Deception

[Naomi25]

I never said the seminaries were evil. It's just that they don't really teach Bible, they teach their particular denomination's traditional doctrine. And they are taught to stay away from any controversial Bible topic (i.e., stay on the milk). Because of this, many of their man-made doctrines are like tethers, i.e., the similar idea our Lord Jesus taught about the new wine put in old wine skins will burst because old wine skins won't allow expansion which the new wine requires (new wine = God's Truth full strength, the meat; old wine skins = men's doctrines, and milk traditions with never getting to the 'strong meat' of God's Word).

The seminaries are necessary, because their main job is to spread The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that's a good thing. But our Lord Jesus warned His disciples to beware of the leaven doctrines of the scribes and Pharisees. And that applies to those types who create confusion that exist in the seminaries also, they have crept in there too.

"Doctrine of men". As opposed to the doctrine of God. And if it is not God's doctrine (ie, found in scripture), it is no better than the Pharisees...and we know what Jesus said about them. So...trying to dance around your terminology is not going to fly. You hold them in disdain.
Which is odd, because I'm unaware if you could be in every classroom, hearing what every lecturer taught. Or seeing what each leaving Pastor took away from it, and then began teaching to their flocks. Seems to me that you are making a broad, sweeping statement about all seminaries just because you feel something about them personally. Perhaps it's because Dispensationalism is on the wane, and is taught in a reduced number of schools? I would call that a biblical step in the right direction, myself.

The still standing Western Wall (or Wailing Wall) of the old temple was built by Herod. It was a support wall.

Western Wall in Jerusalem| Tourist Israel

"When the Jews were permitted to return and they built the Second Temple. The Temple was renovated a number of times until King Herod (who ruled between the years 37 BCE and 4 CE) decided to rebuild the Temple. He had a problem though – the Temple stood on the peak of a mountain where there was only limited space.
King Herod, who was known for his massive building projects, decided that he would build four huge supporting walls around the mountain peak and thus transform it into a great level platform. On this man-made platform he rebuilt the Temple. The Western Wall is actually a small part (about one-seventh) of one of the large supporting walls."

The Western Wall is the wall that was built so they could build the walls of the temple...in other words: a retaining wall. Saying part of the temple still exists because it does is like saying your house is still standing just because your fence is still up.

 

[Waiting on him]

"Doctrine of men". As opposed to the doctrine of God. And if it is not God's doctrine (ie, found in scripture), it is no better than the Pharisees...and we know what Jesus said about them. So...trying to dance around your terminology is not going to fly. You hold them in disdain.
Which is odd, because I'm unaware if you could be in every classroom, hearing what every lecturer taught. Or seeing what each leaving Pastor took away from it, and then began teaching to their flocks. Seems to me that you are making a broad, sweeping statement about all seminaries just because you feel something about them personally. Perhaps it's because Dispensationalism is on the wane, and is taught in a reduced number of schools? I would call that a biblical step in the right direction, myself.




"When the Jews were permitted to return and they built the Second Temple. The Temple was renovated a number of times until King Herod (who ruled between the years 37 BCE and 4 CE) decided to rebuild the Temple. He had a problem though – the Temple stood on the peak of a mountain where there was only limited space.
King Herod, who was known for his massive building projects, decided that he would build four huge supporting walls around the mountain peak and thus transform it into a great level platform. On this man-made platform he rebuilt the Temple. The Western Wall is actually a small part (about one-seventh) of one of the large supporting walls."

The Western Wall is the wall that was built so they could build the walls of the temple...in other words: a retaining wall. Saying part of the temple still exists because it does is like saying your house is still standing just because your fence is still up.

John 6:40 KJV
[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

When does he raise him up?
Tecarta Bible

 

[Naomi25]

John 6:40 KJV
[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

When does he raise him up?
Tecarta Bible

I would see this as a clear reference to the resurrection, wouldn't you? Christ has just mentioned 'everlasting life'...that which we are promised in him when we 'believe' in him. While new birth is achieved at said belief, the receiving of the new body, the sinless spirit, is not given until that day...the 'last day', when Christ returns and calls those of us who belong to him, both dead and alive, and clothes us with this new, imperishable, sinless form (1 Cor 15).

