Battyus and Richard discuss the Olivet Discourse

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This thread is for Battyus and Richard to systematically discuss the Olivet Discourse verse by verse. Other members can post their comments on the original thread called The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse) (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=532). Any posts in this thread not authored by Battyus or Richard will be moved to the commentary thread.

Battyus suggested the following "Let's agree that if we come to a questionable verse, then we'll assign a number to that obstacle until we go through the whole Olivet Discourse. At the end we should go back and address all the difficulties based on our mutual findings along the way."

I agreed with that suggestion, and added my own suggestion that we adhere to The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics (http://biblewheel.com/forum/../Theology/TheologyIntro.asp):
The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics
Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:


Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.
I will now let Battyus respond to this introduction, and if he feels ready, he can begin the study by commenting on the opening verses of the Olivet Discourse.

Richard

[Battyus]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Olivet Discourse with you!

I agree to the The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics that you've proposed.

With that said, let's start "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

May the Lord be glorified through our study!
Battyus

[Battyus]

The "Olivet Discourse" is a name given to 4 special chapters in the Bible. It includes Matthew 24th-25th, Mark 13th and Luke 21st chapters.

Let's start harmonizing these chapters and all the other corresponding verses in the Bible:

1st Section
Luke 21:1-4
1. And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. 2. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. 3. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: 4. For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

This part of Luke's 21st chapter is not found in Mat 24 nor in Mark 13.

Richard if you agree, we can move forward to the 2nd section of the olivet discourse.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The "Olivet Discourse" is a name given to 4 special chapters in the Bible. It includes Matthew 24th-25th, Mark 13th and Luke 21st chapters.

Let's start harmonizing these chapters and all the other corresponding verses in the Bible:

1st Section
Luke 21:1-4
1. And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. 2. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. 3. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: 4. For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

This part of Luke's 21st chapter is not found in Mat 24 nor in Mark 13.

Richard if you agree, we can move forward to the 2nd section of the olivet discourse.
Yes, we should move forward. I do not consider Luke 21:1-4 as part of the Olivet Discourse per se, though it does give some important context since it speaks of the widow's Temple offering and appears immediately before Christ began to speak of the destruction of the first century Temple. So moving on, we have:

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. 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

This text appears to be clear and unambiguous. Christ stated that the Temple would be destroyed, and then He was aksed "when shall these things be?".

Do we agree? If so, we can move on, or compare this passage with the parallels from Matthew and Mark if you so desire.

Richard

[Battyus]

Yes, we should move forward. I do not consider Luke 21:1-4 as part of the Olivet Discourse per se, though it does give some important context since it speaks of the widow's Temple offering and appears immediately before Christ began to speak of the destruction of the first century Temple.
I agree. (I inserted it here only to have the full chapter listed)

2nd Section
Mat 24:1-3
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. 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?

Mark 13:1-4
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? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4. Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Luk 21:5-7
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. 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?




This text appears to be clear and unambiguous. Christ stated that the Temple would be destroyed, ...
I agree that Christs is talking here about the desctruction of the Temple.


... and then He was aksed "when shall these things be?".

Richard
I think we can come closer to the truth, if we insert the whole question (3 of them, each divided by the "and" word):
"when shall these things be?"
" and what shall be the sign of thy coming,"
" and of the end of the world?"

Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree that Christs is talking here about the desctruction of the Temple.

Excellent. And just to be completely specific, do you agree that he was talking about the destruction of the first century Temple?



I think we can come closer to the truth, if we insert the whole question (3 of them, each divided by the "and" word):
"when shall these things be?"
" and what shall be the sign of thy coming,"
" and of the end of the world?"

Battyus
Yes, it is important to compare the different forms of the questions as presented in the three Gospels. The versions presented in Mark and Luke are nearly identical so let's start there. I highlighted the words that are letter for letter identical in the original Greek:

Mark: Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Luke: Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Mark adds the word panta (all) and uses sunteleo (be fulfilled) in contrast with Luke which uses the word ginomai (come to pass). I do not think these differences are significant at this point. The meaning seems clear. Both Mark and Luke present two questions about a single event. It seems to me that this is a pretty typical example of a parallelism that we often see in the Hebrew OT. E.g.: "Shew me thy ways, O Lord; Teach me thy paths" (Psa 24:5). Here is a brief description (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letter=P) from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. By parallelism in this connection is understood the regularly recurring juxtaposition of symmetrically constructed sentences. The symmetry is carried out in the substance as well as in the form, and lies chiefly in the relation of the expression to the thought.
So if this is correct, we should conclude that there is a single inquiry presented as two parallel questions about the time of the destruction of the first century Temple. Let me know if you agree. If not, we should discuss it further before moving to Matthew's version.

Moving on now to Matthew (again, highlighting the words that are letter for letter identical in the Greek):

Matt: Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Now this is very interesting! Mark and Luke asked about the sign when these things would be fulfilled, whereas Matthew asks about the sign of Christ's parousia!

Matt: what will be the sign of thy parousia
Mark: what will be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled
Luke: what will be the sign when these things will come to pass

I believe there is only one question here. If our conclusion about the parallelism of the two questions in Mark and Luke is correct, then it appears that that Matthew merely "filled out" the parallelism so that we must conclude that his "three questions" are really three versions of a single question about a single event, namely, the destruction of the first century Temple.

The "filling out" is significant. It adds a lot of insight since it identifies the parousia of Christ with the end of the age and indicates that those two events coincide with the destruction of the Temple.

Richard

[Battyus]

Excellent. And just to be completely specific, do you agree that he was talking about the destruction of the first century Temple?
Yes, I do agree.


Yes, it is important to compare the different forms of the questions as presented in the three Gospels.
...
Both Mark and Luke present two questions about a single event.
...
So if this is correct, we should conclude that there is a single inquiry presented as two parallel questions about the time of the destruction of the first century Temple. Let me know if you agree.

Yes, I do agree. This is why I listed only the first part of the sentence of Mark and Luke and Matthew as the 1st question: "when shall these things be?" because it means the same thing.



Moving on now to Matthew (again, highlighting the words that are letter for letter identical in the Greek):

Matt: Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Now this is very interesting! Mark and Luke asked about the sign when these things would be fulfilled, whereas Matthew asks about the sign of Christ's parousia!

Matt: what will be the sign of thy parousia
Mark: what will be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled
Luke: what will be the sign when these things will come to pass

I believe there is only one question here. If our conclusion about the parallelism of the two questions in Mark and Luke is correct, then it appears that that Matthew merely "filled out" the parallelism so that we must conclude that his "three questions" are really three versions of a single question about a single event, namely, the destruction of the first century Temple.

The "filling out" is significant. It adds a lot of insight since it identifies the parousia of Christ with the end of the age and indicates that those two events coincide with the destruction of the Temple.

Richard
Very nice research! I do see your reason why you would identify the word parousia with the other 2 sentences from Mark and Luke.

However I would think differently:
I agree that "when all these things shall be fulfilled" and "when these things will come to pass" mean the same thing.

However I took a look at all the 24 occurances of the word parousia in the NT and found no support to make it equal to the expressions used in Mark or Luke. I can not find Biblical support for these 2 expressions being equal to "of thy parousia". Please correct me if I miss something!

(Parousia: Mat 24:3, Phil 1:26, 2Thes 2:1, 2Thes 2:8, James 5:7, 2Pet 3:4
1Thes 4:15, 2Pet 1:16, 2Pet 3:12
Mat 24:27, Mat 24:37, Mat 24:39, 1Cor 15:23, 1Cor 16:17, 2Cor 7:6, 2Cor 7:7, 2Cor 10:10, Phil 2:12, 1Thes 2:19, 1Thes 3:13, 1Thes 5:23, 2Thes 2:9, James 5:8, 1John 2:28)

Instead of making parousia equal to "when all these things shall be fulfilled" I would rather say that it is another question added to the questions of the Apostles. This is what I listed as the 2nd question.

Also I listed the 3rd question "and of the end of the world?" as I don't see any Biblical support to make it equal to the previous questions.

Summary:
Richard says there is 1 real question and that refers to "the destruction of the first century Temple".

Battyus says there are 3 real questions and they not only refer to the "the destruction of the first century Temple", but instead they have eschatological meanings too (referring to the future).

If you'd like we can talk more about the "questions" or we can categorize this difference as our #1 obstacle.

I truly enjoy this study!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, I do agree.

Yes, I do agree. This is why I listed only the first part of the sentence of Mark and Luke and Matthew as the 1st question: "when shall these things be?" because it means the same thing.

Excellent! We see eye to eye on these points.



Very nice research! I do see your reason why you would identify the word parousia with the other 2 sentences from Mark and Luke.

However I would think differently:
I agree that "when all these things shall be fulfilled" and "when these things will come to pass" mean the same thing.

However I took a look at all the 24 occurances of the word parousia in the NT and found no support to make it equal to the expressions used in Mark or Luke. I can not find Biblical support for these 2 expressions being equal to "of thy parousia". Please correct me if I miss something!

(Parousia: Mat 24:3, Phil 1:26, 2Thes 2:1, 2Thes 2:8, James 5:7, 2Pet 3:4
1Thes 4:15, 2Pet 1:16, 2Pet 3:12
Mat 24:27, Mat 24:37, Mat 24:39, 1Cor 15:23, 1Cor 16:17, 2Cor 7:6, 2Cor 7:7, 2Cor 10:10, Phil 2:12, 1Thes 2:19, 1Thes 3:13, 1Thes 5:23, 2Thes 2:9, James 5:8, 1John 2:28)

Instead of making parousia equal to "when all these things shall be fulfilled" I would rather say that it is another question added to the questions of the Apostles. This is what I listed as the 2nd question.

Also I listed the 3rd question "and of the end of the world?" as I don't see any Biblical support to make it equal to the previous questions.

Summary:
Richard says there is 1 real question and that refers to "the destruction of the first century Temple".

Battyus says there are 3 real questions and they not only refer to the "the destruction of the first century Temple", but instead they have eschatological meanings too (referring to the future).

If you'd like we can talk more about the "questions" or we can categorize this difference as our #1 obstacle.

I truly enjoy this study!
Battyus
I too am greatly enjoying this study! It is a true joy to work with you on this. You appear to take your work seriously and know how to communicate very well. :thumb:

But I think my point was misunderstood. I never intended to imply that the word parousia was equal to (synonymous with) "when all these things shall be fulfilled." The only synonymous terms in the questions are sunteleo (fulfill, Mark) and ginomai (come to pass, Luke). These words have similar definitions and can be used as synonyms.

The word parousia has an entirely different meaning. It is not synonymous with any other words in the question. But it is used in parallel with the other questions, and this is the point I was trying to make. In all three Gospels, the disciples asked about a "sign" in parallel with the question about "when would all these things be fulfilled."

Matt: what will be the sign of thy parousia and the end of the age
Mark: what will be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled
Luke: what will be the sign when these things will come to pass

The parallelism suggests that the sign "of the parousia and the end of the age" is identical to the sign "when all these things shall be fulfilled." There is only one sign being asked about here. There is much support for this position. We must remember that the disciples asked this question in response to Christ's statement that the Temple would be destroyed. Now the Temple was God's House and the center of the Jewish "world." The disciples would naturally see it's destruction as marking the end of the Jewish age (aion), especially if they were familiar with the prophecies of Daniel which used the word suntelia (end - used in the questions in both Mark and Matthew!) in the immediate context of the destruction of the Temple in the LXX:
Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end (suntelia) thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end (suntelia) of the war desolations are determined.
This understanding is greatly amplified by the fact that Christ Himself began the Olivet Discourse by declaring the destruction of the Temple and then linked it explicitly to the prophecies of Daniel.

Well, there is much more I want to say but it is dinner time, so I will have to continue later. But before I go, I want to clarify one more important point. You wrote:
Battyus says there are 3 real questions and they not only refer to the "the destruction of the first century Temple", but instead they have eschatological meanings too (referring to the future).
This is not an accurate way to state our differences. I believe that the destruction of 70 AD was filled with "eschatological meanings." The word "eschatological" literally means "pertaining to the end (times)." It is from the Greek word eschatos meaning "last." This word is used many times in the NT in the phrase "last days," e.g.
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 (eschatos) days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Thus we see that Hebrews speaks of the "last days" as occurring in the first century. Likewise, John says:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last (eschatos) time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last (eschatos) time.
So we both believe that the Olivet Discourse is full of "eschatological meaning." We just differ about when that eschatology was (or will be) fulfilled.

Many blessings my friend!

Richard

[Battyus]

But I think my point was misunderstood. I never intended to imply that the word parousia was equal to (synonymous with) "when all these things shall be fulfilled."
Thank you for clearing it up! I think it is very important to define each word we use, because they might mean a slightly different thing to the other.



