Monday 29 February 2016

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 6

More to look at.

"From the beginning of the Book of Ezekiel in chapter one, we read of the same theme regarding the four creatures and the chariot resembling the Holy Spirit. We ought not to ignore that “When the Living Creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the Living Creatures were lifted up …” Ezekiel even explains it “Wherever the Spirit wanted to go, they went, because there the Spirit went; …” (Ez. 1:15-20)
This is exactly what Christ spoke of the Holy Spirit describing Him as the wind: “where the wind blows”. This “storm wind,” is the same fiery wind is brought to the shore – namely to the great day of the Lord, the whirlwind which will segregate sheep from goats, just as it was in the day of the Pentecost, as the whirlwind blew, it granted the Church the Spirit of discernment, not to condemn the wicked outside it, but to spiritually judge those inside it. Such wind is what Christ spoke of “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). It is no wonder why in the Semitic language “wind” and “spirit” sound the same: Ruah (Hebrew) Riyah/Rouh (Arabic)."

This particular point I would need to look into before a comment can be made.

"Ezekiel even ends his book by a description of the coming temple that came as a symbolic image of the heavenly temple or the higher Jerusalem, similar to the way it came in the book of Revelation.
If this is a literal temple, then this “fiery chariot” and “wheels” is a literal UFO, and the “four living creatures” are actual man, ox, eagle and lion. Why not also insist on the construction of wheels the color of Beryl, and all four must be the same likeness were a wheel must be in the middle of a wheel with rims were full of eyes and when the Living Creatures were lifted up from the earth, the man, ox, eagle and lion, that the wheels are also lifted up?
It was Christ, not some temple institute, who builds Ezekiel’s temple: “He took me there, and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze. He had a line of flax and a measuring rod in His hand, and He stood in the gateway” (Ez 40:3) and in John’s Revelations “His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace” (Rev 1:15) standing in the gateway, proclaims that there is no entry into that holy city except by Him; as He is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” He cries out: “I am the Door, if anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture” (John 10:9). “There is no salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12)."

Two different passages, you don't have to interpret a literal chariot, wheels or creatures and come up with a literal temple. My take on the temple being built, I don't think it would be built by an institution, who it is built by I don't know, all I can say is, it has no backing from the Anti-Christ and will be defiled by Anti-Christ and then cleansed by Jesus Christ, used later in the Millenial reign. Regardless of who builds it, the claim of a literal temple stands.

"This temple has three gates which symbolize the Trinity, the main gate, entrance facing east (Christ) as it is the one leading to the sanctuary and the Holy of the Holies. The other two, one facing north and another facing south; with the same measurements like the one facing east; all three are equal. Ezekiel’s book symbolize the Holy Trinity; Father (His throne), Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s throne is described in metaphor: “And above the firmament over their heads, was the likeness of a throne …” (we ought to start at chapter 1 and not 40) to end in His heavenly temple and tabernacle. This is the holy city – the higher Jerusalem, man finally uniting with God the Father in His Son through His Holy Spirit. These gates are twelve and are the same twelve gates of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:13) even in Matthew “Many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 8:11).
This settles this whole issue, especially when we connect the consecration of the altar, a daily sacrifice should be offered for 7 days (Ez 43:25) just as Malachi prophesied “from the rising of the sun to its setting”. This is what apostolic-succession churches do where communion is offered as a “sacrifice” daily."

While I defend the Trinity as biblical and I think many should defend it as such, it is a stretch to say that the temple symbolizes the Trinity. Furthermore, communion is not what Ezekiel had in mind in Ezekiel 43:25:

"25 “For seven days you are to provide a male goat daily for a sin offering; you are also to provide a young bull and a ram from the flock, both without defect. 26 For seven days they are to make atonement for the altar and cleanse it; thus they will dedicate it. 27 At the end of these days, from the eighth day on, the priests are to present your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings on the altar. Then I will accept you, declares the Sovereign Lord.”"

This refers to what it says, burnt offerings, sin offerings etc, there is nothing about communion or the Eucharist even foretold. Since Jesus comes and there will be a 100 year reign, communion will no longer be practiced, not because Anti-Christ removes it, but because we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). See this previous paper regarding Communion and the grain offering:

Answering Judaism.

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 5

Let us continue looking at what Walid Shoebat had to say in his paper on the abomination of desolation.

