Leauki posts:

And we've heard the other side of this too. It goes something like this: How can the world that's so wretched and filled with misery be the creation of a wise and Good God?

If one of His children sins greviously and remains that way at the time of his death, then he is condemned to Hell and he certaInly has deserved it. If one of His children dies with his will rebellious to God he puts himself in Hell. Why blame God when the person alone is responsible? 

In God all is one..His Mercy, Justice, Power and Love. It is our limited intellect that makes us set one attribute of God against the other.  God cannot defeat His mercy against His Justice and vice versa. God cannot deviate from right without ceasing to be God.

lula posts:

Thanks for the advice. But you know what? It's good to quote the NT to Jews becasue it's good for them.

 St.Matthew wrote the Gospel around the year 50. It's 2010, it's time they recognize it...actually it's pass time. Way pass time! 

 

 

KFC posts:

KFC posts 80

 KFC,

This is not what Jesus meant. Daniel does not prophesy about an endtime Jerusalem Temple built for the purpose of reinstituting OT sacrifices as you state here. You're interpretating St.Matt. 24:15 according to Christian Zionist ideology. Rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple and reinstituting OT animal sacrifices might be a dream, prayer, wish and desire of some people, but it is not Biblical prophecy.

 Just as your interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 is truth mixed with error, the same with this. I've highlighted the part that is error.    

First, Concerning the "abomination of desolations"......St.Matthew's 24:15  "abomination of desolation" refers to a sacrilege on the altar or desecration of the sanctuary of the holy place by a "man of sin" 2Thess. 2:3-4 or "Antichrist" 1St. John 2:18 who must come prior to the end of the world.

By saying "Whoso reads, let him understand" Jesus is directing the reader to Daniel and the command to "understand" implies the reader to search for fulfillments of Daniel's prophecy either in Scripture or in events in his own day.

Daniel's "abomination of desolation" was close to the time in which the book of Daniel was written. You have already cited Antiochus IV which is recounted in 1 and 2 Machabees and we can learn something from it. 1Mach 1:57; 6-7 refers to an "abomination of desolation" set up by Antiochus Epiphanes who caused all sorts of afflictions to the Jews and the Holy Land. Antiochus was aided and abetted by 4 Jewish high priests: Jason 2Mach 4:7-13; Menelaus 2Mach 4:23-25; 13:5-7; Lysimachus 2Mach 4:39-42; and Lacimus 2Mach. 14:3-4.

But what our Lord does in St. Matt. 24: verses 15 through 22 is apply this episode in the history of Israel to the future destruction of the Jerusalem within their generation. That abomination occurred in 70AD when the Roman armies destroyed and profaned the Temple and later under Hadrian who ordered the erection of a statue of Jupiter on the ruins. Verse 17-22 is Jesus telling the early Christians what to do when they see "the abomination of desolation" of which the prophet Daniel spoke.

Keep in mind that Jesus predicted "the desolation of Jerusalem" St.Matt. 23:37-38; St.Luke 21:20-24; 23:28. There would be a spiritual and a physical judgment of Jerusalem. The prophetic fulfillment would be a time span from 33AD to 70AD (Daniel's last week).

Immediately at Christ's death, God rent the Temple Veil from top to bottom. What was He telling everyone by this? That the Temple era from Solomon in 931 BC was done. No longer would the Temple serve as God's dwelling. This was the spiritual judgment. God rejected the Jewish nation as his chosen people, although a remnant would continue to be saved due to the promises to Abraham Rom. 11:5-27.

 

The "Abomination of Desolation" would be fulfilled more completely by the events leading up to the physical destruction of the Temple in 70AD and again in 146AD by the Roman armies. The Jewish historian Joesphus writes about this. 

According to Daniel's 3 references to the "abomination of desolation", it is a time when the "sacrifice and offering" cease 9:27, or when the "continual sacrifice" is replaced. 11:31; 12:11; 8:11-13.

FOR THE JEWS, THE CESSATION OF SACRIFICE AND OFFERING OCCURRED AT THE DEATH OF CHRIST, SINCE HE REPLACED THEIR SACRIFICE WITH HIS ONE AND ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. Heb. 9:12-28.    

