Reply By: little-whipPosted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 Citizen)KFC Kickin For ChristMay 8, 2007 18:24:35Reply #76 OMG Lula, "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain." Doesn't 'OMG' qualify?

No.

I say "oh my Gosh" all the time. Maybe some may say it's a substitute for the other. If that is the criteria for using the name of the Lord in Vain, I would be guilty but I don't think it is. If I am guilty, than I thank God that he's wiped all my sins away and nailed them to the cross, past, present and future.

I think using God's name in Vain is not so much the vulgarity that is often used (but could also be included) but the fact that you are representing God when in fact you are not.

For instance, some may say they come in the name of the Lord or they have a word from the Lord, etc when in fact they have no such thing.

If we are speaking for God or using his words to help another, we'd better not be using it in vain. Many use it for monetary gain and I definitely think that's using God's name in vain.

That's how I believe "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in Vain" means.

KFC POSTS:



Just for interest sake, I'll quote Daniel 9:26 from 3 different Bibles.

Douay Rheims has Daniel 9:26, "And after 62 weeks, Christ shall be slain: and the people who deny Him shall not be His. And a people with their leader shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the war the appointed desolation."

Same verse 26 from the NAB, New American Bible, "After the 62 weeks, an anointed shall be cut down when he does not possess the city; and the people of a leader who will come shall destroy the sanctuary. The end shall come like a torrent; until the end there shall be war, the desolation that is decreed."

Same verse 26 from the King James Bible, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."


KFC, my answer to your question is the "prince" or "leader" is the Romans under Titus when they beseiged Jerusalem.

Just as Daniel predicted, Nero declared war in February of 67AD and by April of 70AD, the son of Vespasian, General Titus, had tightened the noose of the final seige of Jerusalem. The Roman army had come from the North just as Ezekiel 38 and 39 predicted. In August of 70AD, the Temple of Jerusalem fell before Titus' Roman Army. The Temple was torched and taken apart piece by piece. The destruction of the Temple was the end of biblical Judaism as rabbis of today will attest Is. 2:2-5,56. (Right, MM---or am I putting you on the spot?)

Again, as Daniel prophesied, Nero declared war in Feb.67AD and Jerusalem's Temple fell in Aug. of 70AD. The Jewish-Roman War lasted 42 months, precisely 3 and one-half years. Jerusalem was to "be given into his hand for a time, two times and half a time".

The NAB footnote has "the anointed" as being the high priest Onias III, and "the prince" or "leader" as being Antiochus IV. Those who want to date the writing of Daniel's vision late would then apply this vision to Antiochus.

I keep in mind that Daniel has given us lots of detail concerning God's kingdom here on earth. From his first statue vision we know it would occur during the time of the Roman Empire. He predicted specific events around Nero, his murder of rivals, his egomania, blashphemy, and his hatred for the Law of God. He even predicted the Jewish-Roman War would last for 3 and one half years. So, Daniel's vision here was fulfilled during the fourth empire of Rome.

Honest and true, Daniel has already been fulfilled, KFC! Remember the lifetime of the Sanhedrin overlaps the time frame of this vision in Daniel? Daniel has been describing the little horn which symbolizes Nero during the time of the Roman Empire.




St. Matt 24:15 is when the disciples ask Jesus questions about the signs of His Second Coming and the consummation of the end of the world. Jesus answers,
"When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place: he that readeth, let him understand. Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains." St. Matt 24:15-16

The signs (8 in all) are preliminary warnings to Christians living at the time of the destruction of the Temple. The "abomination of desolation" is the last sign.

In checking the Latin and Greek use of the word “abomination of desolation”, I found that the phrase used only here in St.Matt 24:15 and in St.Mark 13:14 are in the neuter gender, which implies the abomination doesn't necessarily refer to a person, but to an event. Other uses of abomination appear in St.Luke 16:15, Apoc. 17:4, 5; 21:27; while ‘desolation” appears only in St.Luke 21:20. Daniel has 3 places where similiar phrases appear: 7:27, 11:31, and 12:11. These denote intense desolation.

