Preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse DOMINATES Church History

[Victor]

The following text comes from Preterism.com: An Introduction to Preterism (http://en.preterism.com/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Preterism#Escha tology_in_Church_History).

Escathology in Church History

If we were to nominate the eschatological views most consistently held throughout the history of Christianity, the Preterist view of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 23-25, Luke 17 and 21, Mark 13) would be near or at the top of the list. The challenge, in fact, is to find even one early Christian that didn't teach the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. (...) The earliest and most significant writers were in unanimous agreement, proclaiming the fulfillment of these prophecies in the time of the A.D.70 destruction of the Jewish temple, city, and nation.

Due to the heavy contemporary reliance upon the work of Iraeneus (who relied upon Papias alone for his Chiliasm, according to Eusebius), Christians have the tendency to think that all early writers were Chialists and Futurists. This is simply not so. The most eminent men of the early centuries were completely satisfied that the desolation of Jerusalem was the working of God in the fulfillment of the promises of Christ that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt. 24:34)

As stated previously, the overwhelming majority (if not totality) of early Christian writings support the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in the first century. Again displaying the universality of this belief in the in the first few centuries of Christianity, Chrysostom states, in the fourth century:

"For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it." (Homily LXXIV, A.D.347)
Origen had the confidence to write the following in the late second century:

"I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem." (Contra Celsum, 198-199)
Displaying why these fulfillments were vital to Christian understanding, no less an authority than Athanasius (A.D. 340) wrote the following:

"Now observe; that city, since the coming of our Savior, has had an end, and all the land of the Jews has been laid waste; so that from the testimony of these things (and we need no further proof, being assured by our own eyes of the fact) there must, of necessity, be an end of the shadow. For as soon as these things were done, everything was finished, for the altar was broken, and the veil of the temple was rent; and although the city was not yet laid waste, the abomination was ready to sit in the midst of the temple, and the city and those ancient ordinances to receive their final consummation. (Athanasius, Festal Letters, VIII)
More recently, Josephus (first-century Jewish author who wrote a history of the Roman-Jewish War) authority Steve Mason wrote that Christianity has been historically Preteristic :

"It has been a standard feature of Christian preaching through the ages that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was really God's decisive punishment of the Jewish people for their rejection of Jesus, who died around the year 30." (Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament)
The power of such statements cannot be overlooked. This directly contradicts the irresponsible statements of many contemporary teachers, who boldly declare that the destruction of Jerusalem had little prophetic significance. These are the same men who hold pious embargoes against study of the writings of the early sacred and secular historians, likely fearing that an examination of them would tend to lead people to believe other than they.

[Rose]

The following text comes from Preterism.com: An Introduction to Preterism (http://en.preterism.com/index.php?title=An_Introduction_to_Preterism#Escha tology_in_Church_History).

Escathology in Church History

If we were to nominate the eschatological views most consistently held throughout the history of Christianity, the Preterist view of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 23-25, Luke 17 and 21, Mark 13) would be near or at the top of the list. The challenge, in fact, is to find even one early Christian that didn't teach the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. (...) The earliest and most significant writers were in unanimous agreement, proclaiming the fulfillment of these prophecies in the time of the A.D.70 destruction of the Jewish temple, city, and nation.

Due to the heavy contemporary reliance upon the work of Iraeneus (who relied upon Papias alone for his Chiliasm, according to Eusebius), Christians have the tendency to think that all early writers were Chialists and Futurists. This is simply not so. The most eminent men of the early centuries were completely satisfied that the desolation of Jerusalem was the working of God in the fulfillment of the promises of Christ that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt. 24:34)

As stated previously, the overwhelming majority (if not totality) of early Christian writings support the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in the first century. Again displaying the universality of this belief in the in the first few centuries of Christianity, Chrysostom states, in the fourth century:
"For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it." (Homily LXXIV, A.D.347)
Origen had the confidence to write the following in the late second century:
"I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem." (Contra Celsum, 198-199)
Displaying why these fulfillments were vital to Christian understanding, no less an authority than Athanasius (A.D. 340) wrote the following:
"Now observe; that city, since the coming of our Savior, has had an end, and all the land of the Jews has been laid waste; so that from the testimony of these things (and we need no further proof, being assured by our own eyes of the fact) there must, of necessity, be an end of the shadow. For as soon as these things were done, everything was finished, for the altar was broken, and the veil of the temple was rent; and although the city was not yet laid waste, the abomination was ready to sit in the midst of the temple, and the city and those ancient ordinances to receive their final consummation. (Athanasius, Festal Letters, VIII)
More recently, Josephus (first-century Jewish author who wrote a history of the Roman-Jewish War) authority Steve Mason wrote that Christianity has been historically Preteristic :
"It has been a standard feature of Christian preaching through the ages that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was really God's decisive punishment of the Jewish people for their rejection of Jesus, who died around the year 30." (Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament)
The power of such statements cannot be overlooked. This directly contradicts the irresponsible statements of many contemporary teachers, who boldly declare that the destruction of Jerusalem had little prophetic significance. These are the same men who hold pious embargoes against study of the writings of the early sacred and secular historians, likely fearing that an examination of them would tend to lead people to believe other than they.

Thanks Victor, for the great article of support....:signthankspin:

Does it not stand to reason that the fulfillment of the prophetic words of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, of the destruction of the very "type" (Temple, God's dwelling place on earth) that the Church replaced, would serve as proof positive of who Jesus was....the Son of God, thus giving strength to the spreading of the Gospel which otherwise could have very well died out.

The witness of Scripture through prophetic fulfillment is all we have to declare the validity of the Bible, and what greater witness is there than for the Capstone of the Bible (book of Revelation) to proclaim ALL IS FULFILLED, and have that confirmed by history.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

More recently, Josephus (first-century Jewish author who wrote a history of the Roman-Jewish War) authority Steve Mason wrote that Christianity has been historically Preteristic :
"It has been a standard feature of Christian preaching through the ages that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was really God's decisive punishment of the Jewish people for their rejection of Jesus, who died around the year 30." (Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament)
The power of such statements cannot be overlooked. This directly contradicts the irresponsible statements of many contemporary teachers, who boldly declare that the destruction of Jerusalem had little prophetic significance. These are the same men who hold pious embargoes against study of the writings of the early sacred and secular historians, likely fearing that an examination of them would tend to lead people to believe other than they.
Tremendous article Victor! Thanks for posting this resource.

Your final comment about "the irresponsible statements of many contemporary teachers" is extremely significant. False teachers have corrupted the minds of Christ's sheep to such an extent that they are now incapable of understanding the most simple, plain, and direct statements of Holy Scripture. This is a crime of immeasurable proportions.

The fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse is the greatest single proof of the divine origin and prophetic truth of the Holy Bible. Here (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/destruction-of-jerusalem.htm) is the introduction to the preface to an excellent dissertation by Peter Holford (1805) on this fundamental fact:


THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

An Absolute and Irresistible

PROOF OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY

Including a narrative of the calamities which befel the Jews
so far as they tend to verify our Lord's predictions relative to that event.

By George Peter Holford
(Written in 1805)

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation, if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible." --Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason

PREFACE
History records few events more generally interesting than the destruction of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the Jewish state, by the arms of the Romans. -- Their intimate connexion with the dissolution of the Levitical economy, and the establishment of Christianity in the world; the striking verification which they afford of so many of the prophecies, both of the Old and New Testament, and the powerful arguments of the divine authority of the Scriptures which are thence derived; the solemn warnings and admonitions which they hold out to all nations, but especially such as are favoured with the light and blessings of REVELATION; together with the impressive and terrific grandeur of the events themselves--are circumstances which must always insure to the subject of the following pages more than ordinary degrees of interest and importance. Many eminent and learned men have employed their pens in the illustration of it; but the fruits of their labours are, for the most part, contained in large and expensive works, out of the reach of numbers, to whom the discussion might prove equally interesting and improving. For the use and gratification of such, the present Treatise, in a more accessible and familiar form, is diffidently offered to the public. In order that it might be better adapted for the general reader, critical inquiries and tedious details are equally avoided; but it has been the care of the writer not to omit any important fact or argument that, in his opinion, tended to elucidate the subject. Countenanced by the example of many respectable names, he has ventured to introduce the extraordinary prodigies, which, according to Josephus, preceded the destruction of the Holy City. He has also added a few sentences in their defense, but he does not intend thereby to express his unqualified admission of their genuineness.

[Victor]

False teachers have corrupted the minds of Christ's sheep to such an extent that they are now incapable of understanding the most simple, plain, and direct statements of Holy Scripture. This is a crime of immeasurable proportions.


Very well stated!

It is amazing how a person can miss the obvious meaning of some Bible passages! It amounts to saying that God didn't mean what He said!

[basilfo]

Another very good resource showing preterist eschatology throughout early church history is Gary DeMar's new book:

The Early Church, and the End of the World
by Gary Demar and Francis X. Gumerlock

It's a quick read (180 pgs) and loaded with preterist quotations from many Early Church Fathers. Good addition to the library.

One take away from the book is that church history, contrary to many futurist's claims, DOES NOT show a unified (let alone pre-trib rapture or premil dispensational) eschatological position. They were all over the map.

Dave

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Another very good resource showing preterist eschatology throughout early church history is Gary DeMar's new book:

The Early Church, and the End of the World
by Gary Demar and Francis X. Gumerlock

It's a quick read (180 pgs) and loaded with preterist quotations from many Early Church Fathers. Good addition to the library.

One take away from the book is that church history, contrary to many futurist's claims, DOES NOT show a unified (let alone pre-trib rapture or premil dispensational) eschatological position. They were all over the map.

Dave
Great! Thanks for the resource. I'll be adding it to my library. I was very impressed (in general) with his Last Days Madness.

[CWH]

Very well stated!

It is amazing how a person can miss the obvious meaning of some Bible passages! It amounts to saying that God didn't mean what He said!

It is also amazing too how a person can miss the obvious meaning of the millennium, a 1,000 year period prior to the new heaven and the new earth, to mean a 40 year period ending in AD 70, so that it fits into their AD 70 doctrine! It amounts to saying that God didn't mean what He said. A millennium is a millennium is a millennium is a thousand years, nothing more, nothing less.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is also amazing too how a person can miss the obvious meaning of the millennium, a 1,000 year period prior to the new heaven and the new earth, to mean a 40 year period ending in AD 70, so that it fits into their AD 70 doctrine! It amounts to saying that God didn't mean what He said. A millennium is a millennium is a millennium is a thousand years, nothing more, nothing less.

Many Blessings.
Hey there Cheow! :yo:

Your assertion that the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 means "a thousand years, nothing more, nothing less" directly contradicts the Word of God:
2 Peter 3:8 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.
Here we see Scripture itself teaching us that "a thousand years" can be a symbol of a single day. And in this context, that "single day" is directly associated with the "day of the Lord:"
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. 8 ¶ 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.
Thus we see that Scripture associates the "day of the Lord" with a "thousand years" and the appearance of the "new heavens and new earth" here in 2 Peter. And we see the same associate in one and only one other passage of Scripture, namely Revelation 20. This follows the divine pattern that God has taught us throughout the rest of the Bible, namely, that we understand one passage by comparing it with another. We are not free to just make up whatever interpretation fits our preconceptions. Case in point - Revelation 20 says nothing about a "millennium" in which Christ will rule on earth. That idea is entirely foreign to Scripture.

All the best,

Richard

[Rose]

It is also amazing too how a person can miss the obvious meaning of the millennium, a 1,000 year period prior to the new heaven and the new earth, to mean a 40 year period ending in AD 70, so that it fits into their AD 70 doctrine! It amounts to saying that God didn't mean what He said. A millennium is a millennium is a millennium is a thousand years, nothing more, nothing less.

Many Blessings.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.


Rose

[CWH]

Where in the Bible did it states that the millennium means 40 years. It doesn't make sense of the word....need a dictionary?

RAM, your assertion that a millennium means 40 years directly contradicts the Word of God:

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. 8 ¶ 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.

Taking the words, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years[/B], and a thousand years as one day." doesn't say it means 40 years. What it probably says is that God could condense time for one day to last one thousand years and one thousand years to condense into one day. It's like saying, "Richard, one hour to me is like one day (meaning time passed very slowly) and one day to me is like one hour (meaning time passed very fast). Does it means any sense to you if we interpret, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years[/B], and a thousand years as one day" as "one day to the Lord is a long time and a long time is like one day". Even if we take 1 day equals to 1 years in interpretation, 40 years i.e. 14600 days (40 X 365) is equals to 14,600 years!

As for Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. What it means is that a thousand years to the Lord is very fast, like what human equates to one day past.