The word parousia has an entirely different meaning. It is not synonymous with any other words in the question. But it is used in parallel with the other questions, and this is the point I was trying to make. In all three Gospels, the disciples asked about a "sign" in parallel with the question about "when would all these things be fulfilled."

Matt: what will be the sign of thy parousia and the end of the age
Mark: what will be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled
Luke: what will be the sign when these things will come to pass

The parallelism suggests that the sign "of the parousia and the end of the age" is identical to the sign "when all these things shall be fulfilled."
I understand your point about the parallelism, but I still think there is more than 1 question asked here. Think with me please:

This is a recorded conversation that took place between Jesus and Peter, James, John, Andrew. (Mark 13:3)

Let's imagine that Peter asked all the questions, and all the other disciples did not ask anything. In this case Peter's question would sound like this:
"when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"
If the questions came from only 1 person, then we must agree that all 5 sub-questions are referring to a different things as it would make no sense at all to ask the same question more than once with the same breath.

Let's imagine another scenario, when the questions came from more than one disciple:
John: "when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
Peter: "when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"
James: "when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"

This sounds a lot more like a real conversation in which 3-4 excited disciples asking questions from Jesus almost cutting in each other's words. This would explain why we see same, similar and different questions listed in the 3 Gospels:

Naturally all of the disciples would ask "when shall these things be?"

Then we hear almost the same questions from Peter and James: "and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" and "and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"

Then John throws in another 2 questions that were triggered by the news of the Temple's destruction: "and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

I don't imply that I know which disciple asked what question :) ! My point is to show how this conversation could have happened in the real world and this would explain that in reality there is more than just a "when" question was asked.

Also, it is very interesting to notice that Jesus said only 1 thing: "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down", yet the disciples referred to multiple events in their questions not just to one: "when shall these things be?".

This suggests that the apostles knew that Jesus would teach them something that involves a lot more than just the timing of the destruction of 1 building.



But before I go, I want to clarify one more important point.
...
This is not an accurate way to state our differences. I believe that the destruction of 70 AD was filled with "eschatological meanings."
...
So we both believe that the Olivet Discourse is full of "eschatological meaning." We just differ about when that eschatology was (or will be) fulfilled.

Well said. We're fine-tuning our differences down to the last iota :)

May you have a blessed day!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you for clearing it up! I think it is very important to define each word we use, because they might mean a slightly different thing to the other.

Yes, we must work diligently to define each word we use. It is the only way we will come to a solid and correct understanding. I hope you do not find it tedious. Myself, I love it because I know that it will lead to truth and it is very satisfying to know that we understand each other (even if we do not agree on every point).



I understand your point about the parallelism, but I still think there is more than 1 question asked here. Think with me please:

...

Also, it is very interesting to notice that Jesus said only 1 thing: "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down", yet the disciples referred to multiple events in their questions not just to one: "when shall these things be?".

This suggests that the apostles knew that Jesus would teach them something that involves a lot more than just the timing of the destruction of 1 building.

I am doing my best to "think with you." That is precisely what we must do to come to a true understanding.

I agree absolutely that their questions involve "a lot more than just the timing of the destruction of 1 building." Stating the question that way completely misses the significance of that event. The "1 building" was not just any building. It was the Holy Temple of the Almighty God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth! It was the House of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! It represented His living presence in the midst of Israel! The entire Jewish world was centered on that "1 building." It defined their existence. It's destruction and the subsequent scattering of the Jews was the end of their world, and the disciples knew this. That is why they asked questions with such profound eschatological overtones.

This understanding is confirmed by the precise questions they asked. Mark records the question "what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?" This question contains three key words:

panta (all)
tauta (these things)
sunteleo (be fulfilled)

These three words occur together in another very significant verse of the Bible, the Septuagint version of Daniel 12:7 (note that the LXX was commonly used at the time of Jesus, the NT quotes it many times).
Daniel 12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all (panta) these things (tauta) shall be finished (sunteleo).
The correlation with the Olivet Discourse is astounding. This text asks basically the same question as the disciples "How long shall it be to the end (suntelia) of these wonders?" And it gives the same answer as Christ, saying that "all these things shall be finished" when the power of the holy people is scattered which happened when the Temple was destroyed. The connection is amplified yet again by the fact that Jesus Himself connected the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the Jews with the prophecies of Daniel.

I conclude therefore that Scripture itself gives us a perfect understanding of all the questions asked by the disciples. Christ's statement that the Temple would be destroyed would have immediately evoked a memory of this text from Daniel, and that is why one of the disciples used its exact words to formulate his question. Christ then confirmed this understanding later in the discourse when He explicitly cited the prophecies of Daniel and declared that the Jews would be exiled from the holy land. The questions are indeed full of "eschatological meanings" that are centered entirely upon the events leading up to and culminating in 70 AD.

It is a joy working with you on this amazing topic.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[Battyus]

Yes, we must work diligently to define each word we use. It is the only way we will come to a solid and correct understanding. I hope you do not find it tedious. Myself, I love it because I know that it will lead to truth and it is very satisfying to know that we understand each other (even if we do not agree on every point).
We might not agree on every point, but on this one we do :) I was accused before of over-defining every word, which is indeed sometimes the only way to get to the bottom of things. So, I totally agree with you on this topic.



I agree absolutely that their questions involve "a lot more than just the timing of the destruction of 1 building." Stating the question that way completely misses the significance of that event. The "1 building" was not just any building. It was the Holy Temple of the Almighty God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth! It was the House of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! It represented His living presence in the midst of Israel! The entire Jewish world was centered on that "1 building." It defined their existence. It's destruction and the subsequent scattering of the Jews was the end of their world, and the disciples knew this. That is why they asked questions with such profound eschatological overtones.
I agree with you that the Temple meant the "world" for the Jewish people.

I used the "destruction of 1 building" expression as a contrast to "a worldwide destruction": As the futurist view holds that the "end of the world" refers to a worldwide event, not just a local event in Jerusalem.

This is what I wanted to express, when I said that the apostles' questions were referring to a wider scope of events, not just the destruction of their Temple.



This understanding is confirmed by the precise questions they asked. Mark records the question "what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?" This question contains three key words:

panta (all)
tauta (these things)
sunteleo (be fulfilled)

These three words occur together in another very significant verse of the Bible, the Septuagint version of Daniel 12:7 (note that the LXX was commonly used at the time of Jesus, the NT quotes it many times).
Daniel 12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all (panta) these things (tauta) shall be finished (sunteleo).
The correlation with the Olivet Discourse is astounding. This text asks basically the same question as the disciples "How long shall it be to the end (suntelia) of these wonders?" And it gives the same answer as Christ, saying that "all these things shall be finished" when the power of the holy people is scattered which happened when the Temple was destroyed. The connection is amplified yet again by the fact that Jesus Himself connected the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the Jews with the prophecies of Daniel.
We've arrived to a very interesting point by you relating Daniel 12:6-7 to Mark 13:4.
You might be surprised, but I even agree with you that these 2 verses are closely related. (This is when the harmonization of Revelation to the Olivet Discourse comes into the picture too. More about this below.)

I will add 1 thing: Let's read this passage in context from Dan 12:1-7
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

We agree that the answer given in verse 7 answers the Apostles' question in Mark 13:4.

If you read the whole verse 7, you can see that this event should happen at the end of Daniel's 70th 7 years, as verse 7 earlier states: "for a time, times, and an half". This is actually the answer to the question in verse 6 "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders".

Let's see what are these wonders: I've underlined them above.
1. "and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book"
2. "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt"
3. "they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever"

So, we know what are the wonders have to happen before the "time, times, and an half" is up and only then we can say "all (panta) these things (tauta) shall be finished (sunteleo)"

If you say that the answer in verse 7 refers to AD 70, then these wonders must have happened before that date.
Question: can you show that when the above mentioned 3 wonders took place in history?

Also, as there is a clear connection between the Olivet Discourse, Daniel and Revelation, we should be able to see when Dan 12:1-7 takes place in Revelation.
Question: When do you think Dan 12:1-7 takes place in Revelation?



I conclude therefore that Scripture itself gives us a perfect understanding of all the questions asked by the disciples. Christ's statement that the Temple would be destroyed would have immediately evoked a memory of this text from Daniel, and that is why one of the disciples used its exact words to formulate his question. Christ then confirmed this understanding later in the discourse when He explicitly cited the prophecies of Daniel and declared that the Jews would be exiled from the holy land. The questions are indeed full of "eschatological meanings" that are centered entirely upon the events leading up to and culminating in 70 AD.
This is exactly where our conversation will boil down to:
Did or did not the events prophesied in Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Revelation happen before AD70 or not.

If they did, then you are right, if they did not, then I'm right. (But thank God we are both saved by the blood of Jesus, so even if we can't agree on this planet, I'm sure we'll have great conversations in Heaven where all of our "silly" questions will be answered beyond the shadow of a doubt.)



It is a joy working with you on this amazing topic.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

And many blessings to you too my friend,
Battyus

[Battyus]

Richard, this is a reply to your post on the open thread. I answer this separately so it will be short (not like the previous answer :) )


Hey there Battyus,


Original: Battyus
The real question is, whether the "Tell us, when shall these things be?" and "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" means the same thing or not. Currently this is what I discuss with Richard on the other thread.


... I think it is important to clarify your statement. No one is saying that those two statements "mean the same thing." As pointed out in the other thread, they mean very different things! The point is that they happened at the same time, not that they "mean the same thing."

Again, thanks for pointing out the difference between the "means the same thing" and the "they happened at the same time" phrases.

When I said, "means the same thing" basically I wanted to refer to the parallelism between the questions and the "they happened at the same time" phrase would have been the correct one to use.



... and so the disciples asked questions relating to different aspects of that one event.
Richard
So, according to this can we agree that more than just one question was asked?

I'll talk to you soon,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So, according to this can we agree that more than just one question was asked?

Yes, I agree. The disciples asked these questions:

1) When will these things be fulfilled?
2) What will be the sign when these things will be fulfilled?
3) What will be the sign of your parousia?
4) What will be the sign of the suntelia of the aion?

These are different questions, but they are all in response to Christ's statement that the Temple would be destroyed and are based upon the implications of that statement, namely:

a) The destruction of the Temple was prophesied in Daniel, which also speaks of the "time of the end" (kairos suntelias).
b) Daniel also said that the scattering of the Jews would indicate the time when all things were fulfilled.
c) These events are naturally connected with the parousia of the Messiah, so the disciples also asked about that.

It seems to me that the questions all fit perfectly with the initial statement that evoked them, namely, that the Temple would be destroyed. Though that statement involved only the destruction of a single building, it had HUGE implications relating to the end (suntelia) of the Jewish age (aion).

I am now working on answering your previous post. You brought up some very important points.

All the best!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's some quick info from Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14-28. that amplifies my conclusions in the last post (and relate to questions you have brought up, such as the plurality of "these things"):
The generalizing plural ταῦτα, “these things,” apparently includes not only the leveling of the temple but events that had to accompany it, such as the fall of the city of Jerusalem. Remarkably, the first question, concerning “when” (πότε) these things were to occur, is not answered in the discourse. Although Jesus does not answer directly, however, v. 34, insofar as it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, would intimate that that event was to occur within that generation. The second question concerns τὸ σημεῖον, “the sign,” that will point to the eschatological dénouement, indicating τῆς σῆς παρουσίας, “your coming,” and συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, “the consummation of the age.” The conceptual unity of the parousia and the end of the age is indicated by the single Greek article governing both (Granville Sharp’s Rule [see S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn1) (Sheffield: JSOT (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn2), 1994) 110–11]). The disciples thus were unable to separate the two events in their minds: the destruction of Jerusalem must entail the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus, inaugurating the eschaton. This is the point I have been making - the three questions are so tightly tied together that the disciples were "unable to separate" them.

It is very important to note that this is written from a futurist perspective. Hagner can not deny the obvious meaning of the text, but he also does not believe that the parousia happened in the first century, so he is attempting to explain why the disciples "got it wrong." This is not a problem for the preterist view - we can take the text as meaning what it says.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We might not agree on every point, but on this one we do :) I was accused before of over-defining every word, which is indeed sometimes the only way to get to the bottom of things. So, I totally agree with you on this topic.

Excellent! You and I share a common understanding of the methodology required to arrive at truth. And we have a common desire for a careful study filled with mutual respect and much grace! These are the essential ingredients guaranteed to produce an extremely fruitful conversation from which many may benefit.



I agree with you that the Temple meant the "world" for the Jewish people.

I used the "destruction of 1 building" expression as a contrast to "a worldwide destruction": As the futurist view holds that the "end of the world" refers to a worldwide event, not just a local event in Jerusalem.

This is what I wanted to express, when I said that the apostles' questions were referring to a wider scope of events, not just the destruction of their Temple.

