Carborendum

Temples And Protection

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Jonah said:
On 7/7/2020 at 10:59 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Now that the veil is torn all surrendered souls have full access to God the Father, thanks to Jesus sacrifice

Through Jesus our High Priest or do we require an earthly high priest?

Behold a man who has no comprehension of LDS doctrine except for the absurd parodies he bandies about.

Here is my suggestion: The next time "Jonah" asks any of his loaded questions, the answer should be to point him to mordorbund's post and require that he thoroughly answer it first, before any other answer is given to him. That should be the permanent "answer" to all of "Jonah"'s "questions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 5:19 PM, mordorbund said:

If I were a helpful person I would link to the video so @Jonah and others could watch it for themselves.

If that was possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 3:35 PM, mordorbund said:

1. What were the major physical and liturgical elements of the temple?

2. How did a person participate in temple worship?

3. What salvific effect, if any, did temple worship have? Could the average Israelite be saved without participating in temple worship?

4.How did temple worship change for the New Testament church? Did any elements continue?

While the New Testament disciples met at the temple on some occasions, there was no
temple worship per se.   There were no marriages or baptisms performed therein.  It was
primarily a home-church type of moment.  That's why the New Testament Christians did 
not build temples when they became dispersed to other areas.

The Old Testament temple became an individual (a temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit).

With Jesus as High Priest, the people did not need an earthly priestly system anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonah said:

While the New Testament disciples met at the temple on some occasions, there was no temple worship per se.   There were no marriages or baptisms performed therein.  It was primarily a home-church type of moment.  That's why the New Testament Christians did not build temples when they became dispersed to other areas.

The Old Testament temple became an individual (a temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit).

With Jesus as High Priest, the people did not need an earthly priestly system anymore.

Is this out of the Catholic catechism?  It's ok to cite it as a source, since you're Catholic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonah said:

While the New Testament disciples met at the temple on some occasions, there was no
temple worship per se.   There were no marriages or baptisms performed therein.  It was
primarily a home-church type of moment.  That's why the New Testament Christians did 
not build temples when they became dispersed to other areas.

The Old Testament temple became an individual (a temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit).

With Jesus as High Priest, the people did not need an earthly priestly system anymore.

Thanks for engaging. You've focused largely on the 4th question about the temple in the New Testament, but left the others largely untouched. Unfortunately, this means even the 4th is unanswered because I'm not sure what remains the same and what has changed if I don't know what the Old Testament system was. This time, instead of stating the negative (what was not involved in temple worship), could you state it in positive terms (the questions are even framed in a way to prompt that sort of answer)? And just to clarify, the first 3 questions are intended for the pre-Christ period. Imagine an Israelite from the period of Isaiah or even the Maccabean period.

On 7/9/2020 at 3:35 PM, mordorbund said:

You've gotten responses to your questions in this thread, but I'm not sure if these responses actually answer your questions since there's always another waiting in the wings. Perhaps we should take a step back and ensure we're really communicating with each other. Would you mind taking a moment and sharing your understanding of ancient temple worship?

1. What were the major physical and liturgical elements of the temple?

2. How did a person participate in temple worship?

3. What salvific effect, if any, did temple worship have? Could the average Israelite be saved without participating in temple worship?

4.How did temple worship change for the New Testament church? Did any elements continue?

 

Edited by mordorbund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2020 at 5:19 PM, mordorbund said:

Thanks for engaging. You've focused largely on the 4th question about the temple in the New Testament, but left the others largely untouched. Unfortunately, this means even the 4th is unanswered because I'm not sure what remains the same and what has changed if I don't know what the Old Testament system was. This time, instead of stating the negative (what was not involved in temple worship), could you state it in positive terms (the questions are even framed in a way to prompt that sort of answer)? And just to clarify, the first 3 questions are intended for the pre-Christ period. Imagine an Israelite from the period of Isaiah or even the Maccabean period.

Hope this extra helps ...