 

kfc posts:

 

KFC,

 

Antichrist isn't going to give a hoot about animal sacrifices or putting a stop to them. It's the sacrifice associated with the New Covenant worship that will cease or be replaced by a pseudo sacrifice when Satan is loosed and the man of sin is revealed. Read Malachias 1:11...that's the New Covenant "continual sacrifice" that is offered in every place all over the world that Antichrist will be after.  

 

"standing in the holy place"....even if a future Jerusalem Temple will be built...it cannot be "the holy place" as God will not dwell there....the holy place is the Church of the New Covenant .....her Altars...in the Tabernacle. 

 

 

It depends.

If it really says what you claim it says, it's certainly not "good" for us, and neither were forced conversions, the inquisition, and the crusades.

If you want to do something for Jews and Christianity, stop advertising your version of Christianity to anyone. Trust me, you are not convincing anybody. Just ask the Jews, Protestants and atheists who read you here.




It's very simple.

Rebuilding the Temple is part of what a messiah does.

If Jesus doesn't do it, he is not a messiah.

You are telling me that Jesus won't rebuild the Temple.

Therefor, if I believe you, I know he is not a messiah (let alone the Messiah).

You still think you teaching Jews about Christianity is a good thing?

I doubt that any Christian or Jew wants to hear that somone isn't the Messiah.

 

"Past", not "pass."

Another problem with quoting the Christian Bible (or the Quran) to Jews is that if the quote says something that isn't in the Hebrew Bible, the Jew will take that as an indication that the Christian Bible (or the Quran) is wrong.

Hell is not a concept of Judaism, but it exists in Islam and Christianity.

I think both Christianity and Islam got their concept of hell from Zoroastrianism. Maybe hell is a place where G-d sends wicked non-Jews, I don't know. But that would explain why He chose to reveal information about it not in Aramaic or Hebrew but in Greek, Arabic, and Persian.

 

Thank you!     

lula posts:

Leauki posts:

Not good? Are you kidding? Scripture may be read in parts but must be treated as a whole. One book or testament anticipates and clarifies another. The New Testament which is the Gospel of Christ is mighty good for Jews. The NT which is Divine Revelation explains Redemptive truth...your salvation plan.  Christ's sacrifice redeemed all mankind and opened the gates of Heaven. The promises were spoken to Abraham "and to his seed" meaning one person, Christ.

 

leauki posts:

Well, One can bring the horse to water, but one can't make him drink.

St.Peter said, "Wherefore, laying away all malice and all guile and dissumulations and envies, and all detractions, as newborn babes, desire the rational milk, without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation."

My version of Christianity IS the "rational milk".  

lula posts:

St.John Chrysostom would have answered your question, "We must not ask where Hell is, but how we are to avoid it." In Rom. hom. xxxi.

LEAUKI POSTS:

Believing in Hell is reasonable.

LEAUKI POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS:

Hell is a place where God condemns the wicked..including Jews.

Hell may not be a concept of modern Judaism, but it sure was a concept of Old Testament Judaism.

God did reveal information about the existence of Hell in Hebrew.

Read the Book of Numbers 16:20-33 wherre God sent Core, Dathan and Abiron (who caused a schism from Moses and Aaron among the Isrealites) alive into Hell.

Numbers 16: 20 And the Lord speaking to Moses and Aaron, said:

21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may presently destroy them. 22 They fell flat on their face, and said: O most mighty, the God of the spirits of all flesh, for one man's sin shall thy wrath rage against all? 23 And the Lord said to Moses: 24 Command the whole people to separate themselves from the tents of Core and Dathan and Abiron. 25 And Moses arose, and went to Dathan and Abiron: and the ancients of Israel following him,

26 He said to the multitude: Depart from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins. 27 And when they were departed from their tents round about, Dathan and Abiron coming out stood in the entry of their pavilions with their wives and children, and all the people. 28 And Moses said: By this you shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all things that you see, and that I have not forged them of my own head: 29 If these men die the common death of men, and if they be visited with a plague, wherewith others also are wont to be visited, the Lord did not send me. 30 But if the Lord do a new thing, and the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, and all things that belong to them, and they go down alive into hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord.

