Damon,
It seems very convenient to have a rare mental disability that enables you to see the truth that reasonable, inumpaired people cannot see, which prevents you from being able to answer challenges, and which exempts you from having to agree with scripture in order to be correct. However, it is the commitment of those at this forum to search the scriptures for answers. We didn't count on someone with the gift if omniscience showing up to trump all biblical considerations. Nor do we have any reason to recognize you as such. Having read so many of your posts, I confess that I'm still looking for a reason not to think you are like the man who "is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason" (Prov.26:16). If we all had the same high view of your superiority that you seem to have, your present approach might get somewhere with us. However, some of us don't share this assessment.
You write:
"What I was asking you to do is to consider living with the apparent contradiction between what you believe and the archaeological evidence showing that First Temple artifacts have been preserved for a God-inspired purpose."[emphasis mine]
There is no contradiction between anything that I believe and the fact that some Jews have preserved temple paraphenalia, which may now have been located. Nothing in my beliefs stands against the possibility of their having done this. It is the "God-inspired purpose" behind this which I do not acknowledge, but nothing in the finds can demonstrate that such a divine purpose stands behind this preservation, any more than the finding of Hamurabi's code proves that it was preserved for divine purposes to be discovered in the last days so that Babylon could be reestablished (I have never heard anyone suggest this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Jack van Impe picks it up from this forum and runs with it!).
The alleged "purpose" of the preservation of temple articles must remain a matter of opinion, whatever the finds include. My opinion is based upon canonical documents that tell me there is no future "divine purpose" for the temple cultus.
We are at an impasse in this discussion for the very reasons I gave in my last post. I identified three obstacles for you to overcome. You claim to be addressing the first, but admit that the second and third are beyond your interest right now. Ironically, you failed to overcome even the first obstacle, so you are done.
As long as you believe that you see things more clearly than does everyone else, and that you have no need to interact with scripture in order to know what God has on His mind, I suggest you find another forum of a different type than this one to make your contributions.
In case you didn't notice, this is a "Bible forum." The people who write here make reference to the Bible as the authority. When challenged upon a biblical point, they are expected to attempt to make a biblical response. So far, you have protested against my appealing to scripture (both Jeremiah and the New Testament), but you have not interacted with any scriptural point that I or others have brought up.
You say you were "angry" and "frustrated" because I " brought up a biblical passage to try to contradict the archaeological evidence"! If there is a biblical passage that contradicts other sources (archaeological or otherwise), the Bible carries more authority than all others. But what archaeological evidence did I contradict? I cited Jeremiah to address the significance (or lack thereof) of the ark of the covenant today. Archaeology has not dug up anything that proves a different view of this significance. Even if they found the ark itself, this would not establish any theory of its significance above any other theory. What is it about this that you find difficult to understand?
If my citation of a canonical prophet contradicted anything, it contradicted the implications of an artifact which is non-canonical, claiming to be signed by known Old Testament prophets. Since Jeremiah's authenticity is questioned by no credible scholar, and this new artifact has yet to prove its genuineness, I don't think you have grounds for getting angry at my placing Jeremiah in juxtaposition with Indiana Jones, and favoring the former. Over the months at this forum, you have repeatedly shown a similar attitude of disrespect for scripture, and impatience with those who cite the Bible as a higher authority than you.
Nor do you use scripture to establish your theses. When we ask for such support for your views, we more often hear of your personal revelations and superior capacity to grasp esoteric truths. To our requests that you defend your position scripturally, you say that your position does indeed appear to contradict scripture, but (we are assured) this is due to the incapacity of the rest of us to grasp the deep things that you alone know, and which you can't share with us just yet, because of our collective diminished capacity..
I think your posts would do better at a site where people are not looking to the scriptures for answers. PLease take your "higher gnosis" elsewhere. This site is for contrite people who actually tremble at the Word of God. You are obviously nowhere near that point.
I don't care to see any new posts from you for a month. If any appear, they will be deleted. See if you can, in a month's time, learn to show some respect for the Word of God, instead of wasting our valuable time and space with your ludicrous assertions of how superior you are to the rest of us. You're out, Bro. That's strike three. One month. Return in dust and ashes, or not at all.