The Old Testament system is described in the Old Testament.  All the rituals are
mentioned therein.

1. The major physical and liturgical elements of the Old Testament involved the various
animal and grain offerings.  Baptisms and marriages were not performed in them.

2.  How did a person participate in temple worship?

The people worshipped God with the help and leadership of the priests through sacrifice.
Festivals (dedicated feast days) and sabbaths were also defined.  Gentiles had a specific
area where they were permitted to go.  There was also a court where women were permitted
to go .
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_the_women) / 
https://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/jewish_templethe_womens_court.htm


3. No one was saved by participating in temple worship but through faith apart from works -
 but it pointed to the eventual coming of the sinless Lamb of God.

4.How did temple worship change for the New Testament church? Did any elements continue?

From what we know, the disciples continued to meet at the temple for worship for prayer,
praising God, and evangelism (Acts 2:46-47).  The temple as the place of worship later
primarily became the home church.  Apart from this, I don't believe any other element 
(rituals/sacrifice) continued.  New Testament Christians were not a temple-building people 
since individuals became the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Earthly high priests were not
required anymore since Jesus is our only High Priest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2020 at 2:59 PM, Jonah said:

4.How did temple worship change for the New Testament church? Did any elements continue?

From what we know, the disciples continued to meet at the temple for worship for prayer,
praising God, and evangelism (Acts 2:46-47).  The temple as the place of worship later
primarily became the home church.  Apart from this, I don't believe any other element 
(rituals/sacrifice) continued.  New Testament Christians were not a temple-building people 
since individuals became the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Earthly high priests were not
required anymore since Jesus is our only High Priest.

Just because no formal temples were constructed by the ancient Christians it cannot automatically be assumed that the temple was no longer important to them (outside of the general worship therein you describe). Early Christians were generally a minority in often hostile communities. Building formal edifices would have been impractical if not impossible. But this did not preclude them from maintaining other sacred spaces. Even in Joseph Smith's day before they could build a temple they set apart certain rooms to perform certain ordinances. I'm not trying to prove to you the existence of such places in new testament times as part of our belief of their day comes from modern revelation. Rather I am just making the case that just because the New Testament is quiet or merely hints at something does not prove it did not happen. Considering the very sacred nature of what takes place there (in our view) it's not surprising the record is not more forward on this subject. Though I do believe there are non canonized sources that do speak of certain ordinances that we view as temple ordinances. 

As concerning the role of the high priest, we believe that his work in the temple was but a specific example of his much larger responsibility of helping to lead people to Christ. I would recommend reading Alma 13 in the Book of Mormon for a great explanation of the role of high priests.

Edited by laronius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jonah said:

No one was saved by participating in temple worship but through faith apart from works -
 but it pointed to the eventual coming of the sinless Lamb of God.

Interesting. So pre-Christian served as a template to symbolically show the faithful their source for redemption. Do I have that right? Did early Christians have their own symbols, rituals, or practices to point to the first advent of the sinless Lamb of God? 

19 hours ago, Jonah said:

From what we know, the disciples continued to meet at the temple for worship for prayer,
praising God, and evangelism (Acts 2:46-47).  The temple as the place of worship later
primarily became the home church.  Apart from this, I don't believe any other element 
(rituals/sacrifice) continued.  

Were prayer and praising God* part of pre-Christian temple worship? Why do you suppose that continued, and sacrifice did not? 

I see you identify as Catholic (I'm assuming Roman, but regardless) - part of the pre-Christian temple ritual included washing, anointing, and investiture of priests (not just high priests, but priests) as well as kings. Did any of these practices continue? What about the principles (if any) behind the practice?

*I excluded evangelism because I figured it probably wasn't part of pre-Christian temple practice, but you note that there was a place for the gentiles to gather so you can feel free to include that in your response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2020 at 3:59 PM, Jonah said:

Hope this extra helps ...

The Old Testament system is described in the Old Testament.  All the rituals are
mentioned therein.