 

[Waiting on him]

I would see this as a clear reference to the resurrection, wouldn't you? Christ has just mentioned 'everlasting life'...that which we are promised in him when we 'believe' in him. While new birth is achieved at said belief, the receiving of the new body, the sinless spirit, is not given until that day...the 'last day', when Christ returns and calls those of us who belong to him, both dead and alive, and clothes us with this new, imperishable, sinless form (1 Cor 15).

I don’t see how it could be any clearer.

 

[Taken]

Deception is the number one thing that Christ warned us about for the end times.

WHO is us ??
Jews?
Gentiles?
Followers of Jesus?
Believers in God only?
Believers in God and Christ?
Unbelievers?
The Converted in Christ?

Matthew 24:3 "And as He sat upon the mount of Olives the disciples came unto Him privately,...

He ~ Jesus
The Disciples ~ Specifically Jesus' own chosen Disciples....(not the rest of the other men following Jesus' teachings).


FIRST CLUE...Jesus was NOT warning "US", the Converted in Christ to BEWARE of Being DECEIVED....

SINCE NO ONE "BECAME CONVERTED" UNTIL AFTER Jesus Bodily Rose UP to Heaven.

Obviously IF JESUS IS talking to the Disciples, Jesus was StiLL Bodily Present on Earth.....AND EVERYONE was susceptable to being DECEIVED....so yes...

Jesus WAS TEACHING the Disciples of WHAT to WARN men of.....

Now some would tell you that what Christ is about to say was not written for the Church,so,for that falsehood I'll take you to Mark which is and overlay of the 24th chapter of Matt.24

COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOU.

THE WARNING is FOR those WHO ARE NOT CONVERTED....NOT Christ's Church!

Men who ARE NOT Converted;
ARE "NOT" the Church.
ARE "NOT" KEPT FROM DECEPTION, by the Indwelling Power of God.

Matthew 24:4 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Take heed that no man deceive you."

Correct! Every man HEARING JESUS SPEAK, was NOT CONVERTED!

Ding, ding, ding....Until a man IS CONVERTED....NO KIDDING....heed the Warning...YOU ARE SUSCEPTABLE , To being DECEIVED!

This is the number one warning, "Take heed that no man deceive you."

Uh huh...AND?
TO WHOM is that WARNING APPLICABLE, and should be Preached?

THE CONVERTED? No.

But that IS precisely what you are preaching.

You have your understanding obscured.
NO MAN can DECEIVE the Converted.
NO MAN can DECEIVE the Elect.
(Less you believe, THE INDWELLING POWER OF THE Spirit of God, can FAIL at KEEPING a man IN Christ....)

The Warning is FOR, those hearing, following Christ's Teachings, (not yet Converted), susceptible to be Pursuaded Away from Christ's teachings....BY clever cunning words of false preachers.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Davy]

"Doctrine of men". As opposed to the doctrine of God. And if it is not God's doctrine (ie, found in scripture), it is no better than the Pharisees...and we know what Jesus said about them. So...trying to dance around your terminology is not going to fly. You hold them in disdain.
Which is odd, because I'm unaware if you could be in every classroom, hearing what every lecturer taught. Or seeing what each leaving Pastor took away from it, and then began teaching to their flocks. Seems to me that you are making a broad, sweeping statement about all seminaries just because you feel something about them personally. Perhaps it's because Dispensationalism is on the wane, and is taught in a reduced number of schools? I would call that a biblical step in the right direction, myself.

All one need do is listen to all junk fruit that comes out of them, and it becomes easy to know how so many of them follow the Pharisee type working. And remember, there were some Pharisees that believed on Jesus, but they were too proud to go against the status quo.