This brings up an important point. The English translation of "aion" as "world" is extremely misleading. Is there any reason to think it means "worldwide" in the sense of "pertaining to the entire planet earth?" We will need to establish this point before moving on to the rest of your post (which I certainly will address after this is settled).

The phrase "end of the world" is a translation of the Greek "suntelia tou aionos" - literally the "end of the age." This is the fundamental meaning of the word "aion" - it is a TIME WORD that basically means "duration determined by the subject to which it is applied." You can read a very detailed analysis of this word here (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html).

I will address the other issues you brought up after we come to an agreement about the meaing of "aion" (or an agreement that we understand each other but do not agree! :p).

As always, it is great to be digging deep into God's most excellent Word with you my friend,

Richard

[Battyus]

Excellent! You and I share a common understanding of the methodology required to arrive at truth. And we have a common desire for a careful study filled with mutual respect and much grace! These are the essential ingredients guaranteed to produce an extremely fruitful conversation from which many may benefit.
Maybe a book will come out at the end? I saw that you have a publishing company :)



This brings up an important point. The English translation of "aion" as "world" is extremely misleading.
I agree and this is why we must check the Hebrew and Greek so many times.



Is there any reason to think it means "worldwide" in the sense of "pertaining to the entire planet earth?" We will need to establish this point before moving on to the rest of your post (which I certainly will address after this is settled).

The phrase "end of the world" is a translation of the Greek "suntelia tou aionos" - literally the "end of the age." This is the fundamental meaning of the word "aion" - it is a TIME WORD that basically means "duration determined by the subject to which it is applied." You can read a very detailed analysis of this word here (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html).

I will address the other issues you brought up after we come to an agreement about the meaing of "aion" (or an agreement that we understand each other but do not agree! :p).

I think it is amazing how much we agree on many of the subjects. I agree that the word "aion" - is a TIME WORD.

But to answer your question: "is there any reason to think it means "worldwide" in the sense of "pertaining to the entire planet earth?" I would like to say this:

One interesting verse (for example) is 2Cor 4:4, where Satan is called the "god of this world" while the Greek similarly says: theos tou aiōnos.

So, can we say that Satan has a power on ALL the Earth or just in a certain location? I think we would agree that Satan has power over ALL the Earth, but let me know if you don't agree.

In our original subject however I will not use the "aion" word to prove my point, like: "see it says world, so it must be worldwide event".

I get the "worldwide" idea from all the corresponding passages in all the other books of the Bible.



As always, it is great to be digging deep into God's most excellent Word with you my friend,
Richard
We should have started talking about these years ago :)
Battyus

[Battyus]

Yes, I agree. The disciples asked these questions:

1) When will these things be fulfilled?
2) What will be the sign when these things will be fulfilled?
3) What will be the sign of your parousia?
4) What will be the sign of the suntelia of the aion?

Great, so we agree on that there is 4 questions.

Our difference then is whether or not these events happen at the same time or not.



These are different questions, but they are all in response to Christ's statement that the Temple would be destroyed and are based upon the implications of that statement, namely:

a) The destruction of the Temple was prophesied in Daniel, which also speaks of the "time of the end" (kairos suntelias).
b) Daniel also said that the scattering of the Jews would indicate the time when all things were fulfilled.
c) These events are naturally connected with the parousia of the Messiah, so the disciples also asked about that.

It seems to me that the questions all fit perfectly with the initial statement that evoked them, namely, that the Temple would be destroyed. Though that statement involved only the destruction of a single building, it had HUGE implications relating to the end (suntelia) of the Jewish age (aion).

Yes, this is our main question then: Is the destruction of the Temple in AD70 the the end (suntelia) of the Jewish age (aion) or not.

I'll talk to you soon :yo:
Battyus

[Battyus]

The disciples thus were unable to separate the two events in their minds: the destruction of Jerusalem must entail the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus, inaugurating the eschaton.
This is the point I have been making - the three questions are so tightly tied together that the disciples were "unable to separate" them.

It is very important to note that this is written from a futurist perspective. Hagner can not deny the obvious meaning of the text, but he also does not believe that the parousia happened in the first century, so he is attempting to explain why the disciples "got it wrong." This is not a problem for the preterist view - we can take the text as meaning what it says.
Richard
Thank you for that resource - I'll check it out.

I guess, I belong to the Futurist camp, even though I don't like these terms that seemingly divide us so much. So as a "futurist" I would not say that the disciples were "unable to separate" the destruction of the Temple from the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I'd rather interpret the text as one disciple asked one question another asked another question. See http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17393&postcount=9

Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Maybe a book will come out at the end? I saw that you have a publishing company :)

I think this conversation very well could lead to a valuable book. We could be joint authors. But we probably would use one of the modern "publish on demand" services like lulu.com because that way we could avoid the cost of printing and storing a bunch of books.



I agree and this is why we must check the Hebrew and Greek so many times.

I think it is amazing how much we agree on many of the subjects. I agree that the word "aion" - is a TIME WORD.

This is really great! Most of my conversations with futurists have been blocked early on by disputes about things that should not be subject to dispute, such as the basic meanings of words. This is extremely unfortunate since it stopped the conversation before we could get to the real issues. I am thrilled that this is not happening with us!

:woohoo:




But to answer your question: "is there any reason to think it means "worldwide" in the sense of "pertaining to the entire planet earth?" I would like to say this:

One interesting verse (for example) is 2Cor 4:4, where Satan is called the "god of this world" while the Greek similarly says: theos tou aiōnos.

So, can we say that Satan has a power on ALL the Earth or just in a certain location? I think we would agree that Satan has power over ALL the Earth, but let me know if you don't agree.

This is actually a very challenging verse - it leads to a lot of issues that we probably should not try to sort out right now. The early heretic Marcion used this verse to argue that there were really two Gods - the "god of this world" and the Creator God. This caused many early commentators to respond with very improbable interpretations to refute Marcion - here is a quote from David E. Garland's entry on 2 Corinthians 4:4 in The New American Commentary that explains:
Paul blames another influence for the failure to believe: The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers. The phrase 'god of this age' occurs only here in the New Testament, and most understand it as a reference to Satan. Some, however, object that as a thoroughgoing monotheist Paul would not attribute divinity to an evil spirit. In 1 Cor 8:5 Paul dismisses them as 'the so-called gods.' Any suggestion that there was another god particularly troubled patristic interpreters since theological innovators seized on this verse to foist their errors on others. Marcion used this text to make his case for an inferior creator God and a supreme savior God. In confuting Marcion, Tertullian argued that Paul refers to God, who blinds the minds of unbelievers (Against Marcion 5.11; see also Hilary, Chrysostom, and Augustine). God is the only God of this age and the next. Plummer noted that 'fear of the Manichean doctrine of two Gods, one good the other evil, no doubt produced this improbable interpretation.' The Arians appealed to this passage to argue that since Satan is called god of this world, Christ being called God is no proof of his true divinity. If Paul were actually referring to God here, it is strange that he does not characterize him as the God of all ages rather than simply the God of this age. Paul must be referring to Satan as the god of this age. He classifies Satan as a 'god' because he has a dominion, however limited by the one true God, and has subjects whom Paul labels 'unbelievers.'
I agree with the majority view that this refers to Satan, but I do not think this tells us anything about the geographical extent of his rule. It tells us about the aion - the time period - in which he had been given dominion by God.

So the essential point is this - are believers subject to the "aion" over which Satan was given rule? The answer is no - and we know this because we have been translated from the kingdom of darkness where Satan rules into the kingdom of God's Son. Christians at Paul's time were already members of the "new aion" inaugurated by Christ. I think the word "aion" in this case may have a special sense to it. We know that the word is used with a number of different nuances.

I think it would be best if we set this particular verse aside for now since it leads to many questions that diverge from our primary objective. This is the challenge of any Bible study - everything is connected with everything else! We need a thousand tongues to on begin to proclaim the wonders of God's Word.



In our original subject however I will not use the "aion" word to prove my point, like: "see it says world, so it must be worldwide event".

I get the "worldwide" idea from all the corresponding passages in all the other books of the Bible.

Excellent! We are in perfect agreement that the translation of "aion" as "world" does not give sufficient (or any, in my view) reason to see an implication of "worldwide." :thumb:

I think it would be helpful therefore to cite one or two of the best verses that give you a sense that the question "when will be the end of the aion" should be understood in a "planetary" sense.



We should have started talking about these years ago :)
Battyus
Amen to that! But I guess now is the time ordained. Perhaps God knew that we both needed time to develop independently before our meeting would be really fruitful.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you for that resource - I'll check it out.

I guess, I belong to the Futurist camp, even though I don't like these terms that seemingly divide us so much. So as a "futurist" I would not say that the disciples were "unable to separate" the destruction of the Temple from the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus.

Not all futurists would say that - some just assert that Matthew 24 is entirely future and avoid the problem altogether (while generating a host of other problems, of course).



As I wrote in an earlier post, I'd rather interpret the text as one disciple asked one question another asked another question. See http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17393&postcount=9

Battyus
I agreed with you on that point - I guess I didn't state it clearly enough. But I'm not sure how that would change our conclusions. The events they asked about are profoundly entangled and appear to naturally go together. I agree with Donald Hagner quoted previously "the destruction of Jerusalem must entail the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus, inaugurating the eschaton."

I think it would be good if we could come to an agreement about this. As I see it, the connection between the Temple destruction, the Parousia, and the end of the age is self-evident. This is amplified by the general tone of the entire NT which universally speaks of the end coming very soon, in the lifetime of most folks living in the first century. Now it may be that those passages don't really mean what they seem to mean, and that's fine, but we must begin by agreeing that the plain text of the NT at least appears to declare that everything was coming down in the first century.

Do you agree with this general assessment? Or do you think that there are many clear and unambiguous passage in the NT that speak of the end coming in the distant future?

And the most important question: What do you think a first century reader of the NT would have believed?

Richard

[Battyus]

2Cor 4:4
This is actually a very challenging verse - it leads to a lot of issues that we probably should not try to sort out right now.
...
I agree with the majority view that this refers to Satan, but I do not think this tells us anything about the geographical extent of his rule. It tells us about the aion - the time period - in which he had been given dominion by God.
I agree that this verse talks about Satan, and he is in no way or form "God".

I agree that this verse does not teach the geographical extent of Satan's rule, but we get that knowledge from other verses. Just as we do the same way with the Olivet Discourse.



So the essential point is this - are believers subject to the "aion" over which Satan was given rule? The answer is no - and we know this because we have been translated from the kingdom of darkness where Satan rules into the kingdom of God's Son. Christians at Paul's time were already members of the "new aion" inaugurated by Christ. I think the word "aion" in this case may have a special sense to it. We know that the word is used with a number of different nuances.
Quick question: If the new aion was inaugurated at the cross, then what kind of aion ended at AD 70? (Please don't take it as a provocative question. I just need to see a logical answer! As a matter of fact, please never take any of my questions as provocative ones!)



I think it would be best if we set this particular verse aside for now since it leads to many questions that diverge from our primary objective.
I totally agree :)



I think it would be helpful therefore to cite one or two of the best verses that give you a sense that the question "when will be the end of the aion" should be understood in a "planetary" sense.
I came to this conclusion when I harmonized the Olivet Discourse with Revelation and with the rest of the books mentioned earlier.

Without mentioning a specific verse let me tell you this:
If Christ's Kingdom starts at any point, it will be a worldwide event. So, the signs of it must be worldwide also, otherwise people outside of Jerusalem could rightly question God: "How come there were not any signs"?

I would rather define the specific verses supporting this along the way, so we could move on for now from the Apostles' questions, it this is OK with you.



Amen to that! But I guess now is the time ordained. Perhaps God knew that we both needed time to develop independently before our meeting would be really fruitful.
Richard
Right on!

Many blessings,
Battyus

[Battyus]

Not all futurists would say that - some just assert that Matthew 24 is entirely future and avoid the problem altogether (while generating a host of other problems, of course).
I agree. You can not just put things under the rug. Especially not, if eternity depends on it!




As I wrote in an earlier post, I'd rather interpret the text as one disciple asked one question another asked another question.
I agreed with you on that point - I guess I didn't state it clearly enough. But I'm not sure how that would change our conclusions.
I brought this up in order to support that the "what will be the sign..." questions are referred to different things. We agreed on this already.



The events they asked about are profoundly entangled and appear to naturally go together.
You'll be surprised again: I agree, if you only read the Olivet Discourse. If you take these chapters out of the Bible, then I could understand the reasons behind the Preterist interpretation. But as long as you harmonize it with other books I think a totally different picture emerges.



I think it would be good if we could come to an agreement about this. As I see it, the connection between the Temple destruction, the Parousia, and the end of the age is self-evident.
This is where we disagree. :(



This is amplified by the general tone of the entire NT which universally speaks of the end coming very soon, in the lifetime of most folks living in the first century. Now it may be that those passages don't really mean what they seem to mean, and that's fine, but we must begin by agreeing that the plain text of the NT at least appears to declare that everything was coming down in the first century.