Ark of the Covenant
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Perhaps the rediscovery of the arc might be a very very bad thing. Knowing the weakness of the flesh, it would probabably fill in very well for a certain golden calf. We would also have dispensationalism on steroids!
Prophecy is best understood when it has been fulfilled.
In Christ, Homer
Prophecy is best understood when it has been fulfilled.
In Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Quite so, Homer. I think you are right.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Thank you, Steve. I just couldn't understand why the person would not engage the Scriptures on the subjet. Frankly, it was like listening to a Mormon trying to convince me to feel the burning in the bosom. At least Mormons engage Scripture.
Homer- ha! That was funny. It made me consider the way many Christians were carrying on about Judge Roy Moore's 10 commandments rock. Watching people lug it around was, well, amusing to me (politics aside).
Blessings guys,
JD
Homer- ha! That was funny. It made me consider the way many Christians were carrying on about Judge Roy Moore's 10 commandments rock. Watching people lug it around was, well, amusing to me (politics aside).
Blessings guys,
JD
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I emailed Steve privately and so far, he's given me permission to post one final reply to this thread - without deleting it, that is. Because of what JD posted, I've decided to take him up on that offer.
I told Steve that I didn't believe that addressing the Scriptures would do any good at all, and I told him the reasons why. I simply don't think that trying to explain these things now will make any difference. I think it will make the issues even cloudier than they already are, in fact. However, I did offer to go over the Scriptures anyway if that's what Steve wants. We'll see if he accepts that and unbans me.
JD, you yourself made my point for me. You said that you simply couldn't understand why I wouldn't go through the Scriptures. But even if I did, that still wouldn't be enough to convince you, Steve or anyone else. I don't claim to have some "gnosis" (a Greek term which means secret knowledge which leads one to salvation) of the Ark or about related subjects which has any bearing on anyone's salvation, and I never did. But it won't matter one whit whether I share what I know or not. It won't resolve the doctrinal differences we're having now.
I reminded Steve - since I've posted about it on this forum before - that I've had to learn when to quit an argument, because it won't go anywhere. See, I grew up in a household where my parents had two totally different religious perspectives, and there was no reconciling the two of them at all. I could try to convince the one or the other where I felt that they weren't accurate in their beliefs, but it did no good, no matter how many bible passages I brought to bear on whatever the subject might have been. Furthermore, all it did was stir up animosity in the family, and I'm just tired of living with that kind of animosity.
I don't expect anyone here to really know how I feel, or even care. They haven't walked in my shoes, and I doubt that they've had to deal with coming to terms with opposite religious perspectives in their lives like I have. I've had enough doctrinal wrangling to last a lifetime, and I didn't join this forum to continue that kind of wrangling which inexorably leads nowhere. I came here to be able to share and fellowship with the other people here, while learning what I can from them as well, in as much peace and harmony as possible. That's all I've ever wanted.
Again, if I need to go through the Scriptures to demonstrate why I believe the way that I do, I'll do so. But I already know in advance that it won't go anywhere, and that none of us will really benefit from it.
Like I told Steve privately, I believe that circumstances and events will come about which will make doctrinal wrangling like this a moot issue, so that we won't have to argue. If everyone is willing to wait until that time, then so much the better. But if not, and if we have to hash things out now, I'm willing to accept that.
There's one final point I'd like to bring up, as an example of what I'm talking about. My dad is Catholic, and firmly believes that when the Pope speaks "ex post cathedra" - a reference to making authoritative pronouncements concerning doctrine, faith or morals - that's just the way it is and there ain't no arguing that can change it. I tried telling my dad once that according to the Didache, in the first century AD most of the local congregations were led by prophets who had the authority to make pronouncements concerning doctrine, faith or morals...the local congregation in Rome included! But nevertheless, I said that the Pope today isn't a prophet. So the Catholic Church correctly preserved the understanding of making such authoritative pronouncements, but without grasping where it came from or why it cannot be applied unless the Pope is also a prophet. Naturally, he refused to buy it.
One day, I believe that a Pope will be chosen who will be a prophet, and who will straighten this out once and for all. I'm sure my dad will take his word for it then. But in the meantime, my dad won't believe me or think that I have any insight whatsoever on the issue.
That's what honestly I feel the case is here, regarding the Ark and the Temple treasures. I'm willing to let circumstances and events demonstrate who is in the right and who needs to modify their beliefs, no matter who ends up being right. I have no ego invested in the issue. That's why I'd prefer not to argue about it now, even if people think me illogical, stupid or even heretical.
I hope that makes sense, and I hope that people can respect my feelings on this.
Damon
I told Steve that I didn't believe that addressing the Scriptures would do any good at all, and I told him the reasons why. I simply don't think that trying to explain these things now will make any difference. I think it will make the issues even cloudier than they already are, in fact. However, I did offer to go over the Scriptures anyway if that's what Steve wants. We'll see if he accepts that and unbans me.
JD, you yourself made my point for me. You said that you simply couldn't understand why I wouldn't go through the Scriptures. But even if I did, that still wouldn't be enough to convince you, Steve or anyone else. I don't claim to have some "gnosis" (a Greek term which means secret knowledge which leads one to salvation) of the Ark or about related subjects which has any bearing on anyone's salvation, and I never did. But it won't matter one whit whether I share what I know or not. It won't resolve the doctrinal differences we're having now.
I reminded Steve - since I've posted about it on this forum before - that I've had to learn when to quit an argument, because it won't go anywhere. See, I grew up in a household where my parents had two totally different religious perspectives, and there was no reconciling the two of them at all. I could try to convince the one or the other where I felt that they weren't accurate in their beliefs, but it did no good, no matter how many bible passages I brought to bear on whatever the subject might have been. Furthermore, all it did was stir up animosity in the family, and I'm just tired of living with that kind of animosity.
I don't expect anyone here to really know how I feel, or even care. They haven't walked in my shoes, and I doubt that they've had to deal with coming to terms with opposite religious perspectives in their lives like I have. I've had enough doctrinal wrangling to last a lifetime, and I didn't join this forum to continue that kind of wrangling which inexorably leads nowhere. I came here to be able to share and fellowship with the other people here, while learning what I can from them as well, in as much peace and harmony as possible. That's all I've ever wanted.
Again, if I need to go through the Scriptures to demonstrate why I believe the way that I do, I'll do so. But I already know in advance that it won't go anywhere, and that none of us will really benefit from it.
Like I told Steve privately, I believe that circumstances and events will come about which will make doctrinal wrangling like this a moot issue, so that we won't have to argue. If everyone is willing to wait until that time, then so much the better. But if not, and if we have to hash things out now, I'm willing to accept that.
There's one final point I'd like to bring up, as an example of what I'm talking about. My dad is Catholic, and firmly believes that when the Pope speaks "ex post cathedra" - a reference to making authoritative pronouncements concerning doctrine, faith or morals - that's just the way it is and there ain't no arguing that can change it. I tried telling my dad once that according to the Didache, in the first century AD most of the local congregations were led by prophets who had the authority to make pronouncements concerning doctrine, faith or morals...the local congregation in Rome included! But nevertheless, I said that the Pope today isn't a prophet. So the Catholic Church correctly preserved the understanding of making such authoritative pronouncements, but without grasping where it came from or why it cannot be applied unless the Pope is also a prophet. Naturally, he refused to buy it.
One day, I believe that a Pope will be chosen who will be a prophet, and who will straighten this out once and for all. I'm sure my dad will take his word for it then. But in the meantime, my dad won't believe me or think that I have any insight whatsoever on the issue.
That's what honestly I feel the case is here, regarding the Ark and the Temple treasures. I'm willing to let circumstances and events demonstrate who is in the right and who needs to modify their beliefs, no matter who ends up being right. I have no ego invested in the issue. That's why I'd prefer not to argue about it now, even if people think me illogical, stupid or even heretical.
I hope that makes sense, and I hope that people can respect my feelings on this.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Thank you, JD, but I still think the most important thing to learn from all of this is to just grasp the principle of not underestimating the importance of something even if we can't see how or why it's important, as per my May 20th reply.
I think I should hold off replying any further unless Steve gives me permission, though. That's still up to him.
Damon
I think I should hold off replying any further unless Steve gives me permission, though. That's still up to him.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Since it's been exactly a month - so I can post again - and since the fact that I dislike arguing what are apparently very difficult Scriptural passages seems to matter not one whit to Steve, I'm going to go over said difficult Scriptural passages anyway. If you want a point-by-point examination of the Scriptural details in connection with this discussion, then here you go.
My contention is that the Temple isn't "out of date" or relegated to insignificance because of the New Covenant. Rather, the Temple and its treasures - including the Ark of the Covenant - will show up again on the stage of history. Furthermore, they will have biblical significance and will be established in accordance with God's will and not outside of it.
The first point that I'd like to bring up in defense of this is that of the purification of the Levites in Malachi 4. Steve and I discussed this at one point but the issue was never resolved. So, I open this up to the forum. What do you all think?
Briefly, the issue is this. Steve claims that the Levites who are purified in Malachi 3:3 are spiritual rather than physical Levites, and that this has nothing to do with the rebuilding of the Temple in the end time. However, I pointed out that the Levites are being purified because they formerly offered polluted offerings to God (see Mal. 1:7 and 2:1). How could the Gentiles who are called into the Body of Christ, spiritually referred to as Levites (a-la Isa. 60:18-21), have formerly offered any sort of offerings to God if they weren't even worshipping God?
Therefore, my contention is that this passage is primarily talking about purifying physical Levites for Temple service, and in addition to, rather than in lieu of, whatever its New Covenant spiritual significance might be.
The second point that I'd like to address is Jeremiah 3:16-17 which implies that the Ark of the Covenant won't have any future significance.
First of all, what's the context of this passage? The context is the separation of the northern ten tribes of Israel from the southern tribes of Judah. The people are being told to "proclaim towards the north" - which is the direction that northern Israel went into captivity - that they should repent and return to God. Why? Because God is still married to them! Hosea 1-2 points out that God divorced northern Israel for their wickedness, but here God is saying that He still considers Himself to be married to exiled Israel. With that in mind, consider what the Ark represented. The Ark was what held the 'marriage contract' between God and Israel - the Ten Commandments! So if Jeremiah was saying that the northern tribes of Israel would have no need to remember it any more, what Jeremiah meant was that the marriage contract wouldn't be written on tablets of stone any more, but rather the "tablets" of Israel's hearts! (Jer. 31:31-34) However, that doesn't mean that the Ark itself would have no meaning, even in the New Covenant era.
The significance of the Ark - for instance, in Revelation 11:19, which is long after what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 3:16 - is of a testimony to the fact that historically, Israel made a covenant with God. God never broke His end of the bargain, but Israel broke hers. Because physical Israel is still important to God, then the historical proof of God's original covenant is likewise still important. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with turning back to the Old Covenant rituals in order to be acceptable before God, which is what many people on this forum apparently think I've been claiming.
Even so, because people will tend to reject the rebuilding of the Temple and the return of the Temple treasures out of hand because they can't see how it squares with the New Covenant, I believe that God will provide some very dramatic proof that these things still are relevant. If the Ark of the Covenant is returned to Jerusalem and the glory of God appears as a pillar of fire on the Mercy Seat on top of the Ark, then these things are still relevant. If it doesn't, then they aren't. But in the end, God will be the one to settle the argument, not us.
That's what I meant about circumstances bringing about a resolution to this argument, so that human egos don't enter into the equation.
As far as arguing archaeology, etc., goes, I still find it very hard to believe that we see the facts differently, but apparently we do. Opinions and biblical interpretations are one thing, but the facts are quite another. But since we appear to be at odds where even the facts themselves are concerned, then fine, I won't argue the facts with you any more. I'll stick to questions of biblical interpretation.
Damon
My contention is that the Temple isn't "out of date" or relegated to insignificance because of the New Covenant. Rather, the Temple and its treasures - including the Ark of the Covenant - will show up again on the stage of history. Furthermore, they will have biblical significance and will be established in accordance with God's will and not outside of it.
The first point that I'd like to bring up in defense of this is that of the purification of the Levites in Malachi 4. Steve and I discussed this at one point but the issue was never resolved. So, I open this up to the forum. What do you all think?
Briefly, the issue is this. Steve claims that the Levites who are purified in Malachi 3:3 are spiritual rather than physical Levites, and that this has nothing to do with the rebuilding of the Temple in the end time. However, I pointed out that the Levites are being purified because they formerly offered polluted offerings to God (see Mal. 1:7 and 2:1). How could the Gentiles who are called into the Body of Christ, spiritually referred to as Levites (a-la Isa. 60:18-21), have formerly offered any sort of offerings to God if they weren't even worshipping God?