BTW usually the Bible will tell us to interpret using one day equals to one year or week equals to one year such as in Daniel 490 weeks, never, I repeat NEVER 1,000 years (millennium) to be interpreted as 40 years.

Or can I say the 40 years to AD 70 should be interpreted as 40 days or 1600 days (40 X 40 = about 5 years) to AD 70?:

Numbers 14:34
For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.'

Many Blessings.

[Edward Goodie]

Where in the Bible did it states that the millennium means 40 years. It doesn't make sense of the word....need a dictionary?

RAM, your assertion that a millennium means 40 years directly contradicts the Word of God:

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. 8 ¶ 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.

Taking the words, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years[/B], and a thousand years as one day." doesn't say it means 40 years. What it probably says is that God could condense time for one day to last one thousand years and one thousand years to condense into one day. It's like saying, "Richard, one hour to me is like one day (meaning time passed very slowly) and one day to me is like one hour (meaning time passed very fast). Does it means any sense to you if we interpret, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years[/B], and a thousand years as one day" as "one day to the Lord is a long time and a long time is like one day". Even if we take 1 day equals to 1 years in interpretation, 40 years i.e. 14600 days (40 X 365) is equals to 14,600 years!

As for Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. What it means is that a thousand years to the Lord is very fast, like what human equates to one day past.

BTW usually the Bible will tell us to interpret using one day equals to one year or week equals to one year such as in Daniel 490 weeks, never, I repeat NEVER 1,000 years (millennium) to be interpreted as 40 years.

Or can I say the 40 years to AD 70 should be interpreted as 40 days or 1600 days (40 X 40 = about 5 years) to AD 70?:

Numbers 14:34
For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.'

Many Blessings.

Try not to get too literal when dealing with a book well-known for its figures and symbols. If you use 2 Peter 3:8 as a code breaker (and many do) are we to assume that Christ's 3-day resurrection was actually 8.2179 years or just a mere 4.32 minutes? Or did the 40 year wilderness wandering actually take place over a period of 40,000 years or just 14.6 days?

The number 1,000 represents fullness. Does God not own the cattle on the 1001st hill, or just the first 1,000 hills? Psalm 90 is all about faithfulness and is used to support 2 Peter 3:9...

2 Peter 3:9 - 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.

May I also recommend NOT using today's 21st Western cultural contemporary dictionaries to interpret 1st century Jewish Eastern cultural manuscripts riddled with common signs, figures, metaphors, and symbolic language. The Bible is the only commentary on the Bible. If one has a propensity for doing just that, one will likely come away with an incorrect understanding. One perfect example is Matthew 24:29. If you think that verse is "literal and physical" changes in the solar system then you must also say that Isaiah 30:26 is "literal and physical" as well. However, just one teeny weeny problem with that. If it truly was literal and physical, the planet Earth along with Mars, Venus and Mercury, would have been burned to a crisp thousands of years ago! Isaiah 30:26 is simply referring to a time of blessing just as Matthew 24:29 is referring to a time of judgment. See how Ecclesiastes 12 uses the same metaphors to represent old age. You won't get the biblical sense for either of those Scriptures from today's dictionaries, will you?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Where in the Bible did it states that the millennium means 40 years. It doesn't make sense of the word....need a dictionary?

RAM, your assertion that a millennium means 40 years directly contradicts the Word of God:

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. 8 ¶ 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.

Taking the words, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years[/B], and a thousand years as one day." doesn't say it means 40 years.

Hi Cheow,

I don't assert that the thousand years of Rev 20 "means 40 years." On the contrary, I assert that no one has any certain knowledge of the meaning of the thousand years because God has not established its meaning with any certainty in Scripture.

But I have concluded from the evidence that a likely meaning of the 1000 years is that it refers to the "day of the Lord" which began at Pentecost and ended in 70 AD. If you think my logic or reasons for this conclusion are faulty, I would be delighted to discuss it with you. But merely parroting my post by declaring that my conclusion "directly contradicts the Word of God" is absurd. You have not shown that a symbolic understanding of the 1000 years contradicts Scripture.

The problem here is that futurists assert that the 1000 years must have a literal meaning. That assertion is false, and I gave evidence to prove it.



What it probably says is that God could condense time for one day to last one thousand years and one thousand years to condense into one day. It's like saying, "Richard, one hour to me is like one day (meaning time passed very slowly) and one day to me is like one hour (meaning time passed very fast). Does it means any sense to you if we interpret, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years[/B], and a thousand years as one day" as "one day to the Lord is a long time and a long time is like one day". Even if we take 1 day equals to 1 years in interpretation, 40 years i.e. 14600 days (40 X 365) is equals to 14,600 years!

I'm glad you acknowledge our uncertainty on this by your use of the word probably. But your calculation imposes an invalid literalism upon the "day = 1000 years" idea. Indeed, if we wanted to use that kind of logic, we would destroy Scripture by proving it is logically incoherent because 1 day most certainly is not literally "equal" to 365,000 days which are not equal to 365,000,000 years and so on to infinity! Your error was to take 1 day = 1000 years as a mathematical equation.



As for Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. What it means is that a thousand years to the Lord is very fast, like what human equates to one day past.

Agreed. And that is the primary meaning as used in 2 Peter 3. He was explaining that a long time to us is not "long" to the Lord. But the correlations with Rev 20 seem to indicate that the thousand years there is also a symbol of the "day of the Lord." This is not certain, but it seems more likely than the idea of a literal 1000 year reign on earth by Christ which is nowhere mentioned in Scripture and filled with incoherence when compared with the rest of the eschatological truths that are clearly presented with great certainty in Scripture.

All the very best,

Richard

[Rose]

Where in the Bible did it states that the millennium means 40 years. It doesn't make sense of the word....need a dictionary?

RAM, your assertion that a millennium means 40 years directly contradicts the Word of God:

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. 8 ¶ 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.

Taking the words, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years[/B], and a thousand years as one day." doesn't say it means 40 years. What it probably says is that God could condense time for one day to last one thousand years and one thousand years to condense into one day. It's like saying, "Richard, one hour to me is like one day (meaning time passed very slowly) and one day to me is like one hour (meaning time passed very fast). Does it means any sense to you if we interpret, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years[/B], and a thousand years as one day" as "one day to the Lord is a long time and a long time is like one day". Even if we take 1 day equals to 1 years in interpretation, 40 years i.e. 14600 days (40 X 365) is equals to 14,600 years!

As for Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. What it means is that a thousand years to the Lord is very fast, like what human equates to one day past.

BTW usually the Bible will tell us to interpret using one day equals to one year or week equals to one year such as in Daniel 490 weeks, never, I repeat NEVER 1,000 years (millennium) to be interpreted as 40 years.

Or can I say the 40 years to AD 70 should be interpreted as 40 days or 1600 days (40 X 40 = about 5 years) to AD 70?:

Numbers 14:34
For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.'

Many Blessings.

Hi Cheow,

To use your 1 hour = 1 day, or 1 day = 1 hour example would be like saying: 1 hr is like 24 hrs, or 24 hrs is like 1 hr.

The point being that Gods timing is not our timing, and the use of 1,000 years in Revelation is symbolic of God's ruling authority over the Kosmos...it was not meant to be interpreted as a specific, literal amount of time, but rather given for its symbolic meaning of God's power.


God Bless,

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Try not to get too literal when dealing with a book well-known for its figures and symbols. If you use 2 Peter 3:8 as a code breaker (and many do) are we to assume that Christ's 3-day resurrection was actually 8.2179 years or just a mere 4.32 minutes? Or did the 40 year wilderness wandering actually take place over a period of 40,000 years or just 14.6 days?

The number 1,000 represents fullness. Does God not own the cattle on the 1001st hill, or just the first 1,000 hills? Psalm 90 is all about faithfulness and is used to support 2 Peter 3:9...

2 Peter 3:9 - 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.
Excellent explanation! :thumb:

[Victor]

It is also amazing too how a person can miss the obvious meaning of the millennium, a 1,000 year period prior to the new heaven and the new earth, to mean a 40 year period ending in AD 70, so that it fits into their AD 70 doctrine! It amounts to saying that God didn't mean what He said. A millennium is a millennium is a millennium is a thousand years, nothing more, nothing less.

Many Blessings.

Hey Cheow, this is a good point, but you seem to miss some things in your thought. Look at what I said: "It is amazing how a person can miss the obvious meaning of some Bible passages!" Not all Bible passages have an obvious meanings. Some do, some don't.

Consider the millennium. The Bible speaks of it in only one chapter, Revelation 20. So the only mention is found in a book that, by definition (Rev 1:1), is highly symbolic, and henceforth not so obvious at first look. So the Millennium is an extremely symbolic element and appears only once.

The Olivet Discourse, OTOH, is nothing like that. "This generation shall not pass" is found in a context of plain and straightforward talk from the mouth of the Lord. It is as simple as it gets. And it is also not a unique expression. Christ used the phrase "this generation" over and over again to speak of the people living at that time. It is completely akward to claim that He suddenly happens to mean some other thing when He uses the very same expression in the OD.

So it is amazing how some people can make an incredible contortionism to make Christ mean to say something different from what He used to say. Seems like even some very intelligent people read this short discourse from Jesus and their mind is simply turned off when Christ speaks in the plainest way possible. He says in the simplest terms that Jerusalem's temple would be destroyed in that generation and that's exactly what happened (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and people don't want to accept this obvious and in-your-face statement! It is a-m-a-z-i-n-g!

The Millennium concept is nothing like that. It is hard to determine its exact meaning. It appears once, it is very cryptic and it is found in the most allegorical book of all Scripture.

So we don't know exactly. It can mean a literal period of a thousand years, but since Revelation is deeply symbolic, it can mean an indefinite period of time, maybe even longer than one thousand years! It may have already happened, it may be taking place right now, or perhaps it is yet future.

One of the possible interpretations, the one that Rose seems as very plausible, states that the Millennium may refer to a rather small period of time. How can that possibly be? Well, we can follow the clues that the Bible gives us. There is just one other mention of "a thousand years" in connection with "a new heaven and a new earth" and a number of other things, and what it just happens to say?

2 Peter 3:8 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.
So there is a Bible precedent for a short period of time being called "a thousand years." It maybe a possible interpretation of the Millennium, but I particularly need to learn much more to grasp this view. To me it makes much more sense to interpret the "Millennium" as a long period of time.

In summary, it is not correct to say that "a millennium is a millennium is a millennium is a thousand years" when we are discussing Scripture. It is by no means as obvious and simple as the plain meaning of the Olivet Discourse. Your error sounds like who someone who, in face of the obvious meaning of a text written in prose, tries to interpret a poetic text using the same criterion.

[basilfo]

The Millennium concept is nothing like that. It is hard to determine its exact meaning. It appears once, it is very cryptic and it is found in the most allegorical book of all Scripture.

This is an excellent point Victor. In most discussions on the meaning of the thousand years of Rev 20, I rarely hear anyone discuss the ramifications of such a position. I think all Millenialists expect a literal, earthly, physical temple, complete with ceremonial rituals and multiple sacrifices - including animal sacrifices made on an alter to God. This alone clashes radically with many truths found in Scripture, especially those concerning the New Covenant. Here's a few (please add to the list):

1. It is a return to the physical type after the spiritual fulfillment (Christ) has been presented. Does this ever happen in Scripture (type, anti-type, type again)?

2. The building of a dwelling place for God when He now dwells within us.

3. I challenge any pre-trib millenialist to explain the movement of believers between earth and heaven in a way that is in accordance with Scripture. They have believers on earth, then raptured to heaven for 7 yrs, then brought back to earth for 1000 yrs (is heaven empty then?) in a blissful state, then they fight a war (inferring God the Son could possibly be engaged in a fight that lasts longer than a blink of an eye), then they go to a "new heaven and earth" (who gets to go back to heaven and who stays on earth?), and they live in an actual 1500 mile cube that floated "down" to earth. Wow.

4. This physical Kingdom is not a Spiritual Kingdom which is taught repeatedly by Jesus and the apostles.

5. The absurdity of expecting that any sacrifices would be sanctioned by God after Christ's perfect sacrifice ("once for all") is mindboggling. A fourth grader could read Hebrews and understand that.

I'm sure others can come up with more Scriptural problems with the relatively new false teaching of a literal Millenial Kingdom.



Victor said: Your error sounds like who someone who, in face of the obvious meaning of a text written in prose, tries to interpret a poetic text using the same criterion.


Truthseeker also said: May I also recommend NOT using today's 21st Western cultural contemporary dictionaries to interpret 1st century Jewish Eastern cultural manuscripts riddled with common signs, figures, metaphors, and symbolic language.

Bingo. Once that error is made, you're going downhill like Bode Miller.

