What was the biblical significance of the construction and fall of the TWO TOWERS of the World Trade Center?

Not sure why you think the time of the end was 2000 years ago.
Because that is what scripture plainly states. Read 1 Corinthian 10:11.

Not sure why you'd quote a question I asked someone else, ignore it, and respond with a non sequitur question that has already been answered.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Who is the "our" in that verse? It is the congregation in Corinth reading Paul's letter at the time it was first received (in the first century). Paul plainly states the ends of the ages had come upon them. That is why I know, not think, the time of the end was 2000 years ago. It is plainly stated in scripture, that's why. The better question is why you do not.

When was Jesus revealed? He was foreknown before the world was created, but revealed in the last days.

1 Peter 1:20-21
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

That is what the text of scripture actually, factually, literally states. I am not the one adding to God's word or re-interpreting it to make it mean something other than what it actually states in it literal, ordinary, normal usage of words. Notice the "has" and "these." It is "has" and "these," not "will" and "those."

The "ends of the ages" and the "last times" occurred in the New Testament era. The Dispensational type futurisms deny these scriptures should be read as written. Or, sometimes a person will say Jesus, and Paul, or Peter, etc. believed these things would happen in their lifetime but were mistaken. They will claim Christ was mistaken. They will claim the New Testament writers, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were mistaken. They got it wrong.

Just read the scriptures as written. Daniel mentions a time of the end and the New Testament writers revealed more about that. The spoke of the time of the end, claiming under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the ends of the ages and last times had fallen upon them. Daniel was told by God to seal up the prophecy because the time wasn't at hand. John, on the other hand, was told to leave the prophecy - the Daniel-referencing prophecy - unsealed. Why? Because the time was near; the time was at hand. Do a word search in the Bible and examine the use of the word "near" The word "near" means near, and God NEVER uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near, close in time or location. The closest you'll find is some conditional statements where God says, "When X happens, the Y is near." The word "near" never means "2000 years from now."

I bend my eschatology to the plainly written word of God. I do not bend the word of God to fit my already-existing eschatology.

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

God spoke to them in the last days. He did so in His Son.

Acts 2:16-17
But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;

According to Peter, who was preaching under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost was a fulfillment of the last days prophecy in Joel.




Where is the verse that plainly states, explicitly states, the last days/time of the end will come in the 21st century? Do you have anything as explicit as the verses I just quoted? If not, then you know why I believe what I believe, and the better question is why you don't believe those clear, unadulterated verses plainly stated as written. Was it because you were taught to believe and eschatology that was invented in the 19th century and followed its teachers without critically examining the New Testaments revelation of the Old Testament, not noticing the verses quoted above? If so, then re-read the New Testament and take note of all the time stamps contained in it. You'll notice there is a difference between the last day, and the last days. The last days occurred during the New Testament era. The last day has yet to come.


And the world trade towers have nothing to do with that.
 
Not only is that the exact opposite of what the verses states, you're avoiding the salient point: the destruction of the twin towers has nothing to do with prophecy. The end times occurred in the first century, along with most of those prophecies to which you appeal for a futurism that is denied in scripture. I'm not saying futurism is wrong. I am saying your futurism is wrong. This is proven with every post in which what is plainly stated is changed and re-interpreted to say things other than what is plainly stated. The effort does not prove the towers relevant. It proves exegetical skills are lacking.
What you are above saying is chaff. Your thinking is from a HUMAN perspective, A STUMBLING BLOCK, not from GOD's perspective-Matthew 16:23..

The testimony of JESUS is the Spirit of prophecy, so if any MAN have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.
The build and fall of the TWIN TOWERS in 2001 meant by analogy the APOGEE / CLIMAX and still the fall of the two largest economies in the WORLD in that time-USA and EU, just as the seven heads of the Beast are seven mountains, or even Mount Sinai it means Agar which genders children to bondage, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. By the way, my Lord JESUS calls the city of Jerusalem which now is, and where also He was crucified, as if spiritually it calls, in the current time, Sodom and Egypt, understand?

To understand the things above described, it is possible only by the Spirit of Christ, this explains why you don't understand them. Now, now, how would you be able to understand , but / except by the Spirit of Christ?
Let me recommend you listen to R. C. Sproul's video series on "The Last Days According to Jesus." Listen to them in order with your Bible in-hand and open. Verify what he says. Verify it with your Bible, NOT with what you think you believe or heard from some other teacher. Each video is about a half-hour in length, so take your time. Sproul will be found MUCH more consistent with scripture than folks like Jonathon Cahn.
The Spirit speaks expressly, that in this latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

As was prophesied by Paul Apostle, the time would come when the pseudo "Christians" will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and they would turn away their ears from the truth and turning unto fables, yeah, unto cunningly devised fables.
 
The facts in evidence prove otherwise.

As I said before, the ad hominem is noted, ungodly, and worthless.

Paul said they were living in the last days and the things that had been previously written were written for those living in the New Testament era, upon whom the last days had come.

Yes, care is definitely warranted in this op. You will spend what remains of your life waiting for something that will not happen in your lifetime and then be held accountable for every internet post posted to the contrary (that includes ad hominems).

Matthew 12:36
But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

What you are above saying is chaff. Your thinking is from a HUMAN perspective, A STUMBLING BLOCK, not from GOD's perspective-Matthew 16:23. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord..
 
Because that is what scripture plainly states. Read 1 Corinthian 10:11.

Not sure why you'd quote a question I asked someone else, ignore it, and respond with a non sequitur question that has already been answered.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Who is the "our" in that verse? It is the congregation in Corinth reading Paul's letter at the time it was first received (in the first century). Paul plainly states the ends of the ages had come upon them. That is why I know, not think, the time of the end was 2000 years ago. It is plainly stated in scripture, that's why. The better question is why you do not.

