The parable of the fig tree and "this generation"

[CrowCross]

I am saying God is not a man

No I agree the Son of man Jesus who became a Son of God was Jewish man . God is not a Jewish or Gentile Not a man, neither male or female .
He is the Spirit of truth that works in dying mankind

A man must be born again. Jesús our brother it the lord just as all believers that were born of the flesh have been born spirit from above as sons of God . Marvel not

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Sons of God are lovingly commanded to call no man on earth Holy Father .One is our Father in heaven

I'm happy to hear you agree Jesus was Jewish.

 

[EarlyActs]

I John, from around 100AD states it has not happened.

See Luke 4s classic quote of Isaiah as Jesus turn at reading the scrolls. Then sample how many times the NT says ‘this was to fulfill the scripture.’ Are you spending enough time in them?

 

[TMSO]

No, this Matthew 17:24-27 text is not the only verse which speaks of the high priests being the "kings of the earth". The OT also has passages which speak of them with that title. Jesus was not asking Peter about the custom of foreign monarchs taxing their citizens. Christ was asking a fellow Jew about the Jewish practice of the high priest "kings of the earth" and their sons both being exempt from paying the yearly Temple Tax tribute. Christ as the True Son of His Father's house, the temple, should have been exempt from paying this Temple Tax, but to demonstrate His humility, He had Peter pay it anyway for the both of them with the coin retrieved from the fish's mouth.

So please. Give Old Testament passages that clearly state that the kings of earth are high priests, of which Melchizedek and Christ are also high priests. It is obvious that you are so set against the Jews that you will not hear the truth of what the passage is stating. There are two sides to Jesus comparison. The King of the universe, who was also the King of Israel who instituted a temple tax. Can Jesus ask "the kings of the universe, do they tax their sons or strangers?" or would this make no sense. Who can Jesus use to make His comparison? Kings of earth. So kings of earth who institute taxes (high priests DO NOT), do they tax sons or strangers? If they don't tax sons, then just who are these collectors to claim tax from the Son of God? Jesus is NOT "asking a fellow Jew about the Jewish practice of the high priest "kings of the earth" and their sons both being exempt from paying the yearly Temple Tax tribute." You added to what Jesus said. The context makes it clear exactly what Jesus is talking about. You ignore the context. Since sons don't pay taxes to the kings of the earth, then He shouldn't be paying taxes to the Father. He is comparing the Jews to the Gentiles. How dare the Jews do something the kings of the earth don't even do.

The very reason why the agents of the high priest in Capernaum collecting this Temple Tax were asking if Christ paid the Temple Tax or not was because the members of the Levitical tribe did not have to pay this. In essence, these Temple Tax collectors were asking if Christ was a descendent of the Levitical tribe or not. The "others" who were obligated to pay the Temple Tax tribute were any adult males from the other tribes of Israel. This was a practice from all the way back in the OT.

Where do you get the idea that these are agents of the high priest. That isn't what the passage says. Again, the tax is not collected for the High Priest, but for God and for the upkeep of the temple. The tax collectors were not asking if He was a descendent of the Levites because... the Levites pay. Only the Kohanim (priests) were exempt. Read Exodus again. I already posted the passage, and I already pointed that there are no exemptions given in the passage.

I have studied the Scarlet Beast since 2012. The seven heads on the Scarlet Beast are the seven mountains upon which Jerusalem is situated. The seven heads were also seven "kings". There were seven members of the corrupt high priesthood of the house of Annas who conspired against Christ and the disciples during the first century. Five of those high priest "kings" had died, but the sixth high priest "king" was currently still living in John's days, with the seventh (Ananus ben Annas) who had yet to be appointed in AD 63 in the future from John writing Revelation. He would only serve a "short space" of three months before being deposed. The 8th high priest "king" wsa Mattathias, grandson of Annas, serving as high priest in AD 66 as the titular head of the Scarlet Beast which arose to existence once more under the Zealot rebellion against Rome.

So does that mean that Jesus is Rome, since these kings make war against the Lamb, while in your telling, they make war against Rome? Play it out.

The ten horns with no crowns were the ten generals chosen in Jerusalem to prepare Judea for the war with Rome. For a brief "hour" they gave their strength to maintain the Scarlet Beast / the independent kingdom of Israel, and they hated the harlot which Jerusalem had become by her collaboration with Rome. In this virulent hatred for Jerusalem as harlot, they burned her with fire, devoured her flesh, and made her desolate and naked by the Zealot factions warring against each other for supremacy in Jerusalem in the AD 66-70 years, even before Rome came for their final destruction.

I think you already know that I am going to ask for the names of each. Since they were kings for an hour, they must have been recorded somewhere. I only found five people, and they weren't generals, or kings.

This is only your personal belief that the date requirements are not met. And it is a rather common position that ALL of the books of the NT were written before the AD 70 year, based on their internal evidence.

It is most certainly the belief of unitarians, who claim that because the Bible was written before 70AD the trinity is a lie. And apparently, they have proof. (Not enough time for the belief to form.)

You are again confusing the identity of the Roman Sea Beast with the Judean Scarlet Beast. These aren't the same at all. The Antichrist was one of the many antichrists which had come out from among 1 John's readers in that "LAST HOUR". The false christs / antichrists and The Antichrist were a feature of the Judean Scarlet Beast - not the Roman Sea Beast.

