Why there's good reason to believe the "Abomination that Causes Desolations" will happen this spr

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by colbe

 

Well...the Roman Catholic Church can hardly lay claim to the Apostle Paul. If Paul were alive today, he'd probably dedicate more than one epistle to the explicit condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church. Not to mention its perversion of the word "priest."

Friend, you can deny history and Apostolic succession. Free will.

There is one faith, Roman Catholicism. The Remnant is Roman Catholic. Paul repeatedly speaks of the Eucharist, read 1Cor 11:29. God is going to reveal to you personally very soon to come join the faith.

There is no ministerial priesthood so a fail on the "continual sacrifice" offered in non-Catholic Christianity.



Matt 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

reply to post by colbe


Yes...Peter, the first Pope. Indeed, you have as your first Pope a man who was not qualified for the Papacy. Peter was married (Mark 1:30 - he had a mother-in-law, so it's safe to assume he was married). Guess he was just a usurper.

And Jesus didn't tell Peter that he would be the one on whom Jesus would build the Church. In the Greek, Peter's name, which means "rock," is masculine, while the word "rock" that Jesus uses is feminine. The rock was not a reference to Peter -- the rock was a reference to Peter's statement, that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). It was on that rock/statement -- that he was the Son of God -- that Jesus would build his Church.
However, Jesus did give Peter the keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19). We see that fulfilled in Peter on the Day of Pentecost, when he responds to the Jews when they ask what they must do after having crucified the Christ, the Son of the living God. He tells them they must repent and be baptized. These are the keys to the Kingdom.

Also, Paul never once mentions the Eucharist (a ritualistic title later given to the weekly fellowship). Paul isn't even responsible for the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper. He only reported the fact that Jesus had commanded his followers to remember him, and, accordingly, advocated the weekly fellowship of the Church for the breaking of bread. Paul was, as they say, just reporting the news.

At the time of the "abomination", the "little horn" in Daniel will throw down the "daily". The word "sacrifice" that follows in most texts, is not in the Hebrew text. This is true for all the times that "daily" appears in Daniel 8 through 12.

CLPrime sees this resulting from a conflict between the ancient Romans and Jews. Thus already fulfilled.

Colbe sees this resulting from a conflict between the Muslims and Catholics.

I see this resulting from a conflict between the Arabs (descendents of Ishmael and Esau) and Israel (the descendents of Jacob). This will occur soon, as the tensions in the Middle East escalate. If Israel attacks Iran, it could lead to the situation in which Jesus said "Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies".

reply to post by hab22


Me, you, him, they...what happened to God's Word? What happened to simply defending Scripture? Reality is reality whether we interpret it right or not. God isn't going to follow your timetable just because you think it's right, and he isn't going to follow mine (if I were to have one) just because I think I'm right. How many people have had the "right" interpretation of God's Word and the "right" timetable, and how many of them have been vindicated by God? Not a single one. God is Truth, no matter how any of us interpret his Word. And, regardless, his will be done.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by colbe

 

Yes...Peter, the first Pope. Indeed, you have as your first Pope a man who was not qualified for the Papacy. Peter was married (Mark 1:30 - he had a mother-in-law, so it's safe to assume he was married). Guess he was just a usurper.

And Jesus didn't tell Peter that he would be the one on whom Jesus would build the Church. In the Greek, Peter's name, which means "rock," is masculine, while the word "rock" that Jesus uses is feminine. The rock was not a reference to Peter -- the rock was a reference to Peter's statement, that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). It was on that rock/statement -- that he was the Son of God -- that Jesus would build his Church.
However, Jesus did give Peter the keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19). We see that fulfilled in Peter on the Day of Pentecost, when he responds to the Jews when they ask what they must do after having crucified the Christ, the Son of the living God. He tells them they must repent and be baptized. These are the keys to the Kingdom.

Also, Paul never once mentions the Eucharist (a ritualistic title later given to the weekly fellowship). Paul isn't even responsible for the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper. He only reported the fact that Jesus had commanded his followers to remember him, and, accordingly, advocated the weekly fellowship of the Church for the breaking of bread. Paul was, as they say, just reporting the news.

CLPrime,

Your objection about Peter's wife. All of the apostles were celibate after ...in following Christ. It doesn't matter if Peter had a wife before.
What other references in Scripture are there to Peter's wife? Why did His mother-in-law get up and wait on them? Where was Peter's wife? You don't know. She may of passed away. It doesn't matter.

And in the Roman rite, celibacy is a discipline, meaning it can be changed.
An exception to this discipline, would be converts to the faith who are married, some of them become priests.

First, you agree Peter is the first Pope and then deny Matthew 16:18.

Your reason for Peter's name change doesn't change the facts. It's important when God changes a name. Our Lord changed Simon's name to Peter. It fits perfectly with Our Lord's words in Matthew 16:18. Jesus wasn't calling Himself "rock" nor did Peter ever call Our Lord "rock." Peter means "rock." Our Lord began to build His Church here by naming a leader, Peter. God has always selected leaders, see the Old Testament, why would He change in the New Covenant? Who is the leader of Protestantism?

