Revelation; The Beast and the Temple

reply to post by Rollo

I'm not sure what your response is supposed to mean, and I intend to keep focussed on what I'm doing, thank you.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
...a case of reminding ourselves that "the temple" was the orginal OP theme, so that focussing on the meaning of "Temple" would be a relevant way of developing that theme.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by DISRAELI]

the end-times 'Temple' has to be a physical building complex...

for many reasons including that the 'daily sacrifice' is taken away...
the 'daily sacrifice' has to be reinstituted by a modern era Sanhedrin,
the red heifer has to be present, the oils & incenses have to be re-engineered...

i seriously doubt that all these requirements for a authorative religious body (a Sanhedrin) to act as a type of Supreme Court for Temple Affairs & Judaic Law...
would be involved with a spiritual 'Temple' , No they would be involved in the Physical Stone Temple, the rules, laws regarding preparing sacrifices & the proper Protocols for the 'Priests'...



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

on page 4, the reply post from

DISRAELI
Up to now, my way of dealing with the "1290 days" reference has been to ignore it.
On the other hand again ..., Daniel does say that the "causing of the sacrifice to cease" is for "half a week", which seems to identify it with the 1260 days ...

recall where i showed that the time period the 10 Kings shared power with the beast was 30 days

there in lies the time difference between 1260 days & 1290 days...
blest are those who perservere for the full 1290 days...
that whas when the 'empire' was formalized...30 days later (an Revelation Hour) is when the Beast seized the 10 nation bloc and begins the 1260 day countdown.

its best not to just ignore a factor in the prophetic outline & timeline, i'm surprised

[edit on 27-8-2010 by St Udio]

reply to post by DISRAELI


On what...?

It's ok...
continue then.


*Edit, what is it that you are seeking, the answer or evidence?
I dont understand what it is you are wanting, and then what you will do if you cant get that outcome or if you do get the answer.
No negativity in any way, but what is it?


[edit on 27-8-2010 by Rollo]

this is for you

If you really still have to know the truth then ask God.
He is the only one who can revel this...and he will only if it is required.
If he wants you to have the the knowledge of this because it's part of his plan and purpose for you then you will get the thing you seek...

If not then it is but a distraction, occupying more time... never mind the time already spent, on a goose chase...and for a purpose not divinely ordained, pointless.

I would implore you to seek the divine wisdom because then you will understand...well, everything...and also know what I wrote in the 1st place

I mean no harm or animosity, truthfully, I hope you will see...soon





[edit on 27-8-2010 by Rollo]

Originally posted by Rollo
If you really still have to know the truth then ask God.
He is the only one who can revel this...and he will only if it is required.
If he wants you to have the the knowledge of this because it's part of his plan and purpose for you then you will get the thing you seek.

I'm sure you're right, and I trust it's happening already.
I'm working on that assumption.

Originally posted by St Udio
the end-times 'Temple' has to be a physical building complex...

for many reasons including that the 'daily sacrifice' is taken away...
the 'daily sacrifice' has to be reinstituted by a modern era Sanhedrin,
the red heifer has to be present, the oils & incenses have to be re-engineered...

That is only the case if the "daily sacrifice" is to be literally understood as the Levitical one.
You may recall that in the OP I offered a different way of understanding it, e.g. as a reference to the eucharist, using the traditional Christian right to re-interpret the Old Testament in a Christian sense.
On that assumption, a Sanhedrin would not be necessary.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

That is only the case if the "daily sacrifice" is to be literally understood as the Levitical one.
You may recall that in the OP I offered a different way of understanding it, e.g. as a reference to the eucharist, using the traditional Christian right to re-interpret the Old Testament in a Christian sense.
On that assumption, a Sanhedrin would not be necessary.

Your lumping the Catholic, (and i guess another sect of Protestants that use the 'Eucharist') as encompassing the True-Church & Christianity...

no sir, they are human driven 'Sects' not the consolidated 'Israel' of the last days/70th week... the 'Eucharist' is not a sacrifice in any sense, it is a mystical transformation/'Gift' to the apostles & the brethern/faithful


there is no association between the pagan, Sun worshiping Eucharist and the Levitical 'Daily Sacrifice' that gets abolished under the direction of the False-Prophet via authority of the AC 'beast'.... sounds too pop-culturish to me this Eucharist thing --> & that means the Eucharist (wheat waffer)
is man inspired, man contrived, man divined ergo an antichrist rite...