1. The major physical and liturgical elements of the Old Testament involved the various
animal and grain offerings.  Baptisms and marriages were not performed in them.

2.  How did a person participate in temple worship?

The people worshipped God with the help and leadership of the priests through sacrifice.
Festivals (dedicated feast days) and sabbaths were also defined.  Gentiles had a specific
area where they were permitted to go.  There was also a court where women were permitted
to go .
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_the_women) / 
https://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/jewish_templethe_womens_court.htm


3. No one was saved by participating in temple worship but through faith apart from works -
 but it pointed to the eventual coming of the sinless Lamb of God.

4.How did temple worship change for the New Testament church? Did any elements continue?

From what we know, the disciples continued to meet at the temple for worship for prayer,
praising God, and evangelism (Acts 2:46-47).  The temple as the place of worship later
primarily became the home church.  Apart from this, I don't believe any other element 
(rituals/sacrifice) continued.  New Testament Christians were not a temple-building people 
since individuals became the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Earthly high priests were not
required anymore since Jesus is our only High Priest.

I thought I ought to respond to this post.  First I would point out that all worship and especially places of worship that are intended to spiritually educate covenant Saints of G-d in order to elevate them to a the higher state of divine being.   Anciently the most sacred place of worship was specifically designed to bring covenant Saints to Christ.  This is why Jesus said to the Pharisees to search the scriptures for they testify of him.  An ancient metaphor for temple was "mountain".  In this metaphor Moses was given for the 10 commandments and Jesus was transfigured.  The 10 Commandments are considered and essential part of the Mosaic covenant which is the "Book End" to the Abrahamic covenant.  Note that Jesus compared the covenant with G-d to the covenant of Marriage - on several occasions.  This is because the two covenants are in truth inseparable.  (but this is another discussion).

Since I do not have time or space to address all elements of divine temple worship at this time - I will address the covenant with G-d of baptism or ritual cleansing.   When Joshua (the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name of Jesus) brought the children of Israel to the "Promised land" (which was an essential element of the Abrahamic covenant) Joshua brought them to the river Jordan and performed a ritual cleansing (baptism) before entering the covenant land.  It is both critical and important to understand that this place of the Jordan River was the same place where Jesus was baptized by John.  Certainly not a coincidence!

With the Baptism of Jesus we have a bridge between the ancient covenants to prepare for Christ to atone for man and the era of worship in the manner anciently spoken of when we will worship Christ as being "like him".  Thus the Church was established not to look forward to the atonement of Christ but through the atonement to become "One" with Christ and the Father.  See the Gospel of John Chapter 17.

Without going into a lot of detail - I would mention the ancient prophesy in Isaiah (Isaiah being the revelation of all things from the beginning to the end).  Isaiah prophesied that in the last days that the Mountain of the L-rd's house (temple of G-d) will be established in the "top of the mountains" as a place for all nations to worship or to look to in worship.  Now a little bit of history.  When the Latter-day Saints (Mormons) arrived in the Salt Lake Valley they intended to establish there own State in the USA - in some ways similar to Texas with a slightly different constitutional charter.  But the enemies of the "Mormons" - that drove the Mormons from the USA would prevent it.  After many years the Mormons were finally able to get their state - their intent was to name the state "Deseret".  But their enemies at the last hour modified the state charter and changed the name to Utah.  This irony ends up fulfilling the Isaiah prophesy in no other way than by the hand of G-d himself because this is where the flagship of all modern temples of the restoration of the Last-day stands today - in the Salt Lake Valley and the name "Utah" in the native language of the Ute peoples literally means "the Top of the Mountains".  Thus the mountain of G-d's house (temple) is established in the Last-days in the top of the mountains (Utah) where by all nations that intend to worship G-d according to His holy covenant will learn to "walk in his ways".

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2020 at 1:39 PM, mordorbund said:

Interesting. So pre-Christian served as a template to symbolically show the faithful their source for redemption. Do I have that right? Did early Christians have their own symbols, rituals, or practices to point to the first advent of the sinless Lamb of God? 