"The gist of the Book of Hebrews is regarding the temple which is this new covenant, the covenant with the church, both Jew and Gentile, and will eventually include the whole house of Israel upon Christ’s return as Ezekiel covers in his theme from beginning to end. He was speaking of the church including the end of days and the coming of the Lord. There can never be another covenant with the house of Israel; does God make null and void the new covenant? Impossible. "

Not sure what he is getting at, claiming there is a third temple wouldn't nullify the new covenant. On a side note, the new covenant was made with the Jewish people, not the church. The church is grafted into the covenant and the Jews only become recipients of the new covenant if they are born again. But I digress.

"Ezekiel must be viewed as John in Revelation. It is crucial to see that Ezekiel had a vision: “In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain” (Ezekiel 40:2).
Is this a literal mountain? Yes and no. John in Revelation also saw a vision when he was taken to the desert and there he saw a woman, a beast with seven heads and ten horns, but was this a literal woman, literal heads and literal horns? Perhaps the desert is just as the mountain can be literal. It is therefore crucial to recognize where the literals are and where the metaphor is. Ezekiel was called “the creator of symbolism”.

However, there is ample evidence that we should reconcile “I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion” (Ps 2:6) and that Christ stands literally on the Mount of Olives and there is a literal battle as well (Ezekiel 38) to end all battles, and there is also a new world order: the Kingdom of Christ and the New City coming down from heaven."

Not really much for me to say here to be honest. This particular interpretation is plausible. 

"We also have a river: “It was a river that I could not cross, for the water was too deep, water in which one must swim, a river that could not be crossed. He said to me: ‘Son of Adam, have you seen this?.’ Then he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river”(Ez 47:5-6). John in Revelation 22, reflects on the same scenery: “And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.” While Ezekiel could not yet cross this river since Messiah has no yet come in his time, and when He did come, the Messiah made it clear to John this water comes from Christ: “He who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”’ This river also resembles baptism, which embraces the inhabitants of the world, peoples and nations, who come from everywhere (East, west, north, and south). He saw “fish of the same kinds as the fish of the Great Sea; exceedingly many” (Ez 47:10, 22, 23); a reference to the entrance of the Gentiles into the eternal.
If this temple was a literal temple, John makes it clear that “there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light.” (Revelation 22:5) “And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its Temple, even the Lamb. And the City [Heavenly Jerusalem] had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.” (Revelation 22:22-23)
John’s temple is the same temple Ezekiel declared all with its “gates”: “And its gates may not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there.” (v.25)"

Firstly, I'll deal with Revelation 21:22-23, Which is what I think Shoebat but hey, we all make mistakes and are not infallible. Any, Regarding the temple, is it there, Yes. But is this temple be around forever? or only for a time? Revelation 21 gives the answer:

"Revelation 21:9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia[c] in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 17 The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits[d] thick.[e] 18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19 The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.[f] 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass.

22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life."

Now how do I reconcile with what I said about the third temple regarding the Millennial Reign? Simple answer, the temple is not eternally established, but rather remains throughout the Millennial Reign until it's purpose if fulfilled. The temple does exist for a time but later will be discarded, hence why in verse 22 it is not present in the city.

Other than that, interpreting the fish as the Gentile people is a plausible one, so not much to say on that point.

"Ezekiel’s Temple can be summarized from the New Testament: “For having been drawn to Him, a living Stone, indeed rejected by men, but elect, precious with God; you also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4-5 MKJV)."

A spiritual temple and priesthood does NOT refute the concept of a literal priesthood and literal temple in the Millenial Reign, See my previous paper on the subject of a physical and spiritual temple:

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 23 February 2016

Ezekiel 23:20: What it actually means and the abuse of it

No thanks to the late Ahmed Deedat and other apologists, many Muslims love to abuse Ezekiel 23:20 and try to imply some really horrible and dirty things about the text itself.

Here is the verse in question:
"20 and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses." ESV

"20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." NIV

On a first glance, you would be shocked by this usage of terms, however, like any book, it has a context.

We go back to the very beginning of the chapter:
"23 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother. 3 They played the whore in Egypt; they played the whore in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and their virgin bosoms[a] handled. 4 Oholah was the name of the elder and Oholibah the name of her sister. They became mine, and they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem."

The introduction to the chapter shows that it is a parable, it is a passage of judgement. The two women in the story who are present are the two kingdoms in Israel, Ephraim, the northern kingdom and Judah, the southern kingdom. Right off the bat, we are told who these women are, that they are representing the two kingdoms within the nation of Israel.

"5 “Oholah played the whore while she was mine, and she lusted after her lovers the Assyrians, warriors 6 clothed in purple, governors and commanders, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on horses. 7 She bestowed her whoring upon them, the choicest men of Assyria all of them, and she defiled herself with all the idols of everyone after whom she lusted. 8 She did not give up her whoring that she had begun in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her and handled her virgin bosom and poured out their whoring lust upon her. 9 Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the Assyrians, after whom she lusted. 10 These uncovered her nakedness; they seized her sons and her daughters; and as for her, they killed her with the sword; and she became a byword among women, when judgment had been executed on her."

Adultery is often used as a picture of someone who at one staged worshipped the one true God, but is now prostrating before the idols of men and this particular context, Israel had become reliant on Egypt for help, rather than asking God for help, they were abandoning the one who cares for them. That doesn't mean you can't ask others for help in ordinary life, but in the context of the passage, the nation of Israel were in sin and seeking help from the idolatrous nation of Egypt in order to fight impending threats, rather than trusting and relying on God for help in protecting them from the Assyrians.

Spiritual adultery was what was taking place and this isn't the only illustration, Even James states "friendship with the world is emnity with God" (James 4:4).

"11 “Her sister Oholibah saw this, and she became more corrupt than her sister[b] in her lust and in her whoring, which was worse than that of her sister. 12 She lusted after the Assyrians, governors and commanders, warriors clothed in full armor, horsemen riding on horses, all of them desirable young men. 13 And I saw that she was defiled; they both took the same way. 14 But she carried her whoring further. She saw men portrayed on the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed in vermilion, 15 wearing belts on their waists, with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them having the appearance of officers, a likeness of Babylonians whose native land was Chaldea. 16 When she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoring lust. And after she was defiled by them, she turned from them in disgust. 18 When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. 19 Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt 20 and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. 21 Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed[c] your young breasts.”"

Despite Ephraim being taken away into exile because of their sins, Judah itself continued on it's destructive path and even did worse than Ephraim had done previously, heaping sin upon sin and defiling the land with idol worship and bloodshed. Judah had no shame in committing the detestable practices of the pagan nations around them. Is there evidence for my assertion? Yes there is, later in the passage:

"36 The Lord said to me: “Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Declare to them their abominations. 37 For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. With their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even offered up[e] to them for food the children whom they had borne to me. 38 Moreover, this they have done to me: they have defiled my sanctuary on the same day and profaned my Sabbaths. 39 For when they had slaughtered their children in sacrifice to their idols, on the same day they came into my sanctuary to profane it. And behold, this is what they did in my house. 40 They even sent for men to come from afar, to whom a messenger was sent; and behold, they came. For them you bathed yourself, painted your eyes, and adorned yourself with ornaments. 41 You sat on a stately couch, with a table spread before it on which you had placed my incense and my oil. 42 The sound of a carefree multitude was with her; and with men of the common sort, drunkards[f] were brought from the wilderness; and they put bracelets on the hands of the women, and beautiful crowns on their heads.

43 “Then I said of her who was worn out by adultery, Now they will continue to use her for a whore, even her![g] 44 For they have gone in to her, as men go in to a prostitute. Thus they went in to Oholah and to Oholibah, lewd women! 45 But righteous men shall pass judgment on them with the sentence of adulteresses, and with the sentence of women who shed blood, because they are adulteresses, and blood is on their hands.”"

To go back a little bit:

"22 “Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side— 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. 24 They will come against you with weapons,[d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire. 26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry. 27 So I will put a stop to the lewdness and prostitution you began in Egypt. You will not look on these things with longing or remember Egypt anymore."

Whenever Israel sinned heavily against YHWH, he would bring in other nations to discipline his people, sometimes in instances even today with the church, an individual may be used to bring correction to a Christian who isn't acting in accordance with scripture (A possible scenario). If however the nations were cruel and malicious, God would bring his judgement upon that nation. Israel in the Old Testament received attacks from their enemies in the context as a result of their disobedience. If there was repentance, there would be deliverance. Let us look at the following in the next set of verses:

"28 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am about to deliver you into the hands of those you hate, to those you turned away from in disgust. 29 They will deal with you in hatred and take away everything you have worked for. They will leave you stark naked, and the shame of your prostitution will be exposed. Your lewdness and promiscuity 30 have brought this on you, because you lusted after the nations and defiled yourself with their idols. 31 You have gone the way of your sister; so I will put her cup into your hand.

32 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“You will drink your sister’s cup,
    a cup large and deep;
it will bring scorn and derision,
    for it holds so much.
33 You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow,
    the cup of ruin and desolation,
    the cup of your sister Samaria.
34 You will drink it and drain it dry
    and chew on its pieces—
    and you will tear your breasts.
I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.

35 “Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Since you have forgotten me and turned your back on me, you must bear the consequences of your lewdness and prostitution.”"


"46 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Bring a mob against them and give them over to terror and plunder. 47 The mob will stone them and cut them down with their swords; they will kill their sons and daughters and burn down their houses.