31 And immediately as he had made an end of speaking, the earth broke asunder under their feet: 32 And opening her mouth, devoured them with their tents and all their substance. 33 And they went down alive into hell the ground closing upon them, and they perished from among the people. 34 But all Israel, that was standing round about, fled at the cry of them that were perishing: saying: Lest perhaps the earth swallow us up also.   

lula posts:

KFC posts 95

The Scriptural proofs of the Church's infallibility are numerous...

Starting with the passage I already quoted...."Know thou how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."

The Church has to be infallible for this to be true.

Infallibility means the Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith and morals, she is our infallible guide to both. Therefore, Infallibility has nothing to do with the fact that her members including the Pope are sinners, needing the Sacrament of Penance. Infallibility does not mean the Pope and the bishops in union with him know everything or that he/they are inspired or receives or makes new revelation.

The function of infallibility is to ensure that we shall be able to know with certainlity truths which are vital to us and which we cannot find out for ourselves. The personal character of the Pope and Bishops are quite beside the point. God prevents them from falling into error only when he/they officially teach ex cathedra the entire Church on matters of faith and morals.

Christ came to earth to teach a true doctrine which should last for all time. He told Pilate, "For this I was born and for this I came into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth." Christ, being All Wise All Foreseeing All Powerful, took the means to prevent the Apostolic teaching body from falling into error and therefore corrupting His doctrine. If Christ ahd not established an infallible teaching body on earth, when He ascended into Heaven His teaching would have ceased.

We learn from the OT, that for centuries God had been preparing mankind for the coming of His only begotten Son. Is it that after all this preparation, the Redeemer comes and teaches for 3 years to a few people in the small corner of the world? No of course not. The Redeemer founded a Chruch as a teaching body enabling it to carry on His teachings without error. God sent Christ, and Christ sent His Apostles to teach in His name and with His authority.

"And I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, becasue it seeth Him not., nor knoweth Him, but you shall know Him becasue He shall abide with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you....These things I have spoken to you, abiding with you.

But the Paraclete the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." St.John 14:6-18; 25-26.

In St Matt. 28:20 Christ gives the Apostolic teaching body His authority, sends them to all nations to teach and baptize in His name and tells them He will be with them all days, until the end of the world.

Christ gave them the power to bind and loose on earth and He will honor that in Heaven.

All this is meaningless if they do not signify that the Holy Spirit is to be responsible for what the Apostles and their rightful successors may define  to be part of Christ's teachings. If the HOoly Spirit is responsible for such definitions, they are surely infallible. What is guaranteed by the Spirit of truth cannot be false...and the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

 

 

     

I know that the Church cannot err in what she teaches becasue CHrist promised the gates of Hell  shall never prevail against His Church, that the Holy Spirit shall teach her all things, and that He Himself will be with her all days, even to the end of the world.

 

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Apart from promises, what exactly did or does the Roman Church do for Jews?

 

In your post #109 you gave me NO scripture to back up your belief that the church is infallible. 

I can give you several instances where the church has been proven fallible. 

The church is made up of believers.  We are the church correct?  Do you sin?  Are you fallible or infallible? 

Peter.  Was he fallible or infallible?  Did Jesus rebuke him for sin?  *shake your head yes*

Did Paul rebuke Peter for sin?  *shake your head yes*. 

Did Paul sin?  Was he infallible or infallible?  Did he say "I do the things I don't want to do and don't do the things I should do?" 

Did he talk about having a thorn in the flesh?  *shake your head yes.*  Although we don't know what this thorn is, could be physical or sinful he did have issues. 

Also the letters to the Corinthians were written to this church because of their sin issues.    Also read the description of the seven churches in the first couple of chapters of Revelation.  Out of 7 churches ONLY two had commendations.  The other five had sin issues. 

I will repeat.  The church is NEVER infalible in scripture because it's made up of sinful believers.  The only person who is infallible is Christ himself.  To say otherwise is to prove yourself a liar. 

A few scriptures to consider:

"he who is without sin cast the first stone."   Jesus said this himself knowing quite well there is no such thing as a non sinning person alive. 