Peace to you,
Dave

[CWH]

Consider the millennium. The Bible speaks of it in only one chapter, Revelation 20. So the only mention is found in a book that, by definition (Rev 1:1), is highly symbolic, and henceforth not so obvious at first look. So the Millennium is an extremely symbolic element and appears only once.

The Millennium concept is nothing like that. It is hard to determine its exact meaning. It appears once, it is very cryptic and it is found in the most allegorical book of all Scripture.

So we don't know exactly. It can mean a literal period of a thousand years, but since Revelation is deeply symbolic, it can mean an indefinite period of time, maybe even longer than one thousand years! It may have already happened, it may be taking place right now, or perhaps it is yet future.

One of the possible interpretations, the one that Rose seems as very plausible, states that the Millennium may refer to a rather small period of time. How can that possibly be? Well, we can follow the clues that the Bible gives us. There is just one other mention of "a thousand years" in connection with "a new heaven and a new earth" and a number of other things, and what it just happens to say?

2 Peter 3:8 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.
So there is a Bible precedent for a short period of time being called "a thousand years." It maybe a possible interpretation of the Millennium, but I particularly need to learn much more to grasp this view. To me it makes much more sense to interpret the "Millennium" as a long period of time.

In summary, it is not correct to say that "a millennium is a millennium is a millennium is a thousand years" when we are discussing Scripture. It is by no means as obvious and simple as the plain meaning of the Olivet Discourse. Your error sounds like who someone who, in face of the obvious meaning of a text written in prose, tries to interpret a poetic text using the same criterion.

Hi Victor, thanks for your response.

i understand that Revelation is a highly symbolic book, but I disagree that it should read in a symbolic way even it may sounds fantastic in human reasoning. It's like questioning God's ability to do what He said. Is anything impossible for God? So to me a millennium is a thousand years and I have absolutely no problem with that literal interpretation. People refused to accept that literal interpretation of the millennium because it doesn't fit into their theological understanding. And the only theological group that seems not to believe in the 1,000 year period (millennium) are the Full Preterists. I believe Partial Preterists believe in the 1,000 years millennium. I don't quite understand why is it so difficult to take the simple literal meaning of millennium to be the 1,000 year period unless it doesn't fit into their AD 70 "end of the age" doctrine.

I also don't understand why you highlighted in bold "a thousand years as one day". Why not highlight in bold "one day with the Lord as a thousand years"(meaning a thousand years to the Lord is fast) unless it was done purposely to suit Full Preterist's theology and doctrine. In fact, the whole meaning to me is that one thousand years to the Lord is as fast as 1 day is to humans. Psalms 90 testifies to that (mutually confirming verses). I can't help if people wants to distort the meaning to suit their theology.

2 Peter 3:8 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.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.


Preterist insists that Revelation must be read symbolically yet insists that the letters to the 7 churches must be read literally doesn't make consistence sense. My understanding is that Revelation must be read literally with some parts symbolically. The letters to the 7 churches should be read literally and symbolically as it applies to the 7 churches in the 1st century and to ALL churches throughout ALL centuries. Why not take "I come quickly", "at the door" in revelation symbolically as well?

Many Blessings.

[Screaming Eagle]

Mt 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. (KJV)
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (KJV)

Notice that this was the pattern of temptations (the first temptation) when Jesus was taken into the desert by the Spirit of God. This was the first lesson He had to learn; and so it is with us. Adam's first words regarding the yet unnamed Eve were 'this is NOW bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh'. And so it was by his own words. He declared it and it was so. When 'adam Adam accused her, he was essentially accusing himself.

I certainly don't think we should take His words lightly. And it's even more important to recognize that His words mean what HE says they mean (not by human reckoning). Anything less than that is a futile attempt to put Him in a box that we can comprehend. Can't be done. It's not 'either/or'. It's both/and.

[TheForgiven]

Mt 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. (KJV)
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (KJV)

Notice that this was the pattern of temptations (the first temptation) when Jesus was taken into the desert by the Spirit of God. This was the first lesson He had to learn; and so it is with us. Adam's first words regarding the yet unnamed Eve were 'this is NOW bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh'. And so it was by his own words. He declared it and it was so. When 'adam Adam accused her, he was essentially accusing himself.

I certainly don't think we should take His words lightly. And it's even more important to recognize that His words mean what HE says they mean (not by human reckoning). Anything less than that is a futile attempt to put Him in a box that we can comprehend. Can't be done. It's not 'either/or'. It's both/and.

I understand what you're trying to suggest. But I don't think you'll find anyone here that believes God's doesn't mean what He says. The problem is understanding what He said.

Not all words are to be taken literally. God is well known for using symbolic language to get His point across. For instance, God commanded the Jews to sacrifice a bull when they committed a sin accidentally. Well, to the literalists, the meaning isn't important; just obey it.

Time and time again, we read throughout the Jewish history how they obeyed the instruction of the Lord by sacrificing certain animals; and that they did without disobeying. But was that the only thing God wanted them to do; that is, sacrifice animals? Or was He trying to get a message across? God did not just command them to sacrifice an animal for the sole purpose of seeing if they would obey. He was painting them a picture.

Scripture states that many times God was not pleased with their sacrifices. And why not? Because they didn’t understand the intended message. Their animal sacrificing is nothing more than mimicking Gentile behavior; going through the motions, but not understanding with their hearts. That is why God often stated He was not pleased with those who sacrificed a bull, but their hearts were the same as those who kill the ox…another figurative expression.

A bull is a rebellious creature that rushes head first on its attack. When someone committed a sin accidentally, their sin was much like a bull rushing head first against the enemy, in this case, God. That is why God commanded them to sacrifice a bull for sins committed accidentally. This pictured an end to their rebellion, and served as an outward statement that they were putting to death the misdeed they performed.

God's word is filled with symbolic literature and meaning. Thus, the 1000 years could be symbolic as well. Is this an exact 1000 years? No because the Greek word here is Chillias. The 's' makes this plural, and not singular. Peter, on the other hand, simply states 'Chillia' without the 's', indicating a singular tense, so it’s meaning could be taken as exact. HOWEVER, Peter was not providing a formula to decipher a time code, as the Futurist’s are often accustomed to doing. Instead, he was showing that God’s patient is as a 1000 years, yet to us, our patients is nothing but a day. Thus, God cares for all to come to repentance. There is no indicating in scripture that Peter was using a formula to give a hint to the Millennial reign of the Dispensational theology.

Finally, Revelation states that Christ reigned during the Chillias, which could also be represented as 'The Day of the Lord'. Assuming we believe that Peter was providing us with a formula (which I strongly reject), then the Chillias could also be interpreted as 'Day of the Lord', for 'A Day' is as a Chillia.

Therefore, we do not disbelieve that God doesn’t mean what He says. The problem is understanding what He’s saying. After all, Revelation is a book filled with symbolic expressions....unless of course you believe that a literal Beast with seven heads will rise from the Ocean. :nono: Or a literal mark will be stamped on the hand or forehead of mankind. Huh? But if that's true, then the Saints of the 144,000 sealed must also have a mark on their forehead, with the phrase "Word of God". That's in the same passage discussing the Mark of the Beast. Well how is it that many Futurist's insist on a literal mark of the Beast, but not a mark of Jesus on their forehead?

Joe

[Screaming Eagle]

Points well taken Joe. My point is that it is HE Who is the only one that can tell us exactly what those symbols mean at any one time.

[Victor]

Hi Victor, thanks for your response.

i understand that Revelation is a highly symbolic book, but I disagree that it should read in a symbolic way even it may sounds fantastic in human reasoning.

Cheow,

I don't have the time to reply to your post all at once. But I can begin with you first assertion.

My last post was referring to the contrast between the literary style of two passages: OD ("this generation shall not pass...") and Revelation 20 (Satan bound for 1,000 years).

One is very simple and to the point. The other is highly symbolic. That's why I find amazing that some people simply can't see that Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed in that generation. The Word of the Lord was fulfilled!!!!!!!!! :woohoo:

Can you see that???? Isn't it amazing?? Shouldn't that be used in evangelization as direct evidence of the coherence of the Christian message?

Now back to Revelation: you stated an incredible plain contradiction within one single sentence! Read it again:

i understand that Revelation is a highly symbolic book, but I disagree that it should read in a symbolic way even it may sounds fantastic in human reasoning.
This is a self-defeating statement. Either Revelation should be treated as a highly symbolic book or Revelation shouldn't be treated as a highly symbolic book.

You seem to be playing tricks with your mind to avoid reaching the conclusion that, since the context of Revelation 20 is highly symbolic, the millennium probably has a symbolic meaning instead of a literal one. So you end up stating opposite things about the nature of Revelation to avoid thinking too hard about it.

It is like saying: "I understand that this work from Shakespeare is a highly poetic book, but I disagree that it should be read in a poetic way."

So we first need to establish the nature of the book of Revelation. Is it predominantly a literal or symbolic book?

[basilfo]

Hopefully, we all understand that SOME of Scripture is to be read literally, and SOME to be read symbolically. That's not the issue. It is just as incorrect to read a literal passage figuratively as it is a figurative one literally. Both yield erroneous conclusions.

Cheow, the decision on which way a particular passage is to be understood is not one of OPINION. The reader doesn't get his choice on how "he feels" it should be read. If that was the case, then one man's (or woman's, Rose!) position would be just as correct as another's. And that can't be. We're not choosing ice cream flavors here.

Proper biblical hermeneutics will go a very long way into guiding the serious scholar into a correct interpretation (literal or figurative).

What do you base your interpretations on other than your opinion of what the text says? I would really like to know.

I would welcome any futurist to apply proper hermeneutics to Rev 20 and bring that analysis to the discussion. I must say that pret's are much more willing to do this.

I will again recommend to you "Biblical Hermeneutics" by Milton S. Terry to gain a proper understanding on interpreting Scripture. Your opinion, my opinion, without proper hermeneutics and exegesis is worthless.

[CWH]

Yes, Dave, I fully agree that one should read the Bible literally and symbolically. That is what I call the preterist - futurist approach to Bible study; and that's why we should call ourselves preterist - futurists. That word preterist - futurist, which I hope would one day reduce the "enmity" between preterists and futurists so that they work together to understand the truth of the scriptures. I would also like to add that one should also read the Bible with the past and future in mind because the Bible was not only written for people before us but also for all future generations.

Thanks for recommending a book on Bible hermeneustics. I understand that the difference between futurist and preterist in Bible Hermeneutics is what to interpret symbolically and what to interpret literally. If Revelation is to be interpreted symbolically since the book is largely symbolic, can I say that Matthew is to be read literally since it is largely literal? I would also recommend an internet website to interpret the Bible the Bible way:

http://www.lastchanceministries.com/biblical_interpretation.htm

Many Blessings.

[basilfo]

Yes, Dave, I fully agree that one should read the Bible literally and symbolically. That is what I call the preterist - futurist approach to Bible study; and that's why we should call ourselves preterist - futurists.

Nope. Not literally AND symbolically. Literally OR symbolically. We're not talking about "reading the Bible" as a whole. No one disputes the Bible contains both. The historical records as LITERAL texts. And no one disputes (I hope) that the woman and the beast she rides in Rev are SYMBOLIC texts.

Almost all of our issues of disagreement here in the eschatology section hinge on whether A PARTICULAR PASSAGE should be read as fulfilled OR yet future. Many times that hinges on a literal or figurative view of the text. Only one is correct. You can't say that both the preterist AND futurist interpretations of the Olivet discourse are correct.




That word preterist - futurist, which I hope would one day reduce the "enmity" between preterists and futurists so that they work together to understand the truth of the scriptures.

That sounds nice, Cheow, but it can't happen. The only thing that counts is TRUTH. Once that singular truth is found, "enmity" can only exist when an UNTRUTH opposes it, and refuses to yield to that truth.

Keep seeking the truth, Cheow.
Dave

[CWH]

Nope. Not literally AND symbolically. Literally OR symbolically. We're not talking about "reading the Bible" as a whole. No one disputes the Bible contains both. The historical records as LITERAL texts. And no one disputes (I hope) that the woman and the beast she rides in Rev are SYMBOLIC texts.

Almost all of our issues of disagreement here in the eschatology section hinge on whether A PARTICULAR PASSAGE should be read as fulfilled OR yet future. Many times that hinges on a literal or figurative view of the text. Only one is correct. You can't say that both the preterist AND futurist interpretations of the Olivet discourse are correct.

That sounds nice, Cheow, but it can't happen. The only thing that counts is TRUTH. Once that singular truth is found, "enmity" can only exist when an UNTRUTH opposes it, and refuses to yield to that truth.

