Posted on 05/08/2024 4:35:48 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
There is a lot of speculation that historic events that people have been anticipating for more than 2,000 years are about to happen in our time. About a month ago, there was a lot of discussion on the Internet about whether or not the sacrifice of the tenth red heifer would take place during the Passover season, and obviously that did not happen. However, I am entirely convinced that a red heifer sacrifice is eventually coming. But if you think that the sacrifice of the tenth red heifer will be big, the truth is that the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant will be even more important.
I will get to that later in this article, but first I wanted to talk a bit about the upcoming red heifer sacrifice.
According to the Temple Institute, a red heifer cannot be used in such a sacrifice until its third year has begun…
As for the time the red heifer may be used for this commandment – the Sages state that it is valid when it reaches maturity, i.e. from the beginning of its third year. [13] From this age and onward the red heifer is valid without age limitations. Though, ideally, one should not wait till it passes the age of four, lest it grows hairs of colors that deem it invalid.
(Excerpt) Read more at endoftheamericandream.com ...
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.-- sacrifices and offerings at the temple have ended.
Ditto for Daniel 11:31 31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. -- the temple was destroyed
and Daniel 12:11 11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. -- that was the duration of the Jerusalem siege from 67 to 70 AD
This gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will comeYet, Paul states that in his lifetime, the Faith of those in the Church in Rome First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. - Romans 1:8
And in Colossians 1:5-6 Paul wrote
5 the faith and love that spring from the hope stored up for you in heaven and about which you have already heard in the true message of the gospel 6 that has come to you. In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.There was no doubt in Paul's mind that the gospel had gone out into the whole world
This is also what the early Christians wrote about:
Since both Peter and Paul were martyred before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, well
the word used for "world" is oikoumene - which specifically means the civilized world i.e. the Roman Empire - the Olivet discourse does not use the world "Kosmos" that designates the entire earth.
Kosmos in Matt 24:21 From the beginning of the world (kosmos) until now"
Please re read.
You’re a preterist therefore you don’t believe pre-mil, therefore you should be content in your belief my statement to ANOTHER person asking a question on pre millenialism shouldn’t get all sad and butt hurt and try straining at a gnat while torturing biblical scripture to force it to confess to your singular falsehoods with another of your flimsy diatribes which wasn’t directed toward you.
Quit fighting against the saints with your narrow minded dispensational claptrap. I’ve asked in the past to refrain from posting to me, yet you persist, Cronos the thorn in my side with no blessing, just sowing seeds of doubt
“For pre millenialists the ark and all things 3rd temple signifies the beginning of Rev chapter 4. As most items are completed( save the temple, the ark, and the heifer) some believe this, like no other time is quickly ending the church age.
I’m not a preterist.
Dispensationalism IS claptrap as you state — glad we agree on that
Anyone who holds to the 19th century philosophy of the pre-tribulational rapture or dispensationalism is on the same path away from Christianity as those who follow the other religious innovations in America in the 1800s: Mormonism, Jehovah’s witnesses,
Jesus clearly broke down the barriers between Gentile and Jew. The Gentiles are grafted in to God's family meaning, as Paul wrote
Romans 3:22 There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
Or Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
OR Col 3:11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
Or Matthew 21
38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.Jesus expanded God's family to all - no more Jew or Greek40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
The Jews who do not accept Jesus as Messiah are the same as gentiles who do not accept Jesus. During the tribulation, the Jews will realize that Jesus is, indeed, the Messiah.
In the 600s, the Persian Sassanian dynasty conquered Jerusalem with the help of Jews.
He handed it over to them and Nehemiah, the leader, began plans to build a third temple. He didn’t complete it as the Byzantines won shortly later.
Also, when the Arabs conquered Jerusalem, they did so with Jewish help and gave control of the city to Jews to control (under Arab control).
One very interesting side-note from Robert Spencer: if you look at the inside of the Dome of the Rock, it has the Shahadah (the Mohammedan allegiance statement that is basically “La illah allah, muhammad al rasurillah, shadwan al rasurillah” - “there is no god but Al, Mo is his profit”.
BUT, the writing is NOT the same as this - it is changed, and that should be extreme blasphemy. But it is written on the inside of a “holy place” — anyway the upshot is that the Arabs who conquered the Sassanid empire and much of the Roman Empire in Asia and Africa, they were descendents of the Lakhamid and Ghassanid Arab mercenaries that had been fighting for the Romans and Persians for nearly 3 centuries and hadn’t been getting paid in the last few decades.
They were followers of a “kind of Christianity” - Gnostic mixed with heavy Judaizing. But it hadn’t settled and didn’t have a “prophet”. That all came 150 odd years after their conquests, when the Ummayyads were replaced by Fatimids.
The things we Christians 2000 years later forget are
1. Many Jews DID become Jesus followers — for the first century, indeed until 136 AD, “Christianity” was a sect of 2nd temple Judaism.
2. The other sects of 2nd temple Judaism were the Sadducees (only holding to the written Torah and the prophets), the Samaritans (well, Israelites - who only held to the Torah), the Essenes who rejected the temple worship, the Pharisees who had an Oral Torah as well as the Written.