Were prayer and praising God* part of pre-Christian temple worship? Why do you suppose that continued, and sacrifice did not? 

I see you identify as Catholic (I'm assuming Roman, but regardless) - part of the pre-Christian temple ritual included washing, anointing, and investiture of priests (not just high priests, but priests) as well as kings. Did any of these practices continue? What about the principles (if any) behind the practice?

*I excluded evangelism because I figured it probably wasn't part of pre-Christian temple practice, but you note that there was a place for the gentiles to gather so you can feel free to include that in your response.

The cross became the earliest symbol.  I believe any rituals and / or practices which they practiced
are spoken of in scripture although some arose later out of human traditions.

Several components of the Old Testament system became incorporated into the Roman Catholic
system. Priests, garments, some washings, the altar, incense, and the holy of holies (where 
the eucharist is kept until it is needed).  

More is described here

http://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
http://catholicfaith.co.uk/

Politics became intertwined with religion in the Roman Empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thus the mountain of G-d's house (temple) is established in the Last-days in the top of the mountains (Utah) where by all nations that intend to worship G-d according to His holy covenant will learn to "walk in his ways".

Isaiah 2:1-2 is a word concerning Judah and Jerusalem, not America or Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jonah said:

The cross became the earliest symbol.  I believe any rituals and / or practices which they practiced
are spoken of in scripture although some arose later out of human traditions.

Several components of the Old Testament system became incorporated into the Roman Catholic
system. Priests, garments, some washings, the altar, incense, and the holy of holies (where 
the eucharist is kept until it is needed).  

More is described here

http://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
http://catholicfaith.co.uk/

Politics became intertwined with religion in the Roman Empire.

Thanks for engaging. It sounds to me like Roman Catholics acknowledge that some of the principles taught through temple worship (such as the atoning death of the Messiah) continued to be taught but now used different symbols. Additionally, some forms of worship that revolved around the temple and feast day sabbaths were "democratized" (there's probably a better word for it) into local community worship. John recognized the messianic symbolism of the Paschal meal, but Christ introduced the Lord's Supper for remembrance. On top of that, those things that survived the transition from the Law of Moses (specifically priesthood) carried over some of the liturgical practices and symbols. But even in this case, some were modified to reflect the new covenant. 

Please let me know if I've gotten anything wrong.

For Latter-day Saints, we believe that many of the principles taught in the temple continue to be taught. Some of these principles (such as the atoning death of the Messiah, man's ascent through grace, and the return to God's presence) continue to be taught in modern temples but use different physical symbols. Some temple practices have been democratized so more of the community may participate (as you noted with women participating in the ordinance alongside those with the Melchizedek priesthood) and so that they may be performed within the community (such as the sacrament example used above and our solemn assemblies). Some symbols still carried over (for instance, some of our temples have a holy of holies apart from the celestial room) but even in this case, they have been modified to reflect the new covenant (others may enter the holy of holies, but it will only be under the direction of the presiding high priest).

Additionally we have other practices that have been restored that have been placed under the umbrella of temple worship. For example, we perform baptisms for the dead in the temple because we have a revelation specifically telling us that it should be performed in the temple. The revelation notes that if the saints are too poor to have a temple then they may perform it elsewhere. We find mention of baptisms for the dead in the New Testament and suppose that the former saints had this practice. I don't think anyone claims that it was ever performed in the Jerusalem temple, and if you'd like we can discuss that as a follow up.

I may be in the minority here, but I think some elements of our temple worship are original to our day but still rightfully belong in the temple. That is, even if we had all the secret records and the oral traditions of the Jerusalem temple we still wouldn't find these practices. The Nauvoo temple was built so the Lord could "reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times." Because we don't have a closed canon, modern deuteronomists can update temple worship practice in accordance with the Lord's authority and revelation.

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jonah said:

Isaiah 2:1-2 is a word concerning Judah and Jerusalem, not America or Europe.