Therefore, my contention is that this passage is primarily talking about purifying physical Levites for Temple service, and in addition to, rather than in lieu of, whatever its New Covenant spiritual significance might be.
The second point that I'd like to address is Jeremiah 3:16-17 which implies that the Ark of the Covenant won't have any future significance.
First of all, what's the context of this passage? The context is the separation of the northern ten tribes of Israel from the southern tribes of Judah. The people are being told to "proclaim towards the north" - which is the direction that northern Israel went into captivity - that they should repent and return to God. Why? Because God is still married to them! Hosea 1-2 points out that God divorced northern Israel for their wickedness, but here God is saying that He still considers Himself to be married to exiled Israel. With that in mind, consider what the Ark represented. The Ark was what held the 'marriage contract' between God and Israel - the Ten Commandments! So if Jeremiah was saying that the northern tribes of Israel would have no need to remember it any more, what Jeremiah meant was that the marriage contract wouldn't be written on tablets of stone any more, but rather the "tablets" of Israel's hearts! (Jer. 31:31-34) However, that doesn't mean that the Ark itself would have no meaning, even in the New Covenant era.
The significance of the Ark - for instance, in Revelation 11:19, which is long after what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 3:16 - is of a testimony to the fact that historically, Israel made a covenant with God. God never broke His end of the bargain, but Israel broke hers. Because physical Israel is still important to God, then the historical proof of God's original covenant is likewise still important. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with turning back to the Old Covenant rituals in order to be acceptable before God, which is what many people on this forum apparently think I've been claiming.
Even so, because people will tend to reject the rebuilding of the Temple and the return of the Temple treasures out of hand because they can't see how it squares with the New Covenant, I believe that God will provide some very dramatic proof that these things still are relevant. If the Ark of the Covenant is returned to Jerusalem and the glory of God appears as a pillar of fire on the Mercy Seat on top of the Ark, then these things are still relevant. If it doesn't, then they aren't. But in the end, God will be the one to settle the argument, not us.
That's what I meant about circumstances bringing about a resolution to this argument, so that human egos don't enter into the equation.
As far as arguing archaeology, etc., goes, I still find it very hard to believe that we see the facts differently, but apparently we do. Opinions and biblical interpretations are one thing, but the facts are quite another. But since we appear to be at odds where even the facts themselves are concerned, then fine, I won't argue the facts with you any more. I'll stick to questions of biblical interpretation.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Damon,
Sean asked a good question in an earlier post. I'm curious how you would respond. How can any future temple ever be desolated if God no longer dwells in a temple but in men's hearts? Doesn't the idea of desolating a temple come with the idea of descerating the sacred? Can the temple be made sacred again in the same way it was before Christ? Will a future AOD have the same effect as what Antichious Epiphanes didi in 168 BC?
Sean asked a good question in an earlier post. I'm curious how you would respond. How can any future temple ever be desolated if God no longer dwells in a temple but in men's hearts? Doesn't the idea of desolating a temple come with the idea of descerating the sacred? Can the temple be made sacred again in the same way it was before Christ? Will a future AOD have the same effect as what Antichious Epiphanes didi in 168 BC?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Always willing to listen and consider by the grace of God,
Cameron Fultz
Cameron Fultz
Okay, let me try to break this up because you've asked not one question but several.
1. How can a future Temple be desolated under the New Covenant era when God dwells in men's hearts?
2. Can the Temple be made sacred again in the same way that it was before Christ?
3. Will a future Abomination of Desolation have the same effect as what Antiochus Epiphanes did in 168 BC?
1. Well, first of all, is there a Temple in heaven now? (Rev. 11:19) Does God dwell in that Temple or in men's hearts? Of course, the answer is "yes" because it's both, right?
Therefore, having a future Temple on earth won't change the fact that God now dwells in men's hearts.
2. To begin with, what made the Temple sacred? God's presence made it sacred, right? So the real question is, would any future Temple be a dwelling place that God would desire to dwell in?
Answering this is complicated, because on the one hand such a Temple would seem to be redundant under the New Covenant. But on the other hand, if Abraham was a man who lived by faith, then why did God ever need the Temple in the first place, for Abraham's descendants? Why not just have them all living by faith? In other words, I'm proposing that the Temple was more than just a teaching tool to lead people to live by faith.