Keep seeking the truth, Cheow.
Dave

Hi Dave,

Imagine we are debating on how dinosaurs become extinct...asteriods hitting the earth, Major volcanic eruptions, Climatic change etc. All proposals seems right with their convincing evidences, what do we do? There may be more than one right. Suppose we are discussing on another scientific topic and it was tailed down to 2 most convincing theories, what do we do? Either we accept that both theories are right or we shelved both these theories until more proofs are available to finally decide the correct theory.

What I am trying to say is that I don't agree with your "Literally or symbolically" but rather that in some verses both symbolic and literal interpretations are right, perhaps some sort of dual fulfillment. Of course, I do agree that in some verses there can be only one truth, literal or symbolic, what do we do then? Simple... shelved it, until more evidences are available to decide the winner. In other words, when we come to a contentious situation of whether to interpret the scriptures literally or symbolically, future or past, the last and prudent way is to accept both interpretations first rather than reject one and accept the other based on own preference and wait until more convincing evidences emerge to decide the winner. This is how I feel preterists and futurists should worked together to discover the truth in the scriptures.

Many Blessings to you.

[Screaming Eagle]

In my view, it comes down to one simple fact. Those scriptures mean what HE says they mean. It it not according to ANY tradition of men but by Him alone. The both/and approach is a most fruitful way of thinking because it leaves the door open for Him to make it alive in your heart. My sheep hear MY voice...

And there's the question about 'every single word that proceeds out of the mouth of God'. The Western wall is still standing. That was a 'partial' fulfillment of 'not one stone will remain standing' even to this day.

It is most presumptuous (look at what Psalm 19 has to say about presumption) to take what appears to be even a partial fulfillment of His words and build a doctrine based on that. Not to mention that much of what is described in Revelation has not been fulfilled in a way that we can understand (the 'little book' in Rev 10 which is only mentioned there; the events of Rev 11 and 12 to mention only a few, the 'who' of the AoD) clearly. And even that doesn't take into account many of the very explicit prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel (38 and 39 for example, not to mention the exquisite detail of Ez 40-48). :pray:

[Rose]

In my view, it comes down to one simple fact. Those scriptures mean what HE says they mean. It it not according to ANY tradition of men but by Him alone. The both/and approach is a most fruitful way of thinking because it leaves the door open for Him to make it alive in your heart. My sheep hear MY voice...

And there's the question about 'every single word that proceeds out of the mouth of God'. The Western wall is still standing. That was a 'partial' fulfillment of 'not one stone will remain standing' even to this day.

It is most presumptuous (look at what Psalm 19 has to say about presumption) to take what appears to be even a partial fulfillment of His words and build a doctrine based on that. Not to mention that much of what is described in Revelation has not been fulfilled in a way that we can understand (the 'little book' in Rev 10 which is only mentioned there; the events of Rev 11 and 12 to mention only a few, the 'who' of the AoD) clearly. And even that doesn't take into account many of the very explicit prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel (38 and 39 for example, not to mention the exquisite detail of Ez 40-48). :pray:
Matt.24:2-3 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming (parousia), and of the end (sunteleia) of the world (aion)?
.
Three questions were ask of Jesus concerning when the things He had just spoken of (stones of the temple coming down) were going to happen.



When was the Temple going to be destroyed?
What would be the sign of Jesus’ parousia?
And when would be the sunteleia (consummation) of the aion?


In answer to their questions Jesus listed a number of ongoing events that first must begin to happen and intensify (wars, earthquakes, famines, persecutions, and false christs), before the stones of the Temple came down, which would itself be the final sign that the End telos had come.
.
Matt.24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end (telos) is not yet….13-14 But he that shall endure unto the end (telos), the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end (telos) come.

.
With that in mind how is it possible to have a partial fulfillment of the Temples destruction when these other events had to happen first before the Temples Destruction?

It was the fulfillment of Christ's prophetic Words concerning the Temples destruction that manifest to the world He was on His Throne and had indeed been given all power in heaven and earth! And that witness is still with us today.


Rose

[Screaming Eagle]

Rose,
Thanks for your comments. I understand ( I *think*) the point you're trying to make. My point is very simple. There are still stones left standing one upon another (Western Wall). Further, my *main* point is that it means what He says it means.
If He considers leaving a wall as good enough

There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

it's good enough for me.

[CWH]

I agree Screaming Eagle, not every stone have been thrown down....or perhaps Jesus was referring to the other walls of the Temple except the Western wall.

[Edited by ADMINISTRATOR: Here is a link to a high resolution image of the Western Wall (5MB). I removed the actual image because it was too big for folks with slower connections, and it interrupted the flow of the thread.]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Klagemauer.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall

Many Blessings.

[joel]

before chronological time---l--chronological time--l--time no longer (Rev 10:6)

There are those things which we have been revealed which occurred or had their existence before chronological time began;
Those things we will call "x"----

Those things which we call "history", we will call "y".....

Those things which we cannot know that lie beyond "time no longer", we will call "z".

-----"x"---------l-------"y"---------l--------"z"------

As we continue on our journey together, much debate focuses
on "when" certain significant events occurred along the time-line.

We can agree that Genesis 1:1-31 occurred at point A;

-----"x"---------lA-----------
A = When chronos aionios began, time during the eons.

Can you help me identify some things which occurred during "x", pros chronos aionios (before eonian time)?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Rose,
Thanks for your comments. I understand ( I *think*) the point you're trying to make. My point is very simple. There are still stones left standing one upon another (Western Wall). Further, my *main* point is that it means what He says it means.
If He considers leaving a wall as good enough

There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

it's good enough for me.

Those stones are not part of the original temple of the first century. Those stones represent what's left from Trajan's temple. When the Muslims and Jews invaded Jerusalem, and cast out the foreigners during the Crusades, the Muslims turned much of what was built by Trajan into the Mosque. Since the 10th century (give or take a few centuries), the temple there has been modified two to three different times.

In short, those stones were not part of the first century temple.

Joe

[Rose]

Rose,
Thanks for your comments. I understand ( I *think*) the point you're trying to make. My point is very simple. There are still stones left standing one upon another (Western Wall). Further, my *main* point is that it means what He says it means.
If He considers leaving a wall as good enough

There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

it's good enough for me.

Hi Screaming Eagle,

My question for you is: What exactly do you think is going to happen to the western retaining wall? Is it going to be leveled at some point?

The Wailing Wall is a retaining wall, and as such it is supporting the earth behind it, so in order for those massive stones (one was measured at 400 tons) to be knocked down the whole side of the mountain would have to be destroyed....and what exactly would that mean :confused:

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Those stones are not part of the original temple of the first century. Those stones represent what's left from Trajan's temple. When the Muslims and Jews invaded Jerusalem, and cast out the foreigners during the Crusades, the Muslims turned much of what was built by Trajan into the Mosque. Since the 10th century (give or take a few centuries), the temple there has been modified two to three different times.

In short, those stones were not part of the first century temple.

Joe
I don't know if the WW has anything to do with Trajan, but I do know that it most certainly was not part of the buildings of the Temple which Christ said would be "thrown down." It is a retaining wall. Christ said nothing about the retaining wall that supported the side of the Temple mount. He spoke specifically of the Temple buildings:
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings?

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Christ predicted that the great buildings of the Temple would be cast down.

Christ predicted the destruction of the Temple. His prophecy was fully fulfilled.

Christ said absolutely nothing of the retaining wall which was not part of the buildings of the Temple. To suggest that its existence indicates that Christ's prophecy of the destruction of the Temple is only "partially fulfilled" so twists and distorts language and logic that I despair of explaining it further. No amount of light will help those who do not have eyes to see.

Richard

[joel]

The destruction of the temple = the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple.

Why do we continue to go around this mountain?

That prophecy was fulfilled.

But not all prophecy is fulfilled with that event.

There is still time yet to transpire, and within that time (chronos aionios), there are events yet to take place. Why is it so difficult to see this?

You scoff at those who don't agree that all has been fulfilled.

There is; the last days, the last day, the last enemy, the last trump, the last time.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The destruction of the temple = the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple.

Why do we continue to go around this mountain?

That prophecy was fulfilled.

Amen to that! :thumb:



But not all prophecy is fulfilled with that event.

There is still time yet to transpire, and within that time (chronos aionios), there are events yet to take place. Why is it so difficult to see this?

You scoff at those who don't agree that all has been fulfilled.

There is; the last days, the last day, the last enemy, the last trump, the last time.

Joel
I certainly do not "scoff at those who don't agree that all has been fulfilled." I'm sorry you have gotten that impression.

If you read what I have actually written, you will find that I have never said that "all prophecy has been fulfilled." I don't talk that way because I do not know if "all prophecy" has been fulfilled. Such broad statements are not helpful in this discussion.

You ask: "There is still time yet to transpire, and within that time (chronos aionios), there are events yet to take place. Why is it so difficult to see this?"

The answer is simple. The fact that we exist in time (chronos) does not mean that the aion spanning the time of the First Covenant has not ended. You have said that you believe we are still in the same aion that included the First Covenant. You have said that the New Covenant has not been "ratified" with Israel yet. This is the source of our differences. And I think it is very important that we thoroughly explore and articulate this point because it is the real "mountain" that we have been circling for over two years.

My position is based on a lot of Biblical evidence. Here are the basics:

1) The entire story of the OT culminated in the prophecy of Elijah coming to prepare the way for Messiah and to declare that the time had come for the "great and notable day of the Lord" - the "Day of Visitation" and the "Days of Vengeance." Christ declared this prophecy fulfilled in John the Baptist.

2) The disciples understood that the coming of Messiah and His prediction of the destruction of the Temple indicated the "end of the aion."

3) Paul declared that the "ends of the ages" had "come upon" the people living in the first century.

4) Christ was Messiah, so His Coming in the first century marked the end of that age and the dawn of the Messianic age. God confirmed this by the destruction of the Temple, the outward sign of the old dispensation of the First Covenant Law.

I could go on and on. From my perspective, the evidence is total and extremely compelling. Simply stated, it all makes sense. and coheres with the message of the entire Bible. I don't need to "make up" any non-Biblical scenarios like 2000+ year gap and a re-built Temple and re-instituted animal sacrifices and a re-vived Roman empire that will re-desolate the re-built Temple, etc., etc., etc..

Could you share the Biblical basis of your view? That would really help.

Richard

[joel]

The First Covenant made with Israel at Mt. Sinai
First Covenant (Exodus 24)-----------------------New Covenant (Heb. 8:8)

Richard, you say that...."the aion spanning the time of First Covenant"...."has ended".

I know that you believe that.......but......where was the scripture fulfilled that says that?

Joel

[Rose]

The destruction of the temple = the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple.

Why do we continue to go around this mountain?

That prophecy was fulfilled.

But not all prophecy is fulfilled with that event.

There is still time yet to transpire, and within that time (chronos aionios), there are events yet to take place. Why is it so difficult to see this?

You scoff at those who don't agree that all has been fulfilled.

There is; the last days, the last day, the last enemy, the last trump, the last time.

Joel

Hi Joel,

It has been clearly established in the books of Acts, by the Apostle Peter that the last days were upon them....it was when God poured out the Holy Spirit upon all flesh....that began at Pentecost!
.

Acts 2:16-18 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
.
How can you deny that the last days began at Pentecost, and if they began then how can they still be going on now?


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The First Covenant made with Israel at Mt. Sinai
First Covenant (Exodus 24)-----------------------New Covenant (Heb. 8:8)

Richard, you say that...."the aion spanning the time of First Covenant"...."has ended".

I know that you believe that.......but......where was the scripture fulfilled that says that?

Joel
The Scriptures speak abundantly of the end of the old covenant aion. Paul declared that the "ends of the aions" had come upon the people living in the first century. What is the "aion" of which he spoke? It is the same "aion" in which Christ died, as it is written:
Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the aion hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
The end of the aion is also called "the last days." Scripture declares that these too occurred in the first century:
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
And as the time of the very end neared, John spoke with a greater intensity, declaring that it was the "last hour" back in the first century:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.
And how did John know it was the last hour? Because there were many antichrists, precisely as Christ predicted in the Olivet Discourse:
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before.
And what was the question that Christ was answering? It concerned the destruction of the Temple and the end of the aion:
Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the aion?
God marked the end of the old covenant aion with the destruction of the old covenant Temple that was it's central focus. That Temple was destroyed because the final sacrifice was made and the True Temple (Jesus Christ) had come, so there was no more place for types and shadows. The Sun of Righteousness had risen. All of this is explained with the utmost clarity in Hebrews 8:
Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest [Christ is the fulfillment], who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now [in the first century] hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established [the New Covenant has been established] upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [this is speaking of the New Covenant God made (past tense) with Israel and of which Christ is the minister] 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away [This confirms that the Old Covenant aion was passing away because the New had come.].
Thus, we see that the sum of all Scripture declares this one truth with the perfect clarity of a single, unified voice. This is the essence of the teaching of the entire New Testament. That's why it's called the "New Testament" (New Covenant). How could there be any doubt as to the truth it proclaims?