Again, you are hyped up against the Jews, and I don't know why. And no. John speaks of Antichrist (nice and capitalized) and many little antichrists. And the beast is the king of the satanic kingdom, the Antichrist. Satan embodied in a man. (Possession). Hence the beast comes out of the abyss.

The Rev. 13 Roman phase of the Sea Beast was given power over every tongue and nation of the known world at the time. The Rev. 13 Land Beast of the Judean religious leadership collaborated with the Romans (the miry clay mixed with the iron). The Rev. 13 Land Beast instituted the required homage of that Sea Beast via the mark of the Beast which the Land Beast produced. All those "dwelling on the earth" (tes ges - the land of Israel) who were not in the book of life gave homage to that Roman phase of the Sea Beast via the "mark". This "mark" was a requirement imposed by the Land Beast on every one coming to worship at Jerusalem's Temple who wanted to buy or sell sacrificial items for worship. "The earth" (tes ges) is not the same as "the world" (oikoumene) in this case.

You are so lost in this, all because you beleive that Jesus was speaking of high priests when He spoke of "kings of the earth", when all He was speaking of was kings of the earth in comparison to the King of Heaven. God instituted the tax, not the High Priests. Levites were not exempt, only the priests. Why? They serve God in the tabernacle/temple as priests. The money was for the upkeep of the tabernacle/temple, and only the upkeep of the tabernacle/temple.

 

[TMSO]

See Luke 4s classic quote of Isaiah as Jesus turn at reading the scrolls. Then sample how many times the NT says ‘this was to fulfill the scripture.’ Are you spending enough time in them?

Yes, Jesus read more than one sentence. I get it. He read exactly what He was fulfilling, and nothing more. Hence He stopped reading, and sat down afterwards. I believe that it was expected that He read more, but He didn't. So, when it is said that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy "Out of Egypt, I have called My Son", which was clearly meant for Israel, we can't consider that this is multi-fulfillment? The gospel writer made a mistake? There is A LOT of multi-fulfillment prophecy in the Bible. There is also John, whose purpose of writing John is to show that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. How do you do that? You identify Jesus with the prophecy, and if that prophecy is about the Messiah, you have successfully shown that Jesus is the Messiah. For instance, Zechariah writes about the Messiah who rescues Jerusalem as being pierced. John shows that this Messiah is identified as Jesus when the guard pierces His side. Here is the fulfillment of "the one they have pierced". John stopped there. He is not saying Zechariah 12-14 were fulfilled. Just the one sentence. (That included looking upon Him, I didn't leave it out but for brevity.) And what did that do? It identified the Messiah with Jesus... quite clearly I might add. The actual prophecy that that comes from has a future fulfillment.

 

[Mr GLee]

So please. Give Old Testament passages that clearly state that the kings of earth are high priests, of which Melchizedek and Christ are also high priests. It is obvious that you are so set against the Jews that you will not hear the truth of what the passage is stating. There are two sides to Jesus comparison. The King of the universe, who was also the King of Israel who instituted a temple tax. Can Jesus ask "the kings of the universe, do they tax their sons or strangers?" or would this make no sense. Who can Jesus use to make His comparison? Kings of earth. So kings of earth who institute taxes (high priests DO NOT), do they tax sons or strangers? If they don't tax sons, then just who are these collectors to claim tax from the Son of God? Jesus is NOT "asking a fellow Jew about the Jewish practice of the high priest "kings of the earth" and their sons both being exempt from paying the yearly Temple Tax tribute." You added to what Jesus said. The context makes it clear exactly what Jesus is talking about. You ignore the context. Since sons don't pay taxes to the kings of the earth, then He shouldn't be paying taxes to the Father. He is comparing the Jews to the Gentiles. How dare the Jews do something the kings of the earth don't even do

Melchizedek meaning king of righteousness was a vision of Christ . Not flesh and blood. Jesus is a priest. He is not a lesser Levitical priest; which pointed ahead to the Son of man Jesus. He is a priest in the higher and original order of Melchizedek, God himself. . a theophany .

The promised three days and nights demonstration required flesh and blood the temporal dying .

A vision or theophany would not work. . flesh signified as sinful was needed to put away sin in the flesh

Romans 8:2-4King James Version For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[Mr GLee]

So you didn't understand, as Jesus said you needed to. The abomination of desolation was fulfilled in the 2nd or 3rd century when Israel was attacked, and the king of the victors built an altar to Zeus and was sacrificing pigs in the HOLY OF HOLIES. That was the abomination of desolation. Jesus is saying this will happen again, and we need to understand that, given what has already happened, this is the nature of the abomination of desolation. The temple will be desecrated, not simply destroyed.

No sign were given to wonder after.its a evil generation that dates as a sign No signs were given .Believers have prophecy

When Jesus walked out for the last time. he declared it desolate ( is desolate) not will be when a few rocks fall .He never entered it again

It would seem you are avoiding the foundation of Kings in Israel the abomination of desolation making the King of heaven our Holy Father without effect. So that dying mankind through oral traditions could no longer make sola scriptura without efect retoreing the goverment of
Christ in the hearts of men reigning as King of kings and Lord of lords.the Father of fathers

David said in the Psalms. If mankind destroys the foundation of a doctrine what could the believer do ?