Do you agree with this general assessment? Or do you think that there are many clear and unambiguous passage in the NT that speak of the end coming in the distant future?
As we talked about it, many things (if not everything) depends on how you define words, phrases, symbols, cultures, etc.

For instance, you saw the other thread what is talking about Mat 28:20 "... I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
Depends on how you define "end of the world" this could refer strictly to a 1st century event, or could mean a distant future event which is at least ~2000 years long at this point.

This is your and my journey here, to get to the bottom of these!



And the most important question: What do you think a first century reader of the NT would have believed?
Richard
Very, very interesting question! Even though it is you and me who are chatting here, we can talk about what the 1st century readers might have believed.

I believe there were many misconceptions right from the getgo. As we see, even Paul had to correct some of them while he was writing the epistles.

This raises another interesting question: When were the NT books written?
If the gospels were written between AD50 - AD60 then how much time was for them to get distributed, read and understood before the big one hit in AD 70? (think about a community, which was hardly educated and had to carve out of a living from the ground)

When was the book of Revelation written, which actually connects lots of other scriptures? Was it before AD 70 or was it closer to the end of the century?

Can someone understand the Olivet Discourse, if he has no access to the other books?

So, to answer what the 1st century people believed is difficult without answering the questions above.

Have a blessed weekend, my friend! I'll try to post during the weekend too, but it might take longer time.
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree that this verse talks about Satan, and he is in no way or form "God".

I agree that this verse does not teach the geographical extent of Satan's rule, but we get that knowledge from other verses. Just as we do the same way with the Olivet Discourse.

OK - it appears we agree that the word "aion" itself is not sufficient to establish the idea of a "worldwide" meaning. So it would probably be good to focus on the verses that support your view of the "worldwide" implications of the Olivet Discourse (more on this below).



Quick question: If the new aion was inaugurated at the cross, then what kind of aion ended at AD 70? (Please don't take it as a provocative question. I just need to see a logical answer! As a matter of fact, please never take any of my questions as provocative ones!)

You've won my heart with your thoughtful posts. You would have to go way out of your way in deliberate rudeness before you could ever "provoke" me! Unless you mean to "provoke" me to dig ever deeper into God's Word! But that's something you've already done ...

Now in answer to your question: The change of the aion involved many events. It culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but it involved the whole process described in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. The 144,00 first century Jews had to be gathered from the 12 Tribes and sealed with the Holy Spirit (the seal of God, Rev 7) before the end could come. (The Jews were literal, but the number is almost certainly symbolic). The many false christs had to arise - which is how John knew it was the "last hour" (1 John 2:18). The saints had to be persecuted until their number was full (Matt 24:9 = Rev 6:11) and so forth. There is a tremendously powerful correlation between the events described in the Olivet Discourse and the opening of the Seals in Revelation. They even follow the same order. And we have much evidence that all these things happened in the first century, as for example when John said that he knew it was the last hour because of the many antichrists.

So that's basically how I understand the transition from the old aion to the new, but there is still much to think about. I have not articulated all the details as yet, and there may be something I missed that you will dutifully bring forth. (I hope so anyway!)

Big question - how do you see the change of the aion? I know you think it will be future, but do you believe it will happen at an instant, say, at the rapture? Will that be when the new aion comes in, or when the Devil is defeated at Armagedon? Or ... ??? Will the Millennium be part of this aion or the next? Is it the New Heaven and Earth? I think it would help a lot if you told me how you understand the change of the aion.




I think it would be helpful therefore to cite one or two of the best verses that give you a sense that the question "when will be the end of the aion" should be understood in a "planetary" sense.
I came to this conclusion when I harmonized the Olivet Discourse with Revelation and with the rest of the books mentioned earlier.

I suspect that many of our harmonizations will be the same, differing only as to when they happened. E.g. I would guess that you and I agree that the persecution of the saints in Matt 24:9 corresponds to the Fifth Seal in Rev 6:11. And we probably agree that the 144,000 speak of real Jews descended from Abraham! Amazing amount of agreement!

But as for the verses you used to arrive at a "planetary" implication - were you careful to note that the word "ge" (often mistransalted as "earth") usually denotes the land of Israel and surrounding nations? This is a very important point.



Without mentioning a specific verse let me tell you this:
If Christ's Kingdom starts at any point, it will be a worldwide event. So, the signs of it must be worldwide also, otherwise people outside of Jerusalem could rightly question God: "How come there were not any signs"?

I don't see how that follows. Christ's kingdom is here now, but it takes time for news about it to spread throughout the planet.



I would rather define the specific verses supporting this along the way, so we could move on for now from the Apostles' questions, it this is OK with you.

OK - I'll follow your lead.

We got a lot on this plate now! We should probably try to focus back on the text of the Olivet Discourse and see where that leads.

Many blessings,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I think its time to gather our thoughts and review the current status of our conversation.

The conversion up to this point has focused on the meaning of the questions posed in response to Christ's statement that the first century Temple would be destroyed. Here is where we stand (Battyus - please let me know if I have misrepresented anything):

A) We agree that four questions were asked:

1) When will these things be fulfilled?
2) What will be the sign when these things will be fulfilled?
3) What will be the sign of your parousia?
4) What will be the sign of the suntelia of the aion?

B) We agree that questions 1 & 2 concerned the destruction of the first century Temple, and were fulfilled in AD 70.

C) We disagree about the implied time and scope of the fulfillment of questions 3 & 4.

Richard says: All four questions were about the series of events leading up to and culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the scattering of the Jews. I supported this position with Scriptures from Daniel which connected the "suntelia" (end) with the destruction of the Temple (Dan 9:24-27) and the scattering of the Jews (Dan 12:6-7). I showed that these Scriptures are directly connected with prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and that this connection was amplified by the fact that Christ explicitly cited Daniel. I quoted a futurist scholar who confirmed this interpretation, saying that "The disciples were unable to separate the two events in their minds: the destruction of Jerusalem must entail the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus, inaugurating the eschaton." Thus, I gave both Biblical (with many mutually confirming verses) and scholastic evidence for my position.

Battyus says: Questions 3 & 4 refer to events on a planetary scale that are yet future. He has not yet given any direct support for his position, saying only that it will result from a harmonization with other books of the Bible. Neither has he yet presented any refutation of the points I have presented in support of my position (as far as I recall).

I think it is time to move on to the next segment of the Olivet Discourse. There is no need to settle the question about the questions as this point since Battyus has said that the proofs would come later as we discuss other parts of the OD.

Does this sound like an accurate summary Battyus? Please add any comments you feel necessary. It is very important that we work diligently to track with each other since that is the key to coming to any real agreement on this study.

Many blessings in Christ, my good friend,

Richard

[Battyus]

Hello again,



Now in answer to your question: The change of the aion involved many events. It culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but it involved the whole process described in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation.
Here I see an inconsistency that bugs me:
According to the preterist view:
-The "suntelia of the aion" is a period that was inaugurated by Christ and culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
-The "parousia of Christ" has happened at AD 70 as a one time event (same time as the destruction of the Temple as a one time event)
-The apostles were asking the sign of these 2: "What will be the sign of your parousia?" and "What will be the sign of the suntelia of the aion?"

So they were asking the "sign" or other words the "events that will precede the" parousia and the the suntelia of the aion.

So, logically if the "events that will precede the" parousia are part of the time period of the "suntelia of the aion", then they can not be the "events that will precede the" "suntelia of the aion".

As I see, there could be 2 ways to solve this problem:
1. The "suntelia of the aion" has to be a one time event happening at the same time of the "parousia" in order to have the same "sign" or "events that are preceding it".
2. The "sign" in Mat 24:3 has to be understood rather as "property" when it describes the "sign of the suntelia of the aion" and it has to be understood as "events that will precede the" "parousia".

Personally I don't see any Biblical reason why #2 would be plausible, therefore I conclude that the solution of this problem is in #1: Meaning the "suntelia of the aion" is a one time event and it really means the "end of the age" instead of "the 40 years period preceding the end of the age".



The 144,00 first century Jews had to be gathered from the 12 Tribes and sealed with the Holy Spirit (the seal of God, Rev 7) before the end could come. (The Jews were literal, but the number is almost certainly symbolic).
It is interesting as Jehovah's Witnesses say the opposite: They claim the number is literal, but the Jews are spiritual.
I say both the number and the Jews are literal.



The many false christs had to arise - which is how John knew it was the "last hour" (1 John 2:18). The saints had to be persecuted until their number was full (Matt 24:9 = Rev 6:11) and so forth. There is a tremendously powerful correlation between the events described in the Olivet Discourse and the opening of the Seals in Revelation. They even follow the same order. And we have much evidence that all these things happened in the first century, as for example when John said that he knew it was the last hour because of the many antichrists.
I understand the "Last Hour" as: The last dispensation of grace, that which is to continue to the suntelia of the aion, is begun.

John understood that many Antichrist (people who denied Christ's incarnation, divinity, etc.) came but THE Antichrist has not yet came. See 1John 2:18

"Matt 24:9 = Rev 6:11" I agree that these are parallel, but more about it when we'll get to their connection.



Big question - how do you see the change of the aion? I know you think it will be future, but do you believe it will happen at an instant, say, at the rapture? Will that be when the new aion comes in, or when the Devil is defeated at Armagedon? Or ... ??? Will the Millennium be part of this aion or the next? Is it the New Heaven and Earth? I think it would help a lot if you told me how you understand the change of the aion.
I understand the "end of the aion" that was mentioned in Mat 24:3 will happen at the battle of Armageddon when Christ comes back for the 2nd time. Some supporting verses:
Rev 16:17 "... It is done."
Mat 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days ..."
Mark 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation ..."
Dan 12:7 "... all these things shall be finished"
Joel 3:13 "... for the press is full ..."
Zech 14:1 "... day of the LORD cometh ..."
Rev 16:19 "... great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath."
Mark 13:26 "... shall they see the Son of man coming ..."
Luk 21:27 "... then shall they see the Son of man coming ..."
Rev 19:15 "... he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God"
Rev 20:2 "... Satan, and bound him a thousand years"
Of course all of these are in synchron with Daniel's 70th week and all the other expressions like "1260 days, 42 months, 3.5 years" etc.



I suspect that many of our harmonizations will be the same, differing only as to when they happened. E.g. I would guess that you and I agree that the persecution of the saints in Matt 24:9 corresponds to the Fifth Seal in Rev 6:11. And we probably agree that the 144,000 speak of real Jews descended from Abraham! Amazing amount of agreement!
I agree with both of these. Yes, probably we agree on many of the harmonizations, but not on their timings.



But as for the verses you used to arrive at a "planetary" implication - were you careful to note that the word "ge" (often mistransalted as "earth") usually denotes the land of Israel and surrounding nations? This is a very important point.
I agree that it is very important. I don't believe I fell for this either :)




Originally Posted by Battyus
Without mentioning a specific verse let me tell you this:
If Christ's Kingdom starts at any point, it will be a worldwide event. So, the signs of it must be worldwide also, otherwise people outside of Jerusalem could rightly question God: "How come there were not any signs"?
I don't see how that follows. Christ's kingdom is here now, but it takes time for news about it to spread throughout the planet.
Here we need to specify one thing: When you say "Christ's kingdom is here now" do you mean the Millennium?



We got a lot on this plate now! We should probably try to focus back on the text of the Olivet Discourse and see where that leads.

Yes I agree! I'm eager to continue with the harmonizations.

Have a blessed day!
Battyus

[Battyus]

I think its time to gather our thoughts and review the current status of our conversation.
I agree!



The conversion up to this point has focused on the meaning of the questions posed in response to Christ's statement that the first century Temple would be destroyed. Here is where we stand (Battyus - please let me know if I have misrepresented anything):

A) We agree that four questions were asked:

1) When will these things be fulfilled?
2) What will be the sign when these things will be fulfilled?
3) What will be the sign of your parousia?
4) What will be the sign of the suntelia of the aion?

B) We agree that questions 1 & 2 concerned the destruction of the first century Temple, and were fulfilled in AD 70.

C) We disagree about the implied time and scope of the fulfillment of questions 3 & 4.


I agree.



Richard says: All four questions were about the series of events leading up to and culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the scattering of the Jews. I supported this position with Scriptures from Daniel which connected the "suntelia" (end) with the destruction of the Temple (Dan 9:24-27) and the scattering of the Jews (Dan 12:6-7). I showed that these Scriptures are directly connected with prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and that this connection was amplified by the fact that Christ explicitly cited Daniel. I quoted a futurist scholar who confirmed this interpretation, saying that "The disciples were unable to separate the two events in their minds: the destruction of Jerusalem must entail the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus, inaugurating the eschaton." Thus, I gave both Biblical (with many mutually confirming verses) and scholastic evidence for my position.