Richard

[joel]

Richard and Rose,
when you respond in tandem, it can be somewhat overwhelming. Your zeal is obvious,..........and it is always commendable when Godly zeal is expressed.

But "the last days" cannot be confined to one specific "last day" event. It may be "the last days" of a certain aion,....or, the "last days" of a season.....to say that one event is the "last days"...of the "last days".....I believe needs to be looked at very closely.

Please give me time to look at your posts.......

Joel

[TheForgiven]

I don't know if the WW has anything to do with Trajan, but I do know that it most certainly was not part of the buildings of the Temple which Christ said would be "thrown down." It is a retaining wall. Christ said nothing about the retaining wall that supported the side of the Temple mount. He spoke specifically of the Temple buildings:

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings?

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Christ predicted that the great buildings of the Temple would be cast down.

Christ predicted the destruction of the Temple. His prophecy was fully fulfilled.

Christ said absolutely nothing of the retaining wall which was not part of the buildings of the Temple. To suggest that its existence indicates that Christ's prophecy of the destruction of the Temple is only "partially fulfilled" so twists and distorts language and logic that I despair of explaining it further. No amount of light will help those who do not have eyes to see.

Richard

Oops! I had to research this topic again and I made a mistake. It wasn't Trajan who tried to rebuild the temple, but Emperor Hadrian around 118 AD.

He granted the Jews permission to return and rebuild, but then changed his mind and had many Jews deported to other countries; some say Africa.

Barnabus, an early church father, writes of this rebuilding process:

Barnabas 16:3
Furthermore He saith again; Behold they that pulled down this
temple themselves shall build it.

Barnabas 16:4
So it cometh to pass; for because they went to war it was pulled down
by their enemies. Now also the very servants of their enemies shall
build it up.

Barnabus was either speaking literally of the Romans rebuilding the Temple during the reign of Hadrain. OR, he may have been speaking figuratively as would seem to be the case. For he quotes after the passages above how the enemies who destroyed the temple, would rebuild the temple, gloriously in the name of the Lord. He finally states that this is a spiritual temple, and not a physical temple which was to be built. Barnabus shows that we are the temple of the Lord.

At any rate, Emperor Hadrian tried to rebuild the temple, but it was to be dedicated to the god of Jupiter (Zeus). And Jerusalem's name was to be changed to "Aelia Capitalina". This event is what spawned the "Shimon Bar Kahba" revolt. In 132 AD, Jerusalem was destroyed again.

In the 6th century, the rise of the Muslims (Byzantine conversions to Muslim) led to the start of the Crusades where they, and Christians fought against each other to protect the "Holy Land". I do not recall how many battles took place, but when the Muslims gains control over Jerusalem, they transformed the existing temple into the Mosque. Since that time, the Mosque has been refurbished several times.

Now modern day Zionists are under the impression that the wailing wall is part of the original temple. And as you correctly point out, that was merely the retaining wall.

At any rate, it's quite foolish to suggest that "not one stone shall be left upon another" to be a future event simply because the "wailing wall" exists. But as I've indicated, I do not believe the wailing wall had anything to do with the first century temple. The wailing wall was part of the 2nd century rebuild during Emperor Hadrian's reign, leading up to the Shimon Bar Kahba revolt.

God bless.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard and Rose,
when you respond in tandem, it can be somewhat overwhelming. Your zeal is obvious,..........and it is always commendable when Godly zeal is expressed.

Hi Joel,

No need to feel overwhelmed. I didn't know that Rose was going to respond to your post - but often many folks will add their comments. You can answer at your leisure.



But "the last days" cannot be confined to one specific "last day" event. It may be "the last days" of a certain aion,....or, the "last days" of a season.....to say that one event is the "last days"...of the "last days".....I believe needs to be looked at very closely.

Please give me time to look at your posts.......

Joel
Yes Joel - please take all the time you need to think carefully about my answer. That makes for very good conversation. There is no rush to answer.

I agree that "the last days" (plural) is not confined to one specific "last day" event. As far as I can tell from Scripture, the "last days" of the Old Covenant aion spans the 70 years from Christ's birth unto the destruction of the Temple.

All the best,

Richard

[joel]

Hi Joel,

No need to feel overwhelmed. I didn't know that Rose was going to respond to your post - but often many folks will add their comments. You can answer at your leisure.


Yes Joel - please take all the time you need to think carefully about my answer. That makes for very good conversation. There is no rush to answer.

I agree that "the last days" (plural) is not confined to one specific "last day" event. As far as I can tell from Scripture, the "last days" of the Old Covenant aion spans the 70 years from Christ's birth unto the destruction of the Temple.

All the best,

Richard

Again.......it is the Old Testament aion......that is what I am struggling with....... I am seeking specifics (chap./vs.).

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Again.......it is the Old Testament aion......that is what I am struggling with....... I am seeking specifics (chap./vs.).

Joel
Why are you struggling with that? I presented many mutually confirming verses that declare a Biblical aion ended in the first century. Tell me what defined the aion that ended with the death of Christ and the destruction of the Temple and you will have your answer.

[joel]

70 AD may be a "telos".

But,.....it is not the "sunteleia" that many proclaim it to be.

And,....I cannot find anywhere that speaks of the 70 AD event as the "telos" of an "aion". To say that it is......is to go beyond what has been revealed. That is my objection to this entire matter of placing more importance upon the fulfillment of that portion of Jesus' prophecy than is warranted.

Also, the appearing of Jesus to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself is speaking of the "sunteleia" of the aions (plural).

He is putting away sin in a continuous manner throughout the final aions of God's plan......it started with His sacrificial death......it continues as sin is put out business by those who know, reckon, yeild, .....as Paul instructs in Romans 6, which is a vital element of the gospel as proclaimed by Paul.


Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

70 AD may be a "telos".

But,.....it is not the "sunteleia" that many proclaim it to be.

Joel,

Your assertion that the destruction of 70 AD did not happen in the suntelia of the aion directly contradicts Scripture. As noted in my previous post, we know that Christ died in the suntelia of the aion:

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world [suntelia of the aion] hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Likewise, the disciples understood that the coming of Messiah and the destruction of the Temple would mark the suntelia of the aion. This is made explicit in the opening passages of the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 ¶ And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [suntelia of the aion]?
Christ then answered this question, and stated that "all these things" would be fulfilled during the lifetime of His first century audience. Furthermore, Christ spoke specifically of the prophecies of Daniel in the Olivet Discourse, and in Daniel 9 (LXX) which speaks of the death of Messiah and the destruction of the Temple, the word suntelia occurs eight times. The LXX was the common Scripture in the first century. It is the source of the vase majority of OT citations in the Greek NT. It is no wonder that the disciples asked about the suntelia of the aion since they knew the Messiah had come and told them that the Temple would be soon destroyed during their own generation. Thus we see that Scripture confirms Scripture in every conceivable way. The death of Christ and the destruction of the Temple marked the suntelia of that aion.

All the very best,

Richard

[joel]

Are you asserting that the sunteleia of the aions began with the Cross and ended at the destruction of the Temple?

I say that it refers to the "together finish" of many related events, spanning a much larger period of time, when many separate events are brought together in a final conclusion, or comsummation.

Let's say that A = the sacrifice of Christ,
and,
let's say that B = the giving over of the Kingdom to the Father.

A-----the sunteleia of the aions--------B.

The sunteleia of the aions is the "together-finish".

From A-------------to B, when Christ is putting away sin.

The harvest at the end of the ages is considered a "sunteleia"......and there is no way that the harvest has already occurred.....is there?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Are you asserting that the sunteleia of the aions began with the Cross and ended at the destruction of the Temple?

I say that it refers to the "together finish" of many related events, spanning a much larger period of time, when many separate events are brought together in a final conclusion, or comsummation.

Let's say that A = the sacrifice of Christ,
and,
let's say that B = the giving over of the Kingdom to the Father.

A-----the sunteleia of the aions--------B.

The sunteleia of the aions is the "together-finish".

From A-------------to B, when Christ is putting away sin.

The harvest at the end of the ages is considered a "sunteleia"......and there is no way that the harvest has already occurred.....is there?

Joel
Yes, I am saying that the sunetlia of the aion spanned the time from either the birth or the beginning of Christ's ministry unto the final destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It's either a 70 or 40 year period.

As for the "harvest" - all we need to do is ask Scripture for the answer. First, we know that the harvest began during the earthly ministry of Christ:
John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. 35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. 36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. 37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; 38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
And when Christ sent out his disciples to harvest the believing remnant of Israel, he said this:
Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Christ warned that the disciples would be persecuted and killed by the Jews. History confirms this fact. There is no way this prophecy can be repeated in the future. It also coheres perfectly with the events predicted in the Olivet Discourse that would precede the destruction of the Temple. All these things were fulfilled in the first century and this fact is confirmed by the words of Christ when He said "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."

Are you having trouble receiving the plain meaning of these verses because you are thinking that they speak of a future global event? If we simply accept the Word of Christ, then we accept the first century fulfillment just as He stated many times in many ways. He said "all these things" would be fulfilled in "this generation" and that the disciples would not finish "going over all the cities of Israel before the Son of man be come." And on and on. The plain meaning of the entire New Testament declares the same thing.

Richard

[joel]

Richard,

This is my final question for awhile............

Has Jesus turned over the Kingdom to the Father (I Cor. 15:24)?

If "No".....then when will that occur?

If "yes"...was that also at 70 AD?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

This is my final question for awhile............

Has Jesus turned over the Kingdom to the Father (I Cor. 15:24)?

If "No".....then when will that occur?

If "yes"...was that also at 70 AD?

Joel
Joel,

Why do you continue to introduce new questions rather than dealing with the verses I have presented? We'll never come to an understanding this way. I have presented a mountain of mutually confirming Scriptures that would answer your question, but you seem to be ignoring them. If you refuse to accept the main and the plain and the simple and the obvious things that Scripture declares and confirms with many verses, there will be no way for you to understand the teachings that are built upon that foundation, such as the meaning of the 1 Cor 15:24.

All the very best,

Richard

[joel]

Richard,

I just don't agree with your interpretation of the "main....and plain....and simple....and obvious".

The best to you, and yours,

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

I just don't agree with your interpretation of the "main....and plain....and simple....and obvious".

The best to you, and yours,

Joel
I don't think that is correct. It seems to me that you are dodging what the Scripture actually states. For example, what is "not obvious" about the main and plain point of this recent post I wrote to you?
My position is based on a lot of Biblical evidence. Here are the basics:

1) The entire story of the OT culminated in the prophecy of Elijah coming to prepare the way for Messiah and to declare that the time had come for the "great and notable day of the Lord" - the "Day of Visitation" and the "Days of Vengeance." Christ declared this prophecy fulfilled in John the Baptist.

2) The disciples understood that the coming of Messiah and His prediction of the destruction of the Temple indicated the "end of the aion."

3) Paul declared that the "ends of the ages" had "come upon" the people living in the first century.

4) Christ was Messiah, so His Coming in the first century marked the end of that age and the dawn of the Messianic age. God confirmed this by the destruction of the Temple, the outward sign of the old dispensation of the First Covenant Law.

I could go on and on. From my perspective, the evidence is total and extremely compelling. Simply stated, it all makes sense. and coheres with the message of the entire Bible. I don't need to "make up" any non-Biblical scenarios like 2000+ year gap and a re-built Temple and re-instituted animal sacrifices and a re-vived Roman empire that will re-desolate the re-built Temple, etc., etc., etc..

Could you share the Biblical basis of your view? That would really help.
You responded by ignoring the Big Picture and disputing the meaning of "end of the aion." But that seems to be a dodge because when I successfully answered that question, you changed the topic.

This is what it feels like Joel. It does not matter what answers I give. It does not matter what the Bible really states, no matter how plainly it states it. When you are confronted with something that does not fit your personal interpretation, you ignore the evidence and change the topic.

Please don't take any offense. I'm just trying to explain what I am experiencing on this end of the conversation.

This is why I have been insisting that we must establish the FOUNDATION of what the Bible really says. We must find the point of agreement or we have nothing to build upon. It's really very simple. We focus on the main and the plain and the simple and the obvious things that are established by many mutually confirming verses. Then when we have perfect understanding of the FOUNDATION we can discuss the more enigmatic passages.

Many blessings to you and yours,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

I just don't agree with your interpretation of the "main....and plain....and simple....and obvious".