? why would the beast & his disciple the false prophet stop an antichrist practice... no they will be prohibiting devotion to anything other than himself, the AC, so old-time traditions like Levitical Rites (the daily sacrifice of birds and such) will be outlawed or stopped...

`````then we have to acknowledge that after a millenium a new modern Sanhedrin has been established (since 2007?)
aat present the current Sanhedrin is not officially recognized under the Levitical Laws...just yet... but every intention is being made for this reestablished Sanhedrin to have authority as it did prior to 70AD

then
Israel will have their Political bodies and a Religious body to guide the population, i think on just about equal footing.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by St Udio]

Originally posted by St Udio
Your lumping the Catholic, (and i guess another sect of Protestants that use the 'Eucharist') as encompassing the True-Church & Christianity...

no sir, they are human driven 'Sects' not the consolidated 'Israel' of the last days/70th week... the 'Eucharist' is not a sacrifice in any sense, it is a mystical transformation/'Gift' to the apostles & the brethern/faithful

Sorry, if the word "eucharist" gets your anti-papal blood boiling, then I'll call it Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper instead.
I'm referring to the practice of eating of eating bread and drinking wine in commemoration of the Lord's death until he comes, mentioned in 1 Corinthians,and the general practice of the Christian church at large since that time. The name does not matter.

I do not regard that event as any kind of "sacrifice". I'm with Martin Luther on that one. In the OP I drew attention to it as a regular event which the Beast could "cause to cease", and also as one which he would want to cease because it would logically clash with his claim to be the returned Christ.
I'm aware that a few groups have abandoned the practice altogether- I know about the Salvation Army.
My point was simply that
a) The Beast would want to stop it
b) If he stopped it, that could be regarded as a cause of Desolation.

s too pop-culturish to me this Eucharist thing --> & that means the Eucharist (wheat waffer)
is man inspired, man contrived, man divined ergo an antichrist rite...

You're hung up on the name. I am referring to the practice described and endorsed by Paul the Apostle in 1 Corinthians, by whatever name you choose to call it.I take it you don't condemn the letters of Paul as the productions of Antichrist? Fine- whatever you choose to call that Pauline practice, thats what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by St Udio
Your lumping the Catholic, (and i guess another sect of Protestants that use the 'Eucharist') as encompassing the True-Church & Christianity...

No, not at all. Absolutely nothing in my comment implied that the true Church was limited to those who used that particular label. I am aware that other people use different labels for that same practice.

And your epithet "pop-culture" is odd. My own acquaintance with pop-culture is limited, but I'm not under the impression that they're familiar with words originating in New Testament Greek which have been around for a couple of thousand years.

reply to post by DISRAELI


The Israeli Muslims believe the building of the temple will provoke a war. What better people to ask than those who would oppose it?

www.israeltoday.co.il...

reply to post by LAinhabitant

Thank you for providing that link.
It does look as though trying to change the status quo would be a dangerous thing to do.

reply to post by DISRAELI

I do not regard that event as any kind of "sacrifice". I'm with Martin Luther on that one. In the OP I drew attention to it as a regular event which the Beast could "cause to cease", and also as one which he would want to cease because it would logically clash with his claim to be the returned Christ.
I'm aware that a few groups have abandoned the practice altogether- I know about the Salvation Army.
My point was simply that
a) The Beast would want to stop it
b) If he stopped it, that could be regarded as a cause of Desolation.

I don't know how constructive this all is really (taking words from Daniel, and applying them to Christianity). I'm guessing it's a bit of trying to fit all of the imagery concerning the abomination that makes desolate to what Jesus was indicating as a reason to flee. By the way, Jesus spoke of a sign indicating time to flee but not of any sign to return, ever.

I would assume that the followers of Jesus left Jerusalem a long time ago without any intention of returning to that city made by human hands, but rather like Abraham:

HEB 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

3:4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. 5 Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, testifying to what would be said in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

The only daily sacrifice that seems like a Christian sacrifice would be along the lines of taking up the cross and following him. The cross is an instrument of execution, implying that according to the rules of the world, a person has already been judged unfit to live.

If a person goes to Jesus,

HEB 13:12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

