1st it needs to be said that looking into prophecy is not important. If you know the rest of the Bible, then it should be clear what to do without extra signs and wonders. If an interpretation of a prophecy allows for the continuation of destruction for the prophecy to be accurate, it's the wrong interpretation. It was proposed once before that the 2 wittnesses of Rev 11 were the Old Testament and the New Testament, but the inclusion of equating the situation at hand, of that time, into thier interpretation ended up discreditting this all together. But if taken on its own, that the Old and New Testaments are the 2 witnesses can actually hold water, for what can be stated and prophecied about that hasn't already been done? John wrote at the end of Revelation that that was the end of scripture, so it is in error to add to it. While I've looked through it, and can say this is a very likely possibility to be accurate, that doesn't mean there aren't other possibilities. Some of these other prophecies have already been fulfilled in multiple ways in multiple places. Some seem to think the prophecy is going to be fulfilled in Sept. of 2017. Seriously, what difference does it make? If you're waiting for that to happen to nudge you into activity, then you believe that waiting for things to totally collapse is good. If that's your attitude, you're of no use, for others are already trying to establiish a better tomorrow, what do you bring to the table?
Some believe in the return of making sacrifices in a newly constructed temple. This is to deny that Christ made the last sacrafice and it is a twisted scripture. You can't believe in the New Testament and the return of the sacrafices at the same time.
One must always be wary of others interpretations of prophecy. There is a common one out of the Book of Ezekiel that after you've vanquished your enemy, you make a peace treaty with them. How in the world does this make any sense at all? It doesn't. They have pitched this story incorporating a non biblical rapture theory into it and its all ludacris. They started by following another mans interpretation and the 1st made a mistake by losing track of who's who. Without looking at it extremely diligently the same mistake can be made by anyone. Then others followed after him and blew past this mistake and expanded thier rapture theory into culture. While this makes for money making films, it's nonscencible and anti scriptural.
I didn't come to know what the " Mark of the Beast " was by studying prophecy. I had a good understanding of the rest of the Book, and that made it obvious what it was.
What is always necassary is to look at where you're at right now. How are you going to move forward in a practical manner. If you try to fit your plans to fulfill some prescribed prophecy, you'll get caught up into worrying about all the nuances and try to utilize some plan that is so sophisticated it can't be done in any practicle sense. Do the things that are obvious to do, and when they actually fulfill a prophecy, great, if not, then your future actions combined with other activity eventually will.
Here is a letter I drafted for someone who had published one of those rapture theory books. I've also asked others who believe in the theory, " If part of the theory is you're going to build the new temple and have a renewal of sacrafices then you didn't believe Christ was the last sacrafice and discount him." There is only one temple that you will be judged upon on judgement day. If you don't know which that one is, you're out of luck.
Eziekiel 39: NIV or KJV
" How can you have a peace treaty with an enemy you've just vanquished and proceed to bury." Simply, improper sequencing. The narative doesn't change.
" After our discussion I immediately read Ezekiel from 32-41 and I immediately seen where a chronological sequencing error could give the interpretation you suggested. If you were to review this not starting from someone else's perspective but as if for the 1st time you will see it is a simple sequencing error. The refference to a peace covenant is in a completely separate prophecy. That is if you are considering this peace covenant as a 7 year treaty. But it says it is an everlasting treaty, not 7 years. In the next prophecy there is in the mention of 7 years of using war weapons as fuel and 7 months of burying the dead. But if you read the beginning to end you will see the narrative doesn't change. I do not have an understanding of Hebrew, but in the KJV and NIV, both, explain the complete anihilation of the enemy. And thier subsequential burial process. At no time do I see the narrative change as to lead to any other conclusion. And in by taking this in its proper sequence there is simply no need to have a peace treaty with an enemy that is completely vanquished.
I had heard before of the conclusion you had mentioned and couldn't find it in my Bible and so I wasn't in a position to talk about it when we met. I'm sorry about that but whenever I had heard of it, it sounded like such a rediculous conclusion that I didn't think it was a mainstream belief. But that exposes a lack of research on my part. Thank you for telling me where to look for this. Without this reference I would be caught off guard in the future. I just assumed that no one could possibly believe that you could even consider disarming in the face of an enemy. But if you see the chronological error you will see that there would be no threat against you if you had put this in the proper sequence. Although this isn't proof you asked for as to whether I was right as to what I said, there is always the knowledge you know of a prophecy, after it has happenned.
You also said that proof could possibly come in the form of a demonstration from someone as to his abilities. Recognize that good always has the ability to overcome evil you can conclude that if someone has destructive capacities you also have constructive capacity to at least equal and overcome.
This constructive capacity could come in many forms but lets be objective for a moment. You could try to rebuild all he has flooded out or physically damaged by physical means, as in hammer and shovel in hand, but being only one individual you simply couldn't equal constructive capacity with destructive.
Next there's the attempt to try to equate on a verbal level. If that was to work it would have already have reached success on the pulpit level and it's obvious that has failed.
That only leaves the possible alternative to equalling his power on an individual level by using the oneness with God through prayer. You can pray for things to make things better through prayer.
You made the suggestion that the enemy would be able to do things on command as if by some immediate action or reaction.
If we always have the ability to overcome any ability to overcome any ability he possesses, We should be able to equal his ability. If he has the ability to destroy flesh we should have the ability to restore it.
Pick out someone that has a terminally incurable disease and heal them of this disease. To ackomplish this you will have to start by coming into a state of complete repentance and staying there. It requires the complete removal of self on all levels and incorporates large degrees of self analysis and self awareness poised with the forward progress with renewal, refurbishment of others in question.
Sucess comes in the form of complete removal of said disease. Not in the form of bringing them to God but also the complete removal of the disease. It's only requirement of this type of healing is the faith of one individual, not both. A truer test is if only one believes.
Ackomplishing this objective will equip you with the insight as to how much consentration your adversary uses to complete his objective. If you use this to the level I suggest you will see that an immediate timed reaction is simply out of the question, but you will see this as you progress. As he also has the ability to wage storms in the physical sence, it is also possible to pray for and obtain nice weather appropriate to your region. This can also be obtained from the same selfless position. "
Also one of the other things I penned in the letter.
We also spoke of evangelism. One of the things I must consider when evaluating this proposal is as to how the priesthood started and also evaluating the position of someone questioning my position for telling them how to live. Near as I can tell the priesthood started from Aaron's son becoming an exacting measure of carrying out it's laws.
By carrying out Gods justice first did he become a priest, so isn't it the proper sequence of events to become familiar with Gods laws and become a willing instrument of its justice 1st before becoming an evangelist? Doesn't this explain the inadequacy of evangelism today. During this nations beginnings it was because of preachers not only taught from thier pulpits but led men into war was the republic started. I would wager heavily that no evangelist today has ever served as a police officer, detective, judge in court and doesn't it distictively say that this should be the logical upgrading to a preacher. If you are not willing to be an instrument of God's will, you really don't have the right to preach it.