The best to you, and yours,

Joel
If we can not agree about the "interpretation of the main....and plain....and simple....and obvious" then how will we ever agree about anything? It seems our conversation is doomed from the start.

This is why I have been insisting for years that we come to agreement about the FOUNDATION of what the Bible actually states.

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Here is another approach. Why don't you try to establish your doctrines on what the Bible actually states? I would like to see a biblical foundation for the following doctrines:

1) God has two covenant peoples: the Christians who have a "heavenly calling" and will be raptured, and national Israel which has an "earthly calling" that will be fulfilled after Christians are raptured.

2) The New Covenant has not been ratified with Israel yet. What does "ratify" mean? What will God do in the future to "ratify" the New Covenant with Israel? Specifically, what will happen in the future when the New Covenant is "ratified" with national Israel?

Richard

[TheForgiven]

1) God has two covenant peoples: the Christians who have a "heavenly calling" and will be raptured, and national Israel which has an "earthly calling" that will be fulfilled after Christians are raptured.

:eek: Wow! I never thought about that problem. I'm glad you asked this question brother Richard. In my opinion, this question could very well be the stepping stone that causes huge problems with the Futurist understanding.

Pre-Trib Futurist's insist that the Christians of our future will be "Raptured" prior to the 3 1/2 years of war in Israel. Well, wouldn't this be considered a bit conceited to assume that Gentile Christians would be raptured before the Tribulation? And since Jews of the flesh (as though they even exist anymore) would be "LEFT BEHIND" to suffer persecution, are Futurist's now ready to go on record and claim that they would be left behind to suffer Tribulation, while the Gentile Christians happen to skip this Tribulation by being "Raptured", as though they are to be spared?

Here's the amazing thing behind this. I can't find a single verse, paragraph, Old Testament Letter, or New Testament letter to support such a theory. I've found jumbled up verses which they use to build this theory, but those verses are often taken out of context.

Question: WHY WOULD GOD RAPTURE CHRISTIANS ALL OVER THE WORLD TO SPARE THEM FROM THE TRIBULATION THAT THE JEWS OF THE FLESH WOULD SUFFER THE FINAL 3 1/2 YEARS?

Now I know that the Tribulation is supposed to be over the entire globe. But then if that's the point, what would even be the focus of Israel of the flesh? Would the Futurist's also suggest that geographical Israel would become the sole location for a global war? Huh oh! I probably should not have asked that question because I do believe brother Choew has stated something like this before. :eek: If I'm not mistaken, brother Cheow believes that all the earth quakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters (which pretty much happen every year I might add) are all indications that a global war is on the way. But the starting place must first be geographical Israel, for the AC to declare His false-messiah status, and break the 3 1/2 year peace agreement.

I don't like to be the one to tease the Futurist's, but COME ONE guys. You've got to see the problems encountered with this belief system. It's all based on folk-tales, and myths with absolutely "ZERO" facts to support it. Natural disasters cannot be counted as fact towards the Futurist position, when these disasters have occurred for centuries.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:eek: Wow! I never thought about that problem. I'm glad you asked this question brother Richard. In my opinion, this question could very well be the stepping stone that causes huge problems with the Futurist understanding.

Well, before jumping to any conclusions, we should probably check with Joel to see if he would like to clarify his position. Here is one of his posts from another thread might help shed a little light on his view:



My focus has been, and will continue to be, the emphasis that Paul makes on what I consider to be the calling of the body of Christ, the church, as it applies to the heavenly realms. I have stated long ago, and continue to hold fast the profession that Paul, as the apostle to the nations, is responsible to call out, and prepare the members of the body.

I have stated before on other posts, and still hold the position, that Israel, has been temporarily set aside as the body is being completed. But, that they will be called forth to complete their calling on the earth.

If you want me to direct the discussion(s) to what is appropriate for the preparation of the body, I would focus on Paul's letters, and the focus would be in a step by step process beginning with his letter to the Romans.

Peter, on the otherhand, as the apostle to the circumcision, James, and John are the focal preparation letters to the circumcision.

Paul, as the apostle to the nations, has presented the gospel of the uncircumcision, and, I, being a Gentile, am inclined to separate those things applicable to me, and those things which I believe are applicable to Israel, which includes the terrestrial kingdom.

I do not believe that the body of Christ is ....."the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a perculiar people...." (I Peter 2:9) It is my continued belief that Peter was speaking to the Israelites who will be, some time in the future, called out of the nations to prepare for the administration of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

The church may try as hard it has for 2,000 years to be what Peter describes, but it cannot be that if it was not meant to be.......The failure to differentiate on these matters is, in my opinion, the cause of deplorable condition of dis-unity that pervades the outward, Christian church. It is ludicrous to think that the church can come into a unity on matters that are essentially not theirs to bring about.

The spiritual leaders are responsible for this......just as the priests of Israel, and the administrative leaders were responsible, in the end analysis, of the fallen state of Isreal.

Only Jesus can make it right. And, He will. Both as the Lord, on earth, administering the Kingdom through the New Covenant people, Israel, and, bringing all into subjection through the body of Christ as He administers the Kingdom of God in the heavenly realms.

If you want to talk about that........I would be more than pleased to do so. But I am limited to speak about the earthly reign of Israel as I have not dedicated my learning to that topic, but leave it to others who will be a part of that calling, at the proper time.

Joel

It seems clear that Joel has a well-developed concept of a "heavenly calling" for the Body of Christ, and an "earthly calling" for national Israel. I would be very interested to review the set of Scriptures upon which this doctrine is founded.

Also, note that Joel does not believe that Peter's letters apply to the Body of Christ. I discussed this with him at length in a thread called Sailing on the Gospel Ship (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1487) but we never came to any resolution of this matter. My argument is that Peter and Paul used identical language when addressing their readers, so I could see no distinction between them:
Peter: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone [akrogoniaios], elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Paul: Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone [akrogoniaios]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
I have never seen a good reason to deny that Peter's letters were addressed to first century Christians or that "Peter was speaking to the Israelites who will be, some time in the future, called out of the nations to prepare for the administration of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth."

There are many issues wrapped up together in this discussion. I doubt we will ever make any progress until there is agreement to focus upon one thing until it is resolved. Otherwise, we'll just be going round the mountain yet again.

Richard

[joel]

Richard,

According to your calendar, it has been two years that this machination has been plugging along......we only have 38 more years to go to equal the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness.:lol:

I can only conclude at present with this......I love ya' Bro......do you have an emiticom where two buddies are clinking a glass of ale?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

According to your calendar, it has been two years that this machination has been plugging along......we only have 38 more years to go to equal the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness.:lol:

I can only conclude at present with this......I love ya' Bro......do you have an emiticom where two buddies are clinking a glass of ale?

Joel
:lmbo:

Well stated bro!

Here's to our love in Christ! :anim_32:

I love you too. I'm gonna take Mad Mick's not so crazy advice and spend some time pursuing my first love, the work that prompted me to build this website in the first place. It would be very interesting if you had any thoughts to share on the Bible Wheel or Gematria or the Isaiah-Bible Correlation or any other insight into the amazing structure of Scripture.

Endless blessings to you my good friend,

Richard

[joel]

After we crash our shloshing mugs together.....and the ale rains down upon our howling heads......

I would ask you to think about adjusting the data-base to show verb tenses, and other grammatical similarities......i.e......of all the examples of a certain noun....only some may be dative in nature.......could I find that shown?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

After we crash our shloshing mugs together.....and the ale rains down upon our howling heads......

I would ask you to think about adjusting the data-base to show verb tenses, and other grammatical similarities......i.e......of all the examples of a certain noun....only some may be dative in nature.......could I find that shown?

Joel
That's a good suggestion. I should probably redesign the entire database using Flash - it would be amazing. You'd love it. Pray that God gives me inspiration.

[Victor]

Hey Cheow,

You seem to have skipped my post so I'm posting it again:


Hi Victor, thanks for your response.

i understand that Revelation is a highly symbolic book, but I disagree that it should read in a symbolic way even it may sounds fantastic in human reasoning.

Cheow,

I don't have the time to reply to your post all at once. But I can begin with you first assertion.

My last post was referring to the contrast between the literary style of two passages: OD ("this generation shall not pass...") and Revelation 20 (Satan bound for 1,000 years).

One is very simple and to the point. The other is highly symbolic. That's why I find amazing that some people simply can't see that Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed in that generation. The Word of the Lord was fulfilled!!!!!!!!! :woohoo:

Can you see that???? Isn't it amazing?? Shouldn't that be used in evangelization as direct evidence of the coherence of the Christian message?

Now back to Revelation: you stated an incredible plain contradiction within one single sentence! Read it again:
i understand that Revelation is a highly symbolic book, but I disagree that it should read in a symbolic way even it may sounds fantastic in human reasoning.
This is a self-defeating statement. Either Revelation should be treated as a highly symbolic book or Revelation shouldn't be treated as a highly symbolic book.

You seem to be playing tricks with your mind to avoid reaching the conclusion that, since the context of Revelation 20 is highly symbolic, the millennium probably has a symbolic meaning instead of a literal one. So you end up stating opposite things about the nature of Revelation to avoid thinking too hard about it.

It is like saying: "I understand that this work from Shakespeare is a highly poetic book, but I disagree that it should be read in a poetic way."

So we first need to establish the nature of the book of Revelation. Is it predominantly a literal or symbolic book?

[CWH]

What I am saying is that I disagree that Revelation should be read in a symbolic way since it is a symbolic book. In fact, All books in the Bible should be read in both symbolic and literal ways and treated equally regardless of whether it is a predominantly symbolic book or not. The problem with preterism is that it is not consistent in its symbolic criterias as to which should be read symbolically and which should not. If Revelation is to be treated as symbolic, why not treat the letters to the 7 churches as symbolic? why not treat "I am coming quickly", "I am coming soon" verses, the 144,000 elects, the GWT in Revelation as symbolic?

Many Blessings.

[Victor]

What I am saying is that I disagree that Revelation should be read in a symbolic way since it is a symbolic book.


You simply re-stated the contradiction once again. Re-stating a wrong statement doesn't make it right. And even if it were correct, there wouldn't be any support for the statement.

'What I am saying is that I disagree that the Divine Comedy should be read in a poetic way since it is a poetic book.'

[CWH]

My question is, which somehow was ignored,

The problem with preterism is that it is not consistent in its symbolic criterias as to which should be read symbolically and which should not. If Revelation is to be treated as symbolic, why not treat the letters to the 7 churches as symbolic? why not treat "I am coming quickly", "I am coming soon" verses, the 144,000 elects, the GWT, the NJ in Revelation as symbolic?

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

My question is, which somehow was ignored,

The problem with preterism is that it is not consistent in its symbolic criterias as to which should be read symbolically and which should not. If Revelation is to be treated as symbolic, why not treat the letters to the 7 churches as symbolic? why not treat "I am coming quickly", "I am coming soon" verses, the 144,000 elects, the GWT, the NJ in Revelation as symbolic?

Many Blessings.

Hi Cheow,

A very good way to discern the symbolism of Revelation is by connecting its context with the rest of the Bible to form a "big picture". When the Apostle John was receiving those visions he would have been interpreting all the symbolic images with what he knew them to represent.

A good chunk of Revelation has word for word identity with many of the Old Testament prophets like: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. There can be no mistake made as to what much of Revelation's symbolic language represents if one is fluent in the Old Testament Scripture, which you can be assured John was!

John would have had no trouble in distinguishing the content of the 7 letters to the churches (which themselves used symbolic language), because he was familiar with them all, and many of their problems. Once one becomes fluent in the language of the Bible, and the historical significance that those Christians of the 1st century played a part in, it seems quite clear what the book of Revelation is all about.


God Bless,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My question is, which somehow was ignored,

The problem with preterism is that it is not consistent in its symbolic criterias as to which should be read symbolically and which should not. If Revelation is to be treated as symbolic, why not treat the letters to the 7 churches as symbolic? why not treat "I am coming quickly", "I am coming soon" verses, the 144,000 elects, the GWT, the NJ in Revelation as symbolic?

Many Blessings.
Hey Cheow,

There is absolutely nothing "inconsistent" with the way preterism understands the symbols of the Bible. Anyone reading the Bible with understanding can discern between statements of fact like "I am coming soon" and "for the time is at hand" and symbolic elements like the sword coming out of the mouth of Christ. I can not imagine how anyone could be confused on something as simple as this.

It seems to me that you do not understand what "symbolic" means from either a futurist or preterist perspective. Both futurists and preterists understand that the beast with 7 heads is a symbol. Both futurists and preterists understand that the woman clothed with the sun is a symbol. Both futurists and preterists understand that the sword coming out of the mouth of Christ is a symbol. This has nothing to do with the issues that divide futurists and preterists. The divide comes from how futurists and preterists see that those symbols were or will be fulfilled in history.