Battyus says: Questions 3 & 4 refer to events on a planetary scale that are yet future. He has not yet given any direct support for his position, saying only that it will result from a harmonization with other books of the Bible. Neither has he yet presented any refutation of the points I have presented in support of my position (as far as I recall).
I agree, as I do not want to jump from subject to subject. I ask to proceed verse by verse through the Olivet Discourse and let each passage give us more understanding in their proper order and context.

In Post #8 http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17391&postcount=8 where you cited Dan 9:26 the focus was to determine the number of the apostle's questions. This we achieved therefore I did not address the passage's connection to the destruction of the Temple as it leads to another whole discussion, starting from who is the "He" in verse 27.

I gave my refutation to the scattering of the Jews (Dan 12:6-7) argument in post #11 http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17415&postcount=11 and asked a couple of questions that went unanswered so far.

In regards to the "futurist scholar"'s quote, I've stated that I do not share the view presented.



I think it is time to move on to the next segment of the Olivet Discourse. There is no need to settle the question about the questions as this point since Battyus has said that the proofs would come later as we discuss other parts of the OD.

Does this sound like an accurate summary Battyus? Please add any comments you feel necessary. It is very important that we work diligently to track with each other since that is the key to coming to any real agreement on this study.

Many blessings in Christ, my good friend,

Richard
I think we're doing good! The most important thing is that we learn together and as the subject is huge, it is natural that we miss some questions and answers. Please remind me of them in the future and I'll do the same.

Looking forward for another great week of talk!

Blessings,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey ho Battyus, :yo:

Good morning to you! I am excited to begin a new week of fruitful discussion with you.


Hello again,

Here I see an inconsistency that bugs me:
According to the preterist view:
-The "suntelia of the aion" is a period that was inaugurated by Christ and culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
-The "parousia of Christ" has happened at AD 70 as a one time event (same time as the destruction of the Temple as a one time event)
-The apostles were asking the sign of these 2: "What will be the sign of your parousia?" and "What will be the sign of the suntelia of the aion?"

So they were asking the "sign" or other words the "events that will precede the" parousia and the the suntelia of the aion.

So, logically if the "events that will precede the" parousia are part of the time period of the "suntelia of the aion", then they can not be the "events that will precede the" "suntelia of the aion".

As I see, there could be 2 ways to solve this problem:
1. The "suntelia of the aion" has to be a one time event happening at the same time of the "parousia" in order to have the same "sign" or "events that are preceding it".
2. The "sign" in Mat 24:3 has to be understood rather as "property" when it describes the "sign of the suntelia of the aion" and it has to be understood as "events that will precede the" "parousia".

Personally I don't see any Biblical reason why #2 would be plausible, therefore I conclude that the solution of this problem is in #1: Meaning the "suntelia of the aion" is a one time event and it really means the "end of the age" instead of "the 40 years period preceding the end of the age".


It seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. You are treating the questions asked by the disciples as if they were logically coherent and fully informed statements about the nature of Christ's parousia and the end of the age. This directly contradicts what we know about the state of their eschatological knowledge. They asked these questions in ignorance because they did not already have the answers. Indeed, the disciples failed to understand the most basic teachings explicitly taught by Christ:
Luke 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. 32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: 33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. 34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
This was told to them before they asked their questions in the Olivet Discourse. If they did not understand these teachings, which involved the fulfillment of the central prophecies of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection even after they were taught directly by Christ, it would be absurd to assume that their questions about the parousia and the end of the age formed a logically coherent eschatological statement.

We must determine the meaning of the parousia and the end of the age from the inspired and authoritative statements made by the Apostles after they received divine revelation concerning them.



It is interesting as Jehovah's Witnesses say the opposite: They claim the number is literal, but the Jews are spiritual.
I say both the number and the Jews are literal.

The number could be literal - there is no way to know. But we do know with absolutely certainty that it is symbolic because we know the symbolic meaning of the Number 12.

And since we know many thousands of Jews were sealed with the Holy Spirit (literally the seal of God = the Holy Spirit) in the first century, the number could also be literal. But it seems very odd to think that there were exactly 12,000 from each tribe ... not 12,001 here and 11,999 there. I don't see any reason to impose such a strict literalism, especially since God chose to use a number that has such an obviously symbolic meaning.

I'll answer more soon,

Many blessings,

Richard

[Battyus]

Hey again, Brother Richard :yo:


It seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. You are treating the questions asked by the disciples as if they were logically coherent and fully informed statements about the nature of Christ's parousia and the end of the age. This directly contradicts what we know about the state of their eschatological knowledge. They asked these questions in ignorance because they did not already have the answers. Indeed, the disciples failed to understand the most basic teachings explicitly taught by Christ: Luke 18:31

This was told to them before they asked their questions in the Olivet Discourse. If they did not understand these teachings, which involved the fulfillment of the central prophecies of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection even after they were taught directly by Christ, it would be absurd to assume that their questions about the parousia and the end of the age formed a logically coherent eschatological statement.
I remember when you said in post #8 :
"The disciples would naturally see it's destruction as marking the end of the Jewish age (aion), especially if they were familiar with the prophecies of Daniel which used the word suntelia (end - used in the questions in both Mark and Matthew!) in the immediate context of the destruction of the Temple in the LXX:"

With this sentence I thought you wanted to express that the disciples were well versed in scripture. But in our current post If I'm not mistaken you are expressing the opposite.

I'm not saying that the disciples's questions must express absolute logic. (they asked because they did not know, obviously)

I'm saying that it seems to me that the Preterist interpretation of the "suntelia of the aion" that it was not a one time event but rather a "40 years long period" can not be explained Biblically.

I think as a Preterist you would agree, that the sign of the parousia and the sign of the suntelia of the aion are the same. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Now, if the signs of the 2 are the same, then my logic holds up and we don't have to blame the disciples for their ignorance.

If the sign of the parousia and the sign of the suntelia of the aion are not the same, then I guess you'll point out from the Olivet Discourse which sign belongs to which event.



The number could be literal - there is no way to know. But we do know with absolutely certainty that it is symbolic because we know the symbolic meaning of the Number 12.
Between you and me, this will not play a big role, but it was a huge deal with the Jehovah's Witnesses as they base their whole theology upon this false assumption.



And since we know many thousands of Jews were sealed with the Holy Spirit (literally the seal of God = the Holy Spirit) in the first century, the number could also be literal.
As we read in Revelation 7 and 14 the 144000 was sealed for a very specific reason. I don't think this very specific reason was the same reason of the sealing of the 1st century Jews. I think the 1st century Jews were sealed just the same way as you and me, but the 144000 will be sealed differently. Otherwise why the Bible would mention them at all?



But it seems very odd to think that there were exactly 12,000 from each tribe ... not 12,001 here and 11,999 there. I don't see any reason to impose such a strict literalism, especially since God chose to use a number that has such an obviously symbolic meaning.
I agree with you that it would seem strange to have exactly 144000 saved Jews in the 1st century. This is just another proof that the 144000 does not refer to the 1st century Jews but an event in the future.

May you have a blessed day,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I understand the "Last Hour" as: The last dispensation of grace, that which is to continue to the suntelia of the aion, is begun.

Let me speak plainly on this my friend. I trust you know I am not trying to "provoke" you in any way, but I feel a need to explain my view with very direct words. Let us remember the wisdom we have been taught:
Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
With that understanding, here are my wounds ...

I don't understand your interpretation. The text says nothing about a "beginning." On the contrary, it explicitly speaks of the end - using the quintessential eschatological word eschatos. It seems you have inverted the text to make it say the opposite of what it actually says.

And neither does the text talk about the beginning of "the last dispensation of grace." What does that even mean? Where does the Bible talk about a "last" dispensation of grace as opposed to a "first" dispensation of grace? Where are you getting these ideas? Why are you adding such obscure and poorly defined concepts into such a plain statement? There is absolutely no ambiguity in the text when I read it.

And neither does John's text talk about the beginning of a "dispensation of grace" that would last some 2000+ years. This idea doesn't fit the context at all because we know that the "dispensation of grace" had begun years earlier with the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The problems become quite clear if we try a paraphrase of this verse using your interpretation:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the beginning of the last dispensation of grace that will continue for more than two thousand years: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the beginning of the last dispensation of grace that will continue for more than two thousand years.
The interpretation you offer ignores the explanation that John gave for how the first century Christians knew it was the last hour then, at that time in the first century which John indicated using the word now. John wrote in a way that indicated the times were changing. Time had advanced since they were given the initial warnings about the end by Christ in the Olivet Discourse. They knew that it would happen in their generation and now John is telling them that the time is so close it's the very last "hour" of the process that had begun a few decades earlier. They knew that the end was near then, in the first century, because of the "many antichrists" that had arisen then, at that time. They knew this was a sign that the end was near because Christ Himself told them so 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.
John knew the end was near because he saw one of the signs that Jesus had given them. This is what it means to "harmonize" the Olivet Discourse with the rest of the Bible. John's statement that it "IS the last time" fits perfectly with the teachings of Christ in the Olivet Discourse without any manipulation of the text whatsoever. They fit hand in glove, and the meaning of the passages are mutually confirming. They make sense as written without adding any foreign concepts and they cohere with all the other time statements in the New Testament.

I pray you take no offense at my plain speech. :pray: But there is no easy way to "soften" this wound. Your interpretation seems completely disconnected from the text. It appears to be nothing but an ad hoc interpretation made up to fit a pre-determined futurist eschatological system. It completely ignores the plain and obvious meaning of the text.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I remember when you said in post #8 :
"The disciples would naturally see it's destruction as marking the end of the Jewish age (aion), especially if they were familiar with the prophecies of Daniel which used the word suntelia (end - used in the questions in both Mark and Matthew!) in the immediate context of the destruction of the Temple in the LXX:"

With this sentence I thought you wanted to express that the disciples were well versed in scripture. But in our current post If I'm not mistaken you are expressing the opposite.

There is no contradiction. Here is what I meant:

The disciples were well versed in Scripture, so they knew the connection between the destruction of the temple, the parousia of Christ, and the end of the aion.

But the disciples had not yet had those Scriptures enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so the were utterly ignorant of how all those events would play out. For example, they didn't even understand that Christ first had to be crucified and resurrected despite the fact that He told them so in no uncertain terms.



I'm not saying that the disciples's questions must express absolute logic. (they asked because they did not know, obviously)

Exactly correct.



I'm saying that it seems to me that the Preterist interpretation of the "suntelia of the aion" that it was not a one time event but rather a "40 years long period" can not be explained Biblically.

I don't see the problem. We know that Christ was crucified in the "suntelia of the aion" because Hebrews tells us so:
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 hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Likewise, we know that the ends (tele, plural) of the aions (plural) had "come upon" the Jews in the first century:
1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.
Paul wrote this decades after Christ died in the "suntelia of the aion." It seems pretty clear that the "last days" and "end of the aion" must span a time period, so your assertion that such a time period "cannot be explained Biblically" seems to be false.

As an aside, it seems very significant that this time period turned out to be about 40 years, given the way that God used that number in previous transitions such as the flood and the Exodus.



I think as a Preterist you would agree, that the sign of the parousia and the sign of the suntelia of the aion are the same. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Now, if the signs of the 2 are the same, then my logic holds up and we don't have to blame the disciples for their ignorance.

If the sign of the parousia and the sign of the suntelia of the aion are not the same, then I guess you'll point out from the Olivet Discourse which sign belongs to which event.

Your logic is not clear to me, so I think it would be best if we set this question aside until we come to a broader mutual understanding of the main and plain eschatological teachings of Scripture. Does that sound ok?

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As we read in Revelation 7 and 14 the 144000 was sealed for a very specific reason. I don't think this very specific reason was the same reason of the sealing of the 1st century Jews. I think the 1st century Jews were sealed just the same way as you and me, but the 144000 will be sealed differently. Otherwise why the Bible would mention them at all?

Yes - the "very specific reason" was to protect them during the great tribulation -
Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
What does the time of the Great Tribulation (past or future) have to do with the Seal of God being the Holy Spirit?

You ask - why does the Bible mention the sealing of the first century Jewish believers? Because they suffered the Great Tribulation.



I agree with you that it would seem strange to have exactly 144000 saved Jews in the 1st century. This is just another proof that the 144000 does not refer to the 1st century Jews but an event in the future.

May you have a blessed day,
Battyus
How would a literal interpretation of the number 144,000 prove it is yet future? There were many thousands of Jews sealed in the first century with the Holy Spirit. The number could easily have been exactly 144,000 though I see no reason to think it is literal.