48 “So I will put an end to lewdness in the land, that all women may take warning and not imitate you. 49 You will suffer the penalty for your lewdness and bear the consequences of your sins of idolatry. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign Lord.”"

Much like what was quoted earlier, judgement of Israel and then other nations brought in as a means of discipline and punishment for the people of Israel.

It is only by reading the Bible with a filthy and corrupt mindset and ripping the verse out of context that one can paint the Bible is a filthy book.

I would encourage many to read Ezekiel 23:20 in it's context:

Next time someone directs you an Ahmed Deedat video or a Muslim brings up this argument, study the context for yourself to see whether or not what they say stands up to scrutiny.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 21 February 2016

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 4

Here we go, a continuation of the response to Walid Shoebat.

"And besides this reference, the New Testament clearly defined what this temple is, and at times it is also defined as the Christian:
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (1 Corinthian 3:16)
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:17)
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:16)
This is also found in Ephesians 2:19-22, Acts 7:44-50, Matthew 12:6, Hebrews 8:1-2, 1 Peter 2:4-6, Revelation 14:1.
This is why it is crucial to go back to Christ when He said “this is My body” and “do this in remembrance of me”. Such references are interpreted using the “two senses”. So just as we see in Ezekiel’s temple, a literal sense is applied with memorial as well, this temple is both and is speaking of the church in its fullest even during the kingdom and the heavenly temple. While many say Ezekiel speaks of an earthly Temple to come, but we say he speaks of the Temple, that is now, and the one that will continue, and the one that Christcleanses from after the Antichrist inflicts it as He returns making the church His bride.
It is the latter that confuses many since the context includes the entire frame of time from the inception of the church to Christ finally coming down to rule it. Until interpreters can fathom a heavenly temple, then they can expound. Ezekiel predicts Christ’s new order, which, unlike the old order, is permanent and so is the temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices are spiritually applied (1 Pet. 2:5) but this is in regards to actual substance."

I may consider giving my own comments on what the references that Shoebat gives above, but I will comment generally on the 4 he quotes. No Non-Catholic denies that the body of Christ is the temple of God, as I have pointed out, it is debatable whether or not the temple in Ezekiel is a literal temple, I am of the position that there is one. Let's say for arguments sake that the temple is a literal one, Christ being the temple now would not refute the concept of a literal temple in the Millennial Reign.

An acknowledgement of a future literal temple is not a repudiation of Christ's body of the temple if you take into consideration the Millennial Reign, not in the sense of a-millenial, but in the sense of pre-millenial. I am not contentious with my a-millenial brothers in Christ just to clarify.

"It is for this reason, that the mystery of Communion is also the literal presence of Christ. There is no escape, since even the temple had the Shekinah Glory of God literally residing in the temple, in the tabernacle, upon the ark of the covenant, and so will this be through communion which without this “grain offering” we have “an abomination of desolation” as Daniel said and is why the devil hates the Eucharist and has many virgins without oil follow a lie."

Eucharistic Transubstantiation is not a grain offering in the slightest, the Eucharist wasn't even there in the days of Daniel, Moreover, the 10 virgins were not prepared for Christ's coming and got very lax in their service, hence why they are shut out.

See my comments on Joel regarding the grain and drink offerings:

"The old tabernacle, or any earthly tabernacle for that matter, can never be established since it was a type and shadow of “heavenly things” as described in Hebrews 8 which settles the issue for it needs no explanation:
We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.”
Christ is then the center of Ezekiel’s temple and it is not built “by a mere human being”:
 “Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, hewould not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven … But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superiorto theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another … By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”
What “will soon disappear” means what it says, it will go away, never to re-appear again, no matter who tries and is why Israel today has no temple since its destruction in 70AD. These modern interpretations will cause many to miss the Antichrist and like the virgins without oil, they are caught off guard when the Bridegroom commeth to defeat him. Everything in these false interpretations is setting up the lazy servant and the five virgins with no oil to fall. This is why apostolic-succession churches like Orthodox Russia to these become “Gog and Magog” and is why the  (Catholic) is made “harlot” and “Antichrist”; where the “seven mountains” are literal mountains in Vatican instead of being Muslim kingdoms. This is why, the real Gog and Magog (literal Turkey), is given a clean bill as an “ally of the U.S”. This is why wine is symbolized and grape juice is consumed instead. This is why sacrifice is undermined and works is frowned upon, and Christ’s sacrifice is sold for non-sacrificial easy believism; there is where we find a definite segregation between the lazy and the prudent, the virgins with oil and without, the sheep from the goats. It all makes perfect sense. It is a crucial question as to why so many err and always allegorize literals and literalize allegories where at times evil is made holy and holy is made evil."