Of course, a lot of confusion has been introduced by folks like Hal Lindsey who suggest that many of the symbols were not really symbols at all, but rather attempts to describe the literal appearance of modern technology in terms of first century categories (such as the locusts as helicopters). This idea transforms Revelation into a Rorschach (Ink Blot) Test with no inherent meaning at all. It becomes nothing but a random blob upon which each reader projects his or her own fantasies.

Richard

[CWH]

I full agree with RAM that the Bible should be read symbolically and literally depending on the passages, and the differences lies between futurists and preterists are in what to interpret literally and what to interpret symbolically. A good example is locust. If locust are interpreted as army then it doesn't make sense in the following passages. Does army eat vegetations?

Exodus 10:12
And the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over Egypt so that locusts will swarm over the land and devour everything growing in the fields, everything left by the hail."
So Moses stretched out his staff over Egypt, and the LORD made an east wind blow across the land all that day and all that night. By morning the wind had brought the locusts;

Exodus 10:14
they invaded all Egypt and settled down in every area of the country in great numbers. Never before had there been such a plague of locusts, nor will there ever be again.
And the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt.

Deuteronomy 28:38
You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it.

Deuteronomy 28:42
Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.

1 Kings 8:37
"When famine or plague comes to the land, or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers, or when an enemy besieges them in any of their cities, whatever disaster or disease may come,

2 Chronicles 6:28
"When famine or plague comes to the land, or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers, or when enemies besiege them in any of their cities, whatever disaster or disease may come,

2 Chronicles 7:13
"When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people,

Psalm 105:34
He spoke, and the locusts came, grasshoppers without number;

Proverbs 30:27
locusts have no king, yet they advance together in ranks;


Jeremiah 46:23
They will chop down her forest," declares the LORD, "dense though it be. They are more numerous than locusts, they cannot be counted.

Joel 1:4
What the locust swarm has left the great locusts have eaten; what the great locusts have left the young locusts have eaten; what the young locusts have left other locusts have eaten.

Joel 2:25
"I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten— the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm — my great army that I sent among you.

Amos 4:9
"Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, I struck them with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees, yet you have not returned to me," declares the LORD.

Amos 7:1
[ Locusts, Fire and a Plumb Line ] This is what the Sovereign LORD showed me: He was preparing swarms of locusts after the king's share had been harvested and just as the second crop was coming up.

Many Blessings.

[Edward Goodie]

I full agree with RAM that the Bible should be read symbolically and literally depending on the passages, and the differences lies between futurists and preterists are in what to interpret literally and what to interpret symbolically. A good example is locust. If locust are interpreted as army then it doesn't make sense in the following passages. Does army eat vegetations?

Exodus 10:12
And the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over Egypt so that locusts will swarm over the land and devour everything growing in the fields, everything left by the hail."
So Moses stretched out his staff over Egypt, and the LORD made an east wind blow across the land all that day and all that night. By morning the wind had brought the locusts;

Exodus 10:14
they invaded all Egypt and settled down in every area of the country in great numbers. Never before had there been such a plague of locusts, nor will there ever be again.
And the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt.

Deuteronomy 28:38
You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it.

Deuteronomy 28:42
Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.

1 Kings 8:37
"When famine or plague comes to the land, or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers, or when an enemy besieges them in any of their cities, whatever disaster or disease may come,

2 Chronicles 6:28
"When famine or plague comes to the land, or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers, or when enemies besiege them in any of their cities, whatever disaster or disease may come,

2 Chronicles 7:13
"When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people,

Psalm 105:34
He spoke, and the locusts came, grasshoppers without number;

Proverbs 30:27
locusts have no king, yet they advance together in ranks;


Jeremiah 46:23
They will chop down her forest," declares the LORD, "dense though it be. They are more numerous than locusts, they cannot be counted.

Joel 1:4
What the locust swarm has left the great locusts have eaten; what the great locusts have left the young locusts have eaten; what the young locusts have left other locusts have eaten.

Joel 2:25
"I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten— the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm — my great army that I sent among you.

Amos 4:9
"Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, I struck them with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees, yet you have not returned to me," declares the LORD.

Amos 7:1
[ Locusts, Fire and a Plumb Line ] This is what the Sovereign LORD showed me: He was preparing swarms of locusts after the king's share had been harvested and just as the second crop was coming up.

Many Blessings.

You said the following:


"I full agree with RAM that the Bible should be read symbolically and literally depending on the passages, and the differences lies between futurists and preterists are in what to interpret literally and what to interpret symbolically."

I have bolded and underlined to show emphasis...

First of all, even you admit that the understanding is based upon the passage in question. And then you list passages all over the place saying that "army" wouldn't fit the understanding. Well duhhhhhhh, don't you realize we could do this with just about everything like water, wine, and a few 1,000 others...Your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

Here is the hermeneutic principle. If a word or a phrase has more than one meaning, it is up to the context to determine which meaning is being used.

Second, the interpretation differences are NOT between preterists and futurists for a couple of reasons. One reason, of much less consequence than the other is the FACT that some futurists ascribe to many preterist understandings, and vice versa... But the MAIN understanding is simply this: If a word or a phrase has more than one meaning, it is up to the context to determine which meaning is being used. It has nothing to do with which theological position a person represents, although we have seen this errant principle used all the time. Here is one prime example:

Strong's 4747, stoichea as used in the following passages. I have red-bolded the word in question:

Galatians 4:3 - Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Galatians 4:9 - But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Colossians 2:8 - Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:20 - Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Hebrews 5:12 - For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Now is doesn't take a lot of study to understand these "stoichea" as taught by Paul as being abstract words with such connotations as rudiments, principles, religion, religious thought, teachings, etc. However, when one arrives at a favorite passage of the futurists, the definition changes DRAMATICALLY!

2 Peter 3:10 - 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.

2 Peter 3:12 - 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?

We have already been given the meaning of the word by the apostle Paul. Is there any reason for Peter to change that meaning, and if so, where does Peter speak to his audience of this change? Now, I admit that it would seem that the passage is talking about the planet breaking up and such if one is prone to using our Western 21st century dictionary to define these things. But our difficulty, as students of the Bible, is that we are not to exegete according to our knowledge, but according to their understanding and the knowledge that these first century individuals held to and knew. That includes the Jewish understandings! Paul gave us the correct understanding for stoichea. In fact, Peter agrees when he says:

"even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15

If these "elements" that Peter spoke of differed from Paul's view, then he could not possibly associate these "end time" things with Paul!

Many view 2 Peter 3 as the destruction of the old covenant economy (temple, teachings, sacrifices, practice) and not the destruction of the planet because of previously established context of elements.

Futurists change elements to mean "that which holds the planet and universe together, as in protons, atoms, electrons, and stuff like that" to support their paradigm. They must reject Paul's usage because it damages their futuristic viewpoint.

One simple reason the futurist's "exegesis" does not work is simply because "elements" were never considered in the same way that futurists want them to be considered. Peter was not a 20th century physics major and neither were his audience. In fact, "elements," according to the futurist paradigm, never got this view until 1869 (or so) with Dmitri Medeleev's Period Table of Elements! First century people had no clue of this kind of understanding, yet it is commonly taught that some kind of nuclear disaster awaits this planet - an interpretation, by the way, that only people from the last 70 years could understand!!! So much for the Bible being understood by everyone...

I could blab on and on, but I'll stop here.

[CWH]

Futurists change elements to mean "that which holds the planet and universe together, as in protons, atoms, electrons, and stuff like that" to support their paradigm. They must reject Paul's usage because it damages their futuristic viewpoint.

It's the same thing, I can speak about the preterists, (No offense intended), why can't they take the 200 million army, the 1,000 year reign, the Anti-christ, the mark of the beast, the large cube of the New heaven and New earth literally. Because it is too fantastic ...or because it doesn't gel with their AD 70 theology...or it's impossible for God....or perhaps, Apostle John must have made some mistakes?

BTW, Please, Please don't put me into those futurist who believe the earth will break into pieces. The earth stays forever even if it is the end of the world. I am one of those futurist who believe in symbolic and literal interpretations of the Bible: I am a preterist-futurist remember?

Many Blessings and Peace.

[Edward Goodie]

It's the same thing, I can speak about the preterists, (No offense intended), why can't they take the 200 million army, the 1,000 year reign, the Anti-christ, the mark of the beast, the large cube of the New heaven and New earth literally. Because it is too fantastic ...or because it doesn't gel with their AD 70 theology...or it's impossible for God....or perhaps, Apostle John must have made some mistakes?

BTW, Please, Please don't put me into those futurist who believe the earth will break into pieces. The earth stays forever even if it is the end of the world. I am one of those futurist who believe in symbolic and literal interpretations of the Bible: I am a preterist-futurist remember?

Many Blessings and Peace.

Simple...where in Scripture is an antichrist spoken of in terms of a one-world leader?
If the mark of God is not a literal, physical mark (Rev 9:4), why should we expect the mark of the beast to be literal?
Concerning 1,000, anyone who has done a decent study on this will realize that is doesn't have to represent definite ordinals. Does God not own the cattle on hill 1001?
There are too many passages in the NT that associate the new Jerusalem with "being above" as in heavenly and it is applied to Paul's day. It is simply carried over in Revelation in symbolic terms too...

Besides, all this Revelation stuff is MAINLY based upon the "time of the end" as being associated with a planetary demise and reconstruction, whether you agree or don't agree. Not one iota of consideration is given to the end of Judaism and the old covenant economy despite its fulfillment in the exact time predicted!

My example of elements is perfectly apt. What is your definition of "elements" and what Scriptures would you use for support?

If one can't think like a Jew there is ZERO HOPE in understanding the Scriptures...

[TheForgiven]

If the mark of God is not a literal, physical mark (Rev 9:4), why should we expect the mark of the beast to be literal?

Excellent question my friend. I've asked that one before. Since the Saints of the 144,000 thousand who were sealed with the name of God on their forehead cannot be literal, then neither should the mark of the Beast being written on their hands or forehead should be literal.

Of course there are teachers who would easily object to this, and it's quite convenient for them of course. They are allowed to say that one mark is figurative, while the other is literal....

Not sure what else it would take.

Joe

[Edward Goodie]

Excellent question my friend. I've asked that one before. Since the Saints of the 144,000 thousand who were sealed with the name of God on their forehead cannot be literal, then neither should the mark of the Beast being written on their hands or forehead should be literal.

Of course there are teachers who would easily object to this, and it's quite convenient for them of course. They are allowed to say that one mark is figurative, while the other is literal....

Not sure what else it would take.

Joe

What most people are not willing to do is to go to the Scriptures themselves to determine these types of things...

For instance, what did "forehead" and "hand" signify for the Jew? One needs to look at all the OT passages and deal with each in context to get the Eastern Jewish understanding and NOT the 21st century Western dictionary denotation!

But unfortunately, most are extremely lazy and would rather be spoon fed their doctrine - like I was once upon a time!

[CWH]

The mark was never, I repeat never symbolic. If the mark is never symbolic why should we accept the mark in Revelation as symbolic? However, the mark could be visible and invisible and it could also be a sign rather than a mark. And mark can also be used as a verb instead of a noun. See for yourself:

Genesis 1:14
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

Genesis 4:15
But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

Genesis 35:20
Over her tomb Jacob set up a pillar, and to this day that pillar marks Rachel's tomb.

Leviticus 19:28
" 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

Joshua 18:20
The Jordan formed the boundary on the eastern side. These were the boundaries that marked out the inheritance of the clans of Benjamin on all sides.

1 Samuel 21:13
So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting saliva run down his beard.

1 Kings 22:28
Micaiah declared, "If you ever return safely, the LORD has not spoken through me." Then he added, "Mark my words, all you people!"

2 Kings 23:17
The king asked, "What is that tombstone I see?" The men of the city said, "It marks the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and pronounced against the altar of Bethel the very things you have done to it."

2 Chronicles 18:27
Micaiah declared, "If you ever return safely, the LORD has not spoken through me." Then he added, "Mark my words, all you people!"

Job 13:27
You fasten my feet in shackles; you keep close watch on all my paths by putting marks on the soles of my feet.

Job 15:22
He despairs of escaping the darkness; he is marked for the sword.

Job 26:10
He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.

Job 36:32
He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark.

Job 38:5
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

Psalm 104:19
The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down.

Proverbs 8:27
I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

Proverbs 8:29
when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?

Isaiah 44:13
The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine.

Isaiah 59:7
Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways.