And there is a big problem with thinking the 144,000 are future. Scripture declares that they were firstfruits unto the lamb. But you believe they will be "lastfruits" - :p

And the fact is that the 3000 Jews sealed at Pentecost were literally the firstfruits unto God! Recall, Pentecost was known not only as Shavuot, but also as "Firstfruits" (to be distinguish from the Day of Firstfruits celebrated during the week of unleavened bread. That festival represented the resurrection of Christ.).

The identity of the 144,000 as literal first century Jews is confirmed by other Scriptures that speak of the first believers as firstfruits:
James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
And who are the virgins? Paul defined that for us:
2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Now consider - we have mutual confirmations amongst multiple verses.

Both Christians and the 144,000 are firstfruits unto God
Both Christians and the 144,000 are described as "virgins" unto Christ.

And many thousands of literal Jews were sealed with the Holy Spirit in the first century.

And we must not forget what Scripture declares about Pentecost:

Acts 2:5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
I see an exceedingly clear picture of what happened at Pentecost in Revelation 7.

Many blessings my friend.

Thanks for persisting with me in this massive study.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I gave my refutation to the scattering of the Jews (Dan 12:6-7) argument in post #11 http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17415&postcount=11 and asked a couple of questions that went unanswered so far.

Excellent catch! Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry for missing that .... we've got a huge bunch of posts flying back and forth. Here is the post and my answer:





This understanding is confirmed by the precise questions they asked. Mark records the question "what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?" This question contains three key words:

panta (all)
tauta (these things)
sunteleo (be fulfilled)

These three words occur together in another very significant verse of the Bible, the Septuagint version of Daniel 12:7 (note that the LXX was commonly used at the time of Jesus, the NT quotes it many times).
Daniel 12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all (panta) these things (tauta) shall be finished (sunteleo).
The correlation with the Olivet Discourse is astounding. This text asks basically the same question as the disciples "How long shall it be to the end (suntelia) of these wonders?" And it gives the same answer as Christ, saying that "all these things shall be finished" when the power of the holy people is scattered which happened when the Temple was destroyed. The connection is amplified yet again by the fact that Jesus Himself connected the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the Jews with the prophecies of Daniel.
We've arrived to a very interesting point by you relating Daniel 12:6-7 to Mark 13:4.
You might be surprised, but I even agree with you that these 2 verses are closely related. (This is when the harmonization of Revelation to the Olivet Discourse comes into the picture too. More about this below.)

I will add 1 thing: Let's read this passage in context from Dan 12:1-7
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

We agree that the answer given in verse 7 answers the Apostles' question in Mark 13:4.

If you read the whole verse 7, you can see that this event should happen at the end of Daniel's 70th 7 years, as verse 7 earlier states: "for a time, times, and an half". This is actually the answer to the question in verse 6 "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders".

Let's see what are these wonders: I've underlined them above.
1. "and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book"
2. "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt"
3. "they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever"

So, we know what are the wonders have to happen before the "time, times, and an half" is up and only then we can say "all (panta) these things (tauta) shall be finished (sunteleo)"

If you say that the answer in verse 7 refers to AD 70, then these wonders must have happened before that date.
Question: can you show that when the above mentioned 3 wonders took place in history?

There are many things that the Bible says happened that were not seen by earthly eyes and can not be confirmed by us today through "historical record." We believe them because the Bible tells us so. For example, Paul tells us that we are "seated with Christ in the heavenlies" right now. But I can not prove this by looking at history. Likewise, Christ is in His resurrection body now. We do not see Him in His resurrection body down here. Now in answer to your questions:

1. "and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book"
This is precisely what happened. God rescued the remnant of Israel that believed. The rest suffered His judgment when He destroyed Jerusalem and drove them out of the holy land.

2. "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt"
Christ said:
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
I believe Him. He is the Resurrection prophesied in Daniel. And we are already raised in Him, as it is written many times in the Holy Bible:


John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now [in the first century] is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
Colossians 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) 6 And hath raised us up with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

There is much confusion and dispute about the meaning of the resurrection. Whole books have been written on the various opinions put forth. It can not be used to contradict explicit time texts that God has established with many witnesses and great clarity and complete certainty. We must begin with the main and the plain things that God established with certainty in His Word. Attempts to establish futurism by saying that the resurrection did not happen is fundamentally flawed because the Bible does not tell us what we should expect to see down here on earth. It would be like saying that Rev 19 does not apply to the destruction of Jerusalem because there is no earthly record of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. If the Bible is to be believed, then we must believe that the resurrected saints are in heaven now with Christ who also is in His resurrected body. Or we can believe in a tattered text where all the parts do not fit. But in no case can we establish futurism by disputing the meaning of the resurrection in Daniel 12. The one and only way to establish futurism would be to show that the text plainly states it with many mutually confirming verses. But this will never happen because the text simply does not state nor imply that the "end times" were going to happen some 2000+ years in the future.

3. "they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever"
Are you demanding a "historical record" of this event?



Also, as there is a clear connection between the Olivet Discourse, Daniel and Revelation, we should be able to see when Dan 12:1-7 takes place in Revelation.
Question: When do you think Dan 12:1-7 takes place in Revelation?

That is the central theme of the entire book of Revelation. Specifically, it is the topic of Rev 17-18 which describes the desolation of the great city known as Mystery Babylon, the Great Whore, defined explicitly as Jerusalem:
Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
In Revelation, apostate Jerusalem is called Sodom, Egypt, and Mystery Babylon. It all coheres with great simplicity and clarity with many mutually confirming verses.

All the best,

Richard

[Battyus]

Dear Richard,

I'm sorry for I haven't post any answers yet. Please give me another day to continue.

May you have a blessed day,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Richard,

I'm sorry for I haven't post any answers yet. Please give me another day to continue.

May you have a blessed day,
Battyus
Hey there bro, :yo:

Thanks for letting me know. Please don't feel rushed .... that's the beauty of discussing things on a forum like this. We have all the time we need since we can pick up the conversation at any time it is convenient.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[Battyus]

Dear Richard,

Thank you again for your patience! I'm back again to continue...

So, we're talking about the 144,000 and before I would reply in detail, can you please confirm that I understand your stand correctly, when you say:

I see an exceedingly clear picture of what happened at Pentecost in Revelation 7.
Do you mean to say, that the 144,000 were sealed at Pentecost?

Many blessings to you too, and I hope to speed up the posts again to their earlier speed :)
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Richard,

Thank you again for your patience! I'm back again to continue...


Hey there my friend! I'm glad you are back.



So, we're talking about the 144,000 and before I would reply in detail, can you please confirm that I understand your stand correctly, when you say:

Do you mean to say, that the 144,000 were sealed at Pentecost?

Many blessings to you too, and I hope to speed up the posts again to their earlier speed :)
Battyus
I believe that the sealing of the 144,000 began with 3,000 at Pentecost, and continued up to the consummation in 66-70 AD when the messengers (angels) of the Gospel finished gathering the first century Jewish elect (remnant) and judgment came down upon Jerusalem and the unbelievers who rejected the Gospel.

Richard

[Battyus]

Excellent catch! Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry for missing that .... we've got a huge bunch of posts flying back and forth. Here is the post and my answer:
No problem, brother Richard :)



There are many things that the Bible says happened that were not seen by earthly eyes and can not be confirmed by us today through "historical record." We believe them because the Bible tells us so. For example, Paul tells us that we are "seated with Christ in the heavenlies" right now. But I can not prove this by looking at history. Likewise, Christ is in His resurrection body now. We do not see Him in His resurrection body down here. Now in answer to your questions:
At this point we arrive to the part in our conversation when we have to address our differences, what should be interpreted literally and what should be interpreted symbolically.

Probably you would agree that the Futurists are labelled as "interpreting almost everything literally", while the Preterist are labeled as "interpreting almost everything symbolically".

Is the language used strictly literal or is it a figure of speech?

I say our goal in understanding the Bible is not to prefer either literal meanings or figurative meanings. It is to understand what God intended the words to mean. Sometimes God intended a literal meaning, sometimes a figurative meaning, and occasionally both. We need to explore each context.

For instance your quotation above "seated with Christ in the heavenlies" is in the context clearly a figure of speech, therefore I would never ask you to show that in history. See Ephesians 2:1-10

But when you read Daniel's text in the context, he is clearly stating events that will take place before the "time, times, and an half" is up. This is why I asked you to tell me in history when did they take place, if you claim that these events already happened.



1. "and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book"
This is precisely what happened. God rescued the remnant of Israel that believed. The rest suffered His judgment when He destroyed Jerusalem and drove them out of the holy land.
So, do you think that only the 1st century Jews were "written in the book"? Is Your name written in the book? If you say, that your name is not written in the book, then please read Revelation 20:15 to see what happens to those who's name is not written in it. I truly hope that your name is in it!



2. "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt"
Christ said:
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
I believe Him. He is the Resurrection prophesied in Daniel. And we are already raised in Him, as it is written many times in the Holy Bible:


John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now [in the first century] is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
Colossians 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) 6 And hath raised us up with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

There is much confusion and dispute about the meaning of the resurrection. Whole books have been written on the various opinions put forth. It can not be used to contradict explicit time texts that God has established with many witnesses and great clarity and complete certainty. We must begin with the main and the plain things that God established with certainty in His Word. Attempts to establish futurism by saying that the resurrection did not happen is fundamentally flawed because the Bible does not tell us what we should expect to see down here on earth. It would be like saying that Rev 19 does not apply to the destruction of Jerusalem because there is no earthly record of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. If the Bible is to be believed, then we must believe that the resurrected saints are in heaven now with Christ who also is in His resurrected body. Or we can believe in a tattered text where all the parts do not fit. But in no case can we establish futurism by disputing the meaning of the resurrection in Daniel 12. The one and only way to establish futurism would be to show that the text plainly states it with many mutually confirming verses. But this will never happen because the text simply does not state nor imply that the "end times" were going to happen some 2000+ years in the future.

I agree that "There is much confusion and dispute about the meaning of the resurrection", but I think the confusion starts because of views that deny the resurrection.

You agree that Daniel 12 does not talk in figure of speech, because you said that both events happened truly in AD70.

Yet you switch over to figurative interpretation in the 2nd sentence saying, that "resurrection" is to be interpreted spiritually because the Bible does not specifically states what will happen on earth at resurrection.
Let's see Mat 27:52-53 and John 5:28-29 for some clues:

"52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

"28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Dan 12:2 makes it very clear that those who are "in the dust of the earth shall awake". I don't think how much more clearer Daniel could have been to express that he's talking about those who are buried under the ground in general and not about the spiritual awakening of some 1st century Jews.

Also, read the 2nd part of verse 2: "some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt". If you say, that this verse talks about a spiritual resurrection, then can you explain what does it mean that the sinners will be spiritually raised to shame and everlasting contempt?

Please read the end of the same chapter Dan 12:13
"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days."
Was Daniel promised a physical resurrection here, or was he told that he's going to be spiritually resurrected? (I say he was promised physical resurrection, just as people in verse 2)

Look what Jesus told to the Sadduces, who said there is no resurrection (Mark 12:18-27)
"18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; ...
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, ...
26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."

So, back to our subject, if you say that the resurrection in Dan 12:2 is meant to be interpreted spiritually, then when can today's dead expect to be resurrected?

I don't agree to let's just "believe that the resurrected saints are in heaven now with Christ who also is in His resurrected body". With this we just "ignore" the teachings of the physical resurrection in the Bible.



3. "they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever"
Are you demanding a "historical record" of this event?
This verse to me tells that "many turns to righteousness". Can this be happening in an "Apostate Jerusalem in the 1st century" (Preterist view) or will it be rather happen in the future, when many will turn to Jesus? (includung many Jews, as it is described in Ezekiel 39:21-29, Zech 12:10-14, Joel 2:28-29.



That is the central theme of the entire book of Revelation. Specifically, it is the topic of Rev 17-18 which describes the desolation of the great city known as Mystery Babylon, the Great Whore, defined explicitly as Jerusalem:
Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
In Revelation, apostate Jerusalem is called Sodom, Egypt, and Mystery Babylon. It all coheres with great simplicity and clarity with many mutually confirming verses.
We'll see which verse confirms what when we continue with the harmonization. I say let's do that, as we can go on and on for a long time, but our goal was to go through the whole Olivet Discourse.

With brotherly love,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No problem, brother Richard :)

You certainly are an agreeable friend! :anim_32:



At this point we arrive to the part in our conversation when we have to address our differences, what should be interpreted literally and what should be interpreted symbolically.

Probably you would agree that the Futurists are labelled as "interpreting almost everything literally", while the Preterist are labeled as "interpreting almost everything symbolically".

Is the language used strictly literal or is it a figure of speech?

I say our goal in understanding the Bible is not to prefer either literal meanings or figurative meanings. It is to understand what God intended the words to mean. Sometimes God intended a literal meaning, sometimes a figurative meaning, and occasionally both. We need to explore each context.