Completely missing the fact that once again, the temple's nature in Ezekiel is debatable, The big question is, do your points withstand scrutiny? Why assert you understand end times with such confidence?

And what do you mean by Easy Believism? Biblical Protestants do not accept easy believism as a viable option. Are you trying to imply that some how Protestants and other non Catholic groups hold to an easy believism?

For that matter, The destruction of the temple fits in with what Jesus said in the chapters where he mentions the abomination of desolation.

See my paper on Daniel 9 for my comments on that passage:

"The gist of the Book of Hebrews is regarding the temple which is this new covenant, the covenant with the church, both Jew and Gentile, and will eventually include the whole house of Israel upon Christ’s return as Ezekiel covers in his theme from beginning to end. He was speaking of the church including the end of days and the coming of the Lord. There can never be another covenant with the house of Israel; does God make null and void the new covenant? Impossible. "

Putting aside who the covenant was made with as I feel that is a different topic, how does the Book of Hebrews refute a literal temple in the context of Ezekiel? We'll see if the Lord Wills in the next part.

Answering Judaism.

Saturday 20 February 2016

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 3

More arguments to get through ladies and gentlemen. Let's dive into them.

"In regards to a rebuilt temple, one key to unlock everything and end this argument once and for all, is to see where when Jesus said ‘Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.’ Then the Jews said, ‘This Temple was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up in three days?’
Jesus Himself was that temple, while the confused, just as I used to be, were speaking of a literal temple. When it comes to heavenly issues, always think in reverse of what the earthly carnal minds think; the ways of God are not the ways of man.
And so lets examine all the divisive argumentation regarding Ezekiel’s Temple and see; Daniel, Ezekiel and even John, were all speaking of the same temple making clear this isnot an earthly temple on the Temple Mount, where Ezekiel’s temple, if one takes the literal measures, its about one square mile, larger than the entire ancient walled city of Jerusalem, and the holy portion for priests and Levites (about 40 by 50 miles) would cover an area ten times the circumference of Jerusalem. And if this temple is what some group in Israel called the Temple Institute are planning to build with all the implements, of lamp stand and altar of incense, Ezekiel’s temple has no showbread, no golden lamp stand, no altar of incense, no vail covering the entrance of the holy of holies and even no ark. For this temple to be rebuilt by some Temple Institute in Israel, these non-apostolics must first convince this Jewish group to follow Ezekiel’s design, which spiritually matches Christian theology, and as it appears, these Jews will refuse to do this in order to please non-apostolic Christians just to win an argument."

Jesus referring to himself as the temple is not a refutation of a literal temple to come. It is debatable whether or not it is a literal or spiritual or both. Eschatology is one topic that needs to approach with caution and as I said before, what I say about end times is conjecture on my part. Again, examine the claims of me or anyone with respect to eschatology. I personally don't claim an organization builds the temple such as the Temple Institute or any organization with a similar function.

And stop calling us non-apostolic Christians, Roman Catholicism HAS NO apostolic succession. But I digress.

"Ezekiel’s temple, its altar is approached by steps from the east (Ezekiel 43:17) where steps previously were forbidden because of nakedness, yet here, the Lord has removed our nakedness, or perhaps better put, we’re in a state of nakedness now as were Adam and Eve before they sinned, the east gate was shut and now its open and there is no shame.
No matter how one slices and dices the verses, objections abound, because many believe they can fully comprehend God’s mysteries which these frequently ignore. Many literalize Ezekiel’s Temple while others completely spiritualize it. This is done because many today ignore the ancient golden rule: the ancient church interpreted using the standard they call “the two senses” by applying both the spiritual and the literal."

And you can comprehend God's mysteries Mr Shoebat? I am not even sure how the steps are even relevant to his point. I have already said that Eschatology is to be approached with caution. I leave you guys to examine the comments.

"The Eucharist, for example, can be defined in the ‘two senses’ – one as the actual celebration of remembering the last supper of Jesus (the Rite/Sacrament) as well as the bread and wine which is consecrated and through transubstantiation becomes the body and blood of Christ.
The temple is said to “make atonement for the house of Israel” (45:17) and this excludes it from being just a memorial (not that its not). Again, Christ Himself instituted the use ofwine and bread to both commemorate His death (1 Cor. 11:24–26) and to be consumed literally. Unless one understands this duality, we should expect more divisions in the church as if there is not enough which Christ warned never  to do."