1 Samuel 8:7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. (the abomination of desolation)

Until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9) Using the signified period of time as a parable that as a shadow pointed ahead. Using Kings in Israel a pagan foundation . . out of sight out of mind . .no belief in a God not seen ended. . faithless mankind

The veil representing the circumcision of the Lord. When it was declared "it is finished" the veil was rent from the top to the bottom There was no Jewish King of kings sitting in the holy of holies .Satan could not longer deceive all the nation of the world that God is Jewish man as king of kings he fell *Revelation 20 :3

Hebrew 9:8-10 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

 

[EarlyActs]

I already did, and I don't see it. I even posted the verse you mentioned, and it is not there. In 9 he rides the abomination...

Yes, Jesus read more than one sentence. I get it. He read exactly what He was fulfilling, and nothing more. Hence He stopped reading, and sat down afterwards. I believe that it was expected that He read more, but He didn't. So, when it is said that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy "Out of Egypt, I have called My Son", which was clearly meant for Israel, we can't consider that this is multi-fulfillment? The gospel writer made a mistake? There is A LOT of multi-fulfillment prophecy in the Bible. There is also John, whose purpose of writing John is to show that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. How do you do that? You identify Jesus with the prophecy, and if that prophecy is about the Messiah, you have successfully shown that Jesus is the Messiah. For instance, Zechariah writes about the Messiah who rescues Jerusalem as being pierced. John shows that this Messiah is identified as Jesus when the guard pierces His side. Here is the fulfillment of "the one they have pierced". John stopped there. He is not saying Zechariah 12-14 were fulfilled. Just the one sentence. (That included looking upon Him, I didn't leave it out but for brevity.) And what did that do? It identified the Messiah with Jesus... quite clearly I might add. The actual prophecy that that comes from has a future fulfillment.

Many times that “future” was at the end of that generation of Jesus like the Isaiah 61. Only one line of the OT section was about wrath , below that was further Grace and peace.

 

[3 Resurrections]

So does that mean that Jesus is Rome, since these kings make war against the Lamb, while in your telling, they make war against Rome? Play it out.

The Scarlet Beast kings made war against both Rome AND the Lamb. During Christ's earthly ministry, the high priesthood and their kindred were in constant conflict with Christ, and later on made war against His disciples in persecution of the early church. When the rebellion broke out in AD 66, the 8th high priest "king" became the titular head of that Scarlet Beast of the newly-revived kingdom of Israel. Former high priests were in power in Jerusalem in those early days of the rebellion against Rome. Ananus ben Annas (the 7th high priest "king") became one of the governors of Jerusalem in order to prepare the city's defenses for the coming war with Rome.

I think you already know that I am going to ask for the names of each. Since they were kings for an hour, they must have been recorded somewhere. I only found five people, and they weren't generals, or kings.

Josephus lists those ten generals (the ten horns on the Scarlet Beast) chosen to prepare all Judea's districts for the coming war in Wars 2.20.3-4.

It is most certainly the belief of unitarians, who claim that because the Bible was written before 70AD the trinity is a lie. And apparently, they have proof. (Not enough time for the belief to form.)

Trying to poison the well by association? Won't work. The internal witness of all NT scripture points to a pre-AD 70 composition for all of it. This does not in any way deny the Trinity, so your deflection into a reference of denying the Trinity is wasted effort.

Again, you are hyped up against the Jews, and I don't know why. And no. John speaks of Antichrist (nice and capitalized) and many little antichrists. And the beast is the king of the satanic kingdom, the Antichrist. Satan embodied in a man. (Possession). Hence the beast comes out of the abyss.

You are imagining a "hyped up against the Jews" thing. All of this judgment on first-century Judea was predicted by the song of Moses back in Deuteronomy 32, even before the nation had entered the promised land. God knew what the nation of Israel's "latter end" would be, and He pronounced a judgment against that future faithless condition in advance. Revelation is where that Song of Moses judgment is shown for all to see. After those "days of vengeance" had expired, God's vengeance was not exacted on any other descendants of the Jewish lineage. It was only that single generation and their own children who were to suffer those "days of vengeance". No other generation beyond that time.

You mistake the abyss as producing only evil things that come from it. It's doesn't. Christ Himself was in the abyss during His 3-days-3-nights in the grave (Romans 10:7). And you mistake the Beast (none of the three Beasts) for being the Antichrist, when this character was only supposed to serve as a mile marker at the beginning of the Jewish / Roman war which alerted the believers that Christ's return and a resurrection was soon to come. You have exaggerated this character into a larger-than-life supervillain of the world when he was murdered after only two weeks or so in power in Jerusalem in AD 66.

And you continue to confuse the subject of the "kings of the earth" by thinking it applies to the world at large, when that term "tes ges" is most often referring only to the land of Israel alone.

 

[EarlyActs]

Especially in Luke we have to remember that that generation was meant for most of what was said about the fate of Jerusalem, and this is confined biologically. Lk 23:28 in which that generation would become adult and despair the day they were born because of what would happen. Notice that Hos 10 is quoted, not about the distant future, but that generation.

It was a very decisive generation! Hence the warning in Acts 3 about the new Moses.