John 12:42-43
42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
KJV

 

[Davy]

I don't see the mark of the beast as a physical mark, but I have to agree that you've stepped away from the true intent of Matt 24:19. The passage around v19 is clearly speaking of the AD70 destruction of the temple. There are several reasons we can determine this. Christ speaks of Judea, so it's given a cultural location...it's not worldwide, like you'd expect with the mark. Again, cultural references are shown with the flat rooftops, the walled city. We also know several things: if indeed such a terrible day fell on the Sabbath, travel is forbidden and that would have made it very difficult to flee the city. Common sense tells us that pregnant and nursing mothers would find fleeing difficult. And common sense also dictated that in the case of an oncoming army, people fled TO cities, not away from them. And yet historically, that's exactly what the Christians did. When the Roman army approached, they remembered Christ's warning, and fled to the hills...and Josephus confirms that the Christians were spared the horrifiying seige that followed.
Given that we can be sure that this passage is talking of the destruction of the temple...and we can be sure...the Disciples had, after all, asked when THAT temple would be destroyed, not a future one....it is a rather odd and unnatural take on the passage to suddenly throw in an understanding about the mark...physical or not.

In reality, n2thelight is correct.

Luke 21:22-23
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
KJV

Remember that Apostle Paul said we, Christ's Church, are not appointed to God's wrath (1 Thess.5).

And child birth is a natural blessing from God. That "distress in the land" is from the event just mentioned in the previous verse, i.e., "the days of vengeance", meaning the day of God's vengeance, His time of wrath upon the earth, the last part of Isaiah 61:2 that Jesus stopped reading at in Luke 4 from the Book of Isaiah, because that day is about the day of His second coming.


What Jesus showed in Luke 23 also confirms that this is the proper interpretation of those who give suck with child in those days being a spiritual metaphor for the deceived, especially among the daughters of Jerusalem...

Luke 23:27-30
27 And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him.
28 But Jesus turning unto them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.'
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.'"
KJV


Our Lord Jesus was quoting from Isaiah 54 about that idea of 'Blessed are the barren...".

Isa 54:1-3
54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
KJV

Our Lord Jesus is like a Husband that has gone on a long trip, and at His return He finds His betrothed already married to another and with child from another. That is the meaning, spiritually, and it is a type of parable or allegory.

That is how the barren woman will eventually have MORE... children than the married wife per the parable, as told in Isa.54:1.


So when the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem see Jesus coming in the clouds, they will be found metaphorically, 'with child', having believed on the false-Messiah which comes to Jerusalem first. And thus they will be found spiritually married to the false one. So when they do see Jesus, they will wish for the mountains and hills to fall on them because of their shame.

 

[Davy]

Apostle Paul also used this with child spiritual metaphor, as in the 2 Cor.11 Scripture he was warning us about the "another Jesus", and how he wants to present us to Christ as "a chaste virgin".

2 Cor 11:2-4
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
KJV

What's the opposite of Paul's "chaste virgin" idea there? One who is not... a chaste virgin, but has become a harlot, having slept with another. And what event comes of having done that? Being with child. Paul even mentions the idea of being deceived by "another Jesus" there! What more could people want, Paul made this so simple!

 

[farouk]

I would see this as a clear reference to the resurrection, wouldn't you? Christ has just mentioned 'everlasting life'...that which we are promised in him when we 'believe' in him. While new birth is achieved at said belief, the receiving of the new body, the sinless spirit, is not given until that day...the 'last day', when Christ returns and calls those of us who belong to him, both dead and alive, and clothes us with this new, imperishable, sinless form (1 Cor 15).

"We shall be changed..." :)

 

[Naomi25]

All one need do is listen to all junk fruit that comes out of them, and it becomes easy to know how so many of them follow the Pharisee type working. And remember, there were some Pharisees that believed on Jesus, but they were too proud to go against the status quo.

John 12:42-43
42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
KJV

And yet, so much good comes out of them too. How much disservice, I wonder, are you doing to the honest, eager, young men who come out of seminaries and go on to join or plant churches and teach good, solid doctrine from their pulpits? I am only one small person in one small part of the world I can tell you of many.

