Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
The most the Romans did was conscript native soldiers from conquered regions, Brakelite. That's not the same thing as multiple, independent nations attacking another nation as allies.
anti-christ sitting in the rebuilt Jewish 3rd. temple saying he is god.
- Thread starter GISMYS_7
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The most the Romans did was conscript native soldiers from conquered regions, Brakelite. That's not the same thing as multiple, independent nations attacking another nation as allies.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
LoL. And here I was thinking you might double down and just repeat yourself.
Since we're talking about Ancient Rome...
Ancient Rome is history. The Temple = Christ and the Church.LoL. And here I was thinking you might double down and just repeat yourself.
Since we're talking about Ancient Rome...
It is a good point, but I must ask, where does Isaiah suggest all at once? Since Isaiah's time up to the sacking of Jerusalem by Titus, how many nations came up against Israel? I can think of Egypt, Assyria, Philistia, Syria, Lebanon, at one time there was a civil war with the northern tribes, then Babylon, Rome....looks like a multitude to me...have I missed any? Oh yeah of course...Meda-Persia, and Greece.
Okay, I gotta give you that one. But I still believe the real threat doesn't come from a individual planting himself in some future temple in Jerusalem. I am convinced that is a smokescreen. The real threat to the true church...to religious freedom...to freedom of conscience... comes from Rome. There lies the real power, even Satan's throne.
Do you think the unbelieving Jews are still under God's judgement?
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36) (KJV 1900)
Regarding the CorelIssue post you are responding to...The temple described in Ezekial was originally intended to be the 2nd temple but Israel failed to live up to God's expectations, so they were never given the opportunity to build what was described or to enjoy the vastly enlarged nation. That part might be millennial and the millennial temple may be similar, however, sacrifices will never return, imo.
You need to determine when the restoration of Israel takes place. And then sort prophecy accordingly. Some fits better there. Some fits better now. Israel's restoration takes place on earth's last day in the resurrection (restoration) of believers (Israel). And their delivery into the New Heavens and earth. There is no millennium.
Rome simply doesn't have the power that it had earlier in the last century. I don't believe it has any end-time significance at all except the possibility that a pope may be the false prophet but certainly not the a/c. Neither can these things which scripturally are shown to be individuals, can become symbolical in nature. In most cases, if you need symbolism to understand your eschatology, you're on the wrong track, imo.
Jesus clearly defines this in scripture. If you can grasp it, it's a game changer.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
But he did appear above the mercy seat between the Angels when the tabernacle was in the wilderness. And in the temple of the OT.
Christ will be in the new temple in the MK as the high priest.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
Leviticus 16:2 New International Version (NIV)
2 The Lord said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I will appear in the cloud over the atonement cover.
As for the MK your speaking is in a millennialist who doesn't believe in it.
This is correct. But remember, Peter says Jesus presently rules on David's Throne in Jerusalem above. Revelation says he rules over the nations. And Paul says he must rule until he defeats death, the last enemy at the resurrection.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Ok, I'll grant this one is plausible. Not as plausible as multiple Muslim nations uniting under the banner of the Mahdi to attack Israel all at the same time, but plausible : )
I ask is that I do see hatred for Christians building in the earth (and usually coming from the same sources), but not like the hatred building towards the Jews. No political leaders have vowed the mass extermination of Christians, but there have been several in recent decades who have promised the complete annihilation of the Jews. And if what happened with Hitler is any indication, these will not be just empty promises but lead to an actual attempt.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
I hear this sort of statement in discussions like this all the time, and it almost sounds like you guys believe the Jews are beyond forgiveness from God, and that it's an utter impossibility they'll ever turn to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul didn't feel this way, and never took this stand:
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (Romans 11:11-12)
Don't you think it's a problem if your theology tends towards not even giving the Jews a chance at redemption? Smacks of anti-Semitism, which led to Hitler, and may lead to someone far worse.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Don't encourage him, LoL. Or me, for that matter : ) Besides, I like Pizza Hut better.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
The problem with this debate for me is that I believe Rome will play a significant role: She is going to be turned into toast by the ten nation Caliphate that arises in the earth prior to the emergence of the Mahdi, i.e. the Antichrist (Revelation 17:15-17). But as I have complained before, it troubles me that many - even many throughout church history - have never been able to properly discern between the Whore and the Beast. One will clearly hate the other, and destroy her by fire.
Similar threads