"if we say that we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.  1 John 1:8

 

Leauki where are you getting the Messiah will build the temple?  Talmud?  

 

 

I'm sorry for coming late to the conversation.   Work has been keeping me busy as does a new puppy.  Leauki, you'll like her name: גְּדַלְיָה Gedalyah.  Your thoughts?

Leauki, I know one of your favorite past times is to get KFC and Lula to duke it out.  I know you are a reader and an intellect.  http://real-world-news.org/Evidence/Simon-Greenleaf.html Take a look at that.  Simon Greenleaf was one of the founders of Harvard Law School.  He is a religious Jew and a Lawyer who got sick and tired of christians saying Jesus is the Jewish Messiah so he set forth to disprove them.  I think I gave you the link some time ago.  Reading this really helped me because I could relate to both of his backgrounds (particularly being Jewish part).

Infidel, your comments are kind of like salt and pepper to the conversation.  Some are pretty funny.  I get the feeling you think most religious people are leptons.   I would direct you to William Lane Craig (any of his debates books: Reasonable Faith, Does G-D Exist? with Anthony Flew), Gary Habermas (he did a few debates, books: The Historical Jesus, the Case for the Resurrection of Jesus), Alvin Plantinga (all of his stuff is excellent), or Ravi Zacharias. 

Infidel, I was an atheist at the beginning of my life.  Then I became a follower of Yeshua (Jesus) late high school/earlier college.  If you're in college the library should have those books (even the more prestigous/liberal universities. I know this because I briefly attended one)

I would like to know more about who you are and where you are coming from Infidel.  I think I PMed you a long time ago.

KFC and Lula, this more for Lula.  I would refrain calling the OT the OT, especially when the discourse is with Jewish people.  As Leauki politely pointed out at the beginning but I don't think it made an impact.  This is very offensive (it offends me and I can understand Leauki's offense).  Use the word Tanack or just use the word Scriptures because all Scripture is G-D given. 

Also, what are your goals in having this discourse with Leauki? What are you planning on accomplishing?  If its to show how wrong he is no lofty agrument can win someone over.  Also, you can be so right that you're wrong.  In other words, if you are not coming in the right Spirit you can turn someone off EVEN if it is the Truth you are coming at them with.  Maybe you should ask him why isn't a follower or what turns him off from becoming a follower.  Actually Leauki, you can PM me those, because I would just like to hear that (Infidel you can PM aka Private Message me your response to those two questions).

Leauki and Infidel, I know Christians can come across as offensive, know it alls, condemn it alls, or no fun at alls.  I apologize if you encountered people/individuals like that.  I emplorer you both to look past that and dive into the Truth (Leauki in your case just take a deeper dive in without any 'glasses on' and Infidel just to dive in.)

Many Blessings!

1Tim 3:15,

Christ's Church indeed teaches with His infallible authority, "He who listens to you, listens to me; and he who rejects you, rejects Me." St.Luke 10:16; St.Matt. 10:40. Your definition of Church makes no sense with this passage. "He who listens to "believers", listens to Me and he who rejects "believers" rejects Me."

Christ gave His infallible teaching authority to the Apostles and they in turn to their lawful successors, the popes and bishops. Christ sent them to infallibly teach all nations until the end of the world. St. Matt. 28:16-20  Christ gave St.Peter and the other Apostles His infallible authority "to bind and loose."  St. Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18.

Another one is

And another St.John 14:18

St.Paul vindicates the Divine authority being taught by the Church in 1Thess. 2:23, "Therefore we also give thanks to God without ceasing; because when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as iti is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed." He obviously believed the Apostolic Body to be infallibly true.

The first infallible decision the Apostles made as a group occurred at the Council of Jerusalem. They issued a decree in the name of the Holy Spirit, "For it hath seemed good to the Holy GHost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things." Acts. 15:28.

Here at the first CC Council, the Apostles claim, in the name of the Holy Ghost, to decide a dogmatic question of first importance..whether Christians were bound to observe the Old Law in its entirety. They would certainly never have spoken this way unless they were convinced that Christ's promises had assured them of infallible guidance in their solemn decision making and utterances in the name of the Church.  That St.Peter and the other Apostles were sinners is quite beside the point.

