SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : 'Renew animal sacrifices on Mount' says radical rabbi

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )
PosterThread
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi ginnyrose, sorry for the delay in reponse.


"what was the rabbi's reaction to your exposition?"


I can't say much from recollection except that I don't recall him disputing or saying anything contrary to it. He was asking questions and politely listening. Very nice. And just to clarify, I think he was a [i]lay person[/i] not a rabbi or teacher but I don't recall for sure. I do recall him being orthodox though.

I feel a sense of appreciation for the Jewish people and it made me happy to speak with him.


Thanks for the interest, :-)

Chris


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2007/3/21 20:52Profile









 Re: the true Temple?

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Quote:
The New Testament is clear on what constitutes the Temple of God.



Well, these rabbi's arent concerned with the NT says. We, as Christians, should look on this (reinstating the sacrifices) as a wonderful fulfillment of yet another prophecy... letting us know that Yeshua is coming soon.


You are right Krispy, even though the [i][b]Antichrist[/b][/i] is probably coming first! 2Thess 2 is indeed the relevant passage.

Either way its one more fulfillment of prophecy, and one step nearer the Return of the true Christ (unless the full Preterist position is true and the Second Coming has already happened!)

Of course one could possibly spiritualise the whole thing and believe that the Antichrist spirit will enter completely into [i]the Church itself [/i], or maybe an individual Christian(i.e. a "temple of God"), or one who seems to be a Christian, in a similar way that it says Satan entered into Judas, who was one of the Twelve, and probably did miracles, and certainly preached in the name of Jesus.

Of course, a rebuilt , man-made Temple won't actually be a true "Temple of God". But remember that the temple Jesus cleansed, in the Gospel account, was actually [i]Herod's[/i] temple. It was neither built by a true Israelite nor according to the pattern revealed to Moses and David. Yet Jesus said:

John 2:16 [color=0000CC]And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make [i][b]My Father’s house[/i][/b] a house of merchandise!”[/color]

It was neither a proper OT Temple, nor built by God's people, nor the true spiritual Temple, yet Jesus still called it "my Father's House"!!!

I therefore think it quite likely that the Temple will be rebuilt as a man-made structure, and the sacrifices restarted - futile though they are since Jesus died. Even though, like Herod's Temple, it will be neither a true House of God nor contain the Presence of God in the form of the Ark of the Covenant.

I don't know what they will do about the priests, since the genealogies were destroyed. I have heard that, in modern synagogues, they ask all those of the name of Cohen (meaning "priest) to stand and bless the people.

It wouldn't be ideal, but maybe they will think it better than nothing?

Jeannette

 2007/3/23 9:06
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
Of course one could possibly spiritualise the whole thing and believe that the Antichrist spirit will enter completely into the Church itself , or maybe an individual Christian(i.e. a "temple of God"), or one who seems to be a Christian, in a similar way that it says Satan entered into Judas, who was one of the Twelve, and probably did miracles, and certainly preached in the name of Jesus.



Please allow me to discuss 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 for a moment:

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.”

Paul says that the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him (the day of Christ)” will not happen until there is a “falling away” first. This falling away is in regards to the church. Paul is saying that an apostasy is coming in the church and many professing Christians will turn from the truth.

Then Paul says that the ‘man of sin’ will be revealed. Notice that Paul called the man of sin the ‘son of perdition’? Who else was called a ‘son of perdition’? John 17:12: “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

Who is Jesus referring to? Judas. Judas was a disciple of Christ in Jesus’ inner circle but was a false brother. Paul is clearly connecting the ‘man of sin’ with Judas. Paul is not saying that Judas will return and exalt himself, but that the ‘man of sin’ will be like Judas in that he will be in the church. Paul also says that this man of sin will exalt himself above God.

This man of sin is a greater manifestation of what was already at work in the church. This “spirit of antichrist” was already at work during John's time. He says in 1 John 2:18-19, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

Who is John referring to? False believers in the church. Here is one example John gives in 3 John 1:9, “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.” Also, Paul, Peter and Jude spend much time discussing False Teachers.

Paul then says about the ‘man of sin’, “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God”

This ‘man of sin’ will be in the “spirit of antichrist” and the “mystery of iniquity”. Paul says “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way” The spirit of antichrist was already at work in the church during Paul’s and John’s life. This spirit was in the form of false teachers in the church “And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:17-18)

Paul says that this spirit of iniquity and antichrist is already in the church but is restrained. What or who is the restraint? Many Christians differ on this. Some think it is the Holy Spirit who will be removed during the rapture, but I do not believe this. The Holy Spirit acts as a restraint against sin, but often is ignored when one slides away from closeness with God. Also, remember Stephen. Stephen was full of the Spirit and all it got him was death. If he had not had the spirit they would have left him alone. So, I do not believe Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit, I believe Paul is referring to the Roman Government.

Edgar Parkyns says in his study of Church History that persecution is God’s instrument to purify His church. For example, when there is no persecution, people who are not sincere will rise into leadership and teach false doctrine. But, when persecution comes, these people are the first to leave. Those who remain in persecution are true followers of Christ and the church is pure. So, I believe that Paul is referring to the Roman government as “him who restrains”. Paul says this restraint will be removed and when it is removed the man of sin will be revealed. Has anything like this happened in history? Yes it has. It is just that we do not want to see it. When the Roman pagan government fell, the persecutions stopped. In fact, the Roman government adopted Christianity as its state religion. You might think this was a good thing but it was not. People were forced to join the church, up until this time a person entered the church through belief, now people are joining for gain. Eventually a "man of sin who exalts himself above God" entered the church in the position of Pope. I know it is unpopular to say that the office of pope is the antichrist/man of sin but what else can a true believer make of it?

Why do I say the antichrist to come is an office and not a particular man? Because 'man of sin' can refer to more than one person just as 'man of God' refers to all Christians. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Brothers and sisters, Paul is not telling us to look for a leader of a revived secular roman government, he was telling the church at Thessalonica that they have not missed the coming of the Lord because the man of sin has not appeared. He is also telling us today that we are to look out for false teachers and to remain true to scripture. We are to keep ourselves clean in this world through God and look for our blessed hope and the glorious revealing of Christ in the Second Coming. May He come quickly!

 2007/3/23 11:46Profile









 Re: 'Renew animal sacrifices on Mount' says radical rabbi


Hi Jay,

Your exposition has made me think this: that the 'son of perdition' pertains to the old man being given full expression, whereas the 'man of God' is 'the new man' being given expression.

How does this strike you?

 2007/3/26 17:04









 Re:

Quote:
And now [b][size=small]you know[/size][/b] what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time

It's funny how we miss these other words in the text. Paul was speaking to the believing Thessaloncans almost 2000 years ago. These people KNEW what was withholding, and we who are supposed to be living in the day that this is going to happen have only ideas, misconceptions, theories etc.. and yet we have no knowledge and understanding.

I have my own belief of what happened, but like Jay said, no one wants to receive it.

But think about it, here we are, at the so called end of time and we have theories as to what is withholding this antichrist from being revealed, uncovered, exposed, and the Thessaloncans KNEW, and we don't.

Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

 2007/3/26 19:00
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
Your exposition has made me think this: that the 'son of perdition' pertains to the old man being given full expression, whereas the 'man of God' is 'the new man' being given expression.



I see 'son of perdition' referring to the group of people who profess faith in Christ but inwardly are far from Him. I think of Matthew 7 where Jesus talks about 'knowing them by their fruit' and how some on the day of judgment will be told by Jesus 'I never knew you.' It is a group that is full of the 'old man' but professing to be the new man but by their actions that lead some astray and blaspheme God. I do believe that has reached its zenith through the Roman Church and the office of the pope. Probably more so in the Middle Ages. The pope today is nothing like he used to be.

I agree with your statement about the 'man of God'.

 2007/3/26 22:27Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
Paul was speaking to the believing Thessaloncans almost 2000 years ago. These people KNEW what was withholding, and we who are supposed to be living in the day that this is going to happen have only ideas, misconceptions, theories etc.. and yet we have no knowledge and understanding.



I find it interesting (maybe someone can prove me wrong) but there is absolutely nothing in scripture that is critical of the Roman Government. If it is there I am not aware of it. Isn't that odd? Ever wonder why that is?

Specifically, let's use 2 Thess. 2 as an example. Paul is very cryptic when referring to 'him that restrains'. If Paul was talking about the Holy Spirit, why wouldn't he just say, 'The Holy Spirit is currently restaining the wicked one and He will do so until He is removed in the rapture.' In fact, Paul used the word 'Spirit' three times in Chapter 2 alone. No, it seems more likely that Paul did not want to appear critical to the Roman government in any of his writings. So, he preferred to tell them in person.

 2007/3/26 22:35Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
No, it seems more likely that Paul did not want to appear critical to the Roman government in any of his writings. So, he preferred to tell them in person.


Those of us who are able to visit Christians is dangerous places know that it is usually not our own neck that we put at risk but the necks of those who receive us. Similarly, this should not be thought of as timidity or cowardice on the part of Paul. If this letter had said 'The Roman Empire' and the letter had then been found in someone's house, it would have been a death sentence for the householder and his family.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/27 13:38Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Thanks for that insight Ron.

 2007/3/27 15:41Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy