Chat with Michael2 (youtube user ID hillbillybushcraft)

[Peter]

So what's the abomination?
Is it a man sitting?

[Michael2]

Come on. Really.... are we going to play word games. You know very well what temple. I know it was partially destroyed in 70 A.D. but taht is still God's Favorite place. Right there in Jerusalem.

The temple WAS NOT PARTIALLY destroyed. It was thrown down - every stone - just as Jesus prophesied. All that's left is the mount.
So where does the antichrist sitteth?
So what does the abomination desolate?

LOL NO not hardly. Do you know what it means to not have one stone left standing upon another?? It means it will be turned into sand!!!
The walls are still standing.

I've seen people go through preposterous machinations to try to make a false doctrine work, but I've never seen the likes of that. I suspect you may be the only person on earth that doesn't recognize the temple was removed - every stone.
Sorry my friend but the dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa mosque are the only two things standing on the temple mount.

If there were remnants of walls standing, are you saying the antichrist would be sitting on the temple mount in among a ruin?

It has not been destroyed as it will be destroyed like Christ was talking about.

I knew for the last several post you were trying to get me to say he would be sitting in the Mosque. LOL
LOL Your going to have to get up a little earlier than that to get me.
And NO I am not the only one that says that. MANY MANY good Christian Scholars say the same. You do know that the "Jews" are doing their best to get that temple rebuilt don't you? It turns out after many years of surveying they say the Temple was actually situated to the north of the Mosque and could be built without destroying the Mosque. Although I am not sure if they will actually build it or not. And of course they will have the full support of Christians like your self. That means the support of the US military if needs be.

[Michael2]

So what's the abomination?
Is it a man sitting?

I already answered that. In an earlier post. Satan is the abomination that makes desolate. Just as he did in Rev 12. When I said Children I hope you know I am talking about the Children of God?? Don't You. Do I really have to be that specific??
And the word of God says he will sit in the temple of God showing himself that he is god. Not ME! Do you really think that sitting in the temple is the only thing that he will make desolate. Do you know what the word means?

[Michael2]

Strong's 8074 Desolate
A primitive root; to stun (or intransitively, grow numb), i.e. Devastate or (figuratively) stupefy (both usually in a passive sense) -- make amazed, be astonied, (be an) astonish(-ment), (be, bring into, unto, lay, lie, make) desolate(-ion, places), be destitute, destroy (self), (lay, lie, make) waste, wonder.

[Marturion]

So what's the abomination?
Is it a man sitting?

I already answered that. In an earlier post. Satan is the abomination that makes desolate. Just as he did in Rev 12. When I said Children I hope you know I am talking about the Children of God?? Don't You. Do I really have to be that specific??
And the word of God says he will sit in the temple of God showing himself that he is god. Not ME! Do you really think that sitting in the temple is the only thing that he will make desolate. Do you know what the word means?

Didn't Christ tell us that the abomination is an it that is standing?  Is an it that is standing the same as a he that sitteth? Wouldn't an it be inanimate object. Didn't Daniel say it was setup? I thought Paul said it was the man of sin that sitteth in the temple of God? Didn't John tell us about antichrists? Are you confusing the two?

[Peter]

Come on. Really.... are we going to play word games. You know very well what temple. I know it was partially destroyed in 70 A.D. but taht is still God's Favorite place. Right there in Jerusalem.

The temple WAS NOT PARTIALLY destroyed. It was thrown down - every stone - just as Jesus prophesied. All that's left is the mount.
So where does the antichrist sitteth?
So what does the abomination desolate?

LOL NO not hardly. Do you know what it means to not have one stone left standing upon another?? It means it will be turned into sand!!!
The walls are still standing.

I've seen people go through preposterous machinations to try to make a false doctrine work, but I've never seen the likes of that. I suspect you may be the only person on earth that doesn't recognize the temple was removed - every stone.
Sorry my friend but the dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa mosque are the only two things standing on the temple mount.

If there were remnants of walls standing, are you saying the antichrist would be sitting on the temple mount in among a ruin?

It has not been destroyed as it will be destroyed like Christ was talking about.

I knew for the last several post you were trying to get me to say he would be sitting in the Mosque. LOL
LOL Your going to have to get up a little earlier than that to get me.

Not at all.

And NO I am not the only one that says that. MANY MANY good Christian Scholars say the same. You do know that the "Jews" are doing their best to get that temple rebuilt don't you? It turns out after many years of surveying they say the Temple was ......

"was" being the operative word. Just like I said, it was removed, every stone.

....... actually situated to the north of the Mosque and could be built without destroying the Mosque.

Here a little bit ago you were trying to say walls were partially standing, and now you admit that it was so completely removed that there are differences of opinion as to where it stood.

Although I am not sure if they will actually build it or not. And of course they will have the full support of Christians like your self. That means the support of the US military if needs be.

My friend, it is futurist Christians like you and Hagee that are expecting a rebuilt temple.

Christians like me recognize that Jesus rebuilt the temple just as He promised.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.  20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

So as you can see, the only place we should be looking for "that man of sin" to "sitteth" is in THE temple of God - the corporate body of Christ.
And even in an individual.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm

[Michael2]

No not at all. You are. I don't know if you started from the beginning of the thread but you really should if you didn't.
As far as the it. I gave the different examples of that. The man of sin the son of perdition. That is satan. Perdition means to perish and Satan is the only one that has been Judged. There for it could be no other!

[Michael2]

Here a little bit ago you were trying to say walls were partially standing, and now you admit that it was so completely removed that there are differences of opinion as to where it stood.

The walls are standing! LOL
You can turn on the news just about any day of the week and see the Jews praying at it! Why do you think they pray there and what do you think that wall is?

[Peter]

Here a little bit ago you were trying to say walls were partially standing, and now you admit that it was so completely removed that there are differences of opinion as to where it stood.

The walls are standing! LOL
You can turn on the news just about any day of the week and see the Jews praying at it!

As I corrected you earlier, that is the temple mount, not the temple.
Or are you saying that the antichrist will remove a couple of those big stones from the side, dig out the dirt and set up shop inside the temple mount and defile that?

Why do you think they pray there and what do you think that wall is?

It is the temple MOUNT. If any part of the temple were still standing, how come there is disagreement about where it WAS located?

[Peter]

Now you said it was the abomination that Jesus said was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, yet Daniel's abomination is an "it" that "stands" in the holy place.
But your antichrist abomination "sitteth" in the temple of God.
That is what Marturian was pointing out.

[Michael2]

Look Pete. Get to the point here. If you wanted me to come to convert me your wasting your time. The Rock I stand on is unshakable!
If you brought me here to try to stump me. Good Luck. You might get me on a point or two. Overall your theology is wrong. I love to discuss the word but all this is. is an argument.  So what are you getting at. I have proven in the word Muhammad is NOT THE false prophet. Is he A false prophet yes but like you said there are many of those. But not the one spoken of in Rev. Oh and the Second Beast IS the false Prophet. The First Beast of Rev 13 is The NWO (false Zionism). It is their new tower of Babylon. Why is that so hard for you to get? Is it yet future. Definitely!

[Michael2]

Now you said it was the abomination that Jesus said was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, yet Daniel's abomination is an "it" that "stands" in the holy place.
But your antichrist abomination "sitteth" in the temple of God.
That is what Marturian was pointing out.

Yes and I explained it. Some of this has to do with translation. I am a KJ man but you guys do know it is a translation right?
Many scholars translated Mat24 HE! Standing where HE ought not!

[Marturion]

Look Pete. Get to the point here. If you wanted me to come to convert me your wasting your time. The Rock I stand on is unshakable!
If you brought me here to try to stump me. Good Luck. You might get me on a point or two. Overall your theology is wrong. I love to discuss the word but all this is. is an argument.  So what are you getting at. I have proven in the word Muhammad is NOT THE false prophet. Is he A false prophet yes but like you said there are many of those. But not the one spoken of in Rev. Oh and the Second Beast IS the false Prophet. The First Beast of Rev 13 is The NWO (false Zionism). It is their new tower of Babylon. Why is that so hard for you to get? Is it yet future. Definitely!

Doesn't the inspired word of God ttell us beasts are kingdoms? Hasn't history proven God's word true and that beasts are kingdoms? Wasn't Daniels lion beast Babylon, the bear Medo=Persia and the leopard Greece? Can you show us where God's inspired word changed that definition?

[Michael2]

Here is another place Daniel talked about "IT".
Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

[Peter]

Look Pete. Get to the point here. If you wanted me to come to convert me your wasting your time. The Rock I stand on is unshakable!
If you brought me here to try to stump me. Good Luck. You might get me on a point or two. Overall your theology is wrong. I love to discuss the word but all this is. is an argument.  So what are you getting at.

I already did way back in this post.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3128.msg12911#msg12911
The ONLY temple of God in the Christian era is the corporate body of Christ and perhaps individual Christians. Period.

I have proven in the word Muhammad is NOT THE false prophet.

How did you "prove" something like that when you didn't even know where the temple of God is?

Is he A false prophet yes but like you said there are many of those. But not the one spoken of in Rev. Oh and the Second Beast IS the false Prophet. The First Beast of Rev 13 is The NWO (false Zionism). It is their new tower of Babylon. Why is that so hard for you to get? Is it yet future. Definitely!

Just like Hagee you believe in:
1. A future tribulation (even though John is my companion in THE tribulation (you will find the definite article "THE" in the Greek).
2. A future antichrist
3. A future false prophet
4. A future role for a physical temple in Jerusalem.

My friend, you may not want to admit that your eschatology springs from John Nelson Darby's, but if that's the case, why do you suppose it is that you share so many fundamentals in common with futurists/dispensationalists?

[Michael2]

Look Pete. Get to the point here. If you wanted me to come to convert me your wasting your time. The Rock I stand on is unshakable!
If you brought me here to try to stump me. Good Luck. You might get me on a point or two. Overall your theology is wrong. I love to discuss the word but all this is. is an argument.  So what are you getting at. I have proven in the word Muhammad is NOT THE false prophet. Is he A false prophet yes but like you said there are many of those. But not the one spoken of in Rev. Oh and the Second Beast IS the false Prophet. The First Beast of Rev 13 is The NWO (false Zionism). It is their new tower of Babylon. Why is that so hard for you to get? Is it yet future. Definitely!

Doesn't the inspired word of God ttell us beasts are kingdoms? Hasn't history proven God's word true and that beasts are kingdoms? Wasn't Daniels lion beast Babylon, the bear Medo=Persia and the leopard Greece? Can you show us where God's inspired word changed that definition?

Yep you are correct. But we also must take everything in context!
Revelation 13:
11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

That is the Anti-Christ/False Prophet! Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Peter]

Look Pete. Get to the point here. If you wanted me to come to convert me your wasting your time. The Rock I stand on is unshakable!
If you brought me here to try to stump me. Good Luck. You might get me on a point or two. Overall your theology is wrong. I love to discuss the word but all this is. is an argument.  So what are you getting at. I have proven in the word Muhammad is NOT THE false prophet. Is he A false prophet yes but like you said there are many of those. But not the one spoken of in Rev. Oh and the Second Beast IS the false Prophet. The First Beast of Rev 13 is The NWO (false Zionism). It is their new tower of Babylon. Why is that so hard for you to get? Is it yet future. Definitely!

Doesn't the inspired word of God ttell us beasts are kingdoms? Hasn't history proven God's word true and that beasts are kingdoms? Wasn't Daniels lion beast Babylon, the bear Medo=Persia and the leopard Greece? Can you show us where God's inspired word changed that definition?

Yep you are correct. But we also must take everything in context!
Revelation 13:
11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

That is the Anti-Christ/False Prophet! Seems pretty straight forward to me.

The false prophet isn't a kingdom "beast". Prophet is always defined as an individual.
If it did what does the false prophet have to do with a lion, bear and leopard?

