DaveO and Richard reason together [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

View Full Version : DaveO and Richard reason together

DaveO

09-23-2009, 09:40 AM

CWH

09-23-2009, 02:54 PM

Hi Joe,

I know you are replying to this thread. I would think that this thread should not be interrupted by "outsiders". As the thread belongs to Richard and DaveO with their stated title and as a benefit of doubt, we should only let Richard and DaveO debate in this thread. This is not only fair but also everybody would be able to see their train of thoughts. Is this ok with everybody? You may create a new thread if you want to interject into their debate.

Thanks and God Bless everyone.

TheForgiven

09-23-2009, 02:59 PM

Greetings DaveO. I saw that this thread may have been intended for you and Richard, but I hope you don't mind if I respond.

First, let me say welcome to the Biblewheel. :welcome: I look forward to debating eschatology with you. I can see that you are a passionate futurist who defends his position quite well, but we'll soon see...no pun intended.

Remember that this is a loving forum, and no matter if we agree or not, it is OK to discredit other theologies of eschatology. However, try to keep it on a more professional level, and not so personal, as though all forms of eschatology opposed to yours are serious heretical threats. The language you use is very familiar to other Futurist forums who often ban two way communication from Preterist to Futurist. You'll find that we do not do that there; how else can one debate?

So then, let us now begin.

In the book of Acts is is undeniable that Peter, the other 11 and all their converts were still keeping the Mosaic Law many years after the cross and ascension. So clearly in THEIR opinion it was still valid and in force and the resurrection had changed nothing.

Yet in Hebrews 7 Paul writes as if this new law was already in effect and nullified the old. This was well before the destruction of the temple so by your assertion that event had nothing to do with it either.

Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Interesting point, but if you look at the big picture, the cross of Christ (although past from their view point) had not yet spread to the entire inhabited earth. The miraculous act of Jesus on the cross was the corner stone of the building to be built. The elect were chosen to build the House of God. Only this time, instead of God's house being enacted by the first covenant, this House would be filled with the Spirit and grace of God under the new covenant. Thus, the first covenant was nullified at the cross, but the building of the new Covenant kingdom was not yet completed. Acts chapter 2 shows the beginning of this new Kingdom, to the Jew first, and eventually to the Gentile.

Why would we need delivering from a law that no longer had any force or effect?

8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.' Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?
Nevertheless we have not used this right,...

Here Paul is saying that even though he didn't insist upon it, the Mosaic Law is still in effect and Paul therefore has the right to expect tithes from them to support his ministry.

I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you about tithes. Even though the New Testament doesn't teach us to "Tithe" our wealth, it does teach us to share all things, and to give from the heart, and NOT from obligation. But this does not mean that the Law was still being practiced or enforced. It merely means that the Law is uphold through the Law of Christ. Instead of serving under the first covenant written on tablets/stones, we serve under the Spirit of Grace, who teaches and counsels us the truth about sin, and righteousness. Thus, it is the Spirit (by faith) that teaches us to uphold the Law, instead of the former church (Old Testament) relying on the written Law to abide.

So either that "new law" was not in force yet or it existed simultaneously with the Mosaic Law.

In a sense, you are right. The Old Law, although nullified at the cross, was not yet taken away. The Jews continued to practice it, but the Apostles worked very hard to convince them that a new law was now enacted, through Jesus. But how can service to God through Christ Jesus be enacted if the former were still practicing under the Laws of Moses? Simple! The Kingdom of Christ was not yet built, but in the building process. When the time was right, that is, when enough Jews and Gentiles had been established enough to complete the Kingdom, then came the Messiah in 70AD to destroy what they loved so much (they, as is false Jews). Which was the temple market.

Concerning Christ's Coming

6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, 'Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' 7 And He said to them, 'It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

Notice that Jesus DOESN'T say "No guys, you misunderstood. My kingdom is an invisible one that you won't see until you after you die"

Nice try but using reverse psychology, He ALSO never stated that Israel of the flesh would be restored. Keep in mind that these were not yet filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. He tells them that it's not their business to know the times or events as established by the Father, but for them to await the gift which HE PROMISED would come; the gift of the Holy Spirit.

God's purpose would be revealed later as they matured.

So is there a prophecy concerning Christ's physical return as High Priest and King that is accompanied by visible signs? Yep!

Acts 1: 10-11 ....two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.'

Christ's future return will be physical, visible and the visible proofs will reamin until the the end of the age which has NOT happened yet!

He's already a High Priest! Why would Christ have to return to earth to serve as High Priest? You're interpreting this passage literally, which is the reason for the continued, and growing list of unfulfilled prophesies of the Futurist paradigm. They were not told that Jesus would come EXACTLY as He left, but "IN LIKE MANNER". The Greek word used in this case represents a likeness, and NOT an exactness.

How did Jesus leave? He ascended until a Cloud received Him from their vision. Couldn't this mean that His return would be through Clouds hiding Him from our view, or even theirs? The problem is you interpret this passage as though His return would be the "Rewind" of his ascension; but that is never mentioned in the text. Jesus was hidden in clouds upon His ascension, and His return would be the same. Or should we keep looking towards the sky for a literal clouding riding Messiah? And while we're at it, how fast will this return be? Some say as fast as lightning, in the twinkling of an eye, yet his ascension was not as fast as lightning. Sounds like a serious contradiction to me, or should we stop hitting "Rewind".

Zechariah 14:
4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east....

Just like the angels of Acts said! Note that this mountain has both a name and a physical location. That's so no one makes the mistake of thinking it is a symbolic or "spiritual" mountain.

Really? So Zechariah wasn't shown a vision, he was shown a prediction. Interesting.

...And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south.

Did that happen in 70 AD.? Nope! But it's going to!

Apparently not, as though physical mountains have anything to do with the Kingdom of Christ and of God. So then, since we're all waiting for the Mountain in Israel to literally be split, then this adds even more to the Futurist list of unfulfilled prohpesies. And the list keeps growing, and growing, and growing.

John is told in Revelation, "Behold! He comes with the Clouds, and every eye will see Him; even those who pierced Him..."

Thus because nobody recorded Christ riding clouds in the first century, Preterist's are obviously "warped" into teaching otherwise. But are we?

Jeremiah 4:13
' Behold, he shall come up like clouds, And his chariots like a whirlwind. His horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us, for we are plundered!'

Jeremiah's prophesy was about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian invasion. I suppose if we are to take this literally, as you're doing with all the prophesies written in the Old Testament, then we may as well count Jeremiah's prophesy as unfulfilled. For I don't recall anyone seeing God riding in clouds when the Babylonian's invaded and destroyed Jerusalem.

Should we add this to the unfulfilled list?

Zechariah 14:
8 And in that day it shall be That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, Half of them toward the eastern sea [the Dead Sea] And half of them toward the western sea [the Mediterranean]; In both summer and winter it shall occur. 9 And the LORD shall be King over all the earth.

Once again those are NOT "spiritual" waters. They are real wet h20-filled rivers. This is verified by Ezekiel:

Oh, so Christ promised us spiritual water now, so that in the future, we can drink physical water flowing of Jerusalem? Hmmmm? Doesn't sound promising to me. Don't you understand the difference between visions and predictions? Zechariah was given a heavenly vision to explain the Kingdom of Christ; the Jerusalem which is from above. You know? The Heavenly Jerusalem as mentioned by the author of Hebrews.

Let us not forget the living waters that flow in John's Revelation. Or is that also literal H2O? That's interesting because Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the TRUE WATER He could give shall become eternally quench her thirst, welling up unto Eternal Life. So which water would you prefer? H2O? Or the Holy Spirit?

Ezekiel 47:
1 Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the temple...
8 Then he said to me: 'This water flows toward the eastern region, goes down into the valley, and enters the sea [the Dead Sea]. When it reaches the sea, its waters are healed. 9 And it shall be that every living thing that moves, wherever the rivers go, will live. There will be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters go there; for they will be healed, and everything will live wherever the river goes. 10 It shall be that fishermen will stand by it from En Gedi to En Eglaim; they will be places for spreading their nets. Their fish will be of the same kinds as the fish of the Great Sea, exceedingly many.