You might be interested in John 19:39. Nicodemus, a Pharisee...the one who saught Christ at nighttime and had the converation about being 'born again'...at the time, he was confused, and we were left thinking he returned, unable to reconcile what Jesus told him. And yet in John 19:39 we see Nicodemus joins Josesph of Arimathea in buring Christ...he bout myrrh and aloe. Clearly not everyone was too afraid to stand for this 'Rabbi'.

I think as we get closer to the end we will see more and more people who are 'not in earnest' coming out of even Christian institutions. But we must not dismiss them just because of that. Still many good teachers and good students learn important things that they then go and share with the flock. And in these increasingly dark times, it is important that the flock know the word of God...it will be this, I think, that will protect them from the deceptions that will come.

 

[Naomi25]

In reality, n2thelight is correct.

Luke 21:22-23
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
KJV

Remember that Apostle Paul said we, Christ's Church, are not appointed to God's wrath (1 Thess.5).

And child birth is a natural blessing from God. That "distress in the land" is from the event just mentioned in the previous verse, i.e., "the days of vengeance", meaning the day of God's vengeance, His time of wrath upon the earth, the last part of Isaiah 61:2 that Jesus stopped reading at in Luke 4 from the Book of Isaiah, because that day is about His the day of His second coming.


What Jesus showed in Luke 23 also confirms that this is the proper interpretation of those who give suck with child in those days being a spiritual metaphor for the deceived, especially among the daughters of Jerusalem...

Luke 23:27-30
27 And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him.
28 But Jesus turning unto them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.'
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.'"
KJV


Our Lord Jesus was quoting from Isaiah 54 about that idea of 'Blessed are the barren...".

Isa 54:1-3
54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
KJV

Our Lord Jesus is like a Husband that has gone on a long trip, and at His return He finds His betrothed already married to another and with child from another. That is the meaning, spiritually, and it is a type of parable or allegory.

That is how the barren woman will eventually have MORE... children than the married wife per the parable, as told in Isa.54:1.


So when the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem see Jesus coming in the clouds, they will be found metaphorically, 'with child', having believed on the false-Messiah which comes to Jerusalem first. And thus they will be found spiritually married to the false one. So when they do see Jesus, they will wish for the mountains and hills to fall on them because of their shame.

Well, I...and most commentators...would disagree. I still find it endlessly amusing when I...an Amillennialist...end up arguing for the literal interpretation against people who call themself 'literalists'. Go figure.

 

[Naomi25]

"We shall be changed..." :)

May it be sooner, rather than later!

 

[Davy]

Well, I...and most commentators...would disagree. I still find it endlessly amusing when I...an Amillennialist...end up arguing for the literal interpretation against people who call themself 'literalists'. Go figure.

The parable is plainly laid out where Jesus was quoting from in Isaiah 54. And the wrath in Luke 21 is in connection with the 'day of vengeance' from Isaiah 61:2. Paul used the same idea in 2 Cor.11 too, and in 1 Thess.5. The travail with child analogy was first given through God's OT prophets, so those unfamiliar with it reveal they didn't do a very good study of God's OT prophets.

Jer 30:6
6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
KJV

Now if you think that is to be understood literally, like a man that is literally pregnant with child, then there's something messed up about your thinking.

 

[Naomi25]

The parable is plainly laid out where Jesus was quoting from in Isaiah 54. And the wrath in Luke 21 is in connection with the 'day of vengeance' from Isaiah 61:2. Paul used the same idea in 2 Cor.11 too, and in 1 Thess.5. The travail with child analogy was first given through God's OT prophets, so those unfamiliar with it reveal they didn't do a very good study of God's OT prophets.

Jer 30:6
6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
KJV

Now if you think that is to be understood literally, like a man that is literally pregnant with child, then there's something messed up about your thinking.

