Posted on 05/06/2010 7:36:41 AM PDT by honestabe010
Forget Iran, the Obama administration appears to be more worried about Israel’s nukes.
It appears the next phase in the standoff over Iran’s apocalypse-inducing nuclear weapons program is beginning to come into focus.
In the months ahead, don’t be surprised if the efforts of the Obama administration to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions become predicated on the nuclear disarmament of the Jewish state. Why is this likely? Simple: Such a mandate is the inevitable outgrowth of the foolish yet increasingly pervasive tendency to consider as equals the nuclear ambitions of Israel and Iran.
This false moral equivalence between the nuclear programs of Iran and the Jewish state is currently on display in New York, at the month-long Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (npt). The conference is supposed to focus on revising and updating the npt, of which Israel has never been a signatory. But when the conference opened Monday, it quickly became evident that UN member states had set their sights on a “predictable target.”
That would be Israel.
In one of the first addresses Monday morning, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa spoke on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, which is the largest single coalition within the United Nations (118 of the 192 UN countries are members). According to Asia Times, Natalegawa noted specifically that it was Israel’s refusal to sign the npt that had “resulted in the continued exposure of non-nuclear-weapon states of the [Middle East] to nuclear threats by the only country possessing these weapons of mass destruction.”
Forget Iran’s fearless scramble for nukes—most UN member states apparently believe the greatest nuclear threat in the Middle East comes from Israel’s refusal to sign the npt.
After Natalegawa’s address, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only head of state who personally attended the conference...
(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...
Does anyone see a pattern here?
There is mention of “all the tribes of the earth” witnessing Him returning and coming on the clouds of heaven. For ALL to see, not just a ‘heavenly’ appearance is what I meant. You must have misunderstood me or I you.
Absolute nonsense.
No He didn't. He specifically said that it would be the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.
Not that precision ever mattered to the preterists.
Well, there's no personal, Big-A "Antichrist" in Scripture. The Bible never employs the term in that manner.
True, but you know exactly what I meant when I used the term, so it retains its usefulness as convenient shorthand. I could call him the Man of Sin, the One from the Abyss, the Assyrian, the Abomination, the Son of Perdition, the Beast, etc., but "Replacement-Christ" is pretty accurate for what he'll be for most of the world.
But, at any rate -- as mentioned, Christ's own prophecy regarding the despoilment of the Temple has also been fulfilled.
Only in the manner of the "near" part of a "near-far" prophecy. Titus Vespasian never set up an idol in the Holy of Holies, and neither did the zealots, the preterist misuse of Josephus' political opinion notwithstanding.
Frankly, if you understood the prophecies of the First Coming, you would join those of us who dilligently observe the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Second Parousia in our own day.
Shalom.
Shalom.
Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, I could observe that the use of the word "earth" in this context could easily refer to the Roman World (as in Caesar's decree that "all the world should be taxed" -- it refers to the Mediterranean World, not Australia or South America).
But while that's possible, I think it more likely that the word "Ge" here rendered "earth" simply means "Land" (another meaning of this exact same word), as in the "Land of Israel".
This would make particular sense, given the reference to "The Tribes".
Ergo, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the Tribes of the Land (of Israel) mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
Considering that the word "Ge" means "Land" just as easily as it means "Earth", it's entirely likely that Christ's listeners understood that He was speaking of the Land of Israel, and the Tribes of the Land of Israel. IMHO, our English translations just don't express this referential continuity quite as well as does the original.
this is just a silly arguement by you rightwingers!!!!
The Dear One doesnt want Israel’s nukes he wants to NUKE Israel....
You wrote:
“...As noted, the Matthew 24 passages referring to Christ’s coming refer not to His future Bodily Return to Earth, but rather to His heavenly coming in judgment upon Jerusalem...”
__________________________
I read into that statement some sort of a esoteric or limited return. Or one that has already occured. It hasn’t. That’s how I understood your statement.
He IS returning bodily as he promised for ALL to see according to Matthew 24:30:
“.. and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
Acts 1:9-11 (King James Version)
9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
Actually, if I blew up your house, and then you rebuilt it, and then I blew it up again... you could refer to "THE" time that I blew up your house, and you'd be correct in reference to either instance.
And, no, I'm not planning on blowing up your house. Or blowing it up again, sometime afterwards. Just making an observation.
See #66.
Saw your reply. We’ll just have to agree to dissagree. I know we could go back and forth all day, but I can’t hijack this thread any longer and have to take off for an appointment. Take care.
If I put mustard on my burger, it would be delicious. Not that that has anything to do with the conversation either. Just saying.
"Abomination of Desolation" does not mean "blow up the Temple." How do I know? Because Antiochus never blew up the Temple! The Maccabeans cleansed it after driving him out; that's what Hannukah is all about.
If Yeshua were referring primarily to the 70 CE destruction of the Temple, He would certainly have used an allusion to the coming of Nebuchadnezzar, not Antiochus. Furthermore, Paul tells us exactly what "Abomination of Desolation" means in 2Th. 2:4. Just as Antiochus put up an idol of Zeus with his own face in the Holy of Holies, "so that [the Man of Sin] takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God."
Titus Vespasian never did any such thing. After the Temple was already destroyed, he set up ensigns to his father, Emperor Vespasian, at the edge of the Court of the Gentiles (I forget which gate), but Acts 21:28 tells us that this wasn't considered part of the Holy Place in any case, and therefore could not be considered the fulfillment of Yeshua's prophecy.
Shalom
Could that be why we’re not allowed to know the details of his birth and life?
Okay, I guess I didn't make my meaning clear. Poor analogy on my part.
Here, I'll just quote Augustine's cross reference of Luke to Daniel to prove the point, instead.
Sorry I did not make my point clear before. Mea maxima culpa.
Well duh of course I was being sarcastic. The left always bloviates aboout intergration, assimilation, diversity, multi-culturalism and that would be the death of a small nation such as Israel. And I do believe the left means those things with no exceptions, and if Jews argue that such is genocide the left says, “tough.”
Yeshua did prophesy that the Temple would be destroyed; of that there is no doubt. But by citing a well-known fulfilled prophecy that was very much on the Jewish heart of the Temple's defilement (and therefore, subsequent restoration), He was also looking beyond that to events leading up to His Parousia on the clouds of Heaven, where every eye will see Him.
Shalom.
...don't be surprised if the efforts of the Obama administration to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions become predicated on the nuclear disarmament of the Jewish state.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
No, Augustine's cross-reference of Daniel to Luke, which specifically refers to the desolation of Jerusalem, trumps your reference to 2 Thessalonians -- which has no such reference whatsoever.
I realize that Hal Lindsey teaches people to improperly associate 2 Thessalonians with the abomination of desolation reference in Daniel, but you really shouldn't. It's not what the Scripture says.
By contrast, the Augustinian cross-reference of Luke to Daniel is clear, consistent, and provably FULFILLED.
After all, Israel has never admitted to having nukes... and we don't doubt the word of our allies.
(Ambiguity can cut both ways... making your enemies think you might have ‘em... or making them think you might not.)
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.