Once again notice that two real, here-on-earth towns are named (so no one makes the mistake of "spiritualizing" this prophecy) between which men will fish. (En Gedi still exists today.) This is NOT "spiritual" fishing for souls in an "invisible kingdom". These are actual living humans casting actual nets catching real edible fish from the Dead Sea.

Did that happen in 70 AD? NOPE! But when Christ really does return it is going to happen because God said it would.

Notice the phrase "Dead Sea"? What do you suppose that represents? Gentiles are often referred to as the "Sea", of which case Gentiles were spiritual separated from God, thereby being dead. So what is the significance of water flowing from Jerusalem into the dead sea?

You figure it out my friend. I don't think you would appreciate the answer.

Preterists, your assumption that the 70 AD sacking of Jerusalem was the coming of Christ is just plain wrong.

Nice opinion, but unproved.

Honestly, when the Spirit moved Ezekiel and Zechariah to write those passages He knew that one day you preterists would try to warp the scriptures to fit your errant view.

HE DID? OH MY GOODNESS!

That's why those physical locations are named. (one reason at least) So that I and others like me could come along and try to set you guys straight.

:lol: Funny how they both missed the false predictions of the Futurists that's been going on now for, what, 2000 years? Failed predictions after the next, but Zechariah was warned about Preterist. :rolleyes: Very interesting comment indeed.

So why the big "2000 yr. gap"? What gap!! From God's perspective (2 Peter 3) it's only been a couple of days!

That's enough to chew on for now.

DaveO
Reply With Quote

There's only a gap to those who believe that. This is what I refer to as the unspoken time frame, as though God were trying to trick humanity into making false guesses, one after the next. Yes, God's perspective is seemingly timeless. But there are not indications that Peter was giving them some form of time-code. His statement wasn't a time-code, but a demonstration of His Patients. Although mans sins are long, tall, and wide, God's patients is extremely long-suffering, not wanting anyone to perish, but for all to come to repentance. That is all Peter's passage saying. But nooooo! The Futurist's have to interject some type of mathematical formula, primarily to keep their predictions, although failure upon failure, rolling with the waves of the sea.

Great chatting.

Joe

DaveO

09-23-2009, 05:43 PM

Interesting point, but if you look at the big picture, the cross of Christ (although past from their view point) had not yet spread to the entire inhabited earth.

No, and it STILL hasn't.

Thus, the first covenant was nullified at the cross, but the building of the new Covenant kingdom was not yet completed.

Nice try but the law was either still valid or not. There is nothing to indicate that it was "gradually" annulled.

Joel, if you can't see the obvious flaws in your other arguments my pointing them out won't help. I may come back and do it any way but am pressed for time right now. So I'll leave with this:

He ALSO never stated that Israel of the flesh would be restored

Sorry but you are wrong. He most certainly did many times and Moses was the first to prophecy it.

Leviticus 26:

29And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.

According to Josephus (not the most reliable source I admit) that happened in 70 AD. I know of no other record where they did that during a siege.

30And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

31And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.
The sacking of the temple.

And then the Diaspora:

32And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it.

33And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.

34Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths.

35As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.

36And upon them that are left alive of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth.

37And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies.

38And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.

39And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.

God's offer to restore them:

40If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;

41And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:

42Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

43The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes.

44And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.

45But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

There are MANY more in the Bible about Israel being brought back from the 70 AD diaspora.

One of the faults of nearly every eschatology student is failing to realize why prophecy is often so ambiguous. The timing of many events that MUST happen (because God said so) are NOT necessarily set. The actual timing of these must-happen events often depends on what we humans (individuals and groups) choose to do.

That's why people can read the Olivet Discourse, reach opposite conclusions and wonder how the other guy can't see what they see. Either view could have been correct. Christ was deliberately ambiguous because the generation He was referring to would depend on the choice of the Jews living at the time.

Another example:

Will the "rapture" happen? It could
Must it happen? Nope!

In their desire and efforts to completely reconcile all Biblical prophecy, the preterist has been forced to "spiritualize" the irreconcilable and force certain things to fit. You do it too. :) It doesn't work.

Don't be insulted. I have yet to see a futurist that claims to "have it all figured out" include Rev. 10:4 in their equations. Not one!

So here's another challenge for you. Since all prophecy has been fulfilled, you and the other preterists on this board shouldn't have too much trouble identifying the utterances of Rev. 10:4 and linking them to known events of 70 AD.

Cheers!

DaveO

PS

I can see that you are a passionate futurist

Who said that? :winking0071:

Richard Amiel McGough

09-23-2009, 07:18 PM

Hey there DaveO! :yo:

I just wanted to let you know that I have been super busy today and so have not had time to post. I didn't want you to think I lost interest or something like that. On the contrary, I am very excited to enter in to the conversation as soon as I find time.

All the best,

Richard

TheForgiven

09-23-2009, 07:34 PM

No, and it STILL hasn't.

Really?

Romans 10:

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:

“ Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”

Although Paul was quoting Isaiah 28:16, he was showing that the spreading of the gospels was not unfinished. The largest error that contributes to the misinterpretation is the spreading of the gospels. They fail to recognize that the preaching of the gospel is an on-going process. The Futurist position (as well as other eschatology's) insist that the Kingdom of Christ is not finished until the last gospel is preached to the last known inhabited earth. So them, the Gospel has its conclusion which is either culminated at the end of the world (so un-scriptural) or the end of the Age (which some believe represents the Christian Age).

How else do you explain this passage if the Gospel is to have an end?

Isaiah 66:23
And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD.

Of course, some would interpret this to mean that every living flesh will come to worship God, from one new moon to the next. However, that too is a misinterpretation of the passage. The point wasn't every single soul, but all the different races. Thus, people (flesh) of all nations would come to worship Christ in His Kingdom, from one new moon to the next.

Thus, the first covenant was nullified at the cross, but the building of the new Covenant kingdom was not yet completed.
Nice try but the law was either still valid or not. There is nothing to indicate that it was "gradually" annulled.

Joe, if you can't see the obvious flaws in your other arguments my pointing them out won't help. I may come back and do it any way but am pressed for time right now. So I'll leave with this:

Hmmm? Obvious Flaw? The cross of Christ nullified the law and its requirements. This did not mean the Law was set aside as void. It means that the works (new moon celebrations, feasts, fasts, don't eat, don't taste, etc.) were all nailed to the cross. Mankind was passed from one Covenant to the next. But the new covenant was not yet built; the building was incomplete, beginning at Pentecost until the Apostles, whom were chosen, completed their mission. We are the continuing offspring of what they paid for; suffering for the gospel of Christ to expand the Kingdom. Thousands, if not millions, suffered intensely for the spread of the Kingdom. Some of the early fathers recognize that the once pagan world, was being transformed into a world of Christ. This could not have been accomplished without the initial work of the Apostles, and their disciples. By the time the gospels was reached unto all the inhabited earth (of their time), it was time for testing. Thus came the end as prophesied by Daniel, regarding the temple, people, and city. All was destroyed as prophesied by the prophets, thus fulfilling the prophets.

He ALSO never stated that Israel of the flesh would be restored
Sorry but you are wrong. He most certainly did many times and Moses was the first to prophecy it.

Leviticus 26:

29And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.

According to Josephus (not the most reliable source I admit) that happened in 70 AD. I know of no other record where they did that during a siege.

30And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

31And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.

The sacking of the temple.

Not 70AD alone, but even before. Remember Israel was occupied prior to 70AD, during the seventy sevens mentioned by Daniel.

And then the Diaspora:

32And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it.

33And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.

34Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths.

35As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.

36And upon them that are left alive of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth.

37And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies.

38And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.

39And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.

And here is where you're missing the mark my friend. They were not "Dispersed" in 70AD; they were done away with; no more Israel of the flesh. For in truth, they were dispersed since the days of Babylon, when the king of Babylon ram-sacked Jerusalem, and destroyed the temple. Thus, from that time onward, the kingdom was taken away from them. Then came the Medes/Persians, and then the Greeks, and finally Rome. Notice how Peter asked Christ in Acts chapter 1, "Will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?" This means that they were not truly a nation of their own, but were under the control.

Now of course you're probably thinking of them being forced out of their land. But notice this passage in the New Testament?

James 1:

1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,

To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

James was killed sometime in the 40's to 50's AD, yet he writes to the scattered Tribes of Israel, obviously outside of Israel. So how could they have been dispersed in 70AD, James wrote to them prior to the so called "Dispersion"?

Folks! I'm not sure if DaveO is familiar with the Prophesy of Isaiah, which talked about how long the hardening of the heart would last upon Israel, but just in case he's unfamiliar with the time-frame of this dispersion:

Isaiah 6:

9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people:

‘ Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “ Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”

11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?”

And He answered:

“ Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,
The houses are without a man,
The land is utterly desolate,
12 The LORD has removed men far away,
And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
13 But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.”

How long is this hardening of Israel to last? Only until the cities of Israel were destroyed, and without inhabitant? Was this 70AD? You betcha! What would result in this? Only Paul's remnant according to the flesh, who would be the chosen ones to be refined through the fires, purified, and the bad parts of the tree were cut down. Jesus said, "The Ax is already laid at the root....DO NOT say to yourselves that we have Abraham as our forefathers.." Thus, if Jesus stated that being born a fleshly Jew is not enough for security, and that was in the first century, then neither does that apply today. The "Holy Seed" is Christ, and all who are born into Christ Jesus are Jews from within, by the Spirit, and NOT the letter. So all who come unto Christ, enter the land of rest, and become the people of God.

However, the Futurist position insists that God deals with man on the basis of Race, and that the master race of all people are what they refer to as God's chosen people. Were they chosen? Yes, to bring forth the Christ. Now that His coming was fulfilled, and His name preached unto all the earth, from one new moon to the next, so that all flesh may bow the knee to the God of heaven, one can logically conclude that the "chosen" are no longer based on fleshly birth, but on grace. "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works lest anyone should boast."

Thus, the land promised to the children of Israel is not the land Joshua led them into. For if that was the promised land, then Joshua would have succeeded in leading the chosen into the land of rest. But the land of rest, as the author of Hebrews testifies, is the land flowing with milk and honey; we who read the word partake of the bread of life. And we who share all good things, share in the sweat love of Christ's grace, as sweat as honey.

God's offer to restore them:

40If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;

41And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:

42Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

43The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes.

44And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.

45But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

This is a perfect example of the kingdom of Christ. As stated, if God promised them geographical Israel, then Joshua would have had no other work to perform. But the "rest" of God are for all who are saved by grace. And we who have believed in Christ, enter that rest.

Hebrews 4:3
For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:“ So I swore in My wrath,‘ They shall not enter My rest,’” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

There are MANY more in the Bible about Israel being brought back from the 70 AD diaspora.

Nope because the hardening was completed in 70AD, when the cities of Israel were destroyed, and the land became a total desolation. Thus completed Daniel's prophesy of his people, temple, and city. There is no more Israel based on flesh, but ONLY on grace.

One of the faults of nearly every eschatology student is failing to realize why prophecy is often so ambiguous. The timing of many events that MUST happen (because God said so) are NOT necessarily set. The actual timing of these must-happen events often depends on what we humans (individuals and groups) choose to do.

We choose to understand prophesy through other prophesy which was fulfilled. I gave you an example of Jeremiah, and you did not respond.

That's why people can read the Olivet Discourse, reach opposite conclusions and wonder how the other guy can't see what they see. Either view could have been correct. Christ was deliberately ambiguous because the generation He was referring to would depend on the choice of the Jews living at the time.

True, but then why do Futurist insist on altering the meaning of the text, even in cases where the literal interpretation is obvious? For instance, about 13 times Christ was quotes as saying, "This generation", and all verses, except Matthew 24, to them means two different things. In Matthew 23, Jesus referred to "This generation" as the generation who would suffer all the wrath because of the blood spilled. Yet in Matthew 24, Futurist reject the prior examples of "This generation" and choose to extend its meaning to something outside of scripture, by stating, "Not the generation of His time, but the generation that sees the re-budding of the Fig Tree, which they claim is geographical Israel. Yet even the Israel today is not Israel, for they reject Christ. And Paul shows that only those who are part of the Israel of God, and not of flesh, represent Israel...Galatian's 6.

Another example:

Will the "rapture" happen? It could
Must it happen? Nope!

I'd probably agree with you.

In their desire and efforts to completely reconcile all Biblical prophecy, the preterist has been forced to "spiritualize" the irreconcilable and force certain things to fit. You do it too. It doesn't work.

No, it is not an effort to "reconcile" bible prophesy. It's an effort to understand it more clearly, as it was in the Old Testament. Was God seen riding in clouds when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, as prophesied by Jeremiah? No! Was Christ seen riding in clouds in 70AD? Yes, but in the same way as He did in the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon. So why is God expected to ride clouds in the future, if he didn't do it in the past?

Don't be insulted. I have yet to see a futurist that claims to "have it all figured out" include Rev. 10:4 in their equations. Not one!

Oh, don't worry my friend. Not insulted in the slightest. Futurist's are not that difficult to debate. In fact, it appears the Futurist as been on the declining position within the past 15 or so years. They are losing ground because they are unable to stand toe-to-toe with Preterist's from different churches. More importantly, Futurist's have a very long history of quacks making false predictions, and are the direct contributor's to the discrediting of the Church.

So here's another challenge for you. Since all prophecy has been fulfilled, you and the other preterists on this board shouldn't have too much trouble identifying the utterances of Rev. 10:4 and linking them to known events of 70 AD.

Revelation 10:4?

Perhaps you should read it. It's quite simple if you read the text.

John was told not to utter the thunders, but their was an indicator given to what the purpose of those thunders would be:

Revelation 10:

5 The angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised up his hand to heaven 6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer, 7 but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets.

The seven thunders would result in the most beautiful thing that Futurist's are unable to see. This is the same beautiful thing that tasted as sweat as honey, but made John's stomach bitter. This is the mystery of God being completed....Christ in you.

Why was the angel standing on the "Land" and the "sea"? If you understand that reason, and how it relates to the thunders, and the mystery of God, then you would understand Revelation 10:4.

Land and sea....land and sea...land and sea.

Jew and Gentile, becoming one nation, under Christ, into one body.....

Hint: All flesh....THAT is the significance of 70AD.

God's peace and love.

Joe

Cheers!

DaveO

PS
Quote:

I can see that you are a passionate futurist
Who said that?

Are you not?

Richard Amiel McGough

09-24-2009, 07:17 AM

Hello Richard!

(note: this topic started in "A Question for Futurists" Pg4.)

It seems to me that there are HUGE problems with your interpretation. Here are the first five that leap from the top of my mind:

1. Where does the Bible state that "Those new laws will be in effect AFTER heaven and earth have passed away"?
In the book of Acts is is undeniable that Peter, the other 11 and all their converts were still keeping the Mosaic Law many years after the cross and ascension. So clearly in THEIR opinion it was still valid and in force and the resurrection had changed nothing.

Good morning DaveO! :yo:

I am truly thrilled that you have taken your time to dig deep into Scripture with us and to help us understand the truth of God's Word. I pray that our Lord will bless you in every way in and all that you do.