Then that person has abandoned notions of having any place in a man-made "eternal" city, be it ever so holy. Only then, are the further sacrifices mentioned:

HEB 13:15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

Praise for God confessing His name (which I don't know quite yet) and doing good for and sharing with others.

I can think of many ways in which the anti-Christ is attempting to subvert these true sacrifices.

Originally posted by pthena
HEB 13:15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
[
I can think of many ways in which the anti-Christ is attempting to subvert these true sacrifices.

You're bringing forward here aspects of Christian "sacrifice" which are very important.

Just on the question of Desolation, which needs to be considered if we're going to correlate Revelation prophecy with Daniel at all (and that's certainly been the standard practice); the word implies some sense of loss, some consciousness that something has been taken away from them, and that's what I'm trying to match up.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Just on the question of Desolation, which needs to be considered if we're going to correlate Revelation prophecy with Daniel at all (and that's certainly been the standard practice); the word implies some sense of loss, some consciousness that something has been taken away from them, and that's what I'm trying to match up.

Personally, I would feel quite desolate to hear something like "depart from me, I do not know you." I can think of a situation in which that may apply.

If I were an American Christian, say, and instead of leaving Jerusalem behind to follow Jesus, I instead sent money to the Zionists to further their ethnic cleansing, thus depriving those who could be helped by me, I would fully expect to hear those devastating, desolating words.

Personally, I prefer to follow Jesus, rather than be an American Christian.

Might this falling away have any bearing on the subject?
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

from kjv bible gateway

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Yes indeed, if Paul's "man of sin" is to be identified with the Beast- and that's the general consensus- then the "falling away" would surely come into it. I think they seem to come together; the coming of the man of sin/Beast himself would then be the first act of "falling away", and the "falling away" would continue in the fact that people were accepting the Mark, and accepting everything else that he was doing, including the Abomination.

But you could also read it that there was some "falling away" in the public state of mind that made it possible to accept the Beast in the first place.

I would say that there is supposed to be a physical building someday. Look at the unfulfilled prophesies of Malachi.

3-1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

That is a prophecy of a new building. And the Lord and his 2 messengers are to inhabit it.

Someday the sacrifice is supposed to restart.

reply to post by ntech

Thank you for that comment.
But surely the Malachi prophecy, too, can be interpreted in terms of a spiritual temple?
I think a lot of traditional Christian interpretation divides the fulfilment of this passage between the lifetime of Jesus, and the final coming of Christ in the "refiner's fire" of judgement.

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Might this falling away have any bearing on the subject?
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It is common, and I've done it myself, to consider "the rebellion", or falling away, as a bad thing. What if, on the other hand, the rebellion is in fact the true followers abandoning the man of sin, walk out strike and boycott, as it were.

If the true followers quit providing cover, then, the evil one could be fully exposed.

Originally posted by pthena
It is common, and I've done it myself, to consider "the rebellion", or falling away, as a bad thing. What if, on the other hand, the rebellion is in fact the true followers abandoning the man of sin, walk out strike and boycott, as it were.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.
In favour of the traditional interpretation;
Looking at the phrase "the rebellion comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed", it does seem more natural to read those two expressions as a pair of synonyms.
If the true believers were only a small minority, which is the impression given in Revelation, their detachment would not expose him very much.

My Greek Lexicon gives some OT references for APOSTASIA, presumably from the Septuagint. There is Joshua ch21 v21 ("rebellion towards the lord"), 2 Chronicles ch29 v19 (the faithlessness of Ahaz), 2 Chronicles ch33 v19 (the faithlessness of Manasseh), Jeremiah ch2 v19 ("Your wickedness will chasten you, and your apostacy will reprove you"), and 1 Maccabees ch2 v15 ("the king's commissioners, who were enforcing the apostacy..."). Obviously that last one is about the original Abomination/Desolation episode, which makes it particularly relevant. Actually, that's quite a useful discovery- I'm glad you prompted me to look that one up.
Anyway, this is a fairly formidable consensus in favour of APOSTASIA being something hostile to God.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by DISRAELI]