For instance your quotation above "seated with Christ in the heavenlies" is in the context clearly a figure of speech, therefore I would never ask you to show that in history. See Ephesians 2:1-10

But when you read Daniel's text in the context, he is clearly stating events that will take place before the "time, times, and an half" is up. This is why I asked you to tell me in history when did they take place, if you claim that these events already happened.

You are absolutely correct that we will need to talk about "literal" vs. "symbolic" language, but I think we can postpone that until specific questions force the issue.

As for the "time, times, and half" that refers to the Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD which also harmonizes with the 42 months of Revelation. It was at the climax of the "time, times, and a half" that he Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered (Dan 12:6-7).



So, do you think that only the 1st century Jews were "written in the book"? Is Your name written in the book? If you say, that your name is not written in the book, then please read Revelation 20:15 to see what happens to those who's name is not written in it. I truly hope that your name is in it!

I believe that the names written in the book in Revelation refers to first century Jews who were the elect, chosen for the specific purpose of being the "firstfruits church."
Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
It is inappropriate to jump to the "book of life" at this point of our conversation. We would have to do a study on the concept of election, and the fact that believers are elected for specific purposes to clarify this issue.



I agree that "There is much confusion and dispute about the meaning of the resurrection", but I think the confusion starts because of views that deny the resurrection.

Oh no, that's not the reason at all. Have you ever read "Raised Immortal" by Murray Harris? It's one of the best reviews of the difficulties involved with the Biblical teachings on the resurrection and how devout Christians have struggled to understand them. Harris' book is 303 pages and has a five page detailed index without a single reference to preterism. That's not the source of the difficulties that he addressed.



You agree that Daniel 12 does not talk in figure of speech, because you said that both events happened truly in AD70.

False. The fact that "events happened truly" has nothing to do with figures of speech or symbolic language. For example, I believe that the 4 kingdoms represented by the image in Daniel 2 really happened truly in history! The image revealed truth about literal history. But the truth was revealed using symbols.

This is the primary misunderstanding "literalists" have about the meaning of "literal." We'll talk more about this as the need arises.



Yet you switch over to figurative interpretation in the 2nd sentence saying, that "resurrection" is to be interpreted spiritually because the Bible does not specifically states what will happen on earth at resurrection.

There is nothing figurative about the resurrection per se. But the language used to express the truth about the resurrection was figurative. We know this with absolute certainty because most of those "graves" that are going to be "opened" don't contain any bodies anymore, so there is nothing to "resurrect." The resurrection is the creation of a spiritual body, not the reanimation of dead corpse.



Let's see Mat 27:52-53 and John 5:28-29 for some clues:

"52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

Yes, that was a literal event that was necessary since God wanted folks to be able to see that they were resurrected. It does not mean that it is a pattern for all future resurrections. It's just like the literal resurrection of Christ's body which did not see corruption and was not annihilated, so there was a body to resurrect. But our resurrection can not be like that because most of our bodies will be annihilated. There simply will not be anything to "resurrect." Unless you believe that God will first re-create our dead corpse (in what state of decay?) and then "resurrect" it. But that Bible teaches nothing about that idea, so its not worth pursuing (especially since it doesn't make any sense anyway).



"28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

But those graves don't actually have any bodies in them, right? So either you believe this language symbolic, or you invent the idea that God is going to create corpses in various stages of decay that will then "come forth" out of the graves to be "resurrected." I can't buy that last scenario - all for the sake of literalism. Is it worth it? Is it true?



Was Daniel promised a physical resurrection here, or was he told that he's going to be spiritually resurrected? (I say he was promised physical resurrection, just as people in verse 2)

The Bible explicitly promises a spiritual bodily resurrection. It says nothing about a "physical" resurrection. This is exemplifies the problem of the literalistic mentality which lives by the equation real = physical.

It might help if you realized that your equation is actually real = carnal. The Bible never contrasts reality vs. spirit, but it does contrast carnal vs. spirit. This is the fundamental error of literalism which rejects the "spiritual" as "unreal" and demands that anything "real" must be "physical." It is "earthly minded" and "carnal minded."

Remember, God is the Ultimate Reality, and God is Spirit.

I trust you take no offense bro! I'm just honoring your intelligence by talking plainly. I'm loving the conversation!



Look what Jesus told to the Sadduces, who said there is no resurrection (Mark 12:18-27)
"18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; ...
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, ...
26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."

What does this have to do with our conversation??? I never denied the resurrection! I merely reject the carnal interpretation of it!



So, back to our subject, if you say that the resurrection in Dan 12:2 is meant to be interpreted spiritually, then when can today's dead expect to be resurrected?

I don't agree to let's just "believe that the resurrected saints are in heaven now with Christ who also is in His resurrected body". With this we just "ignore" the teachings of the physical resurrection in the Bible.

As mentioned above, the Bible teaches nothing about a carnal, physical resurrection. It explicitly teaches that we will receive a spiritual body in the resurrection. The doctrine of a physical resurrection ignores what the Bible actually teaches.

Let me repeat: Reality = Physical (Carnal) is a false equation.

With much brotherly love,

Richard

[Battyus]

Hello again Richard!



You are absolutely correct that we will need to talk about "literal" vs. "symbolic" language, but I think we can postpone that until specific questions force the issue.
Agreed :)



As for the "time, times, and half" that refers to the Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD which also harmonizes with the 42 months of Revelation. It was at the climax of the "time, times, and a half" that he Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered (Dan 12:6-7).
Yes, actually this is what we're debating: does the "time, times, and half" refer to 66-70 AD or not. (I say not)



I believe that the names written in the book in Revelation refers to first century Jews who were the elect, chosen for the specific purpose of being the "firstfruits church."
Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
It is inappropriate to jump to the "book of life" at this point of our conversation. We would have to do a study on the concept of election, and the fact that believers are elected for specific purposes to clarify this issue.
This information was really stunning, but I agree to discuss it later.



Oh no, that's not the reason at all. Have you ever read "Raised Immortal" by Murray Harris? It's one of the best reviews of the difficulties involved with the Biblical teachings on the resurrection and how devout Christians have struggled to understand them. Harris' book is 303 pages and has a five page detailed index without a single reference to preterism. That's not the source of the difficulties that he addressed.
I haven't read this book yet. Also, I was not exclusively referring to Preterism, but rather to all the views in general that deny the physical resurrection.

It is interesting to note from the same author that he himself supports the idea of physical resurrection:
"Conclusion:
It may be helpful to conclude by suggesting four of the (many) ways in which the biblical doctrine of immortality differs from the Platonic. First, it is the whole person who gains immortality, not the soul or spirit that inherently possesses immortality. Secondly, immortality is gained by the resurrection transformation, not by birth, and therefore is a future gift of God, not a
present inalienable characteristic of human nature. The Christian’s entrance upon the state of immortality will be by God’s act of resurrection which will be the climax of the Spirit’s process of transformation. Thirdly, the destiny of the Christian is somatic immortality, not disembodied or purely spiritual immortality. Fourthly, possession of immortality is dependent on relationship to the Second Adam, not the first Adam. It results from union with Christ, not from being a mortal." Murray Harris, 'Resurrection and Immortality: Eight Theses,' Themelios 1.2 (Spring 1976): 50-55.



False. The fact that "events happened truly" has nothing to do with figures of speech or symbolic language. For example, I believe that the 4 kingdoms represented by the image in Daniel 2 really happened truly in history! The image revealed truth about literal history. But the truth was revealed using symbols.

This is the primary misunderstanding "literalists" have about the meaning of "literal." We'll talk more about this as the need arises.
OK, we'll talk about it later.



There is nothing figurative about the resurrection per se. But the language used to express the truth about the resurrection was figurative. We know this with absolute certainty because most of those "graves" that are going to be "opened" don't contain any bodies anymore, so there is nothing to "resurrect." The resurrection is the creation of a spiritual body, not the reanimation of dead corpse.
The author you've referred above does not share this view and nor do I. And this is the view that Jesus rebuked in Mark 12:18-27.



Yes, that was a literal event that was necessary since God wanted folks to be able to see that they were resurrected. It does not mean that it is a pattern for all future resurrections. It's just like the literal resurrection of Christ's body which did not see corruption and was not annihilated, so there was a body to resurrect. But our resurrection can not be like that because most of our bodies will be annihilated. There simply will not be anything to "resurrect."
I do not think that it will be a bigger problem for God to resurrect a body that has been in the grave for 1000 years or just for 3 days. A dead person is dead, there is no difference in "how dead they are".



Unless you believe that God will first re-create our dead corpse (in what state of decay?) and then "resurrect" it. But that Bible teaches nothing about that idea, so its not worth pursuing (especially since it doesn't make any sense anyway).
How will God do it is not described in the Bible, but a good example is Jesus' bodily resurrection: They put the body in the grave and 3 days later it was not there, but Jesus showed up in His glorified body. The process is not spelled out and I think we would not even be able to comprehend it if it was.

The point is, that people were able to see that the body was not there anymore.





John 5:28-29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

But those graves don't actually have any bodies in them, right? So either you believe this language symbolic, or you invent the idea that God is going to create corpses in various stages of decay that will then "come forth" out of the graves to be "resurrected." I can't buy that last scenario - all for the sake of literalism. Is it worth it? Is it true?
As we talked about it, the context helps us understand, how to interpret the verses: Literally or symbolically. The context we're looking at is literal, so I would rather accept it as literal text, than switch over to symbolic interpretation. On this way I don't have to invent anything just accept what the Bible says.

If this text should be interpreted as symbolic resurrection, then can you explain what does this mean: "... and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Please specify the state of the people whom this part of the text talks about just in a few words:
-Where are they before their symbolic resurrection:
-What does the word resurrection mens to them:
-Where will they be after their resurrection:

Also, if you say that this resurrection has happened in AD70, then please explain why only the people who died before AD70 had to go through this resurrection and the people who died after AD70 will not.



The Bible explicitly promises a spiritual bodily resurrection. It says nothing about a "physical" resurrection. This is exemplifies the problem of the literalistic mentality which lives by the equation real = physical.

It might help if you realized that your equation is actually real = carnal. The Bible never contrasts reality vs. spirit, but it does contrast carnal vs. spirit. This is the fundamental error of literalism which rejects the "spiritual" as "unreal" and demands that anything "real" must be "physical." It is "earthly minded" and "carnal minded."
I've never liked generalizations, as they lead to mistakes. Therefore I do not agree with you on the "real=carnal" conclusion.



Remember, God is the Ultimate Reality, and God is Spirit.
100% agree. (but don't forget that He is the one that created physical things, so let's not just throw out everything physical!)



I trust you take no offense bro! I'm just honoring your intelligence by talking plainly. I'm loving the conversation!
None taken! :) I expect you to talk plainly, so there are less chances for misunderstandings. I enjoy this conversation too a lot!



What does this have to do with our conversation??? I never denied the resurrection! I merely reject the carnal interpretation of it!
I understand. Please explain what the "non carnal interpretation of the resurrection" means to a sinner as I asked above.



As mentioned above, the Bible teaches nothing about a carnal, physical resurrection. It explicitly teaches that we will receive a spiritual body in the resurrection. The doctrine of a physical resurrection ignores what the Bible actually teaches.
This sentence makes me think that we might not be far off from each other. I agree that we'll receive a "glorified" or "spiritual" body and it will be different from our current physical bodies, this is not the issue.

I think at this point we differ on what is going to happen to our earthly remains. And the reason it is an issue between you and me is, because as I see, the "resurrection" will be an event that people will be able to see.
And this is a problem for the Preterist view as obviously nobody has seen the "resurrection" in AD 70.

Have a blessed weekend, if we won't talk until!
Battyus

[Battyus]

Hey my friend!

This will be a short one:


I believe that the sealing of the 144,000 began with 3,000 at Pentecost, and continued up to the consummation in 66-70 AD when the messengers (angels) of the Gospel finished gathering the first century Jewish elect (remnant) and judgment came down upon Jerusalem and the unbelievers who rejected the Gospel.
Richard
As the sealing of the 144,000 is mentioned in Revelation 7, right after the 1st 6 seals were opened, I must ask a question:
Do you believe that the 1st 6 seals were opened before Pentecost?

I'll talk to you soon,
Battyus

[Battyus]

Dear Richard,

This statement stunned me so much, that I could not hold myself back and collected a few verses from the Bible for you to look at:


I believe that the names written in the book in Revelation refers to first century Jews who were the elect, chosen for the specific purpose of being the "firstfruits church."
Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
It is inappropriate to jump to the "book of life" at this point of our conversation. We would have to do a study on the concept of election, and the fact that believers are elected for specific purposes to clarify this issue.

In the Old Testament, well before Daniel, it was known that God has a book, that has the names of the righteous, with other words, the list of the people who will be redeemed throughout the human history:

Exodus 32:32-33 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Deu 9:14 Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.