St.Luke gives the answer to your question, KFC. “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by the armies, then know that its desolation has come near.”
So, what Jesus told His disciples was actually a prediction of what would happen in the future. That those Christians in Judea should flee to the mountains immediately when they observed the desolating abomination of Daniel, which St.Luke identifies as armies surrounding Jerusalem.

Jesus’ teaching must have affronted the Jewish leaders of the day. The scholars had taught that Daniel's desolation had been fulfilled in 167 BC by Antiochus and there would never be another abomination of the Temple. St.Jerome pointed out (and this might be what you were getting at when you asked me how long Antiochus was ‘doing his thing’, the desolation of Antiochus in the 2nd century BC lasted only for 3 years, not the 3 and one half years that Daniel specifically predicted.

The phrase "let him understand" refers to the one who reads Daniel's prophecy in order to understand the nature of the abomination. According to all 3 references of the Abomination in Daniel, it is a time when sacrifice and offering cease or the continual sacrifice is replaced. A lot about this in Numbers.

The phrase "he who readeth" here St. Matthew is also indicating that similar events could take place at any time after his writing and be applicable to anyone who is reading the words he wrote. So, applying the Abomination spoken of in Daniel to the exploits of Antiochus recorded in 1Mach. 1:57; 6:7 and Dan.11:31, would also allow the Abomination to be applied to a future event, for example, as we have seen, the then coming Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

What we can take from all this is that the Abominations has multiple applications and it seems to me would apply to the future as in 2Thess. 2: 1-9.

I'm so slow I didn't even know what that stood for   It took me quite a while to figure out "btw" , and I still don't know what "lol" means.   Anyone want to clue me in?

think using God's name in Vain is not so much the vulgarity that is often used (but could also be included) but the fact that you are representing God when in fact you are not. For instance, some may say they come in the name of the Lord or they have a word from the Lord, etc when in fact they have no such thing.

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007

 

Now this is interesting and something I can comment on. Many times I have seen Evangelist 'CLAIM' TO BE DOING THE lords work, when all I see is them enriching themselves, like the reverend Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Benny Hinn and I am sure you guys can name many more people that 'claim to be doing the word of GOD' yet drive around in new cars fly private jets, a long cry from when Jesus went barefoot and broke depending on the charity of others for his very food and shelter.

This is the Preterist view that Lula believes in as well. I understand the view. This view wasn't even a view until 1614. Yes, there were abominations like Epiphanes and the destruction of the temple. Yes, Christ was talking about both in Matt 24 and in Luke 21. Some was immediate future (70AD) and some was far off future (tribulation). That's where the confusion comes in.

The futurist view and the one I hold is held by many thru the centuries and is pretty much a standard for most fundamentalists or evangelicals today. You brought up a good section in 2 Thess 2:1-9 LW. Here Paul was calming them down as they were thinking they missed the rapture of the church being spead about by false teachers.

There was certain criteria that had to happen first. He said this:

"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 exalth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped so that he as God sits in the temple of God showing himself that he is God."

This is who I'm talking about. This is whom we believe Christ is talking about in Matthew 24:15. He comes in much the same way as Epiphanes earlier. This had not happened yet in Paul's day. This does not speak of 70AD. First of all, the church was just getting started, so the "falling away" doesn't fit here. Also this man has not yet been revealed and has not yet sat in the temple showing himself as God. How does this fit in 70AD with Titus coming in and razing all of Jerusalem?

The Gk prefix "anti" has two meanings: against and instead of. Satan not only opposes Christ but wants to be worhipped and obeyed INSTEAD of Christ. Satan has always wanted to be worshipped and served as God (Isa 14:14). He will one day produce his masterpiece, the AC who will cause the world to worship Satan and believe Satan's lies.