Your opening statement is very instructive. It displays a number of factual and hermeneutical errors that we all must avoid. First and foremost: your statement concerning "all their converts" is false. Scripture gives explicit testimony that the Apostles did not require converts to obey the Law of Moses:
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written [indicating this is fulfillment of prophecy], 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. 22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
This passage shows how the understanding of the Apostles continued to develop over time. They knew nothing of God's plan to evangelize the Gentiles before God gave Peter his vision of sheet which happened a few years after Pentecost. And even after that revelation, there was still much disputing in the early Church about the relation between the New Covenant and the Mosaic Law. And this was to be expected. The Mosaic Law was given by God and the Apostles were faithful Jews steeped in the traditions of their fathers (which had been mixed with the law). So it was not a simple matter for them to sort this all out. But it should not be so hard for us because we have a great advantage over them. The Apostles were ignorant of many things that God had not yet revealed. The Bible is a record of the development of their understanding. We now have a much clearler picture of the "full counsel of God." So it would be absurd to base doctrine on the uninspired "opinions" the Apostles held before they had received God's full revelation. And this leads us to another fundamental error in your opening statement. You wrote:
So clearly in THEIR opinion it was still valid and in force and the resurrection had changed nothing.
There are many problems with that statement. First, we must build our doctrines on what Scripture explicitly states, not on what we infer to be the unstated "opinions" of the Apostles, especially since such inferences involve speculation. Second, Scripture never states that we should follow the actions of the Apostles in everything they did or that all their opinions and actions were inspired of God. Indeed, we have many examples that would contradict this idea, such as Peter's false understanding of the crucifixion (Mat 16:23) and his triple denial of Christ. They lived in a unique transition time between the institution of the New Covenant and the fading of the Old. They didn't have all the answers at first. Indeed, they did not even know about the primary plan of God to evangelize the Gentiles!

Now I am guessing that you may still want to maintain that even though the Gentile converts did not have to obey the Law of Moses, it was still binding on the Jewish Christians. But this directly contradicts Peter's statement quoted above:
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Peter proclaimed that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the matter of salvation. Here we have perfect agreement between the teachings of Peter and those of Paul that came years later.
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Any attempt to drive a wedge between Jewish and Gentile Christians is contrary to the plain testimony of all Scripture.

Finally, your statement that "the resurrection had changed nothing" in regards to the Apostles' understanding of the Mosaic Law clangs against my ears like a garbage can kicked in the middle of a Beethoven sonata.
:chores037:
It is entirely out of harmony with the entire message of the New Testament. In the Scripture from Acts quoted above, Peter himself stated that the Law was a "a yoke upon the neck" that "neither our fathers nor we were [past tense!] able to bear." And this coheres absolutely and perfectly with the teachings of Paul on this matter.

I think that is enough to chew on for right now. I hope you understand how very important it is that we focus on one point at a time until we come to resolution. Otherwise we will just go round and round making no progress. We should always seek to narrow down the conversation to fundamental points that can be discerned with certainty to be true or false.

Again, I want to affirm how pleasant and fruitful it is for folks with strongly differing views of Scripture to sit together discussing their different understandings in peace and grace and much mutual respect.

:talk002:

Many blessings to you my friend and fellow student of God's most excellent Word!

Richard

TheForgiven

09-24-2009, 04:45 PM

That was a pretty good post Richard. :thumb: My posts were not quite organized, as I was trying to address all the issues DaveO posted. This, as you know, tends to cause confusion in the post, as though a story were written without a plot. You are correct in taking one discussion at a time, as this lessons the length of the post, and makes it much more fluid when reading.

I didn't spend much time proof reading my posts either, as indicated by my weakness in grammar and spelling. :lol: There was probably more emotion in my posts, rather than sound instruction.

It'll come back to me though, but I'm glad you're back in action. Nice to see you again.

Again, great post.

Joe

DaveO

09-24-2009, 06:52 PM

Although Paul was quoting Isaiah 28:16, he was showing that the spreading of the gospels was not unfinished.

Are you a Mormon Joe? (I know you're not :thumb:) Are you saying that the Gospel at that time had been reached the Americas?

Also you forgot to examine who the "they" is in "have they not heard?" Paul was talking about the Jews. (BTW there's a much better verse to use for that argument. Can you find it? Hint: One of Paul's last letters...)

The cross of Christ nullified the law and its requirements.

Only for those who have accepted the offer of Grace. The Law still stands for those who don't. The Law is what the Spirit uses to convict of sin which leads people to seek and accept Grace!

Romans 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

It still serves a very important purpose and so it will continue to stand (just like Jesus said it would) until this present heaven and earth are literally destroyed with fire. (Matthew 5:18, 2 Peter 3)

A new temple could be sanctified because the Laws to do so still stand for the Jew outside of Grace. Jesus said it would stand till heaven and earth pass away and that hasn't happened yet. I'll discuss this no more because...

Heaven and earth will be physically replaced!

Joe, science has discovered that 90-99% of what God created is "missing" from our universe. The fact that many scientists are Godless humanists doesn't invalidate their findings. And some are Christians who agree with those findings. Scientists are baffled by this but the Bible has always told us where it is.

Here's a couple of clues for you to ponder:

Genesis:1
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (This is not about clouds in our sky)

Rev. 4
6 Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like unto crystal

Revelation 21
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

This also explains the other great mystery of astrophysics; Why is the universe not only expanding but accelerating? Duh! It's being pulled by God's law of gravity towards a much greater mass. Nothing else possibly could happen. (BTW where all that water came from is explained later below)

Romans 1
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

God has a purpose for that unimaginably huge body of h2o. Joel, do you know what happens when the "h" is separated from the "o" and a single spark is added? BANG! POOF!

2 Peter 3
10... in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Joe, God isn't being obscure about His plan. That is NOT a symbolic fire! He is telling you flat out what and how the end of this current heavens and earth shall will be. And even Godless secular science has verified by default that exactly what is needed to facilitate that fire, is right there where God purposefully placed it (and the Bible says it is) at the very beginning of this age! Nothing new or supernatural is needed, God only need speak the Word and it's done.

Not only that, but after that cleansing fire, every single atom that God created will still be here for Him to arrange to His pleasure. He made it all for a purpose. None will cease to exist and all will serve His good pleasure and much of it will be for the eternal enjoyment of His children for which the depth of His love is utterly unfathomable.

(Side note: when hydrogen burns it always turns into water. That's what ALL water is: burnt or "oxidized" hydrogen. I believe it is the only element than can be burned over and over?)

Just for fun try to imagine looking in the night sky and seeing perhaps 100 times more starlight! And that's just one wonder that my pathetically limited human mind can imagine.

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

Right now the Kingdom of God is separated from our universe. But that will change. And you in your new immortal body will have feet just like you do now that will stand on solid ground in this universe. You will eat and drink. Not because you need to but for the pure enjoyment of it.

Matthew 26:29
But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
(BTW that "fruit of the vine" was NOT symbolic. He was referring the actual drinkable wine in the real cup that He had handed them. He will one day physically drink it again with them and possibly you too.)

After the end of this age there will be nothing between the current abode of God and the current abode of mankind. There won't be 3 heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2) only 1 and the elements of our universe will be one with it. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth... and there was no more sea. It is how it originally was (In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth) and will be so again. (Seriously, did you never wonder what might separate the abode of God from the 2nd heaven?)

THAT'S the kingdom of God we so anxiously await. A vast physical Kingdom where fruit grows, animals roam peacefully and we walk and live with our King under His sun and stars in a physical body. No death, no mourning, no sorrow. Literally, just like the Bible says. No longer will his creation be merely "very good", it will made perfect according to His standards. My dear brothers and sisters, "you ain't seen nothin' yet"!

