IDF presence on Temple Mount (Mt. Moriah)

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

Yet, demonic godless people have ended up in charge of Jerusalem under the guise of the Israeli government.
Oh wait, let me guess...it all part of the "plan"?

Let me remind you that the covenant covenant with Abraham was based on bloodline, NOT religion.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam never existed when the covenant was made.

1. I understand that's the history after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD

2. My contention is that after Israel became a nation again in 1948 . . . that God will not allow Jerusalem to again be totally surrendered to demonic moon god worshipers.

3. There are some significant wars still scheduled between now and Armageddon. I haven't reread them recently nor laid them out in some attempt at a timeline and examined all their details--such as they are--very well. It is CONCEIVABLE that Jerusalem could very temporarily change hands back and forth in segments of the geography a few times between now and Armageddon.

4. I REALLY DO NOT BELIEVE IT WILL. I don't see God allowing that, really. It just wouldn't wreck my theology nor my eschatology if it happened that way. When the dust settles, Israel will be in control of Jerusalem--certainly at all the major mileposts in the near-term prophetic script as I see it.

5. Yes. It is clear from Scripture that God blinded the Israelites to Salvation thru their true Messiah Christ until such time as the "TIME OF THE GENTILES" was over. Some scholars believe that the whole point of the Great Tribulation period is to show the Israelites their desperate need of God; discipline them for foresaking God; and introduce them to their true Messiah after the 3.5 years of Tribulation and the Abomination of Desolation by the Anti-Christ in the new Temple.

6. It is fairly clear from those Scriptures that an essentially Godless crew of Israelites will be in control of Israel and Jerusalem through those sequences and major events in the prophetic clock.

reply to post by dontreally



I don't know about the theory that the Holy of Holies was 300 feet South.

I have seen fairly convincing argument that the 3rd Temple could be built where it was without disturbing the Dome of the Rock.

I recall when I was there visiting the Dome of the Rock . . . that I just didn't feel that the purported rock where Abraham purportedly offered up Isaac . . . was the Holy of Holies. Of course, my 'feeling' has no weight whatsoever. I just stood there looking at the rock etc. and it just didn't fit in my sense of things that the rock would fit inside the Holy of Holies as describe in Scripture.

My sense of the Holy of Holies from Scripture is a rather cleansed, sanitized, engineered cubic space. The rock in the Dome of the Rock just does not fit that Biblical description of the Holy of Holies, imho.

I certainly don't know how God is going to engineer it all. However, the basic Biblical prophetic script/outline is clear enough. There WILL BE a 3rd Temple. The Anti-Christ will set up some statue, image in the 3rd Temple that will shockingly clue the Israelites in that they bet on the wrong horse when they got snookered into believing that the Anti-Christ was their Messiah.

reply to post by BO XIAN

I certainly agree that the Covenant was based on DNA, essentially. . . . as a gift of Almighty God to HIS BUDDY, ABRAHAM . . . to Isaac to Jacob . . .

The covenant was DNA based, and it includes all of Abrahams bloodlines, starting with Ishmael.
So the promise to Abraham, that he will become "a great nation" has to include Ishmael and his descendants as well.

Regarding Ishmael, there had to be a good reason why God named Ishmael before he was born, then saved Ishmael in the desert, and was with Ishmael while he was growing up.

reply to post by BO XIAN



"The Pashtuns are Israelites who accept Jesus as the messiah born of a virgin, who will return to slay the anti-Christ."

It doesn't sound like a Muslim belief as far as I know anything about such . . . having had a Muslim roomate for over a year.

Well, your "muslim" room mate isn't exactly the best source for getting an understanding of Islam.
Here are the facts...

- Jesus' virgin birth is common knowledge among muslims, who know their religon.

- Jesus is the only prophet in all of Islam who has the title al-masih, meaning "the messiah".

- In Islamic prophecy, Jesus returns to kill the anti-christ, known in islam as al-Masīh ad-Dajjāl, meaning "the false messiah".

These are the basics of Jesus in Islam.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Great post! You have done your homework on a fascinating topic.

I enjoyed reading the 3rd link in your signature.

I am hopeful that ongoing DNA testing will open many eyes on this topic extending well beyond simply bloodline. Do you know where this stands?

If you are catching flak you are over the target!

reply to post by sk0rpi0n



Certainly God has promised to make of Ishmael a great nation.

However, He has also said that He will decimate them at one stage for their horrid treatment of the children of Jacob.

Yet, even after taking them to the brink of extinction for their horrid treatment of the children of Jacob, He will still raise them up to be a great nation again.

Of course, under Yeshua.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n



I think he would say something like . . . yeah, those things are stated . . . no one pays them any mind.

The important things are to convert or destroy all non-Muslims. That's what the Imam's focus on.

. . . along with 109+ verses of the Koran.

reply to post by BO XIAN

However, He has also said that He will decimate them at one stage for their horrid treatment of the children of Jacob.

The Ishmaelites "horrid treatment of the children if Jacob" is a construct of fundamentalist christianity, that seeks to align itself with who they see as "chosen people"....while scapegoating the muslims.

Let me remind you that Christianity has also perpetrated "horrid treatment" upon the children of Jacob. Starting with the crusades...where Jews (living alongside Muslims) also faced the blades of ruthless christian armies.

www.zionism-israel.com...

So what of this? When do we get to see God decimate Christians for their horrid treatement of the children of Jacob??

reply to post by BO XIAN

The important things are to convert or destroy all non-Muslims. That's what the Imam's focus on.

Well, The same can be said of christianity as well... given how you believe God will "decimate" and "take to the brink of extinction" entire populations of non-christians.

You (wrongfully) hold that Islam only seeks to convert or destroy all non-muslims.
Ironically, you also believe that the central figure of christianity also seeks to convert or destroy all non-christians.

But let me guess, genocide of non-christians is ok because its "part of Gods plan???

Nice.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n



Scripture is clear that people will kill authentic believers and think they do God a service in doing so.

Not a single evil doer will escape judgment.

It still appears to me that you are groping for any excuse to disbelieve the fairly plain verses about the END TIMES.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

You (wrongfully) hold that Islam only seeks to convert or destroy all non-muslims.
Ironically, you also believe that the central figure of christianity also seeks to convert or destroy all non-christians.

I gather you have not read the 109+ verses in the Koran plus the umpteen in the Hadith which exhort ALL THE FAITHFUL to do exactly that.

In terms of Christ at Armageddon . . . yeah, all unbelievers in His Lordship will be dealt with at that time. However, God Himself acting like God Himself

Is a LOT different than humans presuming to murder genocidally based on their own arrogance and presumption.

reply to post by BO XIAN

It still appears to me that you are groping for any excuse to disbelieve the fairly plain verses about the END TIMES.

"the plain verses of the END TIMES???"
Please, all the apocalyptic verses are vague and symbolic...and is being speculated over even today.

All you have is your guesswork and speculation, which is fair enough.
I too have my guesses... so there is no reason to declare that your guesswork is "correct" and mine is "wrong".

reply to post by BO XIAN

I gather you have not read the 109+ verses in the Koran plus the umpteen in the Hadith which exhort ALL THE FAITHFUL to do exactly that.

I know whats in the Koran. Your source on Islam seems to be the likes of your "muslim" roommate and websites with an anti-islam slant.

Can you be a little more specific about these verses?
Im just curious, are they more violent than whats in the bible? You know, especially the parts involving killing children, women and old people....dashing babies against rocks and all that?

In terms of Christ at Armageddon . . . yeah, all unbelievers in His Lordship will be dealt with at that time. However, God Himself acting like God Himself

Basically you are saying "christianity is correct, everybody else is wrong"... thereby rationalizing the genocide of non-christians as "the work of God"

As if I haven't heard that one before.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Some scholars believe that the whole point of the Great Tribulation period is to show the Israelites their desperate need of God; discipline them for foresaking God; and introduce them to their true Messiah after the 3.5 years of Tribulation and the Abomination of Desolation by the Anti-Christ in the new Temple.

Well, those scholars are just doing guesswork. I see no reason to hold their guesswork as some kind of "revelation"


Heres my 'guesswork'...

My theory is that the Israelis are used to the following things
- Rejecting and insulting the Messiah
- Finding security in its military
- Finding security in western support
- Being regarded as "chosen" by people who claim to revere the very messiah who the Jews reject to this day.

Once the tribulation starts, they will still continue to have faith in their military and they will continue to seek western support. They will however, NOT suddenly start looking towards Jesus as christians imagine...because being anti-christian has been a way of life for them all their lives.

Israel is literally an anti-christian entity. They are the only people on this planet to consciously oppose christ. Jesus is strictly incompatible with their religion... and they have been raised all their life to oppose Jesus and his teachings. You can make all the excuses for them, but these are the facts. Ask a jew.

So, after they recieve the royal @$$ whooping that they brought upon themselves, whatever is spared of Israel will be the "remnant of Jacob" that will finally accept Jesus and find favor with their maker.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n



Evidently you are . . . unaware . . .

of the fairly extensive work on

EXTRINSIC VS INTRINSIC religiosity.

hirr.hartsem.edu...

Based on Gordon Allport's theoretical distinction between mature and immature religion (see Allport and Ross 1967), the construction of an intrinsic-extrinsic scale to measure different religious orientations appeared to clarify the troubling finding that general measures of religion had positively correlated with prejudice. Consistent with Allport's conceptualization of mature religion, it was found that only extrinsic religion, or religion as a means, correlated with prejudice. Intrinsic religion, or religion as an end, characterized the unprejudiced and was compatible with Allport's views of mature religion. The scale to measure religious orientation, initially conceived as a continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic, quickly generated interest among empirical researchers. Numerous studies have been published that relate intrinsic and extrinsic religion to a variety of individual difference variables such as coping styles, narcissism, guilt, fear of death, a wide variety of religious experiences, various cognitive processes, and varieties of prejudice.