Matt 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

The "keys" given Peter are a sign of authority in Scripture. More proof.

The "breaking of the bread" was an early term for the Holy Eucharist.
Eucharist means thanksgiving. Paul states it.

1Cor 11:24
And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.

And Paul said further on in Chapter 11, please listen up objecting Protestants, if you fail to discern it is the "body" of Our Lord, you bring JUDGMENT on yourself. 1 Corinthians 11:29.


God bless you,

reply to post by colbe

First, you agree Peter is the first Pope and then deny Matthew 16:18.

Your reason for Peter's name change doesn't change the facts. It's important when God changes a name. Our Lord changed Simon's name to Peter. It fits perfectly with Our Lord's words in Matthew 16:18. Jesus wasn't calling Himself "rock" nor did Peter ever call Our Lord "rock." Peter means "rock." Our Lord began to build His Church here by naming a leader, Peter. God has always selected leaders, see the Old Testament, why would He change in the New Covenant? Who is the leader of Protestantism?

Jesus called Peter a little pebble, and Himself the "foundation stone". Peter would deny Christ to a teenage girl a few verses later. Peter never went to Rome until Nero had his arrested, he worked from Babylon, then Antioch.

reply to post by hab22


My understanding of such realities is that . . .

1. the AC must overtly step on the world stage as either a or THE world leader, first.

2. THEN he has to form a 7 year peace treaty with Israel . . . evidently between them and the Arabs . . . and/or between them and the world.

3. THEN after 3.5 years, he breaks the treaty and puts his image in the new 3rd Jewish Temple.

4. Sooooooo, imho, we are still AT LEAST 3.5 years away from the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION.

Originally posted by colbe

An exception to this discipline, would be converts to the faith who are married, some of them become priests.

But they can never become Pope.

First, you agree Peter is the first Pope and then deny Matthew 16:18.

You've got those two backwards. I denied Peter was the first Pope (my statement, "Yes...Peter, the first Pope," was sarcastic) and I supported the true meaning of Matthew 16:18. It's Roman Catholics who completely pervert the meaning of that exchange between Peter and Jesus.

Who is the leader of Protestantism?

The leader of the churches of Christ is Jesus. I'm sorry he's not enough for you.

The "breaking of the bread" was an early term for the Holy Eucharist.

"Breaking of bread" was an early term for the Holy Eucharist? No. "Holy Eucharist" is a superimposed ritualistic title for the breaking of bread in fellowship.

And Paul said further on in Chapter 11, please listen up objecting Protestants, if you fail to discern it is the "body" of Our Lord, you bring JUDGMENT on yourself. 1 Corinthians 11:29.

Those of us in the churches of Christ know full well what the bread and the cup represent. And, unlike many denominations, we come together to remember around the Lord's table every Lord's Day. Some do it once a month...some hardly care if they do it at all... we do it every Sunday, not because it's a ritual, but because it's a part of who we are and what we do. We come together in fellowship to remember our Lord's sacrifice. Our church service is for no other reason, just as was the case throughout the book of Acts.

reply to post by CLPrime

The leader of the churches of Christ is Jesus. I'm sorry he's not enough for you.

Right? I don't even do denominational Christianity for this reason. He is the Head. He told Peter, "I will build MY church.."

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Our two congregations here (which I'm not technically a part of, though I preach to them on a semi-regular basis) are churches of Christ - that is, churches of the Restoration - so we are about as NT-based as you'll find. Though, even we venture into the denominational trap at times, which is why my friend/brother/mentor (who I mentioned in the Good Friday thread) and I spend a lot of time and energy trying to keep ourselves from going that way. The last thing we want to be is denominational, but it's easy to get off-track.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Our two congregations here (which I'm not technically a part of, though I preach to them on a semi-regular basis) are churches of Christ - that is, churches of the Restoration - so we are about as NT-based as you'll find. Though, even we venture into the denominational trap at times, which is why my friend/brother/mentor (who I mentioned in the Good Friday thread) and I spend a lot of time and energy trying to keep ourselves from going that way. The last thing we want to be is denominational, but it's easy to get off-track.

I just cannot stand the idea that a state or national body decides what is said or not said in the pulpit. What is in bounds and what is out of bounds. And I mean no disrespect but why did you say "NT based"? What about just as much emphasis on the OT as well? Everything in the book points to Him, even every detail in the OT.

Example: For every 1 OT prophecy concerning His first coming there are 7 concerning His 2nd. Christ can be found literally on every page.

P.S. I need to pick your brain if you are a teacher of the Word. I was called by God a Prophet 6 years ago. I don't have many friends, and I mostly make enemies in the church, but that's okay, the Lord has said He didn't call me to make friends, but to be a "shaker of things that can be shaken so the dead fall to the Earth and the things that cannot be shaken remain" and reminded me that Isaiah was called the "troubler of Israel". The church is blessed tremendously to have a man of God in the pulpit who knows Greek, do you know much Hebrew also?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I just cannot stand the idea that a state or national body decides what is said or not said in the pulpit.