Parable? What parable? Matt 24, Luke 21 and the corresponding passages are NOT parables.
Isaiah 54 is about the Covenantal faithfulness of God in the face of the 'barreness' of Israel, who failed to fulfill their purpose of a "light to the nations". Chapter 54 is speaking to God's fulfilling his Covenant anyway, bringing that light forward and then watching 'the family' grow; from barreness to a ever-expanding family in the New Covenant.
It does not at all refer to Luke 21 or to being with actual child in the face of such tribulation. It does not even speak to being 'spiritually impregnanted' by false teachings. It is about God and his faithfulness and greatness and mercy.
And I'm sorry, but Jer 30:6 also speaks about something entirely different. You point at the pregnancy reference as if it makes your whole point. But context is King and you are missing it completely.

 

[Davy]

Parable? What parable? Matt 24, Luke 21 and the corresponding passages are NOT parables.
Isaiah 54 is about the Covenantal faithfulness of God in the face of the 'barreness' of Israel, who failed to fulfill their purpose of a "light to the nations". Chapter 54 is speaking to God's fulfilling his Covenant anyway, bringing that light forward and then watching 'the family' grow; from barreness to a ever-expanding family in the New Covenant.
It does not at all refer to Luke 21 or to being with actual child in the face of such tribulation. It does not even speak to being 'spiritually impregnanted' by false teachings. It is about God and his faithfulness and greatness and mercy.
And I'm sorry, but Jer 30:6 also speaks about something entirely different. You point at the pregnancy reference as if it makes your whole point. But context is King and you are missing it completely.

So you didn't read my previous post #47 where I cited the Scripture about this parable of the barren woman? Shame, shame on you.

Here's another example of the parable...

1 Thess 5:2-4
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, "Peace and safety"; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
KJV


This allegory of travailing with child was written in several places first in the OT Books. Strange at how so many missed it...


Jer 22:23
23 O inhabitant of Lebanon, that makest thy nest in the cedars, how gracious shalt thou be when pangs come upon thee, the pain as of a woman in travail!
KJV

Mic 4:9-10
9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counseller perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.
10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.
KJV

 

[Naomi25]

So you didn't read my previous post #47 where I cited the Scripture about this parable of the barren woman? Shame, shame on you.

Here's another example of the parable...

1 Thess 5:2-4
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, "Peace and safety"; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
KJV


This allegory of travailing with child was written in several places first in the OT Books. Strange at how so many missed it...


Jer 22:23
23 O inhabitant of Lebanon, that makest thy nest in the cedars, how gracious shalt thou be when pangs come upon thee, the pain as of a woman in travail!
KJV

Mic 4:9-10
9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counseller perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.
10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.
KJV

These are NOT parables. No wonder you're reading them askew.

 

[farouk]

These are NOT parables. No wonder you're reading them askew.

I would describe them more as prophecies rather than parables, right?

 

[Naomi25]

I would describe them more as prophecies rather than parables, right?

Sure...but keeping in mind that sometimes in the OT, prophecies wouldn't just be about "foretelling"...it would be for "forthtelling". Basically, God declaring to his people how things are or will be. Is 54 is a perfect example. God is declaring his covenantal faithfulness to his people in the face of their faithlessness. He again voices the promise that through them, even through their 'barreness', that they will bring forth a great multitude. But it will be because of God's faithfullness, not theirs.

 

[farouk]

Sure...but keeping in mind that sometimes in the OT, prophecies wouldn't just be about "foretelling"...it would be for "forthtelling". Basically, God declaring to his people how things are or will be. Is 54 is a perfect example. God is declaring his covenantal faithfulness to his people in the face of their faithlessness. He again voices the promise that through them, even through their 'barreness', that they will bring forth a great multitude. But it will be because of God's faithfullness, not theirs.

Yes, it's about forthtelling as well as foretelling.

 

[aspen]

666 is the number of unredeemed humanity - the mark of the beast is described as being placed on the right hand and forehead in order to illustrate slavery to sin - slaves in the Roman Empire were marked with numbers in the same way.

If you are looking for an unredeemed man to lead unredeemed humanity and deceive Christians, look no further than the White House. I am not kidding or being mean spirited here either - Wall Street represents worldliness and Trump is riding that beast like a boss.