 

I wrote

If Christ's Church, the Catholic Church is not infallible, then you have no certainty that the books in your Bible belong there. That decision occurred in the Council of Laodicea in 367, definitely adopted in the Carthage Council in 397 and declared ex cathedra (that is by infallible authority) at the Council of Trent 1564.

 

 

 

kfc posts:

All this shows is your confusion between  "infallibility" and "impeccability".  Again, Infallibility concerns the absence of error, not of sin. Infallibility belongs to the body of bishops, as a whole, in matters of faith and morals, they teach a doctrine as true. They proclaim Christ's doctrines infallibly. That's it. "He who listens to you, listens to Me. St.Luke 10:16, "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." St.Matt. 16:19; 18:18.  Infallibility means that what is officially taught will not be wrong or have any error...has nothing to do with sin.

For St.Peter the first Pope of His Church, Christ said, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail". St. John 21:15-17.

 

We members of the Church are all fallible...but according to St.Matt. 16:18-19, Christ built His Apostolic Church upon a ministerial, hierarchial, priesthood with St.Peter as its head. Christ gave His infallible teaching and preaching authority to them and they in turn gave it to their lawful successors.The popes and the bishops are fallible except in the times they formally define or teach a doctrine.

These instances of St.Peter and Paul's actions were of discipline, not official matters of faith and morals.

 

Infallibility is based on Christ's mandate to His Church....

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything He taught St.Matt. 28:19-20 and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit "to guide you unto all truth" St.John 16:13, That mandate and that promise guarantee the Chruch will never fall away from His teachings 1Tim. 3:15 even if the individual members might.

 

 

 

TPP posts:

TPP,

If my calling the Old Testament the Old Testament is "very offensive" to you, then you should refrain from reading my posts and commenting here.

Ezekiel 16:55

And your sisters: Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your daughters shall return to your former state.

What is the "former state" referred to here?

G-d instructed Israel to build a Temple in Jerusalem. That was the state the city should be in.

When Cyrus came, a Messiah, what did he do? He rebuilt the Temple.

Do you want me to expect less from the (not just "a") Messiah?

When the Second Temple was destroyed, Israelites (except perhaps the early Christians) again assumed that the Messiah would rebuild the Temple. Obviously this belief was reported in the Talmud.

 

Puppies are cool. The name is a bit dramatic. G-d, I hope it's a great puppy.

 

Actually, as I have pointed out before, I am not. I have no degree (only now working on a B.Eng. part time, mostly for the fun of learning) and I never fit into an academic environment (although most of my friends are academics).

I find the intellectual circle too removed from reality, especially the liberal arts majors.

 

I think I read that. But I am too convinced that the Messiah is supposed to do certain things and hence I feel no need to prove or disprove anything. I just wait.

If Jesus comes back and does the job, I'll be fine with him.

 

That's another thing. I don't care if "Infidel" believes in G-d. I believe that he will have a place in the next world whether or not he believes in something that cannot be proven or not.

Belief in G-d is something that helps us cope with life, it's not a quick way to improve one's status in G-d's eyes.

You can be an atheist all your life and be better than any believer.

Belief in G-d might help us do good deeds. But it is the deeds that make us better, not the faith that helps us doing them. In fact, I think an atheist who gives his life to save others is a better man than a religious person who does the same. Giving up everything for a good cause, without knowing that it wasn't really everything takes a better man than I can ever be.

 

I usually recommend the Bible to people because they learn from it, not because reading it might change their beliefs. Beliefs are secondary, unecessary even for those strong enough to be good without knowing what for.

 

I agree.

 

KFC shows me that Christianity can make people better. Her faith is impressive and I can see that it makes her a better person. She understands Judaism and Jews to an extend rare among gentiles. Whenever I feel down because Israel is under attack, KFC shows me that we are not alone and that faith can help us overcome problems.

I am sure part of what KFC wants to accomplish is that.

Lula just wants to tell me that everything I believe is wrong and that her Church is now what we used to be. Nothing good, for (the real) Israel comes from that Church!