And it is not just we humans who are included and anxiously await this new Kingdom:

Romans 8:
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

See what I mean? Every speck of matter in our universe has been polluted either by the iniquity of Lucifer and his demons and/or the sins of mankind. It is not just we humans that Christ came to redeem but rather ALL of His creation. Every last sub-atomic particle of it. Did you think that God has no compassion for His other creatures (Luke 12:6-7) and their undeserved suffering because of our sin? Do you honestly believe that He will let it gone on until........ when??
(The full-preterist view seems to ignore those undeniable facts. Even if every sinful human who ever lived somehow became saved today, God's redemption plan still would not be complete! AD 70 came and went and the creation wasn't benefited at all. If fact it's getting worse and will continue to until Christ comes.)

So is that what we see in 2 Peter 3? The creation being "delivered from the bondage of corruption" through a "baptism" of fire? We are delivered from the bondage by the baptism of the Spirit and fire (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:3) so perhaps it is so.

You're probably wondering where my claim of a vast body of water between the 2nd and 3rd heavens comes from. It begins with the Gap/ruin-reconstruction Theory of creation. (not real popular but very old and so it's NOT a cop-out to science. For a good article on just how old it is see www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.php )

That along with 2 Peter 3:5-7 is the start. It is very clear to me that Peter held the ruin-reconstruction view.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Many people teach that this is Noah's flood. There are several strong reasons why I can't agree:

1) The "they" who "willingly are ignorant" are described in verse 3 as scoffers who in say "since the fathers fell asleep". Using the word "fathers" was a decidedly Jewish thing to say. Peter was definitely writing to Jews and I believe strongly that the "They" Peter mentions refers to his apostate Jewish brethren. Were any Jews ignorant of Noah's flood? I doubt it! He was probably as well known as Abraham. (Not definitive but adds weight)

2) Note that the earth is pictured as standing out of the water and in the water. (Envision a fisherman's bobber float.) This flood extended well out beyond our atmosphere. Noah's did not. It barely covered the mountains.

3) In verse 5 he uses the word "earth" but verse 6 the word "world". The Greek for world is "kosmos" and could mean either "an age" or "the universe". The overflowing of an abstract concept such as an "age" doesn't fit as well as "universe" does. So what was flooded and perished was more that just our planet.

4) Note the contrasting comparison between the phrases the "heavens were of old" (before the waters of 2 Peter 3:5-7) and the "heavens and earth which are now" (after the waters of 2 Peter 3:5-7). Since Noah's flood did not alter the upper heavens, then this verse must be speaking about an event other than Noah's flood. And Genesis 1:2 is the only other Biblical candidate.

5) In Genesis 1 the universe is completely dark indicating that all the stars died not just one. It is an established scientific observation that dying stars create and give off lots of water. As I stated earlier, secular science is running around in a frenzy formulating theories to explain what happened to as much as 99% of the mass that should be here from the creation. LOL! God knows where it's at, and through the Holy Spirit, Peter knew all along and told everyone. People just aren't listening.

6) The word "create" in Genesis 1:1 is translated from the Hebrew bara'. It translates as "create" perfectly.

Compare that to Exodus 20:11 (also Exodus 31:17)

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Here Moses used the Hebrew word "asah" translated as "made". It can be a difficult word to translate. In the broadest sense it can mean: to do, to fashion, to accomplish, to make.

In the English language and more so in human terms, the words "created" and "made" are pretty much interchangeable. Humans don't actually "create" anything. All we can do is re-fashion elements already here on earth.

But with God, made and created are two entirely different things! I submit to you that that is why the Spirit inspired Moses to use the word "asah" rather than "bara'" there in Exodus. Because in those 6 days God didn't create anything new. He took a wrecked cosmos and "made" it, not perfect again, but instead only "very good" enough to suit his future redemption plans. But it will be perfect again when He's all done.

So regardless of your eschatology view, hopefully all this has shown you that Paul words: ...His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made... have become more and more relevant (in regards to accumulated human knowledge) through the years and that science is continuing to validate the Bible as being the infallible Word of God.

Anyway that's enough to chew on for now. I will be busy till after Monday but I'll come back then to read all the "misguided lunatic" accusations this post is likely to inspire!

God bless all. Remember the Spirit and don't forget to :pray:!

Your servant,

DaveO

Important edit!: After re-reading this I felt I should state that in regards to God using the water above the firmament to effect the fire of 2 Peter 3, I am NOT claiming to be a prophet or to have had some divine revelation about it. It is an extrapolation derived from observing what God has done in the past to effect His judgments on the earth, namely, using elements already in place from His creation.

PS

Quote:
I can see that you are a passionate futurist

Who said that?

Are you not?

No Joe I'm a passionate truth seeker. I have found some truth in both extremes of preterism and future-ism. But the whole truth is in between. :winking0071:

DaveO

09-25-2009, 05:00 AM

Good morning DaveO!

I am truly thrilled that you have taken your time to dig deep into Scripture with us and to help us understand the truth of God's Word. I pray that our Lord will bless you in every way in and all that you do.

Your opening statement is very instructive. It displays a number of factual and hermeneutical errors that we all must avoid. First and foremost: your statement concerning "all their converts" is false. Scripture gives explicit testimony that the Apostles did not require converts to obey the Law of Moses:

Hello Richard!

Before that historic meeting with Paul in Acts 15, the Apostles were NOT going to the Gentiles. Christ had explicitly told them not to and they continued to obey His order.

The only exception was Peter going to Cornelius and that was only because he was ordered to do so. And other than that, there is no indication that any of the twelve allowed any other gentile into the faith without becoming a proselyte.

Even after Cornelius, anyone who wanted into the faith was STILL being required to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. THAT'S what that whole meeting was about! Paul was letting gentiles into the church without requiring them to be circumcised or keep the law and the other Apostles didn't approve. And this meeting was many years AFTER Cornelius. (My speculation on the matter is that God set up the Cornelius thing only so Peter could back up Paul with authority when the time came.)

So clearly in THEIR opinion it was still valid and in force and the resurrection had changed nothing.

There are many problems with that statement. First, we must build our doctrines on what Scripture explicitly states, not on what we infer to be the unstated "opinions" of the Apostles, especially since such inferences involve speculation.

The meeting in Acts 15 explicitly states what the problem was. I was not speculating. Their actions and the very need for that meeting explicitly and undeniably declare and define their opinion on the matter.
So clearly in THEIR opinion it (the law) was still valid and in force and the resurrection had changed nothing (about the law being valid).

So as you see my statement was correct, not speculative, and backed up by scripture.

Anyway all this is only arguing semantics. The real issue is:

Has ALL prophecy been fulfilled?

But before we continue with that debate Richard, I feel compelled to ask you a question:

What, in your view, was the nature of Christ's resurrection?

Till then

DaveO

TheForgiven

09-25-2009, 09:17 AM

Are you a Mormon Joe? (I know you're not ) Are you saying that the Gospel at that time had been reached the Americas?

I'll take that with a bit of humor. :lol: No, I'm no Mormon, and during the days of the Apostles, there is no factual data that can confidently claim that the "America's" were inhabited. Given the rate of population expansion, 1,500 years between the time of Christ, to the time this Continent was first discovered, doesn't reveal a crowded Indian population. Thus, there are no indications that this Continent was inhabited. Therefore, you cannot logically base your eschatology that the gospels failed to reach the America's, especially if there were nobody here to receive the gospel.

Also you forgot to examine who the "they" is in "have they not heard?" Paul was talking about the Jews. (BTW there's a much better verse to use for that argument. Can you find it? Hint: One of Paul's last letters...)

Yes, he was talking about the Jews, but he was also talking about the Gentiles. Romans wasn't just written to the Jews in Rome, but the Gentiles as well.

Paul was showing that just as the JEWS heard the gospels, so did the Gentiles located near the "Ends of the earth". Israel was considered the heart of the earth, ON DRY GROUND, while the Gentiles were considered the "ENDS OF THE EARTH" in the "SEA".

The cross of Christ nullified the law and its requirements.
Only for those who have accepted the offer of Grace. The Law still stands for those who don't. The Law is what the Spirit uses to convict of sin which leads people to seek and accept Grace!