The main facts give us the following description of AC in the last days:

1. The peacemaker -Rev 6:1-2.
2. The protector- Dan 9:24-27 (this is not Antiochus Ephiphanes)
3. The peace-breaker-Dan 9:27
4. The persecutor- Rev 13:15-17
5. The prisoner Rev 19-11-21

Going back to Dan 9:24-27 (from the futurist view) some things to keep in mind that are important. First the prophecy applies to Israel, Jerusalem and the temple and NOT to the church. Second the word week refers to a period of 7 yrs so 70 weeks are equal to 490 yrs. These 490 yrs are divided into three parts. The first seven weeks were 49 yrs it took to rebuild the city and temple after the Babylonian captivity. We read about this in Nehemiah and Ezra. Then 62 weeks later or 434 yrs the Messiah would be cut off (crucified). The 70 sevens begins with the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem by Artaxes given in 445 BC (Neh 2:5) The public square and moat were rebuilt by the time the first 7 weeks (49 yrs) were completed. The next 62 weeks starts then with the competion of the city and temple and end when Jesus came into Jerusalem to offer himself up to die.

Notice two princes are involved here. Christ (Dan 9:25) and AC "the prince that shall come" (9:26). The people of the prince that shall come are the Romans; for it was they who destroyed the city and the temple (we're in agreement here LW). The coming AC will belong to a nation that was part of the Old Roman Empire.

Not that there is a parenthesis between the 69th week and the 70th week. We are now living in that parenthesis. The 70th week will start with the arrival of the AC (and the reason why Christ has not returned yet). He will make a covenant with Israel to protect her and permit her to rebuild her temple. This covenant will be for 7 years. It will be peaceful times. It is the signing of this covenant that signals the start of Daniel's 70th week.

After 3 1/2 yrs the AC will break his covenant with the Jews and take over their temple. He will demand worship of himself (Rev 13) and the "abomination of desolation" that Christ told about.

Notice what Jesus said after Matt 24:15 and this is important "For then shall be great tribulation such as wwas not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Now the preterist would point to 70AD on this. Yes it was bad. Yes it was tribulation but not like what's about to happen. Notice also as you keep reading...he says...."immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sn be darkened and the moon shall not give her light and the stars shall fall from heaven and powers of the heavesn shall be shaken. AND THEN shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven 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. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds from one end of heave to the other."

This DID NOT happen in 70 AD. This is the end of the 70th week of Daniel that starts with the signing of a peace treaty with Israel that has not happened yet.

That's why I believe in the futurist view and not the preterist view. So for anyone to decide they can look at both the Preterist View and The Futurist View and decide for themselves.

EXACTLY. This is where discernment comes in. Compare your above mentioned to Moses, Elijah, Noah, Jeremiah and the rest.

EXACTLY. This is where discernment comes in. Compare your above mentioned to Moses, Elijah, Noah, Jeremiah and the rest.

Reply By: KFC Kickin For ChristPosted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007

there is no comparrison, greed drives the ones I listed, passion for GOD is what drove the ones you listed.

one other thing that I wanted to bring up but just looking at Daniel 9:24 only.

Here's the verse: "Seventy weeks are determined upon THY people and upon THY holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the most Holy."

Notice three things are related to sin.

1. "to finish the transgression"
2. "to make an end of sins"
3. "to make reconciliation for iniquity"

Notice three things related to righteousness

1. "to bring in everlasting righteousness"
2. "to seal up the vision and prophecy"
3. "to anoint the most Holy."

This period of 490 yrs concerns THY PEOPLE (Jews) and THY HOLY CITY (Jerusalem). Since he's talking to the Jews (not the church) to finish the transgression is to end the apostasy of the Jews. To make reconciliation for iniquity refers to the death of Christ on the cross which is the basis for Israel's future forgiveness (Zech 12:10, Romans 11:26-27) and to bring in everlasting righteousness is speaking of the millennial kingdom of the Messiah (Jer 23:5-6). To seal up the vision and prophecy is to set God's seal of fulfillment on all the prophecies concerning the Jews and Jerusalem.