The reason I am not a follow is surprisingly simple: I have no reason to be. I don't find Jesus more convincing than any of the other self-proclaimed (or real) prophets but I do have a problem with the idea that he is the "son of G-d". I believe G-d is one and indivisible, not a being that can have a "son".

 

I always keep my glasses on in order to protect my eyes. It's too easy getting blinded.

 

 

Leauki you and I are in agreement some/most of the time but certainly not here.  Why in the world is an atheist who give his life to save others a better man than one who  believes in God?  One is doing it in HIS OWN name and the other (like Christ) is doing it for God's glory NOT HIS OWN.  It's like Jesus said often "thy will be done."  Satan's mantra is "my will be done."  Who is better? 

Thanks Leauki.  Very kind words.  You might be interested to know that the Baptist Church I meet in for my bible studies with Marv (don't attend there normally tho) is having an "Israel Recognition Day" coming up.  The strongest bible believing Christians I know recognize the importance of Israel and their important part not only in history but also the future in God's plan. 

As far as being offensive, while I try my best NOT to be I do understand that the Gospel by it's very nature is offensive to many.  So since it's offensive already there's no need for me to be. 

Also I use the OT and the NT abbreviations for just that...abbreviations and to clarify where I'm getting something from rather than just saying "scriptures."  It's certainly not meant to offend but more to clarify. 

 

 

Ok.  There's alot to this.  To simplify in Marv's words.  The prophets saw ONLY the first coming and the second coming but as one period of time; not two like we do.  They saw and wrote about the suffering Messiah and the Conquering King.  They DID NOT see the valley in between these two mountain tops as they looked way up ahead.  They totally missed the valley in between because it had nothing to do with them.  It was the "times of the Gentiles" and not pertaining to them.

When Christ WAS NOT accepted the first time by his own people, he turned from the Jews  and towards the Gentiles but ONLY for a period of time called "the times of the Gentiles."  This is so that the promise to Abraham would be kept that "ALL nations of the earth would be blessed."  Paul wrote about this calling it a mystery revealed to us in the NT.  The Jewish believers now understood clearly what had once been a mystery to them before the death of Christ.  God was also going to call a people out for his name among the Gentiles. 

Here Ezekiel was writing about the second coming when the Messiah would come back to set up his rule.  So yes, the ultimate restoration of Sodom, Samaria, and Israel awaits the establishing of Christ's kingdom on the present earth. 

But when I talk about the temple being rebuilt it's BEFORE this tiime you're writing about here.  It will be like when Hanukkah was first observed because of the desacration of the temple.  This is going to happen again when the AC comes.   Again this would be before what Ezekiel wrote about here.  The final Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) will be observed during this time with a Feast of Tabernacles or Booths after that like never before. 

Go to Daniel 11:36-45 and read about this time.  The AC will set up his headquaters in Palestine between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea (v45) but his end will come after the "abomination of desolation" (v31) by polluting the new Temple.  There will be a hatred for the Jews unlike any other time in history.  We are gearing up for that now.   

Daniel has alot to say about this time.  Daniel for you is like the book of Revelation to the Christian.  To be totally clear and accurate both work together like a jig-saw puzzle. 

When Jesus left Jerusalem and turned to the Gentiles he wept over it and said this:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings and you would not.  Behold your house (temple) is left to you desolate.  For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you shall say, Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord (2nd coming).  Matthew 23:37-39  (Zechariah writes about this time when Israel will recognize Him and mourn). 

We must be careful about what we assume.  Usually we find ourselves incorrect.  We need to stay away from going on emotion and heresay and stay in scripture.  It's all there.  The true Messiah will come back AFTER the Temple is built and desecrated once again.  But first it HAS TO BE constructed. 

Israel's tabernacle was only a copy or shadow of the true tabernacle in heaven.  As long as the tabernacle and later the temple stood, the people of Israel were reminded that sin had not yet been conclusively dealt with. 

The most important thing to remember is that the tabernacle was designed to be a copy of the Almighty's throne room.  The ark of the covenant sat within the Most Holy Place as the Lord's footstood (Ex 26:34) and the cherubim woven into the curtains of the tabernacle were depictions of the heavenly host that glorify God day and night in heaven. 

