When Will the Third Temple Be Built

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The proper question to ask is whether or not your concept is correct concerning "what" or "whom" the two witnesses are. To what does scripture allow for us to understand that the two witnesses might refer? On what basis do you think this just could not have been fulfilled back in the first century?

I believe the 2 witnesses are still future, so why would I have to explain them with scripture? I don't believe they were in the 1st century because we have no evidence or historical record of 2 men preaching for 42 months and no resurrection with a global witness. Chapter 11 says the world witnessed their preaching, death and resurrection. What evidence do you have to the contrary? The onus is on preterists not futurists.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I believe the 2 witnesses are still future, so why would I have to explain them with scripture? I don't believe they were in the 1st century because we have no evidence or historical record of 2 men preaching

Not so quick. On what basis must they be two actual men?

for 42 months and no resurrection with a global witness. Chapter 11 says the world witnessed their preaching, death and resurrection. What evidence do you have to the contrary? The onus is on preterists not futurists.

Au contraire, mon capitan. You only wish.

The onus is on you to prove these are two actual men. Do the men breathe fire??

Meanwhile read what I said in my latest post.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right!

This shows a good example of our need to ask how scripture is meant to be interpreted. While some holler the 1st century interpretation cannot be true, we can also holler the idea of actual men breathing fire from their mouths cannot be true. All the details in the prophecy must fit the interpretation. We have scripture that says the Word of God is like fire in a prophet's mouth. But that demands we interpret fire from the mouth as SYMBOLIC. So what else would be symbolic? Maybe the PEOPLE are symbolic of things that are not people?

It's easy to only read so far down into the specific prophecy, and claim it has to be fulfilled in a certain way, and have no answer for another detail that was also mentioned that would make that certain way ridiculous.

Since Revelation mentions Jesus is a Lamb with 7 eyes and horns, we know Revelation uses symbols. Can the Two Witnesses SYMBOLIZE two things that are not necessarily PEOPLE? How about this concept in scripture:

1 John 5:7-8 KJV For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (8) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Notice the details in the prophecy:

Revelation 11:3-4 KJV And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. (4) These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

They are a SPECIFIC, -- "the two witnesses".

Zechariah 4:3 KJV And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.

Zechariah 4:11 KJV Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?

Zechariah 4:14 KJV Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

All the elements of Rev 11's details of the two witnesses are found in Zechariah 4. What does this mean? First of all, we have to research the rest of the bible to interpret any given vision in Revelation. Secondly, somehow the information in Zechariah 4 must be considered in understanding Revelation's two witnesses.

These two witnesses in Zech. 4 are Joshua the High Priest and Zerubbabel the governor. Notice one is a spiritual leader and the other is a governmental leader.

And the idea people usually claim is the interpretation of the two witnesses is that they are Moses and Elijah, since the feats these two men accomplish include things Moses and Elijah did. However, and that is a good thought, Moses was a giver of LAW (similar to a governor like Zerubbabel), and Elijah was a prophet, similar to the spiritual leadership fulfilled by Joshua as high priest performed.

So we have a double set of pictures in Joshua and Zerubbabel, and Moses and Elijah. And there are similarities between these two sets of men.

So it is not as simple as we wish it is when we propose a face value approach. Face value approaches are always favoured since they do not require research throughout the scripture for proper conclusions. But does simplicity mean it's right?

I kinda think the witnesses are SPIRIT AND WORD/TRUTH. Spirit is one of the three witnesses in Heaven, and WORD is one of the three witnesses in earth, in 1 John 5. Both Elijah and Joshua could stand for the SPIRITUAL idea, while Zerubbabel and Moses could stand for TRUTH. SPIRIT AND TRUTH were absent from Jerusalem during the 42 month siege since the church had already left and fled to Pella beforehand. And after that time, these two resurrected and continued witness again since the church was not destroyed as Jerusalem was.

amazing. I can't argue with so twisted an interpretation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

amazing. I can't argue with so twisted an interpretation.

As amazing at your explanation of fire breathing men? Or lack thereof?