The Preterist viewpoint seeks to end God's favor of the Jews. There is no end of Judaism as Lula has said. He made it perfectly clear in lots of places he's not done with them yet. Paul said this for instance:

"I would not brethren (Gentile Christians) that you should be ignorant of this mystery lest you should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant to them when I shall take away their sins (Jeremiah 31:31)." Romans 11:25-27.

correction:

Post #87 I directed to LW and it should have been directed at Lula. I mistook Lula's posting for LW. My mistake. I couldn't go in to edit it.

Lula: LOL means "laughing out loud." At least in my book of net definitions....lol.

Thanks FKC, now I know. I thought it meant "love of life". My mom always use to say that to us (I'm one of 9) usually when she was annoyed, frustrated or exasperated. She'd say, oh, for the love of life, blah, blah, .....

Reply By: KFC Kickin For ChristPosted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 correction: Post #87 I directed to LW and it should have been directed at Lula. I mistook Lula's posting for LW. My mistake. I couldn't go in to edit it. Lula: means "laughing out loud." At least in my book of net definitions....lol.

sorry about that, this goes into my article called MM bitches about joeuser.

Reply By: lulapilgrimPosted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 Lula: means "laughing out loud." At least in my book of net definitions....lol.

and here I thought it meant "lemmings ona LOG. heh heh heh

come on lula and KFc another back and forth three more exchanges and I hit 100 replies a cherished number here.

Honestly, KFC, I don't know quite what to make of these silly assertions of yours. re: The Preterist viewpoint seeks to end God's favor of the Jews.

Evidently you missed reading the part of my reply #72 in which I specifically stated how I think God will favor the Jews in the last days. Here is what I wrote...notice it's the same Scripture as you quote only I add v. 28-29.

---The Jewish people will come to recognize Jesus Christ as their Messiah before He returns. See Romans 11: 25-29. We don’t know when or under what circumstances this will happen.

The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until His recognition by "all Israel", for a "hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their 'unbelief' toward Jesus Rom 11: 20-26; St. Matt 23: 39. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: 'Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." Acts 3: 19-21. St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" Rom 11: 15.

The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles" Rom 11:12,25; St.Luke 21:24 will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," in which "God may be all in all." Eph 4: 13; 1Cor 15: 28.

V. 28-29, "As concerning the Gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the call of God are without repentance."

V. 28 is easy to understand. V. 29 means God never goes back on anything He promises, therefore He continues to call the Jews to enter the chosen people. He does not take account of their disobedience or their sins. He will love them with and everlasting love as He promised the Patriarchs and in line with the merits accruing to them for their fidelty. Rom.9:4-5. It is this very immutability of God's love that makes it possible for "all Israel" v. 26 to be saved. God's calling, which is eternal, cannot cease, but we for our part can reject His call. This immutability of God's plan is reassuring to us. It means that even if we abandon Him at any point, we can always return to our earlier fidelity. He is still there waiting for us.

KFC, You said, "There is no end of Judaism as Lula has said."

I agree with this, KFC, however,that's not what I said. Please re-read replies #78 and 84 and you will see that I said, "biblical Judaism". There is a mighty big difference between Judaism and biblical Judaism. The former is still happening and the latter is gone forever.

# 78---"He" is Christ. Christ "shall confirm the covenant" means the beginning of the New Covenant was at the moment of the Crucification when the Temple veil was rent from top to bottom meant an end to biblical Judaism of the Old Covenant. Almighty God was making it known that the ceremonies, rites, and animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant were to be abolished by Christ and also that heaven should be open to everyone.

# 84---The destruction of the Temple was the end of biblical Judaism as rabbis of today will attest Is. 2:2-5,56.

The ancient Temple ceremonies, rites, rituals, and animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law under the Old Covenant, although they were suited for divine worship at the time, since the time of Our Lord's death on the Cross, being abolished, now count for nothing, confer no grace and have no salvific power. The destruction of the Temple in 70AD was the end of Biblical Judaism.

KFC, what does what St.Paul tells the Galatians 3:10 mean to you? Would you explain Galatians 2:21 to me?