Ezekiel 9:4
and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

Ezekiel 9:6
Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

Ezekiel 21:19
"Son of man, mark out two roads for the sword of the king of Babylon to take, both starting from the same country. Make a signpost where the road branches off to the city.

Ezekiel 21:20
Mark out one road for the sword to come against Rabbah of the Ammonites and another against Judah and fortified Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 39:15
As they go through the land and one of them sees a human bone, he will set up a marker beside it until the gravediggers have buried it in the Valley of Hamon Gog.

Zechariah 11:4
[ Two Shepherds ] This is what the LORD my God says: "Pasture the flock marked for slaughter.

Zechariah 11:7
So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock.

John 20:25
So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

The mark was never, I repeat never symbolic. If the mark is never symbolic why should we accept the mark in Revelation as symbolic? However, the mark could be visible and invisible and it could also be a sign rather than a mark. And mark can also be used as a verb instead of a noun. See for yourself:

Genesis 1:14
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

Genesis 4:15
But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

Genesis 35:20
Over her tomb Jacob set up a pillar, and to this day that pillar marks Rachel's tomb.

Leviticus 19:28
" 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

Joshua 18:20
The Jordan formed the boundary on the eastern side. These were the boundaries that marked out the inheritance of the clans of Benjamin on all sides.

1 Samuel 21:13
So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting saliva run down his beard.

1 Kings 22:28
Micaiah declared, "If you ever return safely, the LORD has not spoken through me." Then he added, "Mark my words, all you people!"

2 Kings 23:17
The king asked, "What is that tombstone I see?" The men of the city said, "It marks the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and pronounced against the altar of Bethel the very things you have done to it."

2 Chronicles 18:27
Micaiah declared, "If you ever return safely, the LORD has not spoken through me." Then he added, "Mark my words, all you people!"

Job 13:27
You fasten my feet in shackles; you keep close watch on all my paths by putting marks on the soles of my feet.

Job 15:22
He despairs of escaping the darkness; he is marked for the sword.

Job 26:10
He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.

Job 36:32
He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark.

Job 38:5
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

Psalm 104:19
The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down.

Proverbs 8:27
I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

Proverbs 8:29
when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?

Isaiah 44:13
The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine.

Isaiah 59:7
Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways.

Ezekiel 9:4
and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

Ezekiel 9:6
Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

Ezekiel 21:19
"Son of man, mark out two roads for the sword of the king of Babylon to take, both starting from the same country. Make a signpost where the road branches off to the city.

Ezekiel 21:20
Mark out one road for the sword to come against Rabbah of the Ammonites and another against Judah and fortified Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 39:15
As they go through the land and one of them sees a human bone, he will set up a marker beside it until the gravediggers have buried it in the Valley of Hamon Gog.

Zechariah 11:4
[ Two Shepherds ] This is what the LORD my God says: "Pasture the flock marked for slaughter.

Zechariah 11:7
So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock.

John 20:25
So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

Many Blessings.

Hey Cheow,

It seems like you just randomly quoted verses that contain the English word "mark" regardless of the underlying Greek or Hebrew word. For example the verse you quoted from John uses an entirely different Greek word for "mark" then does Revelation for the "mark of the beast". In John the word tupos is used, whereas in Revelation the word used for Mark is charagma.

Secondly, by your reasoning of its literal interpretation, and statement: "the mark is never symbolic" I guess you must conclude that a literal 2nd beast causes the people to make a literal image of the 1st beast, which literally causes all the people to take a literal mark. Why pluck out the word "mark" and say it must be literal and not all the other parts associated with the mark?



Rose

[CWH]

Hey Cheow,

It seems like you just randomly quoted verses that contain the English word "mark" regardless of the underlying Greek or Hebrew word. For example the verse you quoted from John uses an entirely different Greek word for "mark" then does Revelation for the "mark of the beast". In John the word tupos is used, whereas in Revelation the word used for Mark is charagma.

Secondly, by your reasoning of its literal interpretation, and statement: "the mark is never symbolic" I guess you must conclude that a literal 2nd beast causes the people to make a literal image of the 1st beast, which literally causes all the people to take a literal mark. Why pluck out the word "mark" and say it must be literal and not all the other parts associated with the mark.

Rose

Yes, what I do was that I download all words in the Bible with "mark" regardless of the underlying Greek or Hebrew word. Anyone care to do me a favor to help me list from all the verses that I quote into "tupos" and "chragma"? I am sure there are "chargma" words in some of the quotes I have quoted.

The beast is symbolic because Daniel's beast is symbolic The issue here is if all or most of the books in the Bible did not state a word as symbolic, then we should be careful about interpreting that word as symbolic. A good example is the word "God" which we all know is literal throughout the Bible and we must be very careful if we want to apply the word "God" as symbolic.

Many Blessings

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The mark was never, I repeat never symbolic. If the mark is never symbolic why should we accept the mark in Revelation as symbolic? However, the mark could be visible and invisible and it could also be a sign rather than a mark. And mark can also be used as a verb instead of a noun. See for yourself:

Using your logic, we must conclude the following:

The word "door" is almost always used literally, therefore Jesus has a knob and hinges.

The word "lamb" is almost always used literally, therefore Jesus has fleece and four hooves.

The logic of these arguments is absurd in the extreme. Why do you persist in this error?

Do you not understand that symbols derive their symbolic meaning from the nature of literal things? A literal door is an entryway, just like Christ gives us entrance to the Kingdom of God. The symbol of a door is used because it communicates that idea.

It seems to me that you are obstinately confused about the relation between symbols and the things they represent. A genuine understanding of the real meaning of Scripture will remain far from you until this confusion is cleared up.

All the very best,

Richard

[Rose]

Yes, what I do was that I download all words in the Bible with "mark" regardless of the underlying Greek or Hebrew word. Anyone care to do me a favor to help me list from all the verses that I quote into "tupos" and "chragma"? I am sure there are "chargma" words in some of the quotes I have quoted.

The beast is symbolic because Daniel's beast is symbolic The issue here is if all or most of the books in the Bible did not state a word as symbolic, then we should be careful about interpreting that word as symbolic. A good example is the word "God" which we all know is literal throughout the Bible and we must be very careful if we want to apply the word "God" as symbolic.

Many Blessings

Hi Cheow,

Do you know that Richard has a wonderful Database (http://www.biblewheel.com/Gr/Gr_Database.asp)where you can easily find all the underlying Greek and Hebrew words, along with Strong's definitions? And if you click on the magnifying glass icon it will pull up all verses that contain that particular word.


Rose

[CWH]

It boils down to what is to be interpreted as the door, or is it a barrier or is it related to dalet and so on. And that is where people's interpretation differs and that is not bad in the sense that it makes people see things in different perspectives. Lamb was used symbolically in the OT and when it is applied in the NT, we knew that it may mean symbolically. I am not saying that we cannot apply words symbolically when the OT or the Bible almost always apply it literally but that we need to be careful when apply such words symbolically.

I won't say this logic is absurd or error but is a different perspective. A mark could be symbolic in the preterist view and literal in the futurist view, A mark may be use as a verb and not a noun. A mark could be a sign. A mark could be visible and invisible. Richard, don't you see things in different perspectives? I do, in order to gat a better understanding of the scriptures and why people interpret differently.

Rose, thanks anyway for the links to the database for greek and hebrew words and strong definitions. I do not know where to find it in this forum.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Rose, thanks anyway for the links to the database for greek and hebrew words and strong definitions. I do not know where to find it in this forum.

Many Blessings.

Hi Cheow,

What I do is open up a separate "Tab" with a link to the Database so I can easily jump back and forth when I'm posting.


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It boils down to what is to be interpreted as the door, or is it a barrier or is it related to dalet and so on. And that is where people's interpretation differs and that is not bad in the sense that it makes people see things in different perspectives. Lamb was used symbolically in the OT and when it is applied in the NT, we knew that it may mean symbolically. I am not saying that we cannot apply words symbolically when the OT or the Bible almost always apply it literally but that we need to be careful when apply such words symbolically.

I won't say this logic is absurd or error but is a different perspective. A mark could be symbolic in the preterist view and literal in the futurist view, A mark may be use as a verb and not a noun. A mark could be a sign. A mark could be visible and invisible. Richard, don't you see things in different perspectives? I do, in order to gat a better understanding of the scriptures and why people interpret differently.

Many Blessings.
Excellent. It looks like we agree that "previous literal use" does not prohibit a thing from being a symbol. That is good progress!

Now you suggest that God could be communicating two things in Revelation. The mark is both symbolic and literal, so the Preterists and the Futurists can both "be happy" and believe that they have a proper understanding of what God really intended them to understand.

Why limit ourselves to only two interpretations? God's not limited! Why not believe that the mark refers to Magic Markers that teens use to draw graffiti? Think about it ... why do you think they are called "magic" markers??? Followers of Satan use them to put the mark of the beast all over our buildings! This is a very literal interpretation! They actually write the number 666 on our buildings!

http://thephotolane.com/gallery2/d/_DSC2149.jpg?g2_itemId=5904&g2_serialNumber=3

Granted, this one was done with spray paint, but you get the idea ... :lmbo:
All the very best,

Richard

[CWH]

Sometimes I personally believe why God allows us to have different theologies and denominations. I think is because He wants us to see in different perspectives and then dig deeper into His words for the truth. However, this is easily said than done as there are many obstacles to overcome. Perhaps, it is a way to ensure that no theology or denomination could dominate others and say that their theology or denomination is absolutely right. It's like monopolizing in the business world; in the end no one benefits. Pride goes before a fall.

Many Blessings.

[Screaming Eagle]

Noone has ever explained when this verse was fulfilled in natural history (nor the AoD):

Mt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (KJV)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Noone has ever explained when this verse was fulfilled in natural history (nor the AoD):

Mt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (KJV)
What do you mean by "natural history?"

Where was this passage fulfilled in "natural history?"

Psalm 18:6 In my distress I [King David] called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears. 7 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth. 8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. 9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. 10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.
There will be no real understanding of Holy Scripture until there is an understanding of the symbolic language that God inspired.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sometimes I personally believe why God allows us to have different theologies and denominations. I think is because He wants us to see in different perspectives and then dig deeper into His words for the truth. However, this is easily said than done as there are many obstacles to overcome. Perhaps, it is a way to ensure that no theology or denomination could dominate others and say that their theology or denomination is absolutely right. It's like monopolizing in the business world; in the end no one benefits. Pride goes before a fall.

Many Blessings.
I agree completely that many of our differences come from the fact that we see only part of the truth, and we are looking from different perspectives. This is one of the most important things to understand. I'm glad you stated it.

And I agree that God has a purpose in giving us a Word that appears to be contradictory, human, flawed, and impossible to understand in many places. The "monopoly" analogy is good, and I would extend it to the "monopoly" of a single absolutely certain viewpoint that one holds in his own head. Such a view stifles all growth and defeats the purpose of God. It would turn humans into one-eyed monsters and lead to their certain destruction.

But does this mean that everything in the Bible is uncertain? Are you saying there is no truth in the Bible at all? That everyone can believe whatever they want and it's all equally valid? If that is the case, then the Bible says absolutely nothing about the future or the past and all our discussions are utterly meaningless.

Cheow, there are facts stated in the Bible that are true or false. I gave the evidence that the time statements in Revelation refer to the first century. You confirmed my argument when you said that the first seal was opened at that time. No one in this thread has presented any evidence contrary to my conclusion. It stands without any refutation. So why now are you suggesting that the Full Futurist position could be correct?

Richard

[Screaming Eagle]

RAM,
That quote from Ps 18 is very different from a prophecy from the mouth of the Lord Himself. Certainly David was talking in a poetic description but describing something truly awesome that actually occurred in his life.
That's very different from exact words and prophecies that the Lord was using as prophetic markers and events and times.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

RAM,
That quote from Ps 18 is very different from a prophecy from the mouth of the Lord Himself. Certainly David was talking in a poetic description but describing something truly awesome that actually occurred in his life.
That's very different from exact words and prophecies that the Lord was using as prophetic markers and events and times.
Yes, I agree. But that was not my point. God used very symbolic language in His prophecies about historical events too. Consider these words concerning the destruction of Babylon by the Medes


Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. 10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. 11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. 13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. 14 And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land. 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. 16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. 17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. 19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
This is the language of the Holy Bible. To insist on a literal fulfillment in "natural history" is to fail to understand the meaning of God's Word.

Richard

[Screaming Eagle]

Sometimes He uses 'as' or 'like' to describe situations that we would not be able to understand in other ways. His directions and specific words used in Ma 24 are not 'as' or 'like' except when He's describing 'as in the days of Noah' which is very clear and other clear metaphors. If I am misunderstanding, He will set me straight.