Romans 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

My point wasn't that the Law is useless. The requirements under the Law, such as fastings, feasting, new moon, circumcision, etc. were all nailed to the cross. Those works were symbolic of a spiritual truth. For instance, fleshly circumcision was an outward symbol of what was to come; the circumcision of our hearts and minds. Fleshly circumcision removed the foreskin that was considered to be unclean. Christ circumcised our heart and mind to remove that which is "unclean" to that which is righteous. Thus, my statement stands true, that the Law and it's requirements were nailed to the cross. We no longer are bound to the letter of the Law, but to the Law of Christ. That is the righteousness which comes on the basis of faith. Faith is knowing what is right and wrong (apart from reading the Law as the Gentiles never did), by what the Spirit teaches us. "SPIRIT" simply means, "To inspire". Thus, our inspiration is not from a written code (which you refer to as the Law), but from the Holy Spirit (Inspiration) of Christ, who is our mind....unless of course we fail the test.

It still serves a very important purpose and so it will continue to stand (just like Jesus said it would) until this present heaven and earth are literally destroyed with fire. (Matthew 5:18, 2 Peter 3)

The fact that you teach of a future destruction of the world is why you insist that Law still stands.

Ecclesiastes 1:4
One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever.

Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, and states that the earth abides forever, even though one generation passes to the next. Thus, you are incorrect about the earth being destroyed.

Did heaven and earth pass away? Yes, it did. As Peter rightly stated, "The end of all things is at hand..." Why or how could Peter state such a thing considering the earth still stands? The answer is Peter wasn't referring to the elements (atoms, or molecular structure), he was referring to the Jewish elements.

Hebrews chapter 6:

Let us therefore leave the "ELEMENTARY" teachings of the Christ.....

This is the same Greek word used by Peter in reference to the "Elements passing away". Peter addressed his letter to the "Scattered Tribes of Israel", who were being warned about the coming destruction of their elements, being on fire, and set ablaze with a roar. This is exactly what happened in 70AD. The former heaven, and former earth passed away, and the New Heaven and New Earth "WITH NO MORE SEA" were done away with.

Finally, it's obvious you're reading a heavenly vision in an earthly format. You're insistence on the literal approach my friend is the reason why the unfulfilled list of prophesy may be long.

"Sea of Glass"? What does this mean? Are we to expect an earth resembling a sea of glass? Or was this a picture of the purified Christians from all nations (All flesh)?

A new temple could be sanctified because the Laws to do so still stand for the Jew outside of Grace. Jesus said it would stand till heaven and earth pass away and that hasn't happened yet. I'll discuss this no more because...

"Could" and "Will" are two different things. There are no passages in the Bible which predict a third temple, only to be destroyed again. The New Testament clearly teaches us that WE are the temple of the living God.

Heaven is my Throne, the earth a foot stool for my feet...where shall I find a place of rest? Has not my hands made these things?

God shows that temples made of hands is not His place of rest, or habitation. For the earth itself is His footstool (rest). But His Spirit yearns for the hearts and minds of His children. That is His place of rest. Thus, this absurd theory of a rebuilt temple is all fictional jargon from the Dispensational and Futurist camp. It belongs right where it belongs.....:chores037:

Case in point friend. If ain't written to happen, then it ain't happening. :winking0071:

No 3rd temple. WE are the temple that abides forever, from one new moon to the next; the earth and its temple shall abide forever, and ever, and ever. You are either on the "INSIDE" of the gate, or "OUTSIDE".

Joe

Brother Les

09-25-2009, 12:01 PM

TheForgiven

09-25-2009, 04:55 PM

Joe, The Prophets did declare that The Tabernacle (House) of David was to be restored after it had fallen down (became two 'Nations' and lost to harlotry). It was to made up of the same Peoples and types of the Old Israelite (Prince of God) Election. The 'Heir' of David was to sit on Davids Throne. That Heir is Jesus Christ. 'Israel' were to be a 'New' People (born again under a New Covenant) and they were to have a 'New Name' and that New Name is Christian (Messiahtains). The Promises were TO The Fathers FOR the Resurrection from The Dead (Standing Up Again). If The Promises that were given to The Fathers were not Fully kept (Resurrection from The Dead) then it would not and can not be possiable for any Gentile (Goem) to come into Covenant with YHWH. YHWH did not lie to OC 'Israel', He fulfilled His Promises in Full. This all happened at the Marriage of the New Bride in AD 70.

Nice Thread.

Blessings
Brother Les

I wouldn't presume to debate you. You re absolutely right. My point was directed as DaveO's theory that a third physical temple would be rebuilt, only to be destroyed again.

If I'm not mistaken, DaveO believes that Matthew 24 is unfulfilled with regards to the destruction of the temple. I'm uncertain if that's his position or not, but that would no doubt undermine the temple they were standing in. For why would Christ speak to them of a future rebuilding/destruction of the temple if the one they questioned was the one they "adored"? Hence, anyone who believes that Matthew 24 was speaking of a future temple beyond their days is not making any sense, nor can they logically prove this theory.

Thus, the temple which exists now is the same temple that St. Barnabus of the 2nd century understood; we are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Joe

DaveO

09-28-2009, 09:29 AM

Hello Joe!

Thus, my statement stands true, that the Law and it's requirements were nailed to the cross.

Once again MY statement stands true; ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ACCEPT GRACE!

Galatians 5:
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

The fact that you teach of a future destruction of the world is why you insist that Law still stands.

No, I insist it because the Bible says it. Only you preterists insist it doesn't because you are forced to do so by circular reasoning.

We choose to understand prophesy through other prophesy which was fulfilled. I gave you an example of Jeremiah, and you did not respond.

Please research the importance of Temporal Markers in interpreting scripture and then you'll understand how you were comparing apples to oranges.

Ecclesiastes 1:4
One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever.

That is a prime example of poetic comparative hyperbole. By God's laws of nature, it is impossible for the earth to last forever. Therefore that passage cannot and must not be taken literally.

With all that said, after this, I'll take Richards advice and try to debate one subject at a time. Long posts are boring, unreadable and unfruitful.

Till then, may the Spirit guide us into all truth.

DaveO

TheForgiven

09-28-2009, 06:24 PM

That is a prime example of poetic comparative hyperbole. By God's laws of nature, it is impossible for the earth to last forever. Therefore that passage cannot and must not be taken literally.

With all that said, after this, I'll take Richards advice and try to debate one subject at a time. Long posts are boring, unreadable and unfruitful.

Till then, may the Spirit guide us into all truth.

DaveO

Greetings brother DaveO. I read your last post, and I wanted to respond to some of your comments, but it wouldn't do considering no scriptural support was offered by your comments. So I'll just accept it as your opinion, and your stance....no pun intended.

If you don't mind, I'd like you to show me where exactly in the Bible does it state that God's law of nature demands the earths destruction. Are you suggesting that the earth, by natural law, must be destroyed? Seeing there is no scriptural evidence to support this theory, one must conclude that those who believe as you rely heavily on science to support the earth being destroyed.

Consider this. If we take the side of science, and the universe is billions of years old, this would mean that the planets that exist around stars, both of which are billions of years old (by the natural scientific law of nature), I think it's safe to assume that the earth itself has billions of years left. Granted that is not a life time, but then again, I don't believe science is correct as most of it is based on theories, and hypothesis's.

Now scripturally, the earth shall abide forever; I've quoted one such verse, which I agree is poetic, but then so is all prophesy. How is it that you seem to believe that only certain applicable verses are poetic, while others are literal? Isn't this a violation of the Futurist rule of interpreting scripture? All prophesy is poetic, and that's how God communicates his point to His people. But I'll leave this discussion for a later time.

The only passage Futurist cling to for proof text of the earths destruction is from St. Peter:

2 Peter 3:

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

According to most Bibles, specifically the New King James version, an alternate translation exists being more literal. Instead of the sentence "The earth and its works will be burned up", the literal translation is "exposed, or discovered".