Basically, extrinsic religiosity is put on and taken off as a coat for utilitarian purposes.

It is NOT a heart-felt-OWNED way of life integrated into the whole being and all their behaviors and values. That would be INTRINSIC religion.

It was hypothesized long ago--BY A LOT OF ATHEIST AND AGNOSTIC liberal socialist researchers--40 years? I forget . . .

that the very religious people would be the most bigoted, prejudiced etc.

It turned out, they could NOT HAVE BEEN MORE WRONG!

There arose also the terms of indiscrimminantly pro-religious and indiscrimminantly anti-religious.

It turned out that the indiscrimminantly pro-religious comprised--more or less equalled the EXTRINSICALLY RELIGIOUS.

And the indiscrimminantly anti-religious comprised the atheists, agnostics who were most vocal, evangelistic, loud about their hostility toward religion. It is highly likely that a HUGE percentage of the hostile to religion folks on ATS would fall in that category. And many would likely be at the extreme end of that scale.

So, if we think of the groups as:

INDISCRIMMINANTLY ANTI-RELIGIOUS . . . EXTRINSICALLY RELIGIOUS . . . INTRINSICALLY RELIGIOUS.

I wonder which you'd guess would be the LEAST and which the MOST bigoted, prejudiced, abusive etc? I'll say at the end of this post.

For the atheists hereon . . . here's 3 paragraphs about such from the

ATHEIST REVOLUTION:

www.atheistrev.com...

Simply put, an intrinsic (I) religious orientation is described as being more mature in that the believer views religion as an end into itself. That is, the believer believes without clearly identifiable external motives for doing so. In contrast, an extrinsic (E) religious orientation is immature and is more of a means to some other end. That is, belief is motivated external factors (e.g., social acceptance, advancement, etc.). E (but not I) is correlated with prejudice.

Modern I-E scales are set up so that I and E are thought of as separate constructs where individuals score along two separate dimensions (i.e., low E to high E and low I to high I). Research has identified many negative correlates of high E (e.g., narcissism, guilt, fear of death, aggression, etc.).

Current work in the psychology of religion is characterized by the assumption that measuring religiosity as a unitary construct produces misleading results. Instead, the field has been influenced by the separation of religiosity into E and I orientations. The practical implication is that most of what we think of as the negative correlates of religious belief have been supported for extrinsic religiosity but not intrinsic religiosity. It is also noteworthy that extrinsic religiosity is much more highly correlated with measures of religious fundamentalism than is intrinsic religiosity.

Here's the Wiki article on the Psychology of Religion

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's an interesting article on INTRINSIC VS EXTRENSIC AND DEPRESSION:

www.questia.com...

RELIGION, INTRINSIC-EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION, AND
DEPRESSION

Vicky Genia Dale G. Shaw The American University University of Northern Colorado

running out of characters. Continued in next post.

Oh, The indiscrimminantly anti-religious
ARE BY FAR THE !MOST! prejudiced, bigoted, abusive!
By a wide margin the INTRINSICally religioius are the LEAST bigoted, ....

reply to post by BO XIAN


I need to do some other writing and posting so . . . to try and wrap this up maybe a bit too briefly . . .

in terms of the IDF on the Temple Mount etc.

I haven't seen research on Muslims and intrinsic vs extrinsic religiosity. It would likely be quite complicated given the INHERENT extremely biased, prejudiced, hostile-to-all-others

CONTENT in their basic founding documents and basic doctrines, dogma.

It is LOGICAL that Muslims who were not hostile to others might lean toward some of the positive elements of an intrinsic religiosity. However, they would automatically be distancing themselves from their founding documents, to just that degree.

And, it would likely be a challenge to also sort out the Jewish intrinsic vs extrinsic religiosity. Both could be motivated to establish the 3rd Temple.

And, interestingly, the wording, word choices, phrases and tones of the posters most hostile to Christianity on ATS tend to overwhelmingly match the word choices, phrases and tones of the INDISCRIMMINANTLY ANTI-RELIGIOUS of the research on such topics.

Which means, THEY are MOST LIKELY the absolutely MOST bigoted, prejudiced, hostile, abusive toward others of differing philosophical, religioius perspectives.

I haven't been extensively read up on the literature the past 25 years. However, my quick scanning of current stuff indicates that the above stated pattern has held through succeeding decades of research. The correlations are quite clear and consistent.

It could easily be hypothesized from such that . . . in terms of the IDF on the Temple Mount and a lot of other critical contexts, factors and issues involving religiously passionate people . . .

the indiscrimminantly anti-religious may well be MOST used of the Marxist globalists toward trashing the intrinsic Jews as well as Christians . . . on the Temple Mount and elsewhere.

BTW, the EXTRINSICally religious/indiscrimminantly pro-religious comprise essentially the same cohort.

AND, THEY are only slightly less bigoted, prejudiced, hostile, abusive than the indiscrimminantly anti-religious.
.
.