That's the first difference between us and denominations. We have no governing body, no standardized doctrine - no book but the Bible, no creed but Christ.

What is in bounds and what is out of bounds.

In our case, "in bounds" is Scripture and "out of bounds" is whatever is not Scriptural.

And I mean no disrespect but why did you say "NT based"? What about just as much emphasis on the OT as well? Everything in the book points to Him, even every detail in the OT.

They say the devil's in the details. That would be the case here. So, allow me to expand on that (this is why we don't typically use mottos, slogans, labels, or catch phrases like I did when I said "NT-based," because it causes confusion...we prefer descriptions and justifications).

When we teach, we put just as much emphasis on the OT as we do on the NT.
What we actually say about the churches of Christ is that we are "rooted in the New Testament and grounded in the Book of Acts." This means two things: 1) we are New Testament churches because we are rooted in Church principles found throughout the New Testament (it's impossible to root a church in the Old Testament because the Church didn't exist); and 2) we are grounded in the Book of Acts because Acts is where we find the birth of the Church, on the Day of Pentecost (we can't go back further than that because, again, the Church didn't exist).

However, as I said, we teach from both Testaments. We exist in the age of Grace, but there is much to learn from the Law as well. For one, if you don't know the Law, you can't know the reason for Grace. But, we don't live under or by the Law. We live under Grace, in accordance with the law of love. That's entirely New Testament.

Example: For every 1 OT prophecy concerning His first coming there are 7 concerning His 2nd. Christ can be found literally on every page.

The Old Testament never once mentions the second coming of Christ (at least, not specifically).

P.S. I need to pick your brain if you are a teacher of the Word. I was called by God a Prophet 6 years ago. I don't have many friends, and I mostly make enemies in the church, but that's okay, the Lord has said He didn't call me to make friends, but to be a "shaker of things that can be shaken so the dead fall to the Earth and the things that cannot be shaken remain" and reminded me that Isaiah was called the "troubler of Israel". The church is blessed tremendously to have a man of God in the pulpit who knows Greek, do you know much Hebrew also?

I don't get much into Hebrew, but I have spent a little time translating specific OT passages. Not enough to be overly familiar with it, though.

reply to post by CLPrime


Sounds perfect.

reply to post by CLPrime


Hi CL,

I just read your reply. Thanks@@@!

See how it goes, you objected to everything I shared. This is why it
will take God Himself to unite Christianity. God has put you in the
time of our unity, the Orthodox, Protestants and Roman Catholics and
add to that non-Christians who will convert.

Read Revelation 6:12-17, this is the "awakening", the Great Warning.


blessings,


colbe

reply to post by colbe


Unless, of course, Revelation 6:12-17 has already happened.
Which it has.

reply to post by CLPrime


I don't think so brother, the 6th seal cannot be opened until the first is opened. When Christ is handed the scroll the church is already in heaven watching it be handed to Him.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Fortunately for the 6th seal, the 1st seal has already been opened as well.
The seals parallel the Olivet Discourse, describing the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Note that John is told, "Behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has been victorious to open the scroll and its seven seals." The lion of the tribe of Judah (that is, of course, Jesus) has been victorious to open the seals. By the time John received the revelation, the seals had already been opened. This is also why John leaves out the Olivet Discourse in his account of the gospel -- not only were the events it described already in the past, but the Olivet Discourse was, in fact, synonymous with the seven seals.

Also, this idea that the Church is raptured up to heaven is non-Scriptural. It's certainly a fanciful and intriguing bit of science fiction, but the rapture is still just that -- fiction.

Rapture fiction? Are you serious? I don't think you believe what you are saying. You're just following a party line. A dogma. A dumbed down version of someone else's dumb down version of truth.

reply to post by hab22


I am serious. You have no Scriptural basis for a global rapturing of million of people. You have one verse that you twist to conform to your Rapture doctrine, and then you twist other verses to fit this doctrine and find the fictitious Rapture where it doesn't exist. Who's blindly following dogma?

I have said this so many times in this thread, but I will say it again. My current understanding of Scripture is in no way based on anyone else's ideas or influence. I used to allow myself to conform to other people's ideas -- that was back when I used to believe in exactly what you do. Then, I began thinking for myself, and I realized just how ridiculous Dispensationalism/Left Behind theology is. My views have not been influenced.

Also, might I add, just look at how you react to someone rejecting your Rapture. You get so defensive, even implying that I must be joking because I certainly can't reject such a precious doctrine. It's not a matter of Scripture anymore... if it were, you wouldn't reject my statement so casually, you would ask me to justify my position Scripturally. The Rapture is your pet. That doesn't make it truth.

reply to post by CLPrime

By the time John received the revelation, the seals had already been opened.

John was given a vision. OT prophets could receive visions of the future, but John could not? That's kinda silly IMHO. No disrespect.

such a precious doctrine.

It's called the "blessed hope" afterall.