You think so?  Where in Jerusalem is anyone exchanging their swords for plowshares, spears into pruning hooks and the thoughts of war being removed.  Or are you saying that these are not "the last days"?  And this thread is about temples - where in Jerusalem is there a temple?

Keep in mind that Isaiah was in the northern Kingdom prior to the fall of the northern Kingdom.  Jerusalem was built upon mountains but is obviously not at the top of the mountains.  Isaiah introduces another word in verse 3 - the word is Zion.  The particular ancient poetic structure of Isaiah is written in a bifid structure of Near Eastern Literary patterns and is the most complex example in all Hebrew scripture - which by format suggests parallelism (among other literary techniques) - meaning that the verses are intended to be understood to mean more than is expressed.  - - If you like I can provide references from experts in ancient Hebrew and Jewish traditions.  

Jesus used parallelism as well in his parables and teachings with examples of living waters that do much more that quench thirst from the desert sun.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2020 at 11:23 PM, Traveler said:

You think so?  Where in Jerusalem is anyone exchanging their swords for plowshares, spears into pruning hooks and the thoughts of war being removed.  Or are you saying that these are not "the last days"?  And this thread is about temples - where in Jerusalem is there a temple?

This is some future time, but it concerns Judah and Jerusalem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonah said:

This is some future time, but it concerns Judah and Jerusalem.

You do realize that at the current time neither Judah or Jerusalem no more resembles the Judah or Jerusalem of the time of Isaiah than say certain areas of current New York City?  - Which Isaiah - if one spiritually realizes the symbolic nature of his poetry - is historically and currently (prophetically) spot on and is in perfect alignment with other NT prophetic symbolism.   For example Daniel speaks more towards Judah and Jerusalem with the symbolic representation of various "kingdoms" to when the Roman empire would be divided into 10 lesser (weaker) kingdoms as a marker into world history as to when the Kingdom of G-d would be restored by divine power - cut out of a mountain without hands.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Traveler said:

You do realize that at the current time neither Judah or Jerusalem no more resembles the Judah or Jerusalem of the time of Isaiah than say certain areas of current New York City?  - Which Isaiah - if one spiritually realizes the symbolic nature of his poetry - is historically and currently (prophetically) spot on and is in perfect alignment with other NT prophetic symbolism.   For example Daniel speaks more towards Judah and Jerusalem with the symbolic representation of various "kingdoms" to when the Roman empire would be divided into 10 lesser (weaker) kingdoms as a marker into world history as to when the Kingdom of G-d would be restored by divine power - cut out of a mountain without hands.

 

The Traveler

Isaiah 7:14 says "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall 
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Israel at the time this prophecy was given did not resemble Israel at the time the 
prophecy was fulfilled.  According to the way you explained what you believe Isaiah 2:1-2
is, it appears you would also consider the woman at the time of the prophecy to be different
from the woman in whom it was fulfilled.   Your whole basis of how things are when
prophecy was given is now skewed where the past and the future circumstances and/or 
culture are different.
 
Those 10 kings do not pertain to Judah and Jerusalem.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as 
yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall 
give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and 
the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that 
are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful".

Do you believe the 10 future kings are 10 presidents/prime ministers of some European
nations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2020 at 10:03 AM, laronius said:

I would recommend reading Alma 13 in the Book of Mormon for a great explanation of the role of high priests.

Alma 13:3 says "Men are called as high priests because of their exceeding faith and good works"

In the Old Testament, were men (of non-Aaronic descent) ordained high priests due to their faith and
good works to serve in the Temple?

I need some clarification on verses 3 and 7-10.  Were Old Testament high priests members of the high 
priesthood; the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jonah said:

Alma 13:3 says "Men are called as high priests because of their exceeding faith and good works"

In the Old Testament, were men (of non-Aaronic descent) ordained high priests due to their faith and
good works to serve in the Temple?

I need some clarification on verses 3 and 7-10.  Were Old Testament high priests members of the high 
priesthood; the Melchizedek Priesthood?

In Hebrews 5 Paul speaks of Christ as being the great High Priest. Anyone called to this office is therefore expected to emulate Him so as to show the people how to come unto Him. This I think is the overall message of Alma 13. In general the office of high priest has been associated with the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood but due to the rebelliousness of the Israelites following their deliverance from Egypt things changed. God effectively took the high priesthood out of their midst (though we recognize the prophets as holding the higher priesthood) and left them with the lessor or Aaronic Priesthood. At this point the office of high priest became an Aaronic Priesthood function.  But even still the office was only intended to be held by those who "due to their faith and good works" were worthy of such a responsibility as they represented the congregations before the Lord. In the Book of Mormon we get a little bit better understanding of this role outside of the temple with men like Alma who dedicated their lives (following conversion) to teaching the gospel and strengthening and building the Church. 

The verses you reference in Alma 13 speak of a doctrine that is unique to our theology. We believe that we all lived with God before coming to this earth. In that spirit world we were taught and trained and prepared to come to earth where our training would continue. We believe that all those who have the priesthood confirmed upon them in this life were foreordained and prepared "according the foreknowledge of God" in that pre-mortal world to receive it here in this life. Of course that path of faith and good works must be continued in this life. Since the restoration of Christ's Church back onto the earth the office of high priest is no longer considered an Aaronic Priesthood office but rather an office held by many holders of the higher priesthood who are in certain positions of authority. 

I hope that somewhat answers your questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2020 at 1:20 PM, Jonah said:

In the Old Testament, were men (of non-Aaronic descent) ordained high priests due to their faith and
good works to serve in the Temple?

Not necessarily to serve in the Temple, but Melchizedek and Jethro are both described as priests outside of the Levitical order.

Come to think of it, Catholics have priests who aren't associated with the Temple. And correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think they're required to prove Aaronic descent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2020 at 9:28 AM, Jonah said:

Isaiah 7:14 says "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall 
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Israel at the time this prophecy was given did not resemble Israel at the time the 
prophecy was fulfilled.  According to the way you explained what you believe Isaiah 2:1-2
is, it appears you would also consider the woman at the time of the prophecy to be different
from the woman in whom it was fulfilled.   Your whole basis of how things are when
prophecy was given is now skewed where the past and the future circumstances and/or 
culture are different.
 
Those 10 kings do not pertain to Judah and Jerusalem.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as 
yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall 
give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and 
the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that 
are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful".

Do you believe the 10 future kings are 10 presidents/prime ministers of some European
nations?

I have pondered how to respond.  Previously I referenced "variant reading" of various ancient texts used for translations for modern Bibles.  I find your arguments somewhat amusing seeing that your are Catholic and that perhaps 80% of the scholars that address variant readings through textual criticism are Catholic.  Especially concerning Isaiah.  In addition Isaiah is written in an ancient Hebrew poetic literary style.  This is not something I invented but comes from prominent Catholic scholars.   If you like I can provide many Catholic scholars that present dualism and parallelism as as intended poetic style for Isaiah and the particular verses I referenced.

Jesus used dualism and parallelism when he was asked for a sign by the Pharisees and he responded that there would be no sign but the sign of Jonah.   Realizing that many would not accept his interpretations he responded at another time with, "Those that have eyes but see not and ears but hear not."

 

There is an obvious  problem dealing with variant readings with thousands of Christian students of the Bible and very little doctrinal agreement - even in the same circles of any established religion.

There is a reference in Danial to "Kingdoms" what would follow Babylon.   The final kingdom was described as a kingdom of Iron that would break and crush all kingdoms during their time of power - but that the kingdom would become divided in two (the two legs of iron) and then the kingdom of iron would be divided again into ten kingdom that were like iron mixed with clay and thus very weak.

I submit that the great kingdom of iron is the Roman empire - that was eventually divided into two kingdoms with capitols in Rome and Constantinople.  But the history of the Roman empire becomes somewhat dicey because various powers conquered and divided up the various realms that was once the initial Roman empire.  So it is most difficult to establish a time when the Roman empire becomes 10 kingdoms.  But there is another clue.  When the kingdoms of the weak Roman empire fall there will be no kingdom to replace them.  The only time in history I can find the kingdoms of Europe (which was much of the initial Roman empire) falling and being replaced - not by a kingdom but a republic, was the time following the American Revolution.  However, I am sure this is an interpretation completely unacceptable to any Catholic - for so many reasons.  But there was no Jewish nation is what is now called Israel.

I submit that in the last days - there would be a stone (symbolic of the return of the Church or kingdom of G-d, once established by Jesus Christ as an necessary step to prepare for the return of Christ) cut out of a mountain at a time when so many kingdoms of the once Roman Empire would fall and end forever the divine right of Kings in Europe.  And then the Jews would return to Jerusalem.  

Of course you do not have to believe any of it - but it only needs be presented to you as a possibility for you to accept or reject.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Traveler said:

So it is most difficult to establish a time when the Roman empire becomes 10 kingdoms

I agree too that it is difficult to figure out who the 10 future kings of Revelation 17:12-16 are;  that will
give their allegiance to the beast before they battle with the Lamb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonah said:

I agree too that it is difficult to figure out who the 10 future kings of Revelation 17:12-16 are;  that will
give their allegiance to the beast before they battle with the Lamb.

My reference to 10 kings is Danial 2 - the full reference:

Quote

36 ¶ This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this ahead of gold.

39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Verse 44 does not say 10 kings - I assume the plural number comes from the number of toes that are mentioned in verse 42.  Again, it appears to me that the Danial prophesy references the fall of earthy kings following the establishment of a heavenly kingdom.  The prophesy of Revelation (also written in poetic style) may have reference to the same kings but may reference something else because they have not kingdom.  The reference presents a paradox - which I believe is intended.

It is my personal belief that these things are not given so that we may know the future but rather to identify when such things take place that G-d is bringing about such things that the Saints of G-d need not fear the world.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2020 at 10:55 AM, Traveler said:

My reference to 10 kings is Danial 2 - the full reference:

Verse 44 does not say 10 kings - I assume the plural number comes from the number of toes that are mentioned in verse 42.  Again, it appears to me that the Danial prophesy references the fall of earthy kings following the establishment of a heavenly kingdom.  The prophesy of Revelation (also written in poetic style) may have reference to the same kings but may reference something else because they have not kingdom.  The reference presents a paradox - which I believe is intended.

Revelation 17 mentions ten kings, without a reference to toes.  Are those ten kings a reference to ten
*kings* or does it represent leaders with various titles (such as Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings,
Sultans, Royal Highness, Queens, etc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonah said:

Revelation 17 mentions ten kings, without a reference to toes.  Are those ten kings a reference to ten
*kings* or does it represent leaders with various titles (such as Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings,
Sultans, Royal Highness, Queens, etc)?

I do not know if the 10 kings in Revelation are the same kings reference by Danial.  Danial does not specifically say 10 kings according to our modern reading except that Danial references that the last kingdom of Iron would become weak and divided into the tows of the image in the dream.  Thou it does not say 10 kings we know that generally images of a man as symbolic that 10 would be the most likely number.  I suggested that the image of iron was likely a reference to the Roman empire.  I am not sure if you agree or not - perhaps you could respond.  If we are in agreement of the Rome as the kingdom of iron then we know that when the Roman empire was divided into 10 separate kingdoms (like Spain, France, Italy and so on - then we know when to look for the kingdom of G-d being cut out of a mountain without hands.  Logically and by definition a kingdom has a Supreme Suzerain as the king.  A republic or democracy does not have a Supreme Suzerain but rather someone leading such a nation by the will of the citizens.

Once again you are using variant reading in reference to textual criticism if presidents and prime ministers are kings and their nations are kingdoms.  Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how you personally validate variant reading of scripture.

 

The Traveler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now