The restricted access to God's presence in Israel was to remind the people that even though He had chosen them, something more had to be done to overcome the wide chasm between His holiness and humanity's impurity.  This chasm was bridged in Christ who now gives free access to God himself. 

kfc posts 88

KFC posts:

Gladly.

Based on Acts, of the Ethiopian and St.Philip, a deacon in the early Church, I claim that God Who inspired the Sacred Books has entrusted their interpretation to His Church which Scripture states "is the pillar and ground of truth". Christ gave His teaching authority to His Church and that teaching authority (now called the Magisterium) is  the official guide to understanding the true meaning of Scripture.

You deny this saying every "born again" Christian is his own official guide to interpreting Scripture because of the guidance and indwelling of the HS. You quoted 1St.John 2: verse 20 and then skipped to 27 as your proof text.

To which I said the chapter when taken in its full context gives a completely different conclusion than your claim as to its meaning and in fact, cements mine.

The passages that we need to consider are 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 27.

18 "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come;..." 

20, "But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know (your version has it as "you know everything").

21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it and know that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the father and the son.

24, Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. 26 I write this to you about those who would deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you received from him abides in you and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything and is truth and is no lie and even as it has taught you, abide in Him.

St. John covers the theme that the fidelty of the Christians is being tested by the heretics "who would deceive" them v 26.

Verse 20,  St.John tells them that they "have been anointed" by the Holy One. He says by this anointing they "know  everything". Here St. John is stressing to the Christians they do not need to listen to teachings other than those of the Church; that they are being guided by the HS which gives them certainty and sureness of faith. St.John does NOT mean that the faithful have no need of the teaching body of the Chruch (the Magisterium) for the very fact that he is writing to them shows otherwise.

What St.John is making clear is that their true teacher is the Holy Spirit who guides the Magisterium in its teaching and he also acts in the soul of the Christian helping him to accept that teaching. That's why the Church has unity "in one Spirit" Ephesians 4:4-6.

On these passages, St. Augustine taught, "If this anointing teaches you everything, it seems that we pastors are toiling to no purpose. Why so much shouting on our part? This is the marvelous thing. The sound of our words are striking your ears, but the Master is within. Do not think that it is a question of somebody learning from a man; we can attract your attention by the power of our voice, but if he who does the teaching is not within, all our sermons will be in vain." In Epist. Ioann. ad Parthos 3.13.

So, it's out of the question that St.John meant as you claim that each individual Christian has full authority as his own guide at the expense of the authority of the Church's teaching office. We know this is true becasue of the emphasis placed at the beginning on the function of the witnesses 1:1. Those witnesses to the Faith are the Apostles to whom the Risen Christ gave His authority and sent to teach and baptize all nations until the end of the world. St.Matt. 28:19-20.

What the Holy Spirit teaches Christians about is exactly the same as what they heard from the beginning v.24. ANd what then is that? Read St.John 14:26, and 15:26....which I've already cited, but it's worth repeating...the Paraclete, and in His power (authority), the Apostles, the disciples bearing witness.   

 

 

 

That's fine with me.

I just need to know that Jerusalem will be restored after he has come. I don't care which parts have been rebuild by him specifically or by others.

I still believe that he will rebuild the Temple though.

 

LULA POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS:

Jesus did "rebuild" the Temple already. As to "Temple" there are different Scriptural meanings and uses of the word "Temple" and perhaps it would be beneficial to discuss those. Failing to understand the Holy Scriptures adequately, you and others who come to certain passages with a preset agenda, think only of the rebuilding of a physical, material Temple.   

 

Yes, I'm telling you that Jesus won't rebuild the Temple that is, a physical, material  temple in Jerusalem.

Life is a gift from God. It's a probation time...a testing time...a time of making choices....a race to the end which is eternal life either in eternal happiness or eternal misery.  It's about a spritual battle for the eternal soul between good and the forces of evil. The people of the world, including Jews, will be saved by the merits and preaching and acceptance of Christ's Cross and not by human works in vain such as is resacrifcing animals in a rebuilt Jerusalem temple. 

 

 

 

Yes, of course.

leauki posts 103

In salvation history, there has been only one true Messias, the Christ. All the OT prophets pointed to the Emmanuel who would be born in the time, place and circumstances exactly as Jesus Christ was.

 

No, Jesus didn't rebuilt the Temple already.

And there is no other "meaning" of "Temple". A temple is a temple is a temple.

Who made you the final arbiter on what scripture means?

 

In that case the matter is settled. Jesus isn't the Messiah.

We expect the Messiah to rebuild Jerusalem (and all the other cities of Israel) and the Temple is part of that. If Jesus won't do it, he is not the Messiah.

 

"Salvation history" sounds to me like a term that makes something much more complex than it is.

Jewish Messianism is not as complex as you make it out to be.

1. There is a people, Israel.

2. They, like other peoples, believe in a god.

3. The god of Israel turns out to be the Creator and, according to later belief, the only real god.

4. Legend has it that when Israel is in trouble, Israel's god will send an annointed king to put things right.

5. This has already once happened.

6. Legend further has it that at the end of time such a Messiah (annointed one) will arrive again, rebuild the cities of Israel and put things right for all the time.

7. That's the one we are waiting for.

If you tell me that Jesus won't rebuild the cities of Israel (or important parts of them), then Jesus is not that Messiah.

I'll continue to wait.

(And I am sure you will continue to give me reason after reason why Jesus isn't the Messiah.)

 

The time and circumstances where not mentioned. And neither was Jesus' name ever "Emmanuel".

(Actually a time was expected. The Messiah was to come at the end of time. This is why early Christians believed that the end of time was near.)

 

 

So far you have totally convinced me that Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Before you started "teaching" me, I was merely convinced that Jesus isn't the Messiah.

You have to remember where she's coming from Leauki.  She's coming from that darn RCC theology which says that the RCC has REPLACED Israel.  It's called "Replacement Theology"   The Jews, in their eyes, killed Christ (not true) and if you notice she didn't use scripture to prove her point.  It's all coming from her "tradition" not the scriptures. 

Paul, when he was writing to the Thessalonians, mentioned the rebuilt temple, maybe not knowing himself at the time that it would be a rebuilt one, but now we know from reading what he said that it HAS TO BE constructed.  He said this concerning this future time:

"Let no man deceive you by any means for that day shall not come (rapture or gathering of his people to him) except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed (AC); the son of perdition.  Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sits in the TEMPLE of God showing himself that he is God."

 This has NOT happened yet.  Paul wrote this about 51 A.D. BEFORE the 2nd Temple was destroyed.  He had NO idea when this would happen but he wrote that it would. For all he knew it could be anyday now when he was writing this.   Now we know today there is NO time in history from 51-70 A.D. where this happened.  Paul was killed in about 67 A.D.

Daniel also foretold this as did Christ in Matthew 24:15.  Daniel was so upset at seeing this future vision that it says he was greatly troubled.  So we are still waiting.  And since there is no temple now, there has to be sometime before this prophecy can take place.  Otherwise it makes no sense. 

 The Messiah will come AFTER the AC sits in the temple declaring himself God, and that's when the Jews will recognize Him... 

"and I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplications and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.  In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon."  Zech 12:10

This is that Day of Atonement I was speaking of earlier.  It's the day that the Jews will recognize Christ really was their Messiah afterall.  They will be on their faces like they have never before. 

His feet will touch the mount of Olives when He comes back. (Zech 14:4)

It will be TOTALLY restored AFTER he comes.  First it will be destroyed by the nations that will come up against it.  Same story as always just different battle.  This one will be the battle of Armageddon.  Then afterwards:

"and he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.  Having the glory of God and her light was like unot a stone most precious even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; and had a wall great and high and had twelve gates and at the gates twelve angels and names written theron which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel; On the east three gates; on the north three gates on the south three gates and on the west three gates.  And the wall of the city had twelve foundations and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.  And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.  And the city lieth foursquare and the length is as large as the breadth and he measured the city with the reed twelve thousand furlongs.  The length and the breadth and the height are equal. "  Revelation 21

This is just a partial description of the New Jerusalem which God will rebuild. What God has in store is better than the Jerusalem we see today.  This is only a shadow of the genuine article that God has ready for us when the time comes.  It will be huge.  For more you can read the rest on your own.