[Marturion]

Look Pete. Get to the point here. If you wanted me to come to convert me your wasting your time. The Rock I stand on is unshakable!
If you brought me here to try to stump me. Good Luck. You might get me on a point or two. Overall your theology is wrong. I love to discuss the word but all this is. is an argument.  So what are you getting at. I have proven in the word Muhammad is NOT THE false prophet. Is he A false prophet yes but like you said there are many of those. But not the one spoken of in Rev. Oh and the Second Beast IS the false Prophet. The First Beast of Rev 13 is The NWO (false Zionism). It is their new tower of Babylon. Why is that so hard for you to get? Is it yet future. Definitely!

Doesn't the inspired word of God ttell us beasts are kingdoms? Hasn't history proven God's word true and that beasts are kingdoms? Wasn't Daniels lion beast Babylon, the bear Medo=Persia and the leopard Greece? Can you show us where God's inspired word changed that definition?

Yep you are correct. But we also must take everything in context!
Revelation 13:
11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

That is the Anti-Christ/False Prophet! Seems pretty straight forward to me.

And who/what do you think is the beast from Rev13:2? If beasts have always been kingdoms in fulfilled prophecy then why would God change that in Rev? Doesn't John tell us the Word was God?
Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Isn't God unchanging?
 Mal 3:6  For I am the LORD, I change not;....
So if a beast was a kingdom in Daniel then shouldn't  it be a kingdom in Rev? Did the Word/God  change or is it the doctrine of men that changes it?

[Michael2]

Just like Hagee you believe in:
1. A future tribulation (even though John is my companion in THE tribulation (you will find the definite article "THE" in the Greek).
2. A future antichrist
3. A future false prophet
4. A future role for a physical temple in Jerusalem.

My friend, you may not want to admit that your eschatology springs from John Nelson Darby's, but if that's the case, why do you suppose it is that you share so many fundamentals in common with futurists/dispensationalists?

LOL Hagee?? Don't put me in with him you are DEAD wrong again.
He believes in a pre-trib rapture! I DO NOT!
What you teach is just as dangerous as what he teaches.
You teach the same pretty much just backwards from what he teaches.

Believe it or not I have NEVER read or heard any of Darby's teachings. I think you hear some small similarity and assume the rest.
Here is how I proved Muhammad is NOT the false prophet.
You said the second beast of Rev is Not the false prophet. Well I'm with your friend. The word defines it's self.

Rev 19:20 (KJV) "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Do you see that?? The second beast IS the false prophet. It really is that simple.

[Michael2]

May be I should have added scripture in with the last post.

Rev 13:11And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

I accidentally post NIV from the internet last time sorry. I don't use that version nor would I.

[Michael2]

I am sleepy maybe we will do this some more tomorrow!

By the way Pete. You never did answer my question about your quote. Most don't understand what it means. I want to hear your thoughts on it's meaning.

[Peter]

Just like Hagee you believe in:
1. A future tribulation (even though John is my companion in THE tribulation (you will find the definite article "THE" in the Greek).
2. A future antichrist
3. A future false prophet
4. A future role for a physical temple in Jerusalem.

My friend, you may not want to admit that your eschatology springs from John Nelson Darby's, but if that's the case, why do you suppose it is that you share so many fundamentals in common with futurists/dispensationalists?

LOL Hagee?? Don't put me in with him you are DEAD wrong again.
He believes in a pre-trib rapture!

That's not a fundamental of futurism. That was an added frill thanks to Margaret MacDonald. There are lots of futurists that don't believe in a pre-trib rapture.
Yet outside of the minor detail of the length of the tribulation, you share Hagee's eschatology to the T.

I DO NOT!
What you teach is just as dangerous as what he teaches.
You teach the same pretty much just backwards from what he teaches.

No. Pretty much the opposite of what you and Hagee teach, is preterism.
They believe that virtually all of Revelation was fulfilled in, and by, 70 AD and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

My view is the TRADITIONAL continuous-historic context that ALL Jews and Christians understand Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled in, and what the Reformers understood New Testament prophecy and the book of Revelation was being fulfilled in. It was only 20th century pop doctrines like you hold that differ from it.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/traditional_framework.htm

Perhaps worst of all is your abuse of prophecy as if it were intended for you to use it to predict the future.