 

[EarlyActs]

For TMSO,
Here is a short from of my material on Daniel 9:

The grammatical difficulty of the passage is that the antecedent that switches at v27b to the evil figure of 8:13+. I have spent about 40 years looking into things here. Here is a well-navigated translation that keeps Messiah, Rome and the evil person distinct as intended:

v24 In 490 years from the return, Messiah will make atonement and bring in righteousness, the righteousness of God, Romans 1:16, 3:21.

v25 The rebuilt temple will include a plaza and will be a defensive structure (it was both).

v26 After 483 years, Messiah will be cut off, but that will not be for himself. Rome (the last of the 4 powers of Dan 2) will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. The destruction will be like a quick flood. There will be a decreed war until the end.

v27 Messiah will confirm the covenant of Israel--show that what he just accomplished was promised to Abraham from the beginning. This was done through his teaching on both sides of his death (40 days of intense instruction after his death & Res before Pentecost).

V27b Meanwhile the evil person of 8:13 will come doing a new kind of abomination ('on the wings'), but the decree against him will hold (I Thess 'you know what restrains him' comforted the readers) and will destroy him.

Josephus commented on this in his history of the Jewish War (66-73AD); he was a trained priest and this was the accepted understanding of Dan 9 in yeshiva. So the set of questions that start Mt 24 etc are on this topic: IOW, when does the 'end' of Dan 9 happen?

There is much more in my THE COVENANT REVOLT at Amazon. My master's thesis work was on the relation between Luke-Acts and the revolt. Luke is the last of the parallel gospels and says the most on the topic.

The important overall thrust of Dan 9 is that Israel is ruined, but Messiah's accomplishment stands and is eternal. Not quite the answer Daniel was seeking.

 

[TMSO]

Melchizedek meaning king of righteousness was a vision of Christ . Not flesh and blood. Jesus is a priest. He is not a lesser Levitical priest; which pointed ahead to the Son of man Jesus. He is a priest in the higher and original order of Melchizedek, God himself. . a theophany .

Then Jesus can't be a High Priest in the line of Melchizedek, as you have just clearly stated there is no line of Melchizedek. I got it.

The promised three days and nights demonstration required flesh and blood the temporal dying .

A vision or theophany would not work. . flesh signified as sinful was needed to put away sin in the flesh

Incarnate. We have already been given the word. God in the flesh. The Logos. John already told us who the Logos is and what He did, but you refuse to recognize Him.

Romans 8:2-4King James Version For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law for us. That is, we broke the Law bringing death upon ourselves, while Jesus, who never sinned, became sin for us (took the penalty of our sin, death, upon Himself.) A man cannot do that, for scripture is clear... ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Paul was talking about humans. Jesus was not simply human. He was the Logos become flesh.

 

[TMSO]

No sign were given to wonder after.its a evil generation that dates as a sign No signs were given .Believers have prophecy

Jesus told the disciples there were no signs. Matthew 24 was Jesus answering His disciples.

When Jesus walked out for the last time. he declared it desolate ( is desolate) not will be when a few rocks fall .He never entered it again

Yes, you are calling the place God chose to His name to dwell an abomination. I read it hear first.

It would seem you are avoiding the foundation of Kings in Israel the abomination of desolation making the King of heaven our Holy Father without effect. So that dying mankind through oral traditions could no longer make sola scriptura without efect retoreing the goverment of
Christ in the hearts of men reigning as King of kings and Lord of lords.the Father of fathers

I have understood the abomination of desolation to be when the Antichrist stands in the temple and declares himself God in place of God, if it isn't some pig roast in the Holy of Holies.

David said in the Psalms. If mankind destroys the foundation of a doctrine what could the believer do ?

Post the reference.

1 Samuel 8:7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. (the abomination of desolation)

No. Daniel hadn't even spoken of it yet. Jesus is saying to look for it. What happened was planned, but it doesn't change the fact that they rejected. Again, no rejection of God as King, no Jesus.

Until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9) Using the signified period of time as a parable that as a shadow pointed ahead. Using Kings in Israel a pagan foundation . . out of sight out of mind . .no belief in a God not seen ended. . faithless mankind

The veil representing the circumcision of the Lord. When it was declared "it is finished" the veil was rent from the top to the bottom There was no Jewish King of kings sitting in the holy of holies .Satan could not longer deceive all the nation of the world that God is Jewish man as king of kings he fell *Revelation 20 :3

No. The veil signified no entrance to the presence of God. When the veil tore, it signified that that which had prevented man from coming to God had been removed in the body of Christ. If you aren't sure about this, John and Paul both speak to this. John, about our advocate, and Paul, about our mediator.

Hebrew 9:8-10 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

 

[Mr GLee]

Yes, you are calling the place God chose to His name to dwell an abomination. I read it hear first

God does not dwell in temples made with human hands .That a pagan idea. when is walked out he declared it desolate.

I have understood the abomination of desolation to be when the Antichrist stands in the temple and declares himself God in place of God, if it isn't some pig roast in the Holy of Holies.

The anti christ are the false prophets, false apostles. They are the one that demanded a temple to begin with. Believers have always been the temple by which the gospel goes out. . not made with dying human hands

Post the reference.

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

No. Daniel hadn't even spoken of it yet. Jesus is saying to look for it. What happened was planned, but it doesn't change the fact that they rejected. Again, no rejection of God as King, no Jesus.