Paul uses this expression when referring to those who build a house made of wood, hay, straw, brick, or stone. Each mans work will be brought to light (exposed to the heat). If his work survives, he will receive his reward. If not, he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping the flames. This is not literal, but a figure of speech. The "Fires" here is the fiery trails the early church suffered. Even though this was directed at the early church, it still holds true today. Thus, the works of the earth are not molecular lay outs or atomic in nature. The "elements" Peter is talking about is the Jewish teachings they were accustomed to. Unfortunately, too many people throughout the centuries have assumed that the earth must be destroyed by fire. Most appeal to the example of Noah, because Peter himself stated that the former habitation was destroyed in the days of Noah, while the present heaven and earth is being preserved for fire. Here's the common error though. The earth was NOT destroyed during Noah's day. Only it's inhabitants. Thus, the earth was cleansed of sin by destroying the sinners, and leaving only eight considered righteous. The same holds true to Peter's statement. It isn't the earth that was to be destroyed, but it's inhabitants. The purpose? To start anew by cleaning the sin within the world. Did this happen? Of course it did. For the blood of Jesus Christ purifies all from sin; to include even the world. But a time of testing was to come upon the original audience who were directly responsible for the building of the kingdom of grace. Thus, the "Time of testing" or the fiery trials was used to cleanse the earth of sin, by establishing a world filled with righteous. When we consider the world of the ancients, nations were dominated by pagan religions. The only nation under God was Israel of the flesh, and when they sinned, they were destroyed. Now jump 2000 years after Christ, and we see a world dominated by the Kingdom of Christ. Hence, instead of a declining world as the Futurist teach, we see a much better world compared to that of the ancients.

Here's my challenge to you. Post every scripture you believe is in direct reference to the earths destruction, and we'll discuss those one at a time.

Here's some helpful information for you, should you decide to quote from Peter. Peter was addressing his fellow Jews of the flesh, who were scattered throughout Asia Minor, and other Roman controlled cities. His message was with purpose, by informing them that the end of all things was at hand, and that they should await a future world, wherein dwells righteousness. Consider the millions who are saved by grace, thereby being made righteous through the Sanctification of the Spirit....then compare that prior to the early church. I'd say that there was certainly a New Heaven, and a New Earth created.

Think about it.

I'll await your scriptural selections referring to the "End of the earth".

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough

09-28-2009, 06:52 PM

Hello Richard!

Before that historic meeting with Paul in Acts 15, the Apostles were NOT going to the Gentiles. Christ had explicitly told them not to and they continued to obey His order.

The only exception was Peter going to Cornelius and that was only because he was ordered to do so. And other than that, there is no indication that any of the twelve allowed any other gentile into the faith without becoming a proselyte.

Even after Cornelius, anyone who wanted into the faith was STILL being required to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. THAT'S what that whole meeting was about! Paul was letting gentiles into the church without requiring them to be circumcised or keep the law and the other Apostles didn't approve. And this meeting was many years AFTER Cornelius. (My speculation on the matter is that God set up the Cornelius thing only so Peter could back up Paul with authority when the time came.)

Hey ho, Dave-Oh! :anim_32:

I finally got some time to chat.

I am a little confused by your comments. You say that the other Apostles "didn't approve" of the fact that Paul was not "requiring them to be circumcised of keep the law." Are you saying that Paul was divided from the other Apostles, and that they believed different things and held different opinions and taught different things? Are you saying the opinions of the other Apostles were correct, and that Paul's teachings are false?

The meeting in Acts 15 explicitly states what the problem was. I was not speculating. Their actions and the very need for that meeting explicitly and undeniably declare and define their opinion on the matter.
So clearly in THEIR opinion it (the law) was still valid and in force and the resurrection had changed nothing (about the law being valid).

So as you see my statement was correct, not speculative, and backed up by scripture.
I need a little more explanation on this point. When I read Acts 15 I see the Apostles declaring that the converts DO NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THE LAW. But you seem to be saying the opposite. Could you clarify this for me?

Anyway all this is only arguing semantics. The real issue is:

Has ALL prophecy been fulfilled?

That question is not the real issue. I don't claim to know if "all prophecies have been fulfilled" because I don't claim to have knowledge of "all prophecies." If you have carefully read my statements in this forum, then you know that the "real issue" is the fulfillment of the integrated prophetic complex centered on the prophecies of Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation. In my understanding, that entire prophetic complex was fulfilled in the first century. That is the real issue.

But before we continue with that debate Richard, I feel compelled to ask you a question:

What, in your view, was the nature of Christ's resurrection?

Till then

DaveO
Christ's resurrection was different than most because His body did not see corruption. The situation is entirely different for the vast majority of people who have ever lived. Their carnal bodies can not be "resurrected" in the same way as Christ's body because they don't exist any more. It appears that God chose to physically resurrect Christ's carnal body to demonstrate the reality of the resurrection.

There is no reason to expect a carnal resurrection for believers because the Bible doesn't teach any such thing. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that we will be clothed with "spiritual bodies" that are "heavenly houses." It says nothing of a resurrection of the carnal body.

It is good to be chatting,

Richard

DaveO

09-28-2009, 09:19 PM

Hello again Joe!

If you don't mind, I'd like you to show me where exactly in the Bible does it state that God's law of nature demands the earths destruction. Are you suggesting that the earth, by natural law, must be destroyed?

SCRIPTURAL Fact: God's invisible laws that govern His creation can be clearly seen in that which is made. (Romans 1)

Fact: By God's law of nature our sun CANNOT burn forever.

Fact: As a star dies it consumes anything within it's enormously bloated circumference. This is an observed and verifiable FACT, not a theory. (Our earth is well within that space for our star)

All prophesy is poetic, and that's how God communicates his point to His people.

There is a big difference between poetry and symbolic language. Symbolism can be used IN poetry but it is NOT poetry itself. The verse you quote is in fact poetic hyperbole contained within a poem. Therefore to claim it as a prophecy is to rip it violently out of context. (:confused: Christ's prophecy that the temple would be destroyed was poetic in form? The Olivetti Discourse was poetic? The only symbolic things in it are where He quotes OT prophets. You should perhaps rethink your "All prophesy is poetic" stance.)

How is it that you seem to believe that only certain applicable verses are poetic, while others are literal?

Joe, you MUST pay attention to literal markers when interpreting prophetic Scripture. Where there are none, the best one can do is glean the literal truths expressed by the symbolic prose.

A good example is John seeing new Jerusalem in Revelation 21. It begins with literal markers. Note also that John sees it twice. First literally (confirmed by literal markers) then spiritually (confirmed by literal impossibility).

Futurists love to argue for a literal 1500-mile tall city which is clearly absurd as the preterist correctly points out. But BOTH sides ignore the literal truth that can be gleaned from the symbolism: IT HAS A FINITE SIZE! There are only going to be X number of souls inside. So whether one is part of the "bride" or one of the guests, there is only so much room. The gathering of souls CANNOT go on forever. There is an end YET to come and that is exactly what is seen in that chapter.

Anyway, I am enjoying our debate and next we will debate 2 Peter 3 as you wish.

Till then, may the Spirit of God guide us into all truth. :pray:

DaveO

Richard Amiel McGough

09-28-2009, 11:34 PM

Joe, you MUST pay attention to temporal markers when interpreting prophetic Scripture. Where there are none, the best one can do is glean the literal truths expressed by the symbolic prose.

That's an interesting comment. To my knowledge, Preterists are the only folks who consistently interpret the temporal markers in a way that matches the plain language of the Bible. We interpret "soon" as "soon" and "the time is at hand" as the "time is at hand" and "this generation" as "this generation" and "it IS the last hour" as "it IS the last hour" and ... well, you get the idea! :winking0071:

A good example is John seeing new Jerusalem in Revelation 21. It begins with temporal markers. Note also that John sees it twice. First literally (confirmed by temporal markers) then spiritually (confirmed by literal impossibility).
Please define the "temporal markers" found in John 21.

Richard

DaveO

09-29-2009, 12:26 AM

Please define the "temporal markers"

:signthankspin:

I humbly stand corrected. I will change it to "literal markers" and will edit accordingly.

A "literal marker" example would be the Mount of Olives. It should not be taken as meaning anything but the actual on-earth mountain without cause. Is there a hermeneutic term you prefer I use? Perhaps a rule of first or most common use?

For example the terms "heaven and earth" are first used in Genesis 1 and are literal. So in Rev 21 they should also be taken as such unless some surrounding symbolic language makes it absurd to do so. Also the second symbolic or "spiritual" vision in Rev 21:9-27 reinforces the natural or literal interpretation of 1-8.

CWH

09-29-2009, 03:13 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-29-2009, 01:35 PM

Hi,

Richard wrote:

That's an interesting comment. To my knowledge, Preterists are the only folks who consistently interpret the temporal markers in a way that matches the plain language of the Bible. We interpret "soon" as "soon" and "the time is at hand" as the "time is at hand" and "this generation" as "this generation" and "it IS the last hour" as "it IS the last hour" and ... well, you get the idea!

This is interesting; how about interpreting "a day to the lord is but 1,000 years" in 2Peter 3? 1,000 years is 1,000years. How about interpreting the millenium after the world "ended" as a millenium? A millenium is a millenium. How about interpreting regeneration as regeneration?

Many Blessings.
Hey now brother Cheow!

I do my best to interpret 2 Peter 3 in the way that God intended. God inspired Peter to say "a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years" - our job is to try to understand what God meant by that, and why He inspired Peter to write those words in the context of the "Day of the Lord" and its apparent delay.

Most people see only half of what God has revealed. They seem to think that God was only saying a thousand years is like a single day to the Lord, so a delay of 2000 years is just like two days with God and it's not really much of a delay. And there is some truth to that, and support for that idea in the context of 2 Peter 3 since Peter was explaining why Christians should be freaked out by the 30-some year delay in the coming of Christ in judgment upon apostate Jerusalem which Christ prophesied in the Olivet Discourse.

But there is a symmetry of 2 Peter 3 that most people do not notice. It is not only saying that a thousand years is like a single day to the Lord, it is also saying that a single day is like a thousand years to the Lord. It's like this:

Point #1: One thousand years (with humans) is like one day (with the Lord)

... and ...

Point #2: One day (with humans) is like a thousand years (with the Lord)

It seems that most people are unable to see this symmetry. It means that so much can happen in a single literal day of 24 hours that a single day of 24 hours is like a "thousand years" to God. As with Point #1, the text of 2 Peter 3 also supports Point #2 because Peter explicitly linked this idea with the single "Day" of Judgment!
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
So the text seems to be saying that the "DAY" of Judgment is "like a thousand years." And as I studied this more, I found that Peter seemed to be talking about the same "Day of the Lord" as we find in Revelation 20 which is the only other place in the NT that talks about a "thousand years"! I talk about this in the thread called Did the Apostle Peter read the Book of Revelation? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=666). Now it doesn't matter if Peter actually read Revelation or if God simply inspired his book to be supernaturally integrated with Revelation. The important point is that both books seem to be talking about the same thing. Here is a diagram from this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=8480&postcount=73) that displays the profound integration of their unified message:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/Rev20-2Pet3a.jpg

I hope this makes it clear that I am doing my best to interpret everything in the Bible as God intended. As always, I very much appreciate any criticism since it helps me sharpen my understanding of God's Word. That's why I am so thankful for your comments.

:signthankspin:

All the best and many blessings to you in Christ our Lord!

Richard

.

TheForgiven

09-29-2009, 02:33 PM

SCRIPTURAL Fact: God's invisible laws that govern His creation can be clearly seen in that which is made. (Romans 1)

Fact: By God's law of nature our sun CANNOT burn forever.

Fact: As a star dies it consumes anything within it's enormously bloated circumference. This is an observed and verifiable FACT, not a theory. (Our earth is well within that space for our star)

I appears then you are relying on scientific theory to support the idea that it's impossible for the sun and the earth to exist forever. But how do we know for certain if God created certain stars to explode, and not necessarily all of them? The answer doesn't really matter because science is not as factual as you might believe. There are endless amount of stars in the heavens; not that I record them all, but I view the same ones every night. This doesn't prove my point, but I am at least showing that time with regards to the universe is nearly endless. If stars are a billion years old, is this not close enough to eternity? Should we not also expect our Lord to prevent such a catastrophic event? There are no biblical scriptures teaching us that the world will be destroyed.

If you study Revelation 20 and onward carefully, you will see that there are no indications or verses teaching us that the earth will be destroyed. I'll explain this at my next post.

All prophesy is poetic, and that's how God communicates his point to His people.
There is a big difference between poetry and symbolic language. Symbolism can be used IN poetry but it is NOT poetry itself. The verse you quote is in fact poetic hyperbole contained within a poem. Therefore to claim it as a prophecy is to rip it violently out of context. ( Christ's prophecy that the temple would be destroyed was poetic in form? The Olivetti Discourse was poetic? The only symbolic things in it are where He quotes OT prophets. You should perhaps rethink your "All prophesy is poetic" stance.)

But no I shouldn't. Read all the prophecy's of the Old Testament, and tell me if you do not agree that they are poetic in nature. Most of the words used are figures of speech; isn't that also applicable to Poetry? Symbols are also used in poetry. For example, "How shall I compare thee to a summers day?" Can one be literally compared to a summers day? Not in essence no, but using figures of speech, we can.

Another example is the common phrase "Morning Star" which is often attributed to a king. As their are indeed many kings, there are also many morning stars. And just as there are many kings, there is only ONE true King, and His name is Jesus. Isaiah 14:12 is a prophesy about the fall of the King of Babylon; the morning day star who exalted himself, but would be brought low to the ground. The first few verses of Isaiah show us that the king of Babylon would suffer a Jewish taunt, and the taunt is the prophesy Isaiah is shown in Isaiah 14, with regards to the fall of the Babylonian king. Daniel shows that this prophesy came true, when king Neb. refused to glorify god, and thought that his majesty was by his own hand, and not by the God of heaven. Thus, God struck the king and fulfilled Isaiah 14. The King James Bible uses the Latin word "lucifer", which means "Day Star". Was king Nebechegnedzar a literal day star? Of course not; this is just symbolic expression.

One example of misunderstood symbols the Futurist love to use is the "Darkening of the sun, the moon into blood, and the stars falling from the sky"; they interpret this as a literal event. However, such an event according to God's law (using your scientific ideal) is IMPOSSIBLE! Stars do not fall from the sky; they are too far away, and too big. The moon cannot turn into blood, unless of course you refer to this as a lunar eclipse. But in case you didn't know, there was a lunar eclipse, as well as a comet that lasted for one year, during the Jewish/Roman war.

Finally, since I do not know what you mean by "Temporal markers", using the New Jerusalem as your example, I will discuss Revelation on the next post. I do not see how you can interpret the New Jerusalem is a literal city. For Christ is not married to a city, but to His wife. The New Testament teaches us that WE (Christians) are His wife, yet we do not make up a physical city. We inhabit cities; there is a difference. Christ promised to make some within the early churches "Pillars", but obviously not literal pillars. The characteristics of the New Jerusalem is the same symbolic expression towards purified Saints as the promise to make some "Pillars". Paul referred to some of his fellow kinsmen according to the flesh (Fleshly Jew) that some may have had the position as "Pillars", but it made no difference to him. What did He mean? This was a figure of speech denoting someone of great importance.

I'll post another topic on Revelation next. But for now, may God's grace flow ever more to us all.

[TOPIC ON NEW JERUSALEM ON THE THREAD ENTITLED "NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH"]

Joe