[mfblume]

Rev 11 said the two witnesses were a specific TWO OLIVE TREES who stand by the Lord of the earth. Zech 4 notes those two specific olive trees who stand by the Lord of the earth as being Joshua and Zerubbabel. Is that coincidence? Yet Rev 11 says they do things Moses and Elijah did. Why?

What is your explanation of that, or will you provide more silence to our questions?

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by mfblume

As amazing at your explanation of fire breathing men? Or lack thereof?

fire is a type of the holy spirit. this is annoited preaching. rev 11 says they had power to shut up heaven just like elijah. since the time of the gentiles is fulfilled, these men are prophets to Israel. How can spirit and truth breathe fire, shut up heaven, be killed and lie in the streets, be seen by the world, resurrect and rise in the clouds? I would suspect you to be an undercover Roman Catholic with such a twisted interpretation of such a literal chapter.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

fire is a type of the holy spirit. this is annoited preaching.

Good! I like that. In fact I agree. However, did you see what you just did? You made an interpretation based on other scripture that really does show fire as being indicative of the Spirit. You are correct! But you said the face value approach in fire breathing prophets is symbolic.

At what point do you say we can BEGIN to make reference to biblical metaphors and then end at using biblical metaphors?

What is difference between what you just did with FIRE by use of other scripture and what I did with TWO MEN using Zechariah 4 which distinctly mentions the same DETAILS about olive trees and standing with the Lord of the whole earth? What makes me wrong and you correct?

rev 11 says they had power to shut up heaven just like elijah. since the time of the gentiles is fulfilled, these men are prophets to Israel. How can spirit and truth breathe fire, shut up heaven, be killed and lie in the streets,

TWO WITNESSES can represent things like SPIRIT AND TRUTH by the same token that fiery breath can represent anointed preaching. The commonality between both thoughts is that THE REST OF SCRIPTURE ALLOWS FOR THIS. As much as a man spewing fire can represent
anointed preaching, a man preaching can represent TRUTH in general terms.

The key is how does all of the details fit and work with actual scriptural precedent?

be seen by the world, resurrect and rise in the clouds? I would suspect you to be an undercover Roman Catholic with such a twisted interpretation of such a literal chapter.

So you now attack me personally -- (why do people do this?) -- and actually contradict yourself since you say this is literal and yet you just SYMBOLIZED the fire from the mouth. You are inconsistent. Which is it? Literal chapter or not? If it is literal then ACTUAL FIRE MUST COME FROM ACTUAL MOUTHS OF ACTUAL MEN.

Are you an undercover catholic since you interpreted fire from the mouth as anointed preaching and not actual fire?

[Dedicated Mind]

sorry Blume, but I can't argue with such a far out interpretation. you win. we'll see what the future brings.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

sorry Blume, but I can't argue with such a far out interpretation. you win. we'll see what the future brings.

We're not here to win anything.

Sorry, you cannot get off this one so fast.

Think about it a bit more. We can have a great chat if you wish! Let's not get into bashing each other, though.

Do you interpret part of the alleged "literal chapter" making it no longer literal, and refuse to provide so much as a single thought as to how Rev 11 directly refers to thoughts from Zech 4 and Genesis and Kings, using the same manner, and not offer an alternative explanation?

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We're not here to win anything.

Sorry, you cannot get off this one so fast.

Think about it a bit more. We can have a great chat if you wish! Let's not get into bashing each other, though.

Do you interpret part of the alleged "literal chapter" making it no longer literal, and refuse to provide so much as a single thought as to how Rev 11 directly refers to thoughts from Zech 4 and Genesis and Kings, using the same manner, and not offer an alternative explanation?

I think only the fire is symbolic and the rest is literal. You are avoiding the facts that the world witnessed the death and resurrection of these two witnesses. And that the 2 witnesses had power to shut up heaven just like elijah. How can spirit and truth do these things? sooner or later we will begin to repeat ourselves so I no longer want to debate. But can you answer these questions, please?