Daniel is speaking of the same abomination of desolation (kings in Israel) a pagan foundation .Out of sight out of mind no belief in a God not seen reveals himself as it is written

God not seen is the King of dying earthly kings. . Lord of earthly lords Like that of Jesus a earthly lord one of the many sons of God.

No. The veil signified no entrance to the presence of God. When the veil tore, it signified that that which had prevented man from coming to God had been removed in the body of Christ. If you aren't sure about this, John and Paul both speak to this. John, about our advocate, and Paul, about our mediator.

The veil as foreskin represented he circumcision of the dying flesh the first born Son of man, Jesus . Exodus gives us the foundation of doctrine of circumcision.

 

[TMSO]

The Scarlet Beast kings made war against both Rome AND the Lamb.

Then why doesn't it say that? Please, give the reference that says that the Scarlet Beast made war against both Rome and the Lamb. If it isn't there, it didn't happen. Let's look:

"7 But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the [c]mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. 8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to [d]perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and [e]yet is.

9 “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to [f]perdition. (Nero - 6), (Galba - 7), (Domitian - 8)

12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”

15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you [g]saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”"

I see. You do believe the woman that rides the beast is Rome. I get it now.

During Christ's earthly ministry, the high priesthood and their kindred were in constant conflict with Christ, and later on made war against His disciples in persecution of the early church. When the rebellion broke out in AD 66, the 8th high priest "king" became the titular head of that Scarlet Beast of the newly-revived kingdom of Israel. Former high priests were in power in Jerusalem in those early days of the rebellion against Rome. Ananus ben Annas (the 7th high priest "king") became one of the governors of Jerusalem in order to prepare the city's defenses for the coming war with Rome.

Um, there was only one high priest. There is only one high priest at a time. And, I have already presented a new thread showing every mention of "kings of the earth" (all of them), and it is blatantly obvious that it is not the high priest.

Josephus lists those ten generals (the ten horns on the Scarlet Beast) chosen to prepare all Judea's districts for the coming war in Wars 2.20.3-4.

Except that they aren't kings, and were never kings. For this to be correct, I should be writing that they aren't kings, but they became kings for an hour. I didn't, because they didn't.

Trying to poison the well by association? Won't work. The internal witness of all NT scripture points to a pre-AD 70 composition for all of it. This does not in any way deny the Trinity, so your deflection into a reference of denying the Trinity is wasted effort.

No, just pointing out your next battle. I'm not going to bring it, but you are quite possibly going to face it.

You are imagining a "hyped up against the Jews" thing. All of this judgment on first-century Judea was predicted by the song of Moses back in Deuteronomy 32, even before the nation had entered the promised land. God knew what the nation of Israel's "latter end" would be, and He pronounced a judgment against that future faithless condition in advance. Revelation is where that Song of Moses judgment is shown for all to see. After those "days of vengeance" had expired, God's vengeance was not exacted on any other descendants of the Jewish lineage. It was only that single generation and their own children who were to suffer those "days of vengeance". No other generation beyond that time.

Jeremiah has God stating that He will not reject or forget them. And, God is clear that all the times that the Jews faced "tribulation", it was His chastening. And then, for the 10 tribes, His patience reached its end, and He scattered them. However, read what God told David and Solomon.

You mistake the abyss as producing only evil things that come from it. It's doesn't. Christ Himself was in the abyss during His 3-days-3-nights in the grave (Romans 10:7). And you mistake the Beast (none of the three Beasts) for being the Antichrist, when this character was only supposed to serve as a mile marker at the beginning of the Jewish / Roman war which alerted the believers that Christ's return and a resurrection was soon to come. You have exaggerated this character into a larger-than-life supervillain of the world when he was murdered after only two weeks or so in power in Jerusalem in AD 66.

So Jesus was imprisoned in the abyss? Oh wait, you understand. Jesus went to the abyss, but He was not "there". He was preaching, proclaiming His victory. The Antichrist is the amalgamation of the three beasts, and of the seven kings. The eight king, that is the antichrist, is the whole beast, not simply another head.

And you continue to confuse the subject of the "kings of the earth" by thinking it applies to the world at large, when that term "tes ges" is most often referring only to the land of Israel alone.

You can go read every bible verse that speaks of "kings of the earth", and see that the passages are very clear. "And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”"

Since when do High Priests deal in customs? The shipping of goods from one place to another? Is that what the temple tax was? Rome didn't even allow them to collect the temple tax, they had to create a way around that. Customs? Jesus is speaking of kings of the earth, not the high priest, or these people. Your hatred is so strong that you are blinded to this.

 

[TMSO]

God does not dwell in temples made with human hands .That a pagan idea. when is walked out he declared it desolate.

So, when prophecy states that He was full of zeal for His Father's house, since this is a pagan idea, who do you understand the Father that Jesus was angry for was? Since you are basically claiming that the temple is pagan, who does that make the Father? God chose for His name to dwell there. Even David and I beleive Solomon stated that God cannot dwell in the temple, for not even the heavens can contain God. So, obviously, there is something missing here, that you are unwilling to see.

The anti christ are the false prophets, false apostles. They are the one that demanded a temple to begin with. Believers have always been the temple by which the gospel goes out. . not made with dying human hands

There is the Antichrist, and then the little itty bitty antichrists who can't hold a candle to their big daddy. He is going to actually stand before God, perhaps in the temple, and before the world, and proclaim himself God. It will be the embodiement of Satan. A man possessed, perhaps as some say Peter was when he stood against Jesus, and Jesus said "Get behind Me Satan." [I think that Jesus said that Peter was an advesary, not the advesary, since Satan means advesary.]

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

The answer is in the context. You don't get to assume what all of this means for ONE VERSE. Context.

Daniel is speaking of the same abomination of desolation (kings in Israel) a pagan foundation .Out of sight out of mind no belief in a God not seen reveals himself as it is written

Do I need to post this as well to show that isn't what Daniel is saying?

God not seen is the King of dying earthly kings. . Lord of earthly lords Like that of Jesus a earthly lord one of the many sons of God.

Jesus is not one of the many sons of God. He never spoke of Himself except as the Son of man. Why? Sons of Man were a dime a dozen. Many people claimed divinity by some god dad. Jesus called Himself the Son of Man. We know He is the Son of God. How many people can you point out that if you look at them, you can claim to have seen God? Only One.

The veil as foreskin represented he circumcision of the dying flesh the first born Son of man, Jesus . Exodus gives us the foundation of doctrine of circumcision.

It is not foreskin. Again, the tearing of the veil shows that that which stood between God and man had been removed in the body of Christ. What stands in its place is our advocate, our mediator, Jesus Christ.

 

[TMSO]

The Scarlet Beast kings made war against both Rome AND the Lamb. During Christ's earthly ministry, the high priesthood and their kindred were in constant conflict with Christ, and later on made war against His disciples in persecution of the early church. When the rebellion broke out in AD 66, the 8th high priest "king" became the titular head of that Scarlet Beast of the newly-revived kingdom of Israel. Former high priests were in power in Jerusalem in those early days of the rebellion against Rome. Ananus ben Annas (the 7th high priest "king") became one of the governors of Jerusalem in order to prepare the city's defenses for the coming war with Rome.


Josephus lists those ten generals (the ten horns on the Scarlet Beast) chosen to prepare all Judea's districts for the coming war in Wars 2.20.3-4.


Trying to poison the well by association? Won't work. The internal witness of all NT scripture points to a pre-AD 70 composition for all of it. This does not in any way deny the Trinity, so your deflection into a reference of denying the Trinity is wasted effort.


You are imagining a "hyped up against the Jews" thing. All of this judgment on first-century Judea was predicted by the song of Moses back in Deuteronomy 32, even before the nation had entered the promised land. God knew what the nation of Israel's "latter end" would be, and He pronounced a judgment against that future faithless condition in advance. Revelation is where that Song of Moses judgment is shown for all to see. After those "days of vengeance" had expired, God's vengeance was not exacted on any other descendants of the Jewish lineage. It was only that single generation and their own children who were to suffer those "days of vengeance". No other generation beyond that time.

You mistake the abyss as producing only evil things that come from it. It's doesn't. Christ Himself was in the abyss during His 3-days-3-nights in the grave (Romans 10:7). And you mistake the Beast (none of the three Beasts) for being the Antichrist, when this character was only supposed to serve as a mile marker at the beginning of the Jewish / Roman war which alerted the believers that Christ's return and a resurrection was soon to come. You have exaggerated this character into a larger-than-life supervillain of the world when he was murdered after only two weeks or so in power in Jerusalem in AD 66.

And you continue to confuse the subject of the "kings of the earth" by thinking it applies to the world at large, when that term "tes ges" is most often referring only to the land of Israel alone.

Check out this word study on Matthew 17:25
"1093 gḗ – properly, the physical earth; (figuratively) the "arena" we live in which operates in space and time which God uses to prepare us for eternity."

 

[3 Resurrections]

I see. You do believe the woman that rides the beast is Rome. I get it now.

No, you aren't reading my comments correctly or carefully enough.

The SEA BEAST had the Roman characterization (10 horns with crowns that were emperors, seven hills of Rome to sit on and the "throne of Satan" in the city of Pergamos given to that Sea Beast - given to the Roman Republic back in 133 BC).

The other SCARLET BEAST found in the wilderness was Judean in character and features (10 horns with no crowns as generals to run the war, and seven hills of Jerusalem to sit on, as well as there being seven high priest "kings" and an 8th high priest "king" who would also be identified as the Scarlet Beast. The harlot, (Old Jerusalem under Roman governance), had been keeping the independent nation of Israel from rising to existence again until the Jewish rebellion in AD 66 when the Scarlet Beast cast off that Rome-governed status quo in Jerusalem and established their own sovereign nation, minting their own currency.

The Scarlet Beast with its 10 horns was engaged in warfare not only against the Lamb and against Rome, but the leaders also ended up turning on each other during those AD 66-70 years. Those competing Zealot factions in power fought against each other as well. What else do you expect from a generation who was going to have every unclean spirit imprisoned in the capital city? Christ had predicted a seven-fold increase in demon possession for that wicked generation that was more intense than its "first state" when Christ was among them. All those unclean spirits and demonic influence deceived all those Zealot leaders into thinking they could become the prophesied Messiah as "King of the Jews". They were willing to kill each other to achieve that coveted prize.

Um, there was only one high priest. There is only one high priest at a time

No, there was always a backup high priest called a "sagan" who could step in to perform the high priestly duties should the first high priest become ritually unclean before he was needed to serve in that role (which happened a few times on record). Rome deposed and appointed high priests at their pleasure, which created many former high priests that were around in those first-century days. This is why John wrote that Mystery Babylon (Rome-governed Jerusalem) in his own days was "reigning over the kings of the earth", because this was not the way the high priesthood role was to be filled. The high priests were supposed to be reigning over Jerusalem instead as the "ruler of the people" - not pandering to Rome in order to have their term in office and financial standing kept secure.

So Jesus was imprisoned in the abyss? Oh wait, you understand. Jesus went to the abyss, but He was not "there". He was preaching, proclaiming His victory. The Antichrist is the amalgamation of the three beasts, and of the seven kings. The eight king, that is the antichrist, is the whole beast, not simply another head.

No, Jesus was never "imprisoned" in the abyss. The "abysson" is not a place, but a condition of something that isn't actively functioning. He voluntarily surrendered His body to death, which left that dead human form in that inactive condition, while by the Spirit He went and preached to the spirits which were in prison. He then took up His life again at His own volition 3 days and 3 nights later in a glorified body of resurrection.

The Antichrist is never said to be the Scarlet Beast. This is a common mistake. There were antichrists among the number of the 10 horns on that Scarlet Beast, and various other antichrists who arose back in the first century, as early as in the book of Acts. But the single Antichrist did not survive beyond the beginning of the Jewish rebellion.

Since when do High Priests deal in customs? The shipping of goods from one place to another? Is that what the temple tax was? Rome didn't even allow them to collect the temple tax, they had to create a way around that. Customs? Jesus is speaking of kings of the earth, not the high priest, or these people. Your hatred is so strong that you are blinded to this.

"Hatred" has nothing to do with this recitation of historical events for Israel. High priests were not supposed to deal in money-making schemes, but Annas and his sons and son-in-law Caiaphas (the seven "kings" of the Scarlet Beast) did do this. This family of high priests were excoriated in the Talmud itself for being corrupt and oppressive to the people. Look it up. They had lucrative market booths outside the temple that sold (and resold) the same animals for sacrifice.

The money-changers were also the priesthood's invention as a corrupt, oppressive means of raising funds out of temple worshippers ever since 19 BC. This is why Christ became so enraged at their activity.

But the Temple Tax was a valid head tax on adult Israelite males of all the tribes except the Levitical tribe, which God originally told the Israelites not to include among the numbered tribes that could go out to war. Their charge instead was over the tabernacle, which was supported by the half-shekel funds that the other tribes' adult males were to give.

 

[TMSO]

No, you aren't reading my comments correctly or carefully enough.

The SEA BEAST had the Roman characterization (10 horns with crowns that were emperors, seven hills of Rome to sit on and the "throne of Satan" in the city of Pergamos given to that Sea Beast - given to the Roman Republic back in 133 BC).

The other SCARLET BEAST found in the wilderness was Judean in character and features (10 horns with no crowns as generals to run the war, and seven hills of Jerusalem to sit on, as well as there being seven high priest "kings" and an 8th high priest "king" who would also be identified as the Scarlet Beast. The harlot, (Old Jerusalem under Roman governance), had been keeping the independent nation of Israel from rising to existence again until the Jewish rebellion in AD 66 when the Scarlet Beast cast off that Rome-governed status quo in Jerusalem and established their own sovereign nation, minting their own currency.

The Scarlet Beast with its 10 horns was engaged in warfare not only against the Lamb and against Rome, but the leaders also ended up turning on each other during those AD 66-70 years. Those competing Zealot factions in power fought against each other as well. What else do you expect from a generation who was going to have every unclean spirit imprisoned in the capital city? Christ had predicted a seven-fold increase in demon possession for that wicked generation that was more intense than its "first state" when Christ was among them. All those unclean spirits and demonic influence deceived all those Zealot leaders into thinking they could become the prophesied Messiah as "King of the Jews". They were willing to kill each other to achieve that coveted prize.

That's the thing. You say these things happen, but they are not present anywhere in the Revelation. Revelation states they are at war against the Lamb. It says nothing about Rome, and it most certainly doesn't say they fought against each other. They turned on the woman. And again, there are no verses that state that the unclean spirits would be imprisoned in Jerusalem. You take great liberties with the words of our Lord. If these generals fought each other, then they cannot be the horns of the beast.

No, there was always a backup high priest called a "sagan" who could step in to perform the high priestly duties should the first high priest become ritually unclean before he was needed to serve in that role (which happened a few times on record).

And this person was NOT a high priest, just a deputy. I already looked this up, and they were clear. Only one high priest, though they have a deupty. That person did NOT have the title of high priest, for there was only one high priest. (Or Jesus would need another, as His claim to High Priest is along the same lines.)

Rome deposed and appointed high priests at their pleasure, which created many former high priests that were around in those first-century days. This is why John wrote that Mystery Babylon (Rome-governed Jerusalem) in his own days was "reigning over the kings of the earth", because this was not the way the high priesthood role was to be filled. The high priests were supposed to be reigning over Jerusalem instead as the "ruler of the people" - not pandering to Rome in order to have their term in office and financial standing kept secure.

Again, you can go to the kings of the earth thread, and see every reference in both the Old and New Testaments. It is actually very clear. The high priests are NOT the kings of the earth. It is literally speaking of the kings of the earth.

No, Jesus was never "imprisoned" in the abyss. The "abysson" is not a place, but a condition of something that isn't actively functioning.

Peter seems to believe it is a place. John seems to think it is a place. Jesus showed John it is a place.

He voluntarily surrendered His body to death, which left that dead human form in that inactive condition, while by the Spirit He went and preached to the spirits which were in prison. He then took up His life again at His own volition 3 days and 3 nights later in a glorified body of resurrection.

Ah, but those spirits were in this abyss, this prison, also known as tartarus (in the writing). Except you say this place doesn't exist. Does that mean Jesus did not go there?

The Antichrist is never said to be the Scarlet Beast. This is a common mistake. There were antichrists among the number of the 10 horns on that Scarlet Beast, and various other antichrists who arose back in the first century, as early as in the book of Acts. But the single Antichrist did not survive beyond the beginning of the Jewish rebellion.

So now they aren't generals, they are antichrists?

"Hatred" has nothing to do with this recitation of historical events for Israel. High priests were not supposed to deal in money-making schemes, but Annas and his sons and son-in-law Caiaphas (the seven "kings" of the Scarlet Beast) did do this. This family of high priests were excoriated in the Talmud itself for being corrupt and oppressive to the people. Look it up. They had lucrative market booths outside the temple that sold (and resold) the same animals for sacrifice.

No, hatred has to do with your strong determination, in the face of correction, to hang onto the idea that the kings of the earth are high priests. I went and read the other thread on the other board, and someone did a very good job of showing it. You even went as far as saying, that even though David was speaking of gentiles in the context, his usage of kings of the earth related to the high priests. You even violated the context.

The money-changers were also the priesthood's invention as a corrupt, oppressive means of raising funds out of temple worshippers ever since 19 BC. This is why Christ became so enraged at their activity.

I would think that the money changers were just merchants who took advantage of the system.

But the Temple Tax was a valid head tax on adult Israelite males of all the tribes except the Levitical tribe, which God originally told the Israelites not to include among the numbered tribes that could go out to war. Their charge instead was over the tabernacle, which was supported by the half-shekel funds that the other tribes' adult males were to give.

And it is not said that they were not counted among the tribes that could go out to war. They were not counted because they served the tabernacle.

Numbers 1:
"47 But the Levites were not numbered among them by their fathers’ tribe; 48 for the Lord had spoken to Moses, saying: 49 “Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor take a census of them among the children of Israel; 50 but you shall appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the Testimony, over all its furnishings, and over all things that belong to it; they shall carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings; they shall attend to it and camp around the tabernacle."

However, you haven't dealt with why the High Priests would be dealing with customs? As in customs that are taxes on merchant goods entering a country. The kings of the earth Jesus mentioned levy customs and taxes.

 

[TMSO]

The Scarlet Beast kings made war against both Rome AND the Lamb. During Christ's earthly ministry, the high priesthood and their kindred were in constant conflict with Christ, and later on made war against His disciples in persecution of the early church. When the rebellion broke out in AD 66, the 8th high priest "king" became the titular head of that Scarlet Beast of the newly-revived kingdom of Israel. Former high priests were in power in Jerusalem in those early days of the rebellion against Rome. Ananus ben Annas (the 7th high priest "king") became one of the governors of Jerusalem in order to prepare the city's defenses for the coming war with Rome.


Josephus lists those ten generals (the ten horns on the Scarlet Beast) chosen to prepare all Judea's districts for the coming war in Wars 2.20.3-4.

Jospehus says there were many generals chosen. Then mentions two... How is that a great many? The king at the beginning considered most, if not all his men generals. What about them? In book three, there are more generals listed.

Who is the beast? It can't be Ananus, as he is one of the horns, according to you. And it is clearly stated that none of the horns are kings. Who is the beast that they unify with to attack the Lamb?

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, Jesus read more than one sentence. I get it. He read exactly what He was fulfilling, and nothing more. Hence He stopped reading, and sat down afterwards. I believe that it was expected that He read more, but He didn't. So, when it is said that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy "Out of Egypt, I have called My Son", which was clearly meant for Israel, we can't consider that this is multi-fulfillment? The gospel writer made a mistake? There is A LOT of multi-fulfillment prophecy in the Bible. There is also John, whose purpose of writing John is to show that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. How do you do that? You identify Jesus with the prophecy, and if that prophecy is about the Messiah, you have successfully shown that Jesus is the Messiah. For instance, Zechariah writes about the Messiah who rescues Jerusalem as being pierced. John shows that this Messiah is identified as Jesus when the guard pierces His side. Here is the fulfillment of "the one they have pierced". John stopped there. He is not saying Zechariah 12-14 were fulfilled. Just the one sentence. (That included looking upon Him, I didn't leave it out but for brevity.) And what did that do? It identified the Messiah with Jesus... quite clearly I might add. The actual prophecy that that comes from has a future fulfillment.

If you accept what the apostles were saying on these things, which was what Christ taught them during the 40 days, then ‘I called my son’ actually means that the meaning about Israel has been set aside. We should apply that across the scope. We no longer are concerned about the old covenants furniture and equipment. God is not going back to them. The eternal has come in Christ.

It is not a matter of mistake but of graduation.

D’ists put a wild amount of weight on what is not declared by Christ. On Passages not handled by him. On figuring out when ‘the kingdom comes to Israel’ which is not our business, says Acts 1.