When was Jesus revealed? He was foreknown before the world was created, but revealed in the last days.

1 Peter 1:20-21
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

That is what the text of scripture actually, factually, literally states. I am not the one adding to God's word or re-interpreting it to make it mean something other than what it actually states in it literal, ordinary, normal usage of words. Notice the "has" and "these." It is "has" and "these," not "will" and "those."

The "ends of the ages" and the "last times" occurred in the New Testament era. The Dispensational type futurisms deny these scriptures should be read as written. Or, sometimes a person will say Jesus, and Paul, or Peter, etc. believed these things would happen in their lifetime but were mistaken. They will claim Christ was mistaken. They will claim the New Testament writers, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were mistaken. They got it wrong.

Just read the scriptures as written. Daniel mentions a time of the end and the New Testament writers revealed more about that. The spoke of the time of the end, claiming under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the ends of the ages and last times had fallen upon them. Daniel was told by God to seal up the prophecy because the time wasn't at hand. John, on the other hand, was told to leave the prophecy - the Daniel-referencing prophecy - unsealed. Why? Because the time was near; the time was at hand. Do a word search in the Bible and examine the use of the word "near" The word "near" means near, and God NEVER uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near, close in time or location. The closest you'll find is some conditional statements where God says, "When X happens, the Y is near." The word "near" never means "2000 years from now."

I bend my eschatology to the plainly written word of God. I do not bend the word of God to fit my already-existing eschatology.

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

God spoke to them in the last days. He did so in His Son.

Acts 2:16-17
But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;

According to Peter, who was preaching under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost was a fulfillment of the last days prophecy in Joel.




Where is the verse that plainly states, explicitly states, the last days/time of the end will come in the 21st century? Do you have anything as explicit as the verses I just quoted? If not, then you know why I believe what I believe, and the better question is why you don't believe those clear, unadulterated verses plainly stated as written. Was it because you were taught to believe and eschatology that was invented in the 19th century and followed its teachers without critically examining the New Testaments revelation of the Old Testament, not noticing the verses quoted above? If so, then re-read the New Testament and take note of all the time stamps contained in it. You'll notice there is a difference between the last day, and the last days. The last days occurred during the New Testament era. The last day has yet to come.


And the world trade towers have nothing to do with that.
Oh,I didn't know you were having a private conversation.Perhaps you might try the pm if that's what you need.Otherwise this is an open conversation for everyone to see and respond.You can place me on ignore if you like.

I've already stated what the lasts days are.As I said,it is the 6th day now and getting close to the seventh.

I've been more interested in the time of the end,rather than a few thousands years before the time of the end.

I just don't understand why you think the end times was thousands of years before the time of the end.Daniel doesn't even claim it's the time of the end 3.5 years before the time of the end

Daniel 11
40 “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Cushites[e] in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at[f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

 
Oh,I didn't know you were having a private conversation. Perhaps you might try the pm.....
Fail. The point was this: if you're going to chime in then at least try to be relevant. If you have something off-topic to ask me then it is you who should try the pm.
I just don't understand why you think the end times was thousands of years before the time of the end.
I just explained it to you. If you don't want to accept it then that is okay. I think those who think the world trade towers are eschatologically important have a bad eschatology based on a bad hermeneutic and bad exegesis. They think the same in reverse of me. I don't live my life looking for something that won't (likely) happen in my lifetime. Many do. There are consequences for that.

What happened to everything Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything John Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Harold Camping of Family Radio taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Jack Hayford of Church on the Way, King's University, and Living Way ministries taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Oral Roberts of Oral Roberts University taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Jerry Falwell of Liberty University, the Old-Time Gospel Hour, and Moral Majority taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything evangelist Bill Graham taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Pat Robertson of the 700 Club and Regent University taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything apologist Ravi Zacharias taught would come to pass?

Nothing.

None of what they said would come to pass came to pass. All of these men, and others like them, made predictions based on the kind of "reasoning" through the scripture found in this op. They taught an entire generation to do the same, yet not a single prediction they made came true. They did not just teach false content; they taught false expectations. They may have been knowledgeable and wise teachers when it came to Christology, Pneumatology, soteriology, hamartiology and other doctrines of the faith but they all taught falsely when it came to the future. ALL of them. It is a particularly curious condition because one of the things to which the modern futurist looks forward is the prevalence of false teachers. I've met most of those men in person. I didn't just read their books. I've had conversations about these matters with them face to face. Some of them regretted their errors; some of them denied their errors.

We still have a few from that generation, like Hal Lindsay, but those they taught have picked up the mantle. As a consequence, Christian radio is filled almost all day long with teachers teaching predictions that do not or will not come true. David Jeremiah repeatedly says Jesus will come back in his lifetime. The man is 81 years old. If he lives to be 100 that means Jesus will return in the next 19 years. This same man claims not to set dates and just as adamantly teaches no one will know the day or hour but when he says Jesus will come back within his lifetime, he is date-setting!

And all the acolytes of modern futurism ignore the contradiction.

The saddest part of all this is that if Jesus comes back then you, me, and Oseas will all stand before Jesus redeemed, but I won't have to explain to Jesus why I called another brother in Christ names (or stood in the place of God judging our eternal disposition as some rapturists do).

I answered the question asked. There is no need for to further belabor the matter and I won't collaborate further with digression from the op or personal insinuations. If you've got something else that is op-relevant to say or ask I'll give it consideration.
Daniel doesn't even claim it's the time of the end 3.5 years before the time of the end.
Sound doctrine is not based on what is not said. Neither is it based on three words from one verse to the exclusion of else the scriptures as a whole have to say. Three words in one verse alone do not define eschatology. One verse alone does not define eschatology. One chapter alone does not define eschatology. One prophet alone does not define eschatology. The Old Testament alone does not define Christian eschatology. Selected verses from Daniel can be quoted all day long, but my response will be the same:

What does the New Testament state about that?

Because the newer revelation explains the older revelation, that which was veiled in the OT is made known in the NT, Christians are not Jews, Judaizing Christian eschatology is not sound.
 
Fail. The point was this: if you're going to chime in then at least try to be relevant. If you have something off-topic to ask me then it is you who should try the pm.

I just explained it to you. If you don't want to accept it then that is okay. I think those who think the world trade towers are eschatologically important have a bad eschatology based on a bad hermeneutic and bad exegesis. They think the same in reverse of me. I don't live my life looking for something that won't (likely) happen in my lifetime. Many do. There are consequences for that.

What happened to everything Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything John Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Harold Camping of Family Radio taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Jack Hayford of Church on the Way, King's University, and Living Way ministries taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Oral Roberts of Oral Roberts University taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Jerry Falwell of Liberty University, the Old-Time Gospel Hour, and Moral Majority taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything evangelist Bill Graham taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything Pat Robertson of the 700 Club and Regent University taught would come to pass?
What happened to everything apologist Ravi Zacharias taught would come to pass?

Nothing.

None of what they said would come to pass came to pass. All of these men, and others like them, made predictions based on the kind of "reasoning" through the scripture found in this op. They taught an entire generation to do the same, yet not a single prediction they made came true. They did not just teach false content; they taught false expectations. They may have been knowledgeable and wise teachers when it came to Christology, Pneumatology, soteriology, hamartiology and other doctrines of the faith but they all taught falsely when it came to the future. ALL of them. It is a particularly curious condition because one of the things to which the modern futurist looks forward is the prevalence of false teachers. I've met most of those men in person. I didn't just read their books. I've had conversations about these matters with them face to face. Some of them regretted their errors; some of them denied their errors.

We still have a few from that generation, like Hal Lindsay, but those they taught have picked up the mantle. As a consequence, Christian radio is filled almost all day long with teachers teaching predictions that do not or will not come true. David Jeremiah repeatedly says Jesus will come back in his lifetime. The man is 81 years old. If he lives to be 100 that means Jesus will return in the next 19 years. This same man claims not to set dates and just as adamantly teaches no one will know the day or hour but when he says Jesus will come back within his lifetime, he is date-setting!

And all the acolytes of modern futurism ignore the contradiction.

The saddest part of all this is that if Jesus comes back then you, me, and Oseas will all stand before Jesus redeemed, but I won't have to explain to Jesus why I called another brother in Christ names (or stood in the place of God judging our eternal disposition as some rapturists do).

I answered the question asked. There is no need for to further belabor the matter and I won't collaborate further with digression from the op or personal insinuations. If you've got something else that is op-relevant to say or ask I'll give it consideration.

Sound doctrine is not based on what is not said. Neither is it based on three words from one verse to the exclusion of else the scriptures as a whole have to say. Three words in one verse alone do not define eschatology. One verse alone does not define eschatology. One chapter alone does not define eschatology. One prophet alone does not define eschatology. The Old Testament alone does not define Christian eschatology. Selected verses from Daniel can be quoted all day long, but my response will be the same:

What does the New Testament state about that?

Because the newer revelation explains the older revelation, that which was veiled in the OT is made known in the NT, Christians are not Jews, Judaizing Christian eschatology is not sound.
99 percent of what you just said has nothing to do with the topic.

I was just curious why you believed the end times was 2000 years ago.
Reality proves it wasn't.


As for the topic.I haven't seen the two towers mentioned in scripture but their destruction could have led to an event mentioned in scripture leading up to the time of the end.If Im not mistaken,the fall of the towers took place before the 2nd war between the king of the north and the king of the south.Its possible the fall of the two towers caused that war.

That would be my answer.
 
Last edited:
99 percent of what you just said has nothing to do with the topic.
You apparently do not see the relevance of 99% of what I posted.
I was just curious why you believed the end times was 2000 years ago. Reality proves it wasn't.
LOL! Do you measure scripture by reality or reality by scripture?

Scripture is supposed to be the authority, not "realty."
As for the topic. I haven't seen the two towers mentioned in scripture...
Then why would their destruction be relevant?
...but their destruction could have...
So now we're applying speculation to our understanding of scripture and sound doctrine? A lot of things "could have," but prophecy isn't "could have." Neither does this op argue a "could have." It argues a "definitely is..."
If Im not mistaken,the fall of the towers took place before the 2nd war between the king of the north and the king of the south.
You are mistaken.
Its possible the fall of the two towers caused that war.

That would be my answer.
I understand.

The fact is the twin towers aren't mentioned anywhere in scripture. Speculation is not a sound basis for understanding prophecy but any speculation we might entertain should be based on the whole of scripture and this op neglects piles of scripture, especially what the newer revelation says about Daniel. The two New Testament sources to which the op does appeal are used selectively and in open neglect that they both couched their understanding of Daniel in their era, not ours.

I don't see anyone disproving any of those particulars. Lots of labeling but not a word engaging these many scriptures explicitly stating the "end(s)" occurred in the first century and at least two of them reference Daniel directly.
 
You apparently do not see the relevance of 99% of what I posted.

LOL! Do you measure scripture by reality or reality by scripture?

Scripture is supposed to be the authority, not "realty."

Then why would their destruction be relevant?

So now we're applying speculation to our understanding of scripture and sound doctrine? A lot of things "could have," but prophecy isn't "could have." Neither does this op argue a "could have." It argues a "definitely is..."

You are mistaken.

I understand.

The fact is the twin towers aren't mentioned anywhere in scripture. Speculation is not a sound basis for understanding prophecy but any speculation we might entertain should be based on the whole of scripture and this op neglects piles of scripture, especially what the newer revelation says about Daniel. The two New Testament sources to which the op does appeal are used selectively and in open neglect that they both couched their understanding of Daniel in their era, not ours.

I don't see anyone disproving any of those particulars. Lots of labeling but not a word engaging these many scriptures explicitly stating the "end(s)" occurred in the first century and at least two of them reference Daniel directly.
So if the twin towers are mentioned in scripture and you had simply overlooked that or didn't understand it then you are just as guilty as all those people who said things would happen that didn't.

As for if I'm mistaken or not is yet to be seen.Ive been watching the same chapter for decades .One prophecy taking place after another.Its has yet to fail .Time will tell if it does or not.
 
So if the twin towers are mentioned in scripture and you had simply overlooked that or didn't understand it then you are just as guilty as all those people who said things would happen that didn't.
(josh grins) lol

Where all of my posts read? Was any attention paid to the contents of what was posted? I ask because, once again, I have already answered and addressed that matter. Why am I being asked something I have already answered and addressed? Why are you looking to lay guilt?
As for if I'm mistaken or not is yet to be seen.
Yep.

BUT... since the record shows no awareness of any mention of the twin towers in scripture and sheer speculation as the basis of any such possibility any and all belief in its eschatological relevance is unjustified. It's not a sectarian or doctrinal matter shilo. No one should be adding things to scripture and then speculating over what they've added and then telling everyone else that is what should be believed, and then impugning those who disagree. The moment you said, "I haven't seen the two towers mentioned in scripture," you came into agreement with me! The reason neither you nor I haven't seen any mention of the twin towers is because there is no such mention. Speculating there is is eisegetic at best, baseless at worse.

Just because a futurist makes claims about recent events and the future does not mean you, as a futurist, have to believe them. Your futurism may be correct and there's incorrect. If you do in fact believe your own, "I haven't seen the two towers mentioned in the scripture," then you should be taking that up with the op.

Don't be surprised if the response is to call your views, "chaff," and label your thinking as "human perspective, a stumbling block, and not from God's perspective."
Ive been watching the same chapter for decades .One prophecy taking place after another.Its has yet to fail .Time will tell if it does or not.
I would ask for some proof, but I'm not interested in getting far afield of this op.

When Jesus comes there won't be any doubt or debate in the minds of Christians. You and I will know. People try to leverage "no one will know the day or hour," but they do so abusively anytime they ignore the fact signs were given in order so the signs would be recognized for what they are: SIGNS!!! The foundation of revelation is the revealing of things not previously known or understood.

NOT speculation.





There is no mention of the twin towers in scripture. They have no relevance eschatologically. At best the episode is an excellent example of human stronghold(s) and valuing material wealth when it cannot save.
 
(josh grins) lol

Where all of my posts read? Was any attention paid to the contents of what was posted? I ask because, once again, I have already answered and addressed that matter. Why am I being asked something I have already answered and addressed? Why are you looking to lay guilt?

Yep.

BUT... since the record shows no awareness of any mention of the twin towers in scripture and sheer speculation as the basis of any such possibility any and all belief in its eschatological relevance is unjustified. It's not a sectarian or doctrinal matter shilo. No one should be adding things to scripture and then speculating over what they've added and then telling everyone else that is what should be believed, and then impugning those who disagree. The moment you said, "I haven't seen the two towers mentioned in scripture," you came into agreement with me! The reason neither you nor I haven't seen any mention of the twin towers is because there is no such mention. Speculating there is is eisegetic at best, baseless at worse.

Just because a futurist makes claims about recent events and the future does not mean you, as a futurist, have to believe them. Your futurism may be correct and there's incorrect. If you do in fact believe your own, "I haven't seen the two towers mentioned in the scripture," then you should be taking that up with the op.

Don't be surprised if the response is to call your views, "chaff," and label your thinking as "human perspective, a stumbling block, and not from God's perspective."

I would ask for some proof, but I'm not interested in getting far afield of this op.

When Jesus comes there won't be any doubt or debate in the minds of Christians. You and I will know. People try to leverage "no one will know the day or hour," but they do so abusively anytime they ignore the fact signs were given in order so the signs would be recognized for what they are: SIGNS!!! The foundation of revelation is the revealing of things not previously known or understood.

NOT speculation.





There is no mention of the twin towers in scripture. They have no relevance eschatologically. At best the episode is an excellent example of human stronghold(s) and valuing material wealth when it cannot save.
There is no question mark on my post.
 
There is no question mark on my post.
I did not say there was.

You said you'd seen no mention of the towers' destruction in scripture. If that is true and there is no mention of the towers, then the op is incorrect, and that should be taken up with the op. Alternatively, if there is a mention of the towers' destruction and it simply hasn't yet been "seen," then, again, that should be taken up with the op so the op can prove to there is in fact a mention of the towers' destruction in scripture. Since I don't believe there is any specific mention of the twin towers' destruction is scripture you could have joined me in that conversation, but the op has made it clear there's no interest in discussing any alternatives, no matter how firmly rooted in scripture outside of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 11. So you're on your own if you choose to take any of it up with the op.


I suspect Oseas has been influenced by Jonathon Cahn. Cahn is a Messianic, Zionist Christian who wrote a book many years ago titled "The Harbinger" in which a man is challenged by a mystical person who tells him the towers' destruction is the harbinger of God's judgment on America and the world. It's a work of fiction that Cahn intended partly as an evangelistic effort (bringing people to Christ) and partly as an eschatological effort (bringing Christians to awareness of his Dispensationalist view of end times). Cahn has written other books, forming a series based on the first, and he's back with a new book, "Harbinger II." It is an interesting read, but it is fiction. Cahn makes some fundamental errors in his understanding of scripture. His hermeneutic assumes God still operates today in the new covenant as He did in ancient times under the old covenant. The many parallels between events in prophecy and the towers' destruction are impressive but half of them are a matter of his particular interpretation of scripture. It's understandable, since he's Jewish at the root (his father was a Holocaust survivor).

Perhaps Cahn isn't an influence. Maybe I have that incorrect.

Regardless, there is no specific mention of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the Bible. There is certainly not explicit mention of them. The only way to arrive at such a conclusion is by inference. If a person goes looking for the towers' destruction in the Bible, then s/he is likely to find it, but because of confirmation bias, not because it is actually there. The towers' destruction is an event like many others in the world's history in which the economics of the world have been upset. The destruction of Rome could just as easily be seen in all the op argues. Even though people living in Polynesia and those living in what we now call the Americas had no clue Rome even existed, the destruction of Rome had eventual effect on them. The same could be true of Jerusalem during the Crusades.




I don't want to go too far afield but most modern futurisms are based on an assumption Israel has been restored but I will respectfully suggest that is not true. God's promises to restore Israel in the Bible were made to covenant Israel and the modern geo-political nation-state called Israel is not covenant Israel. Even if it were the promise to restore it to its original geographic boundaries has not occurred. Not even close. That alone would disqualify modern Israel as Israel restored. Ancient Israel was a theocracy, not a parliamentary democracy. It had a monarch, not a Prime Minister. Its laws were the Law of God, the Mosaic Code. There are probably a dozen ways modern Israel is not biblical Israel restored. If there is a restoration of Israel coming and all the OT prophecies ensue with a restored Israel then everyone is going to have to wait some more. God can do anything in a flash but in all likelihood it will take decades, if not another century for Israel to get back all its land.

A prophecy about kings of north and south make much more sense that way than an appeal to the twin towers' destruction.
 
I did not say there was.

You said you'd seen no mention of the towers' destruction in scripture. If that is true and there is no mention of the towers, then the op is incorrect, and that should be taken up with the op. Alternatively, if there is a mention of the towers' destruction and it simply hasn't yet been "seen," then, again, that should be taken up with the op so the op can prove to there is in fact a mention of the towers' destruction in scripture. Since I don't believe there is any specific mention of the twin towers' destruction is scripture you could have joined me in that conversation, but the op has made it clear there's no interest in discussing any alternatives, no matter how firmly rooted in scripture outside of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 11. So you're on your own if you choose to take any of it up with the op.


I suspect Oseas has been influenced by Jonathon Cahn. Cahn is a Messianic, Zionist Christian who wrote a book many years ago titled "The Harbinger" in which a man is challenged by a mystical person who tells him the towers' destruction is the harbinger of God's judgment on America and the world. It's a work of fiction that Cahn intended partly as an evangelistic effort (bringing people to Christ) and partly as an eschatological effort (bringing Christians to awareness of his Dispensationalist view of end times). Cahn has written other books, forming a series based on the first, and he's back with a new book, "Harbinger II." It is an interesting read, but it is fiction. Cahn makes some fundamental errors in his understanding of scripture. His hermeneutic assumes God still operates today in the new covenant as He did in ancient times under the old covenant. The many parallels between events in prophecy and the towers' destruction are impressive but half of them are a matter of his particular interpretation of scripture. It's understandable, since he's Jewish at the root (his father was a Holocaust survivor).

Perhaps Cahn isn't an influence. Maybe I have that incorrect.

Regardless, there is no specific mention of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the Bible. There is certainly not explicit mention of them. The only way to arrive at such a conclusion is by inference. If a person goes looking for the towers' destruction in the Bible, then s/he is likely to find it, but because of confirmation bias, not because it is actually there. The towers' destruction is an event like many others in the world's history in which the economics of the world have been upset. The destruction of Rome could just as easily be seen in all the op argues. Even though people living in Polynesia and those living in what we now call the Americas had no clue Rome even existed, the destruction of Rome had eventual effect on them. The same could be true of Jerusalem during the Crusades.




I don't want to go too far afield but most modern futurisms are based on an assumption Israel has been restored but I will respectfully suggest that is not true. God's promises to restore Israel in the Bible were made to covenant Israel and the modern geo-political nation-state called Israel is not covenant Israel. Even if it were the promise to restore it to its original geographic boundaries has not occurred. Not even close. That alone would disqualify modern Israel as Israel restored. Ancient Israel was a theocracy, not a parliamentary democracy. It had a monarch, not a Prime Minister. Its laws were the Law of God, the Mosaic Code. There are probably a dozen ways modern Israel is not biblical Israel restored. If there is a restoration of Israel coming and all the OT prophecies ensue with a restored Israel then everyone is going to have to wait some more. God can do anything in a flash but in all likelihood it will take decades, if not another century for Israel to get back all its land.

A prophecy about kings of north and south make much more sense that way than an appeal to the twin towers' destruction.
Israel asked for a king like the gentiles have.
Today,they have a goverment like the gentiles have.Its what they always wanted after rejecting God as king of Israel.
Scripture shows that Israel would choose a king and that his symbol would be a star .Same symbol seen on Israel's flag.Because they "lift up"their king and his symbol,"which they make for themselves"they are cast out and led away into exile on the day of the Lord.

The story corresponds to worship of the beast.
 
Israel asked for a king like the gentiles have.
Yes, and God said, "No." Not only did He say no to their request but He also said He took the request as their rejecting Him as their king. Look it up, it's all there in 1 Samuel 8. Because the Israelites persisted in their desire to be like all the other nations (an implicit repudiation of the holiness (their having been separated for sacred purpose) God let the have their way. He'd already explained to them what would happen and every bit of it came true. Not a single king was a good king. Even David and Solomon turned out to be corrupt in one way or another.

All of them failed to understand God is their King, and He had a ruler in mind for them since before the world was created.

And that is the context for what later happens because later the prophets show up with promises of restoration and redemption and those promises (most of them) were made to an Israel that had an earthly king.


The problem is WORSE if we apply the pre-monarchy covenant conditions to today. Modern Israel looks nothing like the Israel of the Moses or the Judges. The problem become worse than worse when what Peter said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is considered because on that day God revealed the true nature of the promise of a end endless throne.

Acts 2:22-28
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.


Did everyone catch what was said? It's quite remarkable. According to the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter, when David spoke about God's promise, or oath, to place a descendant of David's on the throne.... David was speaking about the resurrection. So..... all those covenant rpomises made to covenant Israel are inextricably tied to the resurrect of Christ. That means any restoration of Israel in the future is tied to their accepting gospel, not accepting a human monarch.

Anyone see that happening any time soon?

If not the relax your Zionist expectations until evidence of these things is objectively observable.

One last important point. Peter ties it all to Psalm 110:1.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

In other words, according to David AND according to Peter, Jesus is not coming back until his Father defeats all his enemies and makes them a footstool for his feet :unsure:. Jesus challenged the Jewish leaders with this prophetic psalm. This psalm is used about a half dozen times in the New Testament.
Today,they have a goverment like the gentiles have. Its what they always wanted after rejecting God as king of Israel.
Yep. Modern Israel is NOT Israel restored. For that reason alone this op should be rejected, but there are many other problems fatal to this op.
Scripture shows that Israel would choose a king and that his symbol would be a star. Same symbol seen on Israel's flag .Because they "lift up"their king and his symbol,"which they make for themselves"they are cast out and led away into exile on the day of the Lord.
Sorta correct. Scripture first shows a king was chosen for them. Then scripture shows they'd reject that king and worship men from among themselves.
The story corresponds to worship of the beast.
I disagree, but even were that true the worship of the beast is said to occur in the time that was near the first century, not the twenty-first century. Furthermore, notice Israel is nowhere mentioned in that chapter of Revelation. The ones who are persecuted are the saints, not Israel.
 
Yes, and God said, "No." Not only did He say no to their request but He also said He took the request as their rejecting Him as their king. Look it up, it's all there in 1 Samuel 8. Because the Israelites persisted in their desire to be like all the other nations (an implicit repudiation of the holiness (their having been separated for sacred purpose) God let the have their way. He'd already explained to them what would happen and every bit of it came true. Not a single king was a good king. Even David and Solomon turned out to be corrupt in one way or another.

All of them failed to understand God is their King, and He had a ruler in mind for them since before the world was created.

And that is the context for what later happens because later the prophets show up with promises of restoration and redemption and those promises (most of them) were made to an Israel that had an earthly king.


The problem is WORSE if we apply the pre-monarchy covenant conditions to today. Modern Israel looks nothing like the Israel of the Moses or the Judges. The problem become worse than worse when what Peter said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is considered because on that day God revealed the true nature of the promise of a end endless throne.

Acts 2:22-28
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.


Did everyone catch what was said? It's quite remarkable. According to the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter, when David spoke about God's promise, or oath, to place a descendant of David's on the throne.... David was speaking about the resurrection. So..... all those covenant rpomises made to covenant Israel are inextricably tied to the resurrect of Christ. That means any restoration of Israel in the future is tied to their accepting gospel, not accepting a human monarch.

Anyone see that happening any time soon?

If not the relax your Zionist expectations until evidence of these things is objectively observable.

One last important point. Peter ties it all to Psalm 110:1.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

In other words, according to David AND according to Peter, Jesus is not coming back until his Father defeats all his enemies and makes them a footstool for his feet :unsure:. Jesus challenged the Jewish leaders with this prophetic psalm. This psalm is used about a half dozen times in the New Testament.

Yep. Modern Israel is NOT Israel restored. For that reason alone this op should be rejected, but there are many other problems fatal to this op.

Sorta correct. Scripture first shows a king was chosen for them. Then scripture shows they'd reject that king and worship men from among themselves.

I disagree, but even were that true the worship of the beast is said to occur in the time that was near the first century, not the twenty-first century. Furthermore, notice Israel is nowhere mentioned in that chapter of Revelation. The ones who are persecuted are the saints, not Israel.
Perhaps you don't understand who the saints are that are being persecuted and who the persecutors are at the time in revelation.Jesus talked about it in the gospel.

Luke 21
12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.



Jesus is speaking of the things that take place in Israel concerning his followers being persecuted.Here you have the persecutors and those who are persecuted.They come from the same families.
Alot of christians claim this is about the entire world but it's not.Its about what takes place in Israel.

I feel sorry for what alot of the christians in Israel will suffer.It would be very difficult for me ,knowing the Lord and wanting to share the gospel only to have them curse me.And knowing if your loved ones didn't repent ,they are about to suffer a terrible death.I feel that I would hate my life and want to die so I wouldnt have to see it.
That would be very difficult.
 
Perhaps you don't understand....
Perhaps you do not understand.

Perhaps we should practice Philippians 2:3 AND keep the posts about the posts, NOT the posters. Can you do that? I've backed up everything I have posted with scripture AND the scriptures to which I referenced or quoted were not embellished, interpreted, nor in any way did I add to or subtract from any of them. What I posted can readily be seen to be explicitly stated in scripture.

The op cannot make that claim. This op is highly interpretive, leaves out immediately surrounding verses, neglects the context(s) of the verses quoted and referenced, and adds to them things nowhere stated.
Perhaps you don't understand....
Perhaps the same comment should be directed to this op.




Be plain with me. None of this Perhaps you, Josh, do not ________________________. I can speak for myself and do so unabashedly. You'll never not know where I stand if you just ask.

I know perfectly well who the saints are and proof-texting a single verse from the gospels, a time before the gospel had reached past the synagogue is bad exegesis. It fails to apply whole scripture and it fails to understand the identity of the saints as they are defined by the whole of scripture. Try looking at the introductions in the epistles because they are the newer revelation identifying the saints. Study the use of qahal (Heb) and ecclesia (Gk) in the Hebrew scriptures, especially how they've translated them into Greek. Luke 21 will prove inadequate.
Perhaps you don't understand who the saints are....
Perhaps you do not.
 
Perhaps you do not understand.

Perhaps we should practice Philippians 2:3 AND keep the posts about the posts, NOT the posters. Can you do that? I've backed up everything I have posted with scripture AND the scriptures to which I referenced or quoted were not embellished, interpreted, nor in any way did I add to or subtract from any of them. What I posted can readily be seen to be explicitly stated in scripture.

The op cannot make that claim. This op is highly interpretive, leaves out immediately surrounding verses, neglects the context(s) of the verses quoted and referenced, and adds to them things nowhere stated.

Perhaps the same comment should be directed to this op.




Be plain with me. None of this Perhaps you, Josh, do not ________________________. I can speak for myself and do so unabashedly. You'll never not know where I stand if you just ask.

I know perfectly well who the saints are and proof-texting a single verse from the gospels, a time before the gospel had reached past the synagogue is bad exegesis. It fails to apply whole scripture and it fails to understand the identity of the saints as they are defined by the whole of scripture. Try looking at the introductions in the epistles because they are the newer revelation identifying the saints. Study the use of qahal (Heb) and ecclesia (Gk) in the Hebrew scriptures, especially how they've translated them into Greek. Luke 21 will prove inadequate.

Perhaps you do not.
Ive already backed it up with the word of God as spoken by Jesus Christ.

There is no mistaken who the saints are and the government that persecutes them.

Even this gives it away.

3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.


17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

Same as it was when Messiah was born.
 
Last edited:
Ive already backed it up with the word of God as spoken by Jesus Christ.
No, it was backed up with an interpretation of Jesus' words based on the proof-texting of one verse in neglect of all that scripture states. Huge difference. It's not entirely wrong but things that are partially correct are incomplete, and incomplete views are usually incorrect ones.

When the Jews translated Tanakh into Greek they translated the word "assembly" ("qahal") as "church" or "those called out" ("ekklesia"). This Greek word is the term the New Testament writers used when describing the converts to Christ, and at least two of them (Luke and Paul) made it clear there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ. Yes, almost all the early converts to Christ were Jews, and yes when the leaders of The Way first began teaching, they did so in the outer courtyards of the temple and synagogues. The reason they used the outer courtyards is because Gentiles weren't allowed inside the temple or synagogues. The apostles and other Christian teachers began to preach elsewhere when the Jews began to persecute and prosecute Christians. It is wholly true Christianity came out of Judaism and has many of its roots in Judaism, but being a Christian is not the same as being a Jew.

A lot changed after Calvary. The biggest changes was humanity's disposition with God. At Calvary ALL the sin of humanity had been addressed, atoned for. The dividing walls between God and man and Jew and Gentile had been torn down. Piles of long-awaited promises had been and were being fulfilled. A pile of stuff from the psalms and Isaiah, Joel 2, Amos 9, (see Mt. 3:3, 4:14, 8:17; Acts 2:16, 8:28-30, 15:16; Rom. 15:12) and other prophets are said by Jesus and the apostles to have come true in the first century. There are literally dozens of places where the New Testament writers claim the event they are describing is a fulfillment of something written in the Old Testament. Most germane to this exchange is that a people who were not previously God's people were now God's people. That changes at Calvary.

Hosea 2:23
“I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they will say, ‘You are my God!’”

Romans 9:25
As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

1 Peter 2:10
Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

What has this to do with the identification of the saints? A lot. The Greek word "hagion," translated into English as "saint" means, those set apart, those made holy and sacred. It has some similarity in meaning with the aforementioned word "ekklesia." The English term "saint" is not used much in the Old Testament, but where it is used the Hebrew term is "qadosh," or, those who are holy and or sacred. In turn, the word "holy," means separated, separated for sacred purpose.

When the writers of the epistles used the term saints, they did not discriminate between Jew and Gentile. When Paul identified his readers in Rome he wrote,

Romans 1:7
...to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

And elsewhere he wrote,

1 Corinthians 1:2-3
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:1-2
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:14-22
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.... So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Philippians 4:22
All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar's household.

Colossians 1:2-12
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints; because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth; just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow bond-servant, who is a faithful servant of Christ on our behalf, and he also informed us of your love in the Spirit. For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

Hebrews 13:24
Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.

Revelation 14:12
Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

So the appeal to Luke 21:12-16 is problematic because it doesn't actually use the word "saint." An examination of the entire Bible's use of the word reveals the saints to be synonymous with the assembly, the church, those called out, those separated for sacred purpose, bondservants of Christ, the beloved of God, those sanctified by Christ, those who everywhere call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, those faithful to Christ, those built on the foundation of Christ, those whose hope is laid up in heaven through the gospel, and it included those in Italy and its capital city of Rome, even those of Caesar's household (who may have been Jewish, but not likely).
Perhaps you don't understand who the saints are that are being persecuted and who the persecutors are at the time in revelation. Jesus talked about it in the gospel.
Perhaps you do not understand their identity.

It is ironic that you chose Luke 21 because the persecution of the saints to which Jesus referred was a persecution he said would be seen and experienced by the disciples to whom he was speaking. Nowhere did he even remotely indicate that persecution was going to take place 2000 years after they'd all died. He said quite plainly, "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, turning you over to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors on account of my name." The "you" in that sentence is "All the people gathered," listening to Jesus, and it included his disciples, the Sadducees, and Jewish commoners. The audience is identified earlier in the narrative. All of the apostles and many of the disciples of Christ were persecuted, turned over to the synagogues, and brought before kings on account of Jesus' name. One such episode is recorded in Acts when Paul is brought to Herod. Another when he is unjustly whipped.

In other words, the very passage to which you appeal challenges this op because those events are contemporary to the first century, not the 21st century!
 
There is no mistaken who the saints are and the government that persecutes them.
There is no mistaken who the saints are and the government that persecutes them.
The scriptures themselves prove otherwise.
Even this gives it away.

3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

Same as it was when Messiah was born.
Do you understand none of the verses you've cited actually mention the word, "saint"?

As I said earlier, Israel is mentioned only three times in Revelation and only one of those mentions has anything to do with bloodline Israel or its geopolitical national status. There are only two mentions of "Jews" in the book and both of them are in reference to false Jews. Nowhere does it say, "Same as when the Messiah was born." You are reading that into a book that expressly tells us NOT TO ADD TO IT!!!
 
No, it was backed up with an interpretation of Jesus' words based on the proof-texting of one verse in neglect of all that scripture states. Huge difference. It's not entirely wrong but things that are partially correct are incomplete, and incomplete views are usually incorrect ones.

When the Jews translated Tanakh into Greek they translated the word "assembly" ("qahal") as "church" or "those called out" ("ekklesia"). This Greek word is the term the New Testament writers used when describing the converts to Christ, and at least two of them (Luke and Paul) made it clear there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ. Yes, almost all the early converts to Christ were Jews, and yes when the leaders of The Way first began teaching, they did so in the outer courtyards of the temple and synagogues. The reason they used the outer courtyards is because Gentiles weren't allowed inside the temple or synagogues. The apostles and other Christian teachers began to preach elsewhere when the Jews began to persecute and prosecute Christians. It is wholly true Christianity came out of Judaism and has many of its roots in Judaism, but being a Christian is not the same as being a Jew.

A lot changed after Calvary. The biggest changes was humanity's disposition with God. At Calvary ALL the sin of humanity had been addressed, atoned for. The dividing walls between God and man and Jew and Gentile had been torn down. Piles of long-awaited promises had been and were being fulfilled. A pile of stuff from the psalms and Isaiah, Joel 2, Amos 9, (see Mt. 3:3, 4:14, 8:17; Acts 2:16, 8:28-30, 15:16; Rom. 15:12) and other prophets are said by Jesus and the apostles to have come true in the first century. There are literally dozens of places where the New Testament writers claim the event they are describing is a fulfillment of something written in the Old Testament. Most germane to this exchange is that a people who were not previously God's people were now God's people. That changes at Calvary.

Hosea 2:23
“I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they will say, ‘You are my God!’”

Romans 9:25
As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

1 Peter 2:10
Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

What has this to do with the identification of the saints? A lot. The Greek word "hagion," translated into English as "saint" means, those set apart, those made holy and sacred. It has some similarity in meaning with the aforementioned word "ekklesia." The English term "saint" is not used much in the Old Testament, but where it is used the Hebrew term is "qadosh," or, those who are holy and or sacred. In turn, the word "holy," means separated, separated for sacred purpose.

When the writers of the epistles used the term saints, they did not discriminate between Jew and Gentile. When Paul identified his readers in Rome he wrote,

Romans 1:7
...to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

And elsewhere he wrote,

1 Corinthians 1:2-3
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:1-2
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:14-22
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.... So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Philippians 4:22
All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar's household.

Colossians 1:2-12
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints; because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth; just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow bond-servant, who is a faithful servant of Christ on our behalf, and he also informed us of your love in the Spirit. For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

Hebrews 13:24
Greet all of your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.

Revelation 14:12
Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

So the appeal to Luke 21:12-16 is problematic because it doesn't actually use the word "saint." An examination of the entire Bible's use of the word reveals the saints to be synonymous with the assembly, the church, those called out, those separated for sacred purpose, bondservants of Christ, the beloved of God, those sanctified by Christ, those who everywhere call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, those faithful to Christ, those built on the foundation of Christ, those whose hope is laid up in heaven through the gospel, and it included those in Italy and its capital city of Rome, even those of Caesar's household (who may have been Jewish, but not likely).

Perhaps you do not understand their identity.

It is ironic that you chose Luke 21 because the persecution of the saints to which Jesus referred was a persecution he said would be seen and experienced by the disciples to whom he was speaking. Nowhere did he even remotely indicate that persecution was going to take place 2000 years after they'd all died. He said quite plainly, "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, turning you over to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors on account of my name." The "you" in that sentence is "All the people gathered," listening to Jesus, and it included his disciples, the Sadducees, and Jewish commoners. The audience is identified earlier in the narrative. All of the apostles and many of the disciples of Christ were persecuted, turned over to the synagogues, and brought before kings on account of Jesus' name. One such episode is recorded in Acts when Paul is brought to Herod. Another when he is unjustly whipped.

In other words, the very passage to which you appeal challenges this op because those events are contemporary to the first century, not the 21st century!
Well,we will just have to agree to disagree.I know if God hasn't revealed the things to you as he has revealed to me,it's not my place to try to convince you.Id rather stop wasting my time and move on.
 
Back
Top