Believe it or not I have NEVER read or heard any of Darby's teachings. I think you hear some small similarity and assume the rest.

You couldn't have come up with it on your own, because you can't make any more sense of it than Hagee could, if I were engaged in the same conversation with him.
Indeed I think it is at least borderline blasphemy for a Christian not to recognize themselves and the corporate body of Christ to be THE ONLY temples of God in the Christian era.

To suggest that any temple that did get rebuilt, could be desolated, would be to suggest that it could be sanctified in the first place. But it couldn't because JESUS ALREADY REBUILT THE TEMPLE OF GOD.

Here is how I proved Muhammad is NOT the false prophet.
You said the second beast of Rev is Not the false prophet. Well I'm with your friend. The word defines it's self.

Rev 19:20 (KJV) "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Do you see that?? The second beast IS the false prophet. It really is that simple.

Read it again. I enlarged the font to help you out.
Two separate entities. The beast (Muhammad's followers - his "kingdom") and the false prophet (Muhammad).

[Michael2]

LOL. Your wrong about my belief and Hagee. I really don't know Darby's work. Sorry. And as far as the Second beast being the fasle Prophet. There are TWO  entities specifically in Rev 13 and then in the Verse I quoted.  WITH HIM yes... that done all the things (miracles) the second beast did.... DID you catch that?? This is beyond theology guys. This has become about reading comprehension skills! I have to go to bed. I will talk to you guys tomorrow.  One more thing Pete. We can disagree and still be friends. However just because you don't agree don't mean you should throw insults like Blasphemy around at me. I have not said it. But I think to not be able to see the FUTURE false Christ is to already have the mark of the Beast. In other words you believe the LIE. By the way. If you think the majority of Rev has already happened. What was the Mark of the Beast. Many great scholars have tried to figure that one out for 2000 years. I guess they should have just ask you huh?
LOL

[Marturion]

Just like Hagee you believe in:
1. A future tribulation (even though John is my companion in THE tribulation (you will find the definite article "THE" in the Greek).
2. A future antichrist
3. A future false prophet
4. A future role for a physical temple in Jerusalem.

My friend, you may not want to admit that your eschatology springs from John Nelson Darby's, but if that's the case, why do you suppose it is that you share so many fundamentals in common with futurists/dispensationalists?

LOL Hagee?? Don't put me in with him you are DEAD wrong again.
He believes in a pre-trib rapture! I DO NOT!
What you teach is just as dangerous as what he teaches.
You teach the same pretty much just backwards from what he teaches.

Believe it or not I have NEVER read or heard any of Darby's teachings. I think you hear some small similarity and assume the rest.
Here is how I proved Muhammad is NOT the false prophet.
You said the second beast of Rev is Not the false prophet. Well I'm with your friend. The word defines it's self.

Rev 19:20 (KJV) "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Do you see that?? The second beast IS the false prophet. It really is that simple.

I asked earlier if you could show where the definition of a beast changed. If you are referring to me when you said "Well I'm with your friend." then you have misunderstood me. I believe boh beasts in Rev13 (the one from the sea and the one from the earth) are kingdoms. 2 separate kingdoms, but both are still kingdoms.

[Peter]

LOL. Your wrong about my belief and Hagee. I really don't know Darby's work.

I even numbered them for you. You are a futurist like Darby and Hagee. You Darby and Hagee believe in

1. A future tribulation (even though John is my companion in THE tribulation (you will find the definite article "THE" in the Greek).
2. A future antichrist
3. A future false prophet
4. A future role of a physical temple in Jerusalem.

You Darby and Hagee believe that prophecy was intended for us to predict the future. I'm in the Isaac Newton and Matthew Henry camp on that one.

"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton

The difference between you and them is that you were so busy dividing people up by race, like Hitler before you, that you never stopped long enough to understand what a Jew is in this Christian era. As a grafted in Jew, Israel is my land along with faithful ethnic Jews.

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.