3. The Jesus movement was a real threat to the Sadduccees and Pharisees, which is why they persecuted this “heresy”.
4. But the Jesus-movement was vindicated when the prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of the temple and His return (refer Josephus) came true in 70 AD. AND all the Jesus followers fled to hills (Pellas village) and none died in the destruction of Jerusalem.
5. The book of Revelation of the Apocalypse of St. John of Patmos was written BEFORE 67 AD - as indicated in chapters 1 and 2 talking about the listeners facing a tribulation. It was written BEFORE the Gospel of John (which dates to circa 80 AD)
6. The Jesus-movement faced its great tribulation for 1260 days / 3.5 years / 42 months from 64 AD to 67 AD when not only did the temple authorities AND the Pharisees persecute them, but Nero’s blaming of them for the burning of Rome led to the secular authorities also targeting them.
7. They survived and pointed to the destruction of the temple as the proof of their God’s truth. THAT is why they got tons and tons of new adherents — think of it, otherwise they were fools worshiping a God who was executed like a criminal and didn’t come back.
Metmom - please show us where the word "Bible" is found in the Bible?
Are you trying to say that the great tribulation has already occurred?
Paul in Romans 9:6 says that “not all who are of Israel are Israel.”
In his letter to the Ephesians Paul is even more explicit about the Gentiles’ spiritual inclusion when he states that “you Gentiles in the flesh . . . were [once] separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel . . . But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near . . . So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints” (2:11–13, 19).
“Thus says the Lord of hosts: Peoples shall yet come, even the inhabitants of many cities; the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, ‘Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the Lord, and to seek the Lord of hosts; I am going.’ Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to entreat the favor of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’” (Zechariah 8:20-23)
As St. Paul explains, Israel is like a tree. The Jews of Jesus’ day, as ethnic Israelites, were all natural branches in this tree, and any Gentiles (non-Jews) who join the Church are like branches that are cut off from other trees and grafted into Israel. On the flipside, the Jews who rejected Jesus were cut off from their own family tree (Romans 11:17-24). As a result, we can see that the Church doesn’t simply replace Israel; rather, in a very real sense, the Church is Israel. It is the multi-ethnic and multi-national family made up of both Jews and Gentiles that the Old Testament prophets always said Israel would one day become.
In short yes.
Here are the reasons:
1. Revelation 1:9 “
I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
2. Rev talks about famine, war, etc. - all seen in the period of the end of Nero’s reign and the year of the 5 emperors - in Jerusalem there was actually a civil war DURING the Roman siege. They burnt each other’s granaries, leading to horrific starvation and cannibalism.
3. The siege lasted for 2.5 years / 42 months / 1260 days.
4. The early Christians all believed that this was the great tribulation.
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.Jesus was an obedient Jew - and as per Jewish law, it was the duty of the other siblings to take care of the mother. But why does HE tell a disciple (John) to take care of Mary?26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
If the Blessed Mother actually gave birth to other children, as many non-orthodox mistakenly believe, it would be unthinkable to put her in the care of St. John, a non-blood relative, because the ancient Jews greatly valued family and related responsibilities.
Instead, Jesus puts his mother in the care of his apostle John. And even though John is not a son of Mary, Jesus refers to John as her son and Mary as John’s mother. Mary is thus seen as the spiritual mother of all disciples.
remember Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. -- Think about Luke 18:18-19, in which a ruler refers to Jesus as “Good Teacher,” and he replies, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” On the surface, Jesus seems to be denying his own divinity and goodness. But on closer inspection, he’s actually doing the opposite. Something similar is happening here: although Jesus at first seems to be knocking Mary down, his actual teaching shows Mary’s importance.
Jesus’ point in both Matthew 11 and Luke 12 isn’t to knock Mary down a peg. It’s to hammer home that, although Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise to the House of David, the kingdom of God isn’t going to go the way that Israel and Judah’s royal house went. Membership in this new dynasty is based not upon blood or marriage, but upon faith, so that “to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (John 1:12). That’s the point Jesus is making in Matthew 12: we are all invited into Jesus’ family, through faith. Slowly, Jesus’ followers will realize that this “all” includes even Samaritans and Gentiles, and that this new house “shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isa. 56:7).
Nonsense. I won’t debate such hogwash with you.
I've read it. Perhaps you need to read and understand it.
Jesus was an obedient Jew - and as per Jewish law, it was the duty of the other siblings to take care of the mother. But why does HE tell a disciple (John) to take care of Mary?
If the Blessed Mother actually gave birth to other children, as many non-orthodox mistakenly believe, it would be unthinkable to put her in the care of St. John, a non-blood relative, because the ancient Jews greatly valued family and related responsibilities.
At the time His brothers and sisters did not believe in Him. We have that evidence from John himself....that is...if you have actually read the text.
*****
1After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
3Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4“For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
John 7:1-5 NASB
*****
And don't try to play the semantic game about what brother means. In this context, and context is your key to understanding the text, these are His half-brothers. Yes, Joseph and Mary had sex....oh the horror for the Roman Catholic to believe that....and there's not a thing wrong with that. In fact, it follows God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply.
Why John though? John was the disciple He loved. John was also at the Cross. We don't have record of any other disciple being there nor His brothers or sisters. It was a very natural and logical thing for Jesus to put Mary into the care of this disciple.
So in His infinite wisdom Jesus did honor the Law and take care of His mom.
Instead, Jesus puts his mother in the care of his apostle John. And even though John is not a son of Mary, Jesus refers to John as her son and Mary as John’s mother. Mary is thus seen as the spiritual mother of all disciples.
Let's see what John wrote about this.
*****
....But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household. John 19:25-27 NASB
*****
IF one reads the Greek in this passage one will quickly see this is a very private matter intended to be only between John and Mary.
IF it had been intended for Mary to be the "spiritual mother of all disciples" as wrongly claimed by Rome, this would have been the perfect opportunity to make that clear.
Instead, the text notes John took her into his household. Understanding these last two words is key to understanding the sentence and what has happened.
To read anything else into the text, as Rome often does, gives an incorrect meaning and understanding to the text.
*****
27While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” Luke 11:27-28 NASB
Notice in this passage what was not said. Jesus did not take this opportunity to lift up Mary as Rome has done.
He shifted the conversation to the more important topic....following God. Instead of giving the glory to Mary, as Rome would and has, Jesus gives glory to God and points people to God. He did not point them to Mary. And that is telling.
*****
Not sure what passage you're referring to in Matthew 11, but I note this one in the conversation.
*****
11“Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. 13“For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14“And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come. 15“He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Matt 11:11-15 NASB 95
Here was another opportunity to lift up Mary to the place Rome has, yet instead, it is John the Baptist who Jesus speaks about.
*****
But there is this from Matthew 12 which is what I think you meant to reference.
46While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Keep in mind this is His hometown. The people who know Him and His family. And the people clearly identify His brothers as belonging to Mary.
*****
48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 50“For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
This is also instructive as it denies what Rome claims about Mary and how she instructs Jesus and He basically does it...per the Glories of Mary.
Jesus doesn't jump when either Mary or us say to. He moves to fullfull the Father's purpose.
Membership in this new dynasty is based not upon blood or marriage, but upon faith, so that “to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (John 1:12). That’s the point Jesus is making in Matthew 12: we are all invited into Jesus’ family, through faith.
You just said exactly what Christians have been saying on these forums for years. We come to salvation through Christ, and only Christ, through faith.
We don't go through Mary. She plays zero part in our salvation. The passages you cite show the error of Roman Catholic writers who wrote "sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored."
*****
It's either faith through only Christ as you correctly noted or the writer of the quote is incorrect. The two are mutually exclusion. And there is zero allowance for the writer of the quote above to be correct. It's not dogma but Rome has done nothing to negate the statement. And it's but one of many like this.
The Second Coming has happened already and no historical record in antiquity of this happening. No ECF wrote the Second Coming had already happened.
No Mark of the Beast.
No millenial reign.
The preterist has to believe this is as good as it gets.
The evil in this world demonstrates the Second Coming and Final Judgment have not happened....yet.
Replacement Theology essentially claims that the Jewish people were the chosen people of God and that due to their rejection of the Christ they have been replaced as God’s chosen people by the Church. This replacement is then taken to mean that the Jewish people have been rejected or “accursed” by God for their rejection of the Gospel.
In Nostra Aetate the Church explicitly rejects replacement theology:
Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues. . . (4)
The Church rejects the idea that the covenant with Israel has been nullified or revoked.
The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. (Catechism, 121)
While the role of preparing the world for the arrival of the messiah has been fulfilled by the Jewish people, they still are God’s chosen people whose fidelity to God remains a light to the nations. The Jewish people were called to a unique and special relationship to God that included preparing for the messiah but was not limited to that one role.
The Church is the expanded Israel - grafted into the family of God.
There is no separate gospel for Jews and for gentiles as the false dispensationalists believe.
As to supersessionism — in Catholic theology the Church was never understood as depriving Israel of any place in God’s plan.
The New Testament makes it clear that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross has made the temple sacrifices obsolete, and the Eucharist has taken their place as an ongoing rite.
you are very correct, Trumpisourlastchance --> I can understand Rabbinical Jews talking about this, but anyone who holds the Jesus is Lord and God, would not be going around crowing about potentially new animal sacrifices in the temple
The Church is Israel, Israel is the Church...This Guy is wondering, What is the issue here? How hard is it for people to grasp the concept of continuity? Supersession, replacement...are these terms really necessary?
When a train arrives at the station, you can get on, stay on, or get off. The train then leaves the station. It’s the same bloody train!
Peter and Paul were notoriously available for consultation. The ministry of Christ, watched in real time! His life, that ministry, reasonably well chronicled. Yes, a transition took place, but it’s not as if the bulk of the Jews then living were forced to make a snap decision.
Holy Mother Church need not apologize.
Correct
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.