And we all know how much of a lie transubstansiation is, let's nip the misuse of 1 Corinthians 11-24:26 in the bud:

"1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world"

Paul in the context lays down in the chapter how to approach the Lord's Supper, what the conduct should be etc. He also makes it clear that coming to the Lord's Supper with unconfessed sin, will bring judgement to a person, either by illness or dying prematurely.

Some have claimed that Paul is referring to those who deny transubstantiation, However that misses the entire premise Paul is laying out in his letter. See my article on John 6 for other points on other texts:

"For Christ to re-institute animal sacrifice upon His return defies scripture where God replaced animal sacrifices in which God never found any particular pleasure (Ps. 40:6; 51:16; Heb. 10:6). Even the “prince” they speak about who enters the temple, Ezekiel says that “the prince” will offer a sin offering “for himself and for all the people” (45:22). This prince cannot be what many believe as the Messiah. Ezekiel’s prince is required to offer sacrifices for his own sins, this would militate against any theory that identifies him with Christ, who never sinned. So obviously, this is the church’s leader.
Is it possible then that this temple is a centralized worship in a specified geographical place? How could this be, especially when Jesus announced to the Samaritan woman that levitical temple worship will end and be replaced with spiritual worship (John 4:21–24; cf. Acts 7:48–50)? The folly always occurs when we either strictly spiritualize orcompletely literalize Ezekiel’s text."
Regarding the two texts from the Psalms:
"Psalm 51:16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;

    you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.

17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;

    a broken and contrite heart

    you, God, will not despise."

"Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—

    but my ears you have opened[c]—

    burnt offerings and sin offerings[d] you did not require."

These texts do not suggest that God is against sacrifices in and of themselves nor a denial of them or he takes NO delight in them. In fact Samuel said to obey God's voice is better than many sacrifices but this is not a denial of sacrifice. Although God prefers to have our constant unflinching obedience, these texts don't help Shoebat's case.

As for the point in Ezekiel 45, let us read the last section in question:
"21 “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall celebrate the Feast of the Passover, and for seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten. 22 On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering. 23 And on the seven days of the festival he shall provide as a burnt offering to the Lord seven young bulls and seven rams without blemish, on each of the seven days; and a male goat daily for a sin offering. 24 And he shall provide as a grain offering an ephah for each bull, an ephah for each ram, and a hin[j] of oil to each ephah. 25 In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month and for the seven days of the feast, he shall make the same provision for sin offerings, burnt offerings, and grain offerings, and for the oil."

Like Ezekiel 44:27 (See this article where I respond to someone who uses that text:, The sacrifices are done in commemoration of what the Messiah has done with respect to the atonement that he provides. If there is a third temple and the NT is true at the same time, it is safe to say exegetically that the sacrifices are done for their reason. Jesus doesn't offer a sin offering because he needs it, but because it is commemoration of what he has done of behalf of The Jews and the Gentiles, namely his sacrificial death. That is how the sacrifices are conducted. See Contra Blumenthal for a discussion on this matter, specifically the section "Role of the Temple in the Messianic Era":

The temple is present during the Millennial reign of Christ, not while the Gospel is being preached to all the nations. I agree that we will worship the Father in spirit and in truth and where we worship will not matter, but does that deal with the point about a literal temple? Not really.

We'll continue the response if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 2

Walid Shoebat in his paper the following question:

"Instead, I will direct a Jesus-style challenge to all who are anti-transubstantiation, that is, the daily sacrifice of the Eucharist, they argue, is re-sacrificing Christ. If this is true, the challenge to the common Messianic assumption, regarding Daniel 9, that if such ‘abomination’ will occur only at a rebuilt Temple by the Jews, for this to become true I ask: how could non-apostolic-succession accuse apostolic-succession believers of re-sacrificing Christ when they are accepting the re-institution of Jews re-sacrificing the Messiah who had already come?
We can’t have it both ways. If this is the case, as westerners say “what should be good for the geese (the Jews) should it not also be good for the ganders (apostolic succession churches)?"

Let me explain.

Firstly, read the following chapters with respect to the Temple that Ezekiel sees before carrying on reading the article in context.
Though the concept of a third temple is not referred to by all Christians, I consider the third temple has a future. The chapters give a description of what is present in the temple and what is going to transpire within the confines of the temple. This I believe will occur in the Millennial Reign of Christ, which has not occurred yet but shall transpire in the future. Offerings are presented at the temple and they are literal offerings within the context.

"Ezekiel 40:38 A room with a doorway was by the portico in each of the inner gateways, where the burnt offerings were washed. 39 In the portico of the gateway were two tables on each side, on which the burnt offerings, sin offerings[n] and guilt offerings were slaughtered. 40 By the outside wall of the portico of the gateway, near the steps at the entrance of the north gateway were two tables, and on the other side of the steps were two tables. 41 So there were four tables on one side of the gateway and four on the other—eight tables in all—on which the sacrifices were slaughtered. 42 There were also four tables of dressed stone for the burnt offerings, each a cubit and a half long, a cubit and a half wide and a cubit high.[o] On them were placed the utensils for slaughtering the burnt offerings and the other sacrifices. 43 And double-pronged hooks, each a handbreadth[p] long, were attached to the wall all around. The tables were for the flesh of the offerings."

These offerings wouldn't present a problem, they are going to be present within the Millennial Reign itself, but the reason they are going to be carried out, is in commemoration of what the Messiah has done for them, the atonement for the sins of humanity and that those who have continued to believe in him would have salvation. Another noteworthy point are the priests of Zadok who are going to be administering in the temple. Again it is worth noting that these offerings are literal offerings as stated earlier:

"Ezekiel 40:44 Outside the inner gate, within the inner court, were two rooms, one[q] at the side of the north gate and facing south, and another at the side of the south[r] gate and facing north. 45 He said to me, “The room facing south is for the priests who guard the temple, 46 and the room facing north is for the priests who guard the altar. These are the sons of Zadok, who are the only Levites who may draw near to the Lord to minister before him.

47 Then he measured the court: It was square—a hundred cubits long and a hundred cubits wide. And the altar was in front of the temple."

"Ezekiel 43:18 Then he said to me, “Son of man, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: These will be the regulations for sacrificing burnt offerings and splashing blood against the altar when it is built: 19 You are to give a young bull as a sin offering[bh] to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who come near to minister before me, declares the Sovereign Lord. 20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it. 21 You are to take the bull for the sin offering and burn it in the designated part of the temple area outside the sanctuary."

"Ezekiel 44:15 “‘But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 They alone are to enter my sanctuary; they alone are to come near my table to minister before me and serve me as guards."

Now you may ask "How are the priests of Zadok going to administer in the temple?" Easy answer, They will be resurrected from the dead to not only reign with Christ as saints saved by him, which is another topic regarding how the saints in the TANAKH were saved by his blood. Not only this, after the resurrection and during the Millennial reign, they shall administer in their priestly offices and run the temple as they should.

That is one way one can refute transubstantiation and yet hold to a rebuilt temple with sacrifices at the same time. This particular part regarding the re-institution of sacrifices during the millennial reign of Christ occurs when the third temple is built.

"If it is literal temple sacrifices in Jerusalem, that scripture alludes to, the other Jesus style question is this: how could non-apostolic succession churches accept such “sacrifice” be used metaphorically, from a new covenant perspective, while Israel, so they say, will re-institute temple sacrifices literally and from an old covenant perspective?
Even perhaps if our Jesus-style questions here are still not convincing or convicting, let us even delve into Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple (Ezekiel 40-44) which we will address first before we get into the meaty subject on how Islam will fulfill this “abomination of desolation”."

Again, this harkens back to what I said earlier and I hope to look at Shoebat's points on the subject of Ezekiel 40-48 a little later. A refutation of our position doesn't prove transubstansiation, even if that is not the intention of Shoebat.

"Astonishingly Ezekiel’s temple, in Ezekiel 42:13-14, even links to the same key element in Daniel’s prophecy regarding the “grain offering” as a “meat offering” and a “sin offering” even including “priestly garments”:
… where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things: there shall they lay the most holy things, and the meat offering, and thesin offering, and the trespass offering; for the place is holy. When the priests enter therein, then shall they not go out of the holy place into the utter court, but there they shall lay their garments wherein they minister; for they are holy; and shall put on other garments, and shall approach to those things which are for the people.
Daniel 9, “daily grain sacrificial offering” is in the strictest sense also in Ezekiel, if these sacrifices are a “memorial” as many claim to only be “do this in remembrance of Me” why then it is a “sin offering”? This would means that they too, the non-apostolic-succession would have to make an exception to also accept a ‘re-sacrifice of Christ’. Yet they reject this because they do not believe that a sin offering is necessary since once-saved always saved."

Wow, I don't believe in OSAS and that is an egregious misrepresentation of it.

There are two types of OSAS however, Some use it in the sense of Perseverence of the Saints, that those who are truly saved persevere in holiness to the end. The other type is a non lordship, carnal, antinomian version. Believers in the former version sometimes use the phrase OSAS, but they mean it differently from the non lordship type.

Also, the offering being a sin offering is irrelevant to the fact that the offerings in Ezekiel are literal offerings done in commemoration of what the Messiah has done. Bringing up what the offerings are doesn't tackle the reason WHY they are offered as commemorative tokens.

"It becomes impossible therefore to ignore or refute; this is the daily sacrifice of the mass regardless how many of us in the non-apostolic denominations object. Only these have a “daily offering”. Joel 1 &2 confirms “an offering” to being the case even at the time just prior to Christ’s coming on “the day of the Lord” when Antichrist would have stopped the daily sacrifice:
“The grain offering and the drink offering. Have been cut off from the house of the LordThe priests mourn, who minister to the Lord … Alas for the day! Forthe day of the Lord is at hand; It shall come as destruction from the Almighty.”
And amazingly here in Joel, like Daniel, Joel is speaking of the technical (literal) application, tells us as well, not only of the “grain offering” (Eucharist) but also of the “drink offering” (the wine).
While when scripture speaks technicality, it is precise, no animal sacrifice, while when it speaks  allegorically, as in Ezekiel, there is a symbolic animal sacrificial offering. To ensure that this is regarding the end times, Joel confirms the abolition of communion just prior to Christ’s second coming: “the day of the Lord is at hand”.  This happens 3.5 years, just prior to Christ’s coming.
In other words, the Caliphate is established stemming from Turkey with an allegiance for this coming presidency (caliphate) where Muslims give allegiance to this man of sin for a seven year term, and in the midst of it, Islam’s aspiration for Jihad rejuvenates and Sharia will be implemented where wine is forbidden and by extension of this Sharia law, churches throughout are prohibited from observing communion."

The grain and drink offering have no connection to the Eucharist, this is wishful thinking. Reading through Joel, I do not see anything with respect to an abolition of communion. Mainly because it is not there. Let us look at Joel 1:
"1 The word of the Lord that came to Joel, the son of Pethuel:

2 Hear this, you elders;
    give ear, all inhabitants of the land!
Has such a thing happened in your days,
    or in the days of your fathers?
3 Tell your children of it,
    and let your children tell their children,
    and their children to another generation.
4 What the cutting locust left,
    the swarming locust has eaten.
What the swarming locust left,
    the hopping locust has eaten,
and what the hopping locust left,
    the destroying locust has eaten."
Locusts are released into the land of Israel because of their sins and the locusts consume the crops completely, bringing ruin onto the land. This leads into the next section of the chapter:
"5 Awake, you drunkards, and weep,
    and wail, all you drinkers of wine,
because of the sweet wine,
    for it is cut off from your mouth.
6 For a nation has come up against my land,
    powerful and beyond number;
its teeth are lions' teeth,
    and it has the fangs of a lioness.
7 It has laid waste my vine
    and splintered my fig tree;
it has stripped off their bark and thrown it down;
    their branches are made white.
8 Lament like a virgin[a] wearing sackcloth
    for the bridegroom of her youth.
9 The grain offering and the drink offering are cut off
    from the house of the Lord.
The priests mourn,
    the ministers of the Lord.
10 The fields are destroyed,
    the ground mourns,
because the grain is destroyed,
    the wine dries up,
    the oil languishes."

and in the same chapter:
"13 Put on sackcloth and lament, O priests;
    wail, O ministers of the altar.
Go in, pass the night in sackcloth,
    O ministers of my God!
Because grain offering and drink offering
    are withheld from the house of your God.
14 Consecrate a fast;
    call a solemn assembly.
Gather the elders
    and all the inhabitants of the land
to the house of the Lord your God,
    and cry out to the Lord.
15 Alas for the day!
For the day of the Lord is near,
    and as destruction from the Almighty[c] it comes.
16 Is not the food cut off
    before our eyes,
joy and gladness
    from the house of our God?"

The grain and wine offerings are not a reference to communion or the Eucharist being cut off in the context of the passages, What is shown is that the offerings are useless in light of the fact that judgement is coming and will not be deterred. While it can be considered a referrence to the final day of judgement, it is a stretch to somehow interpret the offerings as the Lord's Supper.

"So if communion was not as essential as some claim, how is it that Christ warned of this event “stopping the grain offering” as the abomination where it makes holy worshipdesolate and the sacrificial system obsolete?
In addition, only an apostolic succession style churches insist on real wine while non-apostolic-succession do away with it. So many fail to link Joel with Daniel which in Joel 2: “Who knows if He will turn and relent, And leave a blessing behind Him—A grain offering and a drink offering For the Lord your God?”
The “drink offering” has always been wine."

Christ wasn't even referring to communion when he was talking about the abomination of desolation, Again, the grain offering in Joel and Daniel do not refer to the Lord's Suppers, they refer to wine offerings and grain offerings, period. This whole point by Shoebat is moot.

We shall continue in the next part.

Answering Judaism.