word of the Bible literally (no one that I know of thinks that Nebuchadnezzar was a tree). The only question is how we are to decide on what is literal and what is not. Now when we come to Revelation it is particularly difficult as it is a book of 'signs'. John 'signified' things through signs. The four horsemen of Revelation 6 are not literal, although the devastation that followed was. Thus we have to weigh each chapter up and consider what is literal and what is not. In Revelation 13 it is not really talking about a beast which will arise out of the waters. We have to interpret who the Beast is and what the waters represent. So especially at the commencement of each chapter we may expect symbolism. And so I could go on. Or perhaps you do expect a dragon to come from the sea? It is not for me to say what you believe. Best wishes. |
||||||
135 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228275 | ||
Hi Searcher, I was not saying what Holmes said, I was laying the background for what I was going to say. But clearly Holmes was suggesting that the Temple would be built, otherwise it would not have supported his case. My point was that the Temple in Ezekiel was not erected by man but by God, and it was directed towards the people of his day. I will deal with each quotation in separate posts so each can be debated on if people wish, otherwise posts will be too long. The house of the Lord from which the waters will flow in Joel 3.18 was partly fulfilled when Gods Temple, Jesus Christ came into the world (John 2.19) (he who drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst - John 4.14) and also finds its fulfilment in the church of Jesus Christ which was the Temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6.16), out of the innermost beings will flow rivers of living water (John 7.38) and finally in the Temple which John saw in Heaven which helps to sustain believers in coming days (e.g. Revelation 6.9-11). It is interesting that Jesus never said that the Temple would be rebuilt, only that it would be destroyed. All this is in the same bracket as the Jerusalem which is in Heaven, which Paul says is the true Jerusalem (Galatians 4.25-26; Hebrews 12.22). If the true Jerusalem is in Heaven so is the true Temple. Much of Old Testament prophecy and promise will be fulfilled in the New Earth, consider for example the promise of the land to Abraham (Hebrews 11.10-14). But there will be no Temple in the New Earth. Best wishes |
||||||
136 | 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. |
||||||
137 | regulation regarding tattooing | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228269 | ||
Personally I cannot agree that 1 Corinthians 6.19 applies only to immorality. It was a statement of a fact which certainly demonstrated that immorality was wrong for the reason given, but ti was stating a general principle that applies to everything that we do If we know that we are the Temple of God and that the Holy Spirit dwells in us, and that we and our bodies are not our own, but are bought with a price so that we belong to Him, then it affects every part of our lives, and especially what we do to our bodies. I must therefore agree with Makarios that what we do with it should not be decided by the fad of the moment, which has a totally worldly basis, such as tattooing, but should be decided by what Jesus Himself would have done. And in my view it is totally impossible to conceive of Jesus as tattooing Himself. To do such a thing would have been the very opposite of what He was and is. Tattooing is on the same level as braiding the hair, or gold, or pearls or expensive designer clothing (1 Tim 2.9-10). They are self indulgent and vain. All these things will stand as a witness against those who indulge in them on the last Day. And whereas you can cease to do most of these things, you will not be able to remove your tattoo. |
||||||
138 | Apostles - Non-Jewish | Matthew | biblicalman | 228248 | ||
Doc has made an important point. Anyone who stood at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses received the Law was a Jew. Large numbers of them were from the mixed multitude in Exodus 12.38. But on that day they became Jews. Many of them were not directly descended from Abraham but were descended from servants in his household (Of which he had over 1000), or from servants in the households of the other patriarchs. They had previously been adopted as 'sons of Abraham'. But not by blood. And all these joined one or other of the tribes and finally began to believe that they were descended from Jacob. Through the centuries many converts were made to YHWH and they all became 'sons of Abraham' and many were forced to become Jews in the days of the Maccabees... Many were forced to become Jews at the point of the sword, the Edomites under John Hyrcanus, the Galileans under Aristobulus. But they soon saw themselves as Jews and connected themselves with the twelve tribes. By the time of Jesus those who could trace their ancestry back by more than five generations were a rarity, and sadly they looked down on those who could not. Of course the priests and the house of David could trace their ancestry back for it was necessary if they were to fulfil their function. At that time many genealogies were invented in order to prove a descent which was not genuine. Indeed in his anger at being seen as only a 'half-Jew' Herod the Great deliberately destroyed many of the genealogical records of the Jews. But is is probable that the majority of Jews today are not directly descended by blood from Jacob. They are descended by adoption and infiltration into the tribes of Israel. |
||||||
139 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228246 | ||
hi searcher Bethphage was counted as in Jerusalem therefore any walking around in Bethphage would not affect the Sabbath Days journey. By the time of Jesus the sabbath days journey only began when you left your town or city. it was based on the fact that when Israel were in the camp they were not restricted as long as the walk was for spiritual reasons. The camp counted as home. the sabbath days journey only began when you left the camp thus walking around in Jerusalem did not count as part of the sabbath days journey. I think you will find that all the visitors to the Passover camped around the city were counted as living in the city. but i have never said anything about Palm Sunday so i am not sure what you mean all i have shown is that the Scripture makes clear that Jesus and His disciples started each day from a point which was within a sabbath days journey of Jerusalem according to Luke 24; Acts 1. Lol you can enjoy maps as you wish. But do not teach that they are necessarily accurate. MUch on them is guesswork with little to go by. Best wishes |
||||||
140 | How is jacob the ancestor of a samaritan | John 4:12 | biblicalman | 228245 | ||
It depends what you mean by a Samaritan. If your mean the people of Samaria then yes some of the people of Samaria were descended from Jacob, those left in the land when the others were exiled. But the Samaritans in the New Testament came from around Shechem and were probably not descended from the ancient people of Samaria. Their religion was too pure for that. The people of Samaria may have worshipped YHWH but they also worshipped other Gods. Thats why Ezra would have nothing to do withe them religiously speaking. They were polytheists. And it was not permitted to marry them. But what were called Samaritans in the Gospel were worshippers of one God, the God of Moses. It is very doubtful whether they were descended from the mixed people of Samaria. Indeed it is probable that they were Jews, but with their own beliefs. Where they came from we do not know. See any good modern Bible Dictionary. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |