Meat Where is that 'temple' now? The one that the "Abomination of Desolation" takes place?

[Mark C]

People like to get "all wrapped around the axle," about eschatology, and what will happen, when, in the "end times" (with or without Capitalization.)

"Are we there yet?"

And how 'bout that "third temple" (depending on how you count... ) - where does it play in?

I will suggest that there are more "hints" and even related warnings in Scripture than most have heard about from (to put it as kindly as possible) those 'teachers' who like to pick-and-choose from His Word. (Most here can name ONE obvious example; there are others.)

Since the point of this midrash is to ask questions, with the intent of enabling Bereans to 'connect the dots' on their own, a specific comment up front, for those that prefer not to confront the "lies we have inherited from our fathers." (Is that a pun in Jeremiah?)

Mark Call – Parsha “Pekudei” teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa

Join Mark Call of Shabbat Shalom Mesa fellowship for a two-part look at parsha ‘Pekudei,’ (Exodus 38:21 through the end of the Book) where the story of the Exodus essentially comes to a…

hebrewnationonline.com

Parsha “Pekudei” teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa | Come out of her, My people…

Nobody on BF that I can recall - certainly I have not! - is saying that 'catholics' (whether protesting or not) are "damned" or "going to hell" because they "add to" or "subtract from" what is actually Written in Scripture.

But, speaking only for myself, I AM saying - because He does, repeatedly - that if we do not OBEY Him, He may not BLESS us.

And given where we are in history, at minimum, His blessing could prove to be a very important thing.

 

[Bartato]

Didn't the abomination of desolation already happen in AD70 as predicted by Christ in His Oliver discourse? It also seems to have happened during the time of the Selucids/Macabees (as foretold by the prophet Daniel). There I go with my partial preterism.
Maybe it will happen again, I don't know for sure.

 

[Mark C]

Lots of things have been prophesied, have happened, and will happen again. (Which is yet again why I'm not a preterist.) As an engineer, I am a BIG believer in 'cycles.' His creation is based on 'em.

('The temple' for example, has already been destroyed twice, NOT counting the one that most agree in hindsight Yahushua was talking about w.r.t. "three days".)

There are only a few things (like Damascus) that are explicitly unique enough to claim they only happen, fer sure, once.

 

[MeganC]

Nobody on BF that I can recall - certainly I have not! - is saying that 'catholics' (whether protesting or not) are "damned" or "going to hell" because they "add to" or "subtract from" what is actually Written in Scripture.

Does it need to be said by anyone on BF when it was already stated by Jesus?

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
- John 14:6

No where did Jesus say you could only reach Him by praying to a bureaucracy of Saints and only if your message or prayer was approved by performing various rituals (the Rosary, novenas, penance, or by purchasing Papal Indulgences) could you expect Jesus, CEO of Heaven Incorporated, to take time out of His busy day to give your prayer or message any attention.

 

[FollowingHim]

But that wasn't the point made by @Mark C - he of all people was certainly not saying that catholics are right that you can ONLY come to Jesus through doing all that stuff. However, Jesus stated that we get to the Father through Him. Catholics - by which I mean the actually devout lay catholics who are truly trying to serve God - are turning to Jesus. They might have many things wrong, but they are genuinely trying to the best of their present understanding to turn to Him. If they are genuine, they will be saved, regardless of the degree to which they "add to or subtract from what is actually written in scripture" (as Mark said) in the many practices that surround their turn to Him. As will people who turn to Him through any other tradition.

However, there are further blessings for getting things right.

 

[Bartato]

I just came across another historic reference to "the abomination of desolation". Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem referred to the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and desecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by Caliph Omar in 637, following the battle of Yarmuk, as the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

 

[Bartato]

I just came across another historic reference to "the abomination of desolation". Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem referred to the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and desecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by Caliph Omar in 637 as the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Then again, what is the doctrine of antichrist?

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and such is the spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already it is in the world." 1 John 4:3 KJV

Islam is totally antichrist.

Others are as well, but Islam is totally antichrist.

 

[FollowingHim]

And so is Judaism, by the same exact definition.

 

[Mark C]

And so is Judaism, by the same exact definition.

Actually, no. At least not if you get the translation right. (What rabbinic Judaism DOES do is almost an exact CONVERSE of what Romanism does - they "add to", whereas the RCC excels at "subtracting from." And BOTH believe their own "law" supersedes Scripture!)

And, since we are in 'the ghetto' - I'll say it: (actually, admittedly, again, but more bluntly)

(And this has consistently been a BIG part of my message to Torah-observant jews, who appreciate the distinction.)

If "jesus" really "did away with the Torah" (as some, even much, of xtianity claims) then that one is in fact, "a liar and the truth is not in him." As I did in several recent teachings, I quote Paul in II Corinthians 11:4 on that point, as he also said in the first chapter of Galatians (twice!) that some are thus preaching "another jesus" (which I can argue is 'antichrist' too)

I can honestly confirm that a NUMBER of 'jews' have been willing to consider that the 'jesus' they got SOOOOO angry at and about is a very different entitity from the Salvation of Yah (Yahushua, literally) Who taught 'every yod and tiddle' of His Own Instruction as Written. Many are relieved not to be "condemned to hell" for pointing out why the one they got so much grief over isn't, and could NOT be, the Real Messiah after all.

Which then allows an informed discussion of what the rabbis got WRONG - and why the Real Messiah called 'em out for it.

 

[FollowingHim]

Actually, no. At least not if you get the translation right.

@Mark C, is not anyone who is anti-Christ, who rejects Christ, "antichrist"? And is not the fundamental distinction between Talmudic Judaism and Messianic Judaism that the former reject Christ and the latter accept him? What am I missing in the translation?

 

[steve]

Actually, no. At least not if you get the translation right. (What rabbinic Judaism DOES do is almost an exact CONVERSE of what Romanism does - they "add to", whereas the RCC excels at "subtracting from. And BOTH believe their own "law" supersedes Scripture!)

And, since we are in 'the ghetto' - I'll say it: (actually, admittedly, again, but more bluntly)

(And this has consistently been a BIG part of my message to Torah-observant jews, who appreciate the distinction.)

If "jesus" really "did away with the Torah" (as some, even much, of xtianity claims) then that one is in fact, "a liar and the truth is not in him." As I did in several recent teachings, I quote Paul in II Corinthians 11:4 on that point, as he also said in the first chapter of Galatians (twice!) that some are thus preaching "another jesus" (which I can argue is 'antichrist' too)

I can honestly confirm that a NUMBER of 'jews' have been willing to consider that the 'jesus' they got SOOOOO angry at and about is a very different entitity from the Salvation of Yah (Yahushua, literally) Who taught 'every yod and tiddle' of His Own Instruction as Written. Many are relieved not to be "condemned to hell" for pointing out why the one they got so much grief over isn't, and could NOT be, the Real Messiah after all.

Which then allows an informed discussion of what the rabbis got WRONG - and why the Real Messiah called 'em out for it.

So true, we have seen a couple of old hardline Jews accept Messiah when it was explained them that he didn’t come to replace Torah.
Headcovering, modest clothing and a submitted spirit were an assist.

 

[Mark C]

@Mark C, is not anyone who is anti-Christ, who rejects Christ, "antichrist"? And is not the fundamental distinction between Talmudic Judaism and Messianic Judaism that the former reject Christ and the latter accept him? What am I missing in the translation?

Which "christ"? Yahushua, Himself, said that (Matthew 24) there'd be a lot of people claiming "christ" but not to believe them. That they'd even "come in My Name," but WHICH name?

The big issue that I have - that many 'jews' have, and many 'messianics' - is Who He really is. And if some 'jesus' somehow "did away with the law" - then, I will contend - THAT is anti-the True-Messiah.

Tamudic, or rabbinic, variants will generally talk about "oral torah," or things the rabbis said were "law," that the Real Messiah said were "traditions," that "made the commandments of YHVH of no effect," and He called them 'Hypocrites" for "adding to" His own Word. (There is a sect of Judaism called 'Karaite' that believe His Written Torah, but reject the 'oral torah' of the rabbis. Many of them come to then claim that "Yeshua was a Karaite." I may not agree completely, but find them closer to Scripture than, say, folks who accept some 'pope' as the 'vicar of christ.')

I count myself among those who accept Him, but categorically reject what most call a 'christ' that can NOT in fact be the Real Messiah. That difference matters greatly. And it is why so many 'jews' that really do understand His Word reject that "another jesus," that Paul in fact, did NOT preach. They just don't hear that from the 'gentile church.'

 

[Bartato]

Which "christ"? Yahushua, Himself, said that (Matthew 24) there'd be a lot of people claiming "christ" but not to believe them. That they'd even "come in My Name," but WHICH name?

The big issue that I have - that many 'jews' have, and many 'messianics' - is Who He really is. And if some 'jesus' somehow "did away with the law" - then, I will contend - THAT is anti-the True-Messiah.

Tamudic, or rabbinic, variants will generally talk about "oral torah," or things the rabbis said were "law," that the Real Messiah said were "traditions," that "made the commandments of YHVH of no effect," and He called them 'Hypocrites" for "adding to" His own Word. (There is a sect of Judaism called 'Karaite' that believe His Written Torah, but reject the 'oral torah' of the rabbis. Many of them come to then claim that "Yeshua was a Karaite." I may not agree completely, but find them closer to Scripture than, say, folks who accept some 'pope' as the 'vicar of christ.')

I count myself among those who accept Him, but categorically reject what most call a 'christ' that can NOT in fact be the Real Messiah. That difference matters greatly. And it is why so many 'jews' that really do understand His Word reject that "another jesus," that Paul in fact, did NOT preach. They just don't hear that from the 'gentile church.'

I think you and @FollowingHim might be talking past each other.

FollowingHim is accurately pointing out that Jews who reject the actual Son of God are antichrist just like Muslims.

I think you are saying that the mainstream church portrays an inaccurate understanding of Christ, and that some Jews reject the mainstream understanding of Christ, not necessarily the Messiah Himself.

 

[Bartato]

And so is Judaism, by the same exact definition.

Yes

 

[FollowingHim]

@Bartato has summarised that correctly @Mark C. Obviously Jews reject Messiah because of the way He has been historically presented by the church - but regardless of the reasoning, they still reject Messiah. There is only one true Messiah (however he may be misrepresented), and they reject Him.

 

[Mark C]

@Bartato has summarised that correctly @Mark C. Obviously Jews reject Messiah because of the way He has been historically presented by the church - but regardless of the reasoning, they still reject Messiah. There is only one true Messiah (however he may be misrepresented), and they reject Him.

Agreed. And we're not really 'talking past each other' (but I find the discussion quite valuable, and helpful I hope to others who have not seen the distinction.)

To that point that, in my experience, this may be quite an understatement:

I think you are saying that the mainstream church portrays an inaccurate understanding of Christ, and that some Jews reject the mainstream understanding of Christ, not necessarily the Messiah Himself.

I know many that reject what they have been told (and condemned for) not only vehemently, but to the point that the REAL barrier I have faced more times than I can count, is to START by trying to show them that the Messiah I know (and that they have studied and await!!!!) is utterly different that what they have so often been 'force-fed' - even to the point of making clear that "His mama NEVER called Him 'jesus'."

FollowingHim is accurately pointing out that Jews who reject the actual Son of God are antichrist just like Muslims.

And I will also point out that (again, as Paul did! - see Galatians 1:6-10) that such a definition also applies to far too much of 'mainstream christianity.'

To paraphrase Bartato, I am pointing out that "such 'christ-ians' who reject the actual Son of Elohim are 'anti-messiah'...
just like He Himself said.

Terminology, and 'the Name' (as given, I note, since it does have meaning) are important, but not the real issue. His character is, and whether or not he 'lied' and changed His mind, and His Instruction.

Here's where such a distinction is helpful. (Note: I frequently refer to BOTH the 'whore church' and 'whore synagogue' - BOTH in exile for rebellion/idolatry/adultery, which continues:

And so is Judaism, by the same exact definition. (comment: Yes)

Correct, but with that caveat. (there are 'sects' and denominations within both houses.)

Read "Constantine's Sword" a 2001 history by James Carroll, which does an excellent job of outlining SOME of the historic animosity between those two whoring wives (although, he doesn't see THAT element!) I saw in that framework aspects described in Scripture via the 'two wives' understanding that flush out the rest. "Rabbinic" Judaism accepts (and I had a long discussion years ago on this very topic with a famous American rabbi, and friend, who openly acknowledged that truth) that a 'majority of rabbis have the authority' to over-ride "HaShem Himself." Likewise, the Roman catholic church claims authority based on "apostolic succession" and the popes to not only change "His Law" but to prevent 'laity' from even being allowed to read it for themselves, with a 'priest to interpret it' for them.

BOTH still claim 'authority' (allegedly from Him) to rule OVER Him! In neither case, is that a 'wife' ready to submit to her 'husband'.

 

[Bartato]

@Mark C ,
Is there a there a textual basis in the New Testament for your assertion that there is a "whore church" and that she is currently in exile? I specify New Testament since that is where we see the Church.

I understand there are many people who say "Lord Lord" to Christ but don't actually follow Him. I know there are also false teachers who lead many astray.

Immature, ignorant, weak, bad, and even fake and hypocritical Christians are a problem, but that seems to be a separate issue than what John is talking about with the word "antichrist". According to John, the antichrist spirit denies that Ἰησοῦς, the Son of God, has come in the flesh.

Muslims and Jews who reject Ἰησοῦς are therefore antichrist, while misguided or fake Christians are displease the Lord in a different way.

 

[Mark C]

Is there a there a textual basis in the New Testament for your assertion that there is a "whore church" and that she is currently in exile? I specify New Testament since that is where we see the Church.

"The Church" which selected 'canonization' and demonstrably edited elements that threaten that self-designation doesn't generally like to include descriptions that allude even indirectly to whoredom...

 

[Michael Moon]

The real church is the ekklesia. The assembly. Which is referenced numerous times in the Old Testament.

Many say they are Christians yet in the end He will say "I never knew you". So perhaps they aren't Anti-Christ" in spirit, but they still teach and serve "Another Christ" which is just as bad, if not worse.

 

[Mark C]

Immature, ignorant, weak, bad, and even fake and hypocritical Christians are a problem, but that seems to be a separate issue than what John is talking about with the word "antichrist". According to John, the antichrist spirit denies that Ἰησοῦς, the Son of God, has come in the flesh.

IFF, and I believe it was, Yochanan (John) heard directly from his ascended brother in the language they used (Hebrew and Aramaic) would have thought in terms of, and - I suggest - used non-Greek terms like the equivalent "anti-MESSIAH" or 'antithetical to the Salvation of Yah'. Can I prove that from Greek-only texts? No. But can make the case. (As have many others...)

BTW, terms like "Ruach HaKodesh" (etc) help make that point. Used repeatedly (and in similar variants) they appear throughout the 'TNKH' but are all changed in the Greek renderings.