A second issue is whether having a physical dwelling place for God is mutually exclusive with having God dwell anywhere and everywhere. As I pointed out before, since God has a Temple (inside of which is His throne) in heaven, then they aren't mutually exclusive. But what would be the point of having a Temple built on earth?
I propose that it's the same as having a palace in the capital city of a country instead of just having lots of little royal residences scattered throughout a country. It's more of a testimony to the glory and grandeur of the king to have a palace instead of lots of little royal residences. But nevertheless, that shouldn't detract from having our King dwell in our hearts as well.
3. Well, let's ask the question of what Antiochus' AoD accomplished. Why was it an abomination and what did it desolate?
Remember that the Temple was supposed to be the spiritual heart of the country, the place where God dwelt. What Antiochus did was to usurp the rightful place of God and proclaim that only he could be worshipped. That was the abomination. And if the Temple was the spiritual heart of the country and it 'died', then the whole country would become spiritually 'dead.' Agriculturally speaking, it would become desolate: unable to bear fruit.
Any future Abomination of Desolation would have to accomplish the same thing. It would have to usurp the rightful place of God as the object of worship for all of the saints. And, it would have to cause the saints to become spiritually dead.
Spiritually speaking, I don't see how that can happen in the absence of a physical Temple unless Christianity somehow becomes more corporately unified, or at the very least more unified under a single spiritual leader who would attempt to usurp the place of God in their hearts. But with a physical Temple, a man could conceivably sit right on the throne of God, declaring himself to be god, without necessarily having all of the saints accepting him as god.
See what I'm saying?
Damon
1. How can a future Temple be desolated under the New Covenant era when God dwells in men's hearts?
2. Can the Temple be made sacred again in the same way that it was before Christ?
3. Will a future Abomination of Desolation have the same effect as what Antiochus Epiphanes did in 168 BC?
1. Well, first of all, is there a Temple in heaven now? (Rev. 11:19) Does God dwell in that Temple or in men's hearts? Of course, the answer is "yes" because it's both, right?
Therefore, having a future Temple on earth won't change the fact that God now dwells in men's hearts.
2. To begin with, what made the Temple sacred? God's presence made it sacred, right? So the real question is, would any future Temple be a dwelling place that God would desire to dwell in?
Answering this is complicated, because on the one hand such a Temple would seem to be redundant under the New Covenant. But on the other hand, if Abraham was a man who lived by faith, then why did God ever need the Temple in the first place, for Abraham's descendants? Why not just have them all living by faith? In other words, I'm proposing that the Temple was more than just a teaching tool to lead people to live by faith.
A second issue is whether having a physical dwelling place for God is mutually exclusive with having God dwell anywhere and everywhere. As I pointed out before, since God has a Temple (inside of which is His throne) in heaven, then they aren't mutually exclusive. But what would be the point of having a Temple built on earth?
I propose that it's the same as having a palace in the capital city of a country instead of just having lots of little royal residences scattered throughout a country. It's more of a testimony to the glory and grandeur of the king to have a palace instead of lots of little royal residences. But nevertheless, that shouldn't detract from having our King dwell in our hearts as well.
3. Well, let's ask the question of what Antiochus' AoD accomplished. Why was it an abomination and what did it desolate?
Remember that the Temple was supposed to be the spiritual heart of the country, the place where God dwelt. What Antiochus did was to usurp the rightful place of God and proclaim that only he could be worshipped. That was the abomination. And if the Temple was the spiritual heart of the country and it 'died', then the whole country would become spiritually 'dead.' Agriculturally speaking, it would become desolate: unable to bear fruit.
Any future Abomination of Desolation would have to accomplish the same thing. It would have to usurp the rightful place of God as the object of worship for all of the saints. And, it would have to cause the saints to become spiritually dead.
Spiritually speaking, I don't see how that can happen in the absence of a physical Temple unless Christianity somehow becomes more corporately unified, or at the very least more unified under a single spiritual leader who would attempt to usurp the place of God in their hearts. But with a physical Temple, a man could conceivably sit right on the throne of God, declaring himself to be god, without necessarily having all of the saints accepting him as god.
See what I'm saying?
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: