I just finished your Daniel audio study. I absolutely loved it!
I am very curious about how you came up with Petra, Jordan as the place fleeing Jews would run to (from Mathew 24:16) in the Great Tribulation. I understand why Jordan is the most likely country to choose (Because Jordan’s King Abdullah is the closest living relative to Mohammed). Is Petra the most likely city because of the old Roman Amphitheater? It there something else I am missing? It seemed like there was a cross-reference you mentioned with the Book of Revelation.
Also, wouldn’t the current Jordanians be less than in favor of Petra being invaded? What would have to happen to welcome the Jews?
I am interested in knowing where you stand. When the Protestant Church broke away from the Catholic church, they held onto some of their teachings. Like Jesus being crucified on Friday and rising Sunday morning. We know Jesus said He would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. We know now that He was crucified on a Wed. and put in the grave just before sunset, because the High Sabbath began after sunset which was Thurs.
According to this record he rose on Saturday just before sunset, because it would have been the first of the week after sunset. So the Sabbath is really still the right day for the believers to worship our risen Saviour.
Most of the time I read your articles and agree with you, but I have to ask you about proverbs 23: 13. I believe children need correction, and sometimes a little reinforcement in the way of showing them who’s in charge. Why did you not include the very next verse in the article you wrote? Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
Your article on the 144,000, or the 12 tribes of Israel, was insightful. You address the facts that Dan is not mentioned among the 12 tribes of Revelation and that Joseph was divided into two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, but only Joseph and Manasseh are mentioned in the passages. So far, so good. But, then, you conjecture that,
“So it makes sense to view the 144,000 of Rev. 7 just as they’re described…Messianic JEWS (my emphasis) called by the Lord to witness to the world after the church is gone.”
No, Jack, it does not make sense. The JEWS are from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and half of the Levites only. The JEWS stayed in and around Jerusalem (the Southern Kingdom – called JUDAH) after the tribes split under Rehoboam and then were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians in 586 BC. The other 10 tribes, under Jeroboam, formed the Northern Kingdom (called ISRAEL) and was conquered and dispersed in 722 BC by the Assyrians. After 70 years of captivity, JUDAH (the Jews) were released under Cyrus and went back to Jerusalem. These are the Jews of today. The other ten tribes are still dispersed throughout the world and don’t know who they are.
So, while all JEWS are Hebrews, not all HEBREWS (12 tribes) are Jews. So, by saying that the 144,000 are all JEWS is ridiculous and shows a great lack of historical knowledge in the Bible.
I know I’ve emailed you about this before. Why don’t you take note? Don’t you believe me? I didn’t make up the history contained in the OT. Look it up for yourselves (2 Chronicles and 1 Kings are good places to start for the history of the 12 tribes).
As I understand, the sprinkling of blood around the temple altar by the old testament priests was a ceremonial preparation for the cleansing of the hearts of all people who would accept Jesus’ sacrifice (a future occurrence) ending the necessity for future sprinkling. (Heb 9:13 & 14).
Jesus did command us to”go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. May I please ask if the verses in the Old Testament (IE: Isaiah 52:15) mentioning “sprinkling of many nations has any direct relationship to his command to baptize. and is the temple sprinkling of blood and water baptism for the same purpose? Also is baptism by sprinkling an acceptable practice?
I can’t thank you enough for all the help you so generously give to the body of Christ.
Can you identify “Chittim” for me. Seen in several places in the Old Testament, some being Isaiah 23, Jeeremiah 2, Ezekiel 27, and Daniel 11.
Thank you very much for any information or ideas that you have.
In Jude chapter 1 verse 9 it says, “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”I don’t ever remember anyone fighting over Moses’ body or is there a different meaning all together?
I am not Catholic but have serious concerns on witnessing to a Catholic friend about the subject of Infant baptism and the Catholic teaching of babies go to hell when they die if they have not been baptized. I want to be bible based factual when I witness.
Your article concerning the “solution” to the three day and night controversy disregards the eyewitness testimony of the authors in the Bible, all of who agree (including our Lord) that Jesus Christ rose “on” the third day. This is repeated 13 times in one form or another. It also disregards the testimony of Flavius Josephus who was an annual eyewiteness to the Feasts of the Lord in Jerusalem. Jesus Christ was clearly crucified as the Lamb of God, on Nisan 14. If Firstfruits (as it testified to by the feasts of the Lord and Flavius Josephus) was held each year on a Sunday and is the 16th (after the Sabbath as stated by Josephus) then it was, just as the Bible says, a “3rd Day” resurrection. Paul confirms that Christ, our Firstfruits, is risen from the dead.
The Church (regardless of denomination) has been right all along and there is absolutely no need to “fix” Scripture because of the statement of Jesus concerning “three days and three nights” when every other time the Resurrection is mentioned is clearly stated as “on the 3rd day.”
The three day and three night “conflict” you perceive is no conflict at all. It has been long understood in Jewish teaching that any part of a day includes the entire day.