Deu 29:20 The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.

2Kings 14:27 And the LORD said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.

Psa 9:5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.

Psa 51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

By the time Daniel mentions the "book of life", it was well established by God, Moses and David that God has a "list of righteus". And this list was never exclusive to the 1st century Jews!

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Arriving to the New Testament the references to the same book of life continue. Luke expresses that the reason for rejoicing is that their name is "written in heaven", simply referring to their redeemed state. Again, this is not referring exclusively to 1st century Jews.

Luk 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Paul refers to the same book of life again. If God, Moses and David referred to this book in a worldwide sense, why would Luke and Paul shrink it's scope to 1st century Jews?

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Phil 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.


In Revelation a letter to the church in Sardis. Not Jews and not in Israel. I don't see any reason, why the book of life would be restricted to 1st century Jews, living in Israel:

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Take a look at Revelation 13:7-8
7 And it was given unto him [Talking about the Beast] to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Notice ALL KINDREDS, AND TONGUES, AND NATIONS: can not be locally interpreted to Only Israel, it is a Worldwide event and therefore in verse 8 "whose names are not written in the book " refers to the inhhabitants of ALL the Earth, not just local Israel.

The Book of Life was written from the foundation of the world. Clear indication to its worldwide scope and not a limited little book that deals with 1st century Jews:
Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 20 again talks about a worldwide event, not a local affair:
Rev 20:12-15
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Did the White throne Judgment happen in 70AD?
Did the sea gave up the dead in AD70?
Was death and hell cast into the lake of fire in AD70?
Was everybody else cast into the lake of fire in AD70, whos name was not written in this book?

And finally Revelation talks about the New Jerusalem's citizens. These are again the redeemed FROM ALL THE WORLD, FROM ALL THE AGES and not just the 1st century Jews:
Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.


I know that I brought up many subject in this post, but your opinion surprised me so much I thought it was important to bring my thoughts to your attention.

And as the underlying standard of our conversation, please continue to read my post as a letter from your brother and not from your enemy :)

I wish you blessed time for the rest of the weekend!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Richard,

This statement stunned me so much, that I could not hold myself back and collected a few verses from the Bible for you to look at:




So, do you think that only the 1st century Jews were "written in the book"? Is Your name written in the book? If you say, that your name is not written in the book, then please read Revelation 20:15 to see what happens to those who's name is not written in it. I truly hope that your name is in it!
I believe that the names written in the book in Revelation refers to first century Jews who were the elect, chosen for the specific purpose of being the "firstfruits church."
Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
It is inappropriate to jump to the "book of life" at this point of our conversation. We would have to do a study on the concept of election, and the fact that believers are elected for specific purposes to clarify this issue.

Hey there Battyus!

I just got back from my trip to Seattle to visit my sister and her family.

I'm sorry I wrote that comment. I completely missed the intent of your question. I was still thinking in terms of our previous conversation that sparked that question. Specifically, I was thinking of this exchange that immediately preceded my post:




1. "and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book"
This is precisely what happened. God rescued the remnant of Israel that believed. The rest suffered His judgment when He destroyed Jerusalem and drove them out of the holy land.
So, do you think that only the 1st century Jews were "written in the book"? Is Your name written in the book? If you say, that your name is not written in the book, then please read Revelation 20:15 to see what happens to those who's name is not written in it. I truly hope that your name is in it!
Your question highlighted red led to the misunderstanding.
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:and there shall be a time of trouble [The Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD], such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people [a specific group at a specific time] shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
So here is the mistake. You seem to be interpreting this verse as saying that "everyone written in the book" must include people living today. But that's not what it is saying at all. It is saying that everyone in the specific group at that specific time would be delivered if they are found written in the book. To clarify: The context of Daniel 12:1 limits the phrase "every one that is found written in the book" to "every one" living at the "time of trouble" - whether that be future or past.



In the Old Testament, well before Daniel, it was known that God has a book, that has the names of the righteous, with other words, the list of the people who will be redeemed throughout the human history:

Exodus 32:32-33 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Deu 9:14 Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.

Deu 29:20 The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.

2Kings 14:27 And the LORD said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.

Psa 9:5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.

Psa 51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.


Two problems

1) This exemplifies the error I tried to explain above. You assume that Daniel 12:1 is talking about everyone that would ever be "written in the book" including those alive today. But that is not what it says at all. That verse is talking about everyone in that specific group living at that specific time who also were found written in the book would be saved.

2) None of those verses teach that the "book of life" is a literal book with a literal "the list of the people who will be redeemed throughout the human history." On the contrary, it seems to be a metaphorical way of indicating whether or not the individual or group in view is righteous before God. In any context, the righteous are said to be "written in the book" and the unrighteous are "blotted out." Its meaning depends on context. There are big problems with the idea of a literal book of life that contains a static list of all the redeemed. God talks about removing names from the book, so the book cannot initially contain a list only of the redeemed. It also must contain names of those who would be blotted out. This means that the contents of the book of life would change over time. But that seems to contradict the idea that the names of the redeemed were written "before the foundation of the world." (Rev 17:8).

As you can see, the topic of the book of life involves a lot of issues, including our perenial discussion about the relation between "literal" and "metaphorical" language. I think we could avoid all this for the time being if we agreed to the basic idea that the Book of Life is just another way to refer to those who are righteous before God. We can work out the details later.



By the time Daniel mentions the "book of life", it was well established by God, Moses and David that God has a "list of righteus". And this list was never exclusive to the 1st century Jews!

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.


As mentioned above, there are big problems with the idea of the book of life as a literal "list of righteous." It seems much more likely that it is a metaphor for those who will live because they are right with God. It can not be an exhaustive list preordained from before the foundation of the earth because names can be blotted out.



I know that I brought up many subject in this post, but your opinion surprised me so much I thought it was important to bring my thoughts to your attention.

I'm glad you understand that. The other things I mentioned seem much more pertinent to our discussion. I'm sorry my post caused such confusion. But that's ok ... we'll get back to the Olivet Discourse eventually. (Soon, I hope!)



And as the underlying standard of our conversation, please continue to read my post as a letter from your brother and not from your enemy :)

I wish you blessed time for the rest of the weekend!
Battyus
I will always read your posts as a brother, because you treat me like one! You are a wonderful person - studying Scripture with you is a true joy.

Many blessings, bro! :winking0071:

Richard

[Battyus]

Good morning my friend!



I'm sorry I wrote that comment. I completely missed the intent of your question. I was still thinking in terms of our previous conversation that sparked that question. Specifically, I was thinking of this exchange that immediately preceded my post:
No problem! I Just wanted to be sure that I understand your view of the Book of Life. (I still have some questions below)



Your question highlighted red led to the misunderstanding.
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:and there shall be a time of trouble [The Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD], such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people [a specific group at a specific time] shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
So here is the mistake. You seem to be interpreting this verse as saying that "everyone written in the book" must include people living today. But that's not what it is saying at all. It is saying that everyone in the specific group at that specific time would be delivered if they are found written in the book. To clarify: The context of Daniel 12:1 limits the phrase "every one that is found written in the book" to "every one" living at the "time of trouble" - whether that be future or past.
I understand the reason of your misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification.



Two problems

1) ...

2) None of those verses teach that the "book of life" is a literal book with a literal "the list of the people who will be redeemed throughout the human history." On the contrary, it seems to be a metaphorical way of indicating whether or not the individual or group in view is righteous before God. In any context, the righteous are said to be "written in the book" and the unrighteous are "blotted out." Its meaning depends on context. There are big problems with the idea of a literal book of life that contains a static list of all the redeemed. God talks about removing names from the book, so the book cannot initially contain a list only of the redeemed. It also must contain names of those who would be blotted out. This means that the contents of the book of life would change over time. But that seems to contradict the idea that the names of the redeemed were written "before the foundation of the world." (Rev 17:8).
To resolve the issue which at the first sight seems to be a contradiction, one must study "predestination". This is not our main subject now and I agree to discuss it later.



As you can see, the topic of the book of life involves a lot of issues, including our perenial discussion about the relation between "literal" and "metaphorical" language. I think we could avoid all this for the time being if we agreed to the basic idea that the Book of Life is just another way to refer to those who are righteous before God. We can work out the details later.

I believe that the Book of Life is an existing book that was written by God from the foundation of the world and has the names of those people whom will be redeemed throughout history.

We are close to each other, but not thinking the same about the book.

I would still like to ask you these, now leaving Dan 12:1 and the Book's "literal" or "metaphorical" existence out of the picture:
Would you agree that Moses' and David's name is in the Book of Life?
Also, would you agree that your name is written in it?




As mentioned above, there are big problems with the idea of the book of life as a literal "list of righteous." It seems much more likely that it is a metaphor for those who will live because they are right with God. It can not be an exhaustive list preordained from before the foundation of the earth because names can be blotted out.
This we can discuss once we get to "predestination".



I'm glad you understand that. The other things I mentioned seem much more pertinent to our discussion. I'm sorry my post caused such confusion. But that's ok ... we'll get back to the Olivet Discourse eventually. (Soon, I hope!)
Yes, let's agree/disagree on these hanging issues and let's get back to the Olivet Discurse.


Many blessings, to you too brother Richard! :winking0071:
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

2) None of those verses teach that the "book of life" is a literal book with a literal "the list of the people who will be redeemed throughout the human history." On the contrary, it seems to be a metaphorical way of indicating whether or not the individual or group in view is righteous before God. In any context, the righteous are said to be "written in the book" and the unrighteous are "blotted out." Its meaning depends on context. There are big problems with the idea of a literal book of life that contains a static list of all the redeemed. God talks about removing names from the book, so the book cannot initially contain a list only of the redeemed. It also must contain names of those who would be blotted out. This means that the contents of the book of life would change over time. But that seems to contradict the idea that the names of the redeemed were written "before the foundation of the world." (Rev 17:8).
To resolve the issue which at the first sight seems to be a contradiction, one must study "predestination". This is not our main subject now and I agree to discuss it later.

Yep. We are facing the great challenge of eschatology - it touches every other topic in the entire Bible.



I believe that the Book of Life is an existing book that was written by God from the foundation of the world and has the names of those people whom will be redeemed throughout history.

Do you identify yourself as a Calvinist?



I would still like to ask you these, now leaving Dan 12:1 and the Book's "literal" or "metaphorical" existence out of the picture:
Would you agree that Moses' and David's name is in the Book of Life?
Also, would you agree that your name is written in it?

Yes. But my answer does not mean much if we have not agreed whether or not the "book of life" is literal or metaphorical.




I'm glad you understand that. The other things I mentioned seem much more pertinent to our discussion. I'm sorry my post caused such confusion. But that's ok ... we'll get back to the Olivet Discourse eventually. (Soon, I hope!)
Yes, let's agree/disagree on these hanging issues and let's get back to the Olivet Discurse.

Many blessings, to you too brother Richard! :winking0071:
Battyus
OK - let's get back on track. Here's where we stand:

A) We agree that four questions were asked:

1) When will these things be fulfilled?
2) What will be the sign when these things will be fulfilled?
3) What will be the sign of your parousia?
4) What will be the sign of the suntelia of the aion?

B) We agree that questions 1 & 2 concerned the destruction of the first century Temple, and were fulfilled in AD 70.

C) We disagree about the implied time and scope of the fulfillment of questions 3 & 4.

Let's move on to the next section of the text. I believe that the events described in the Olivet Discourse are the same events revealed in the first six seals. Both the content and the order are the same. Here is a review using the record from Luke 21:

Seal 1: White Horse = False Christs (Luke 21:8)
Seal 2: Red Horse = Nation shall rise against nation (Luke 21:10)
Seal 3: Black Horse = Famines (Luke 21:11)
Seal 4: Pale Horse = Pestilence (Luke 21:11)
Seal 5: Martyrs = they shall lay their hands on you (Luke 21:12)
Seal 6: Day of Judgment = Days of Vengeance (Luke 21:22)

Do you agree with the harmony of these passages?

Many blessings my friend!

Richard

[Battyus]

Do you identify yourself as a Calvinist?
No, I would not identify myself as a Calvinist, but I see why you asked :)





Originally Posted by Battyus
I would still like to ask you these, now leaving Dan 12:1 and the Book's "literal" or "metaphorical" existence out of the picture:
Would you agree that Moses' and David's name is in the Book of Life?
Also, would you agree that your name is written in it?
Yes. But my answer does not mean much if we have not agreed whether or not the "book of life" is literal or metaphorical.
I asked this question, because if Moses', David's, your and my names are in it, I would say, that this book has a worldwide scope. May it be literal book (My opinion) or metaphorical(Your opinion).
Would you agree on the worldwide scope of the Book of life?




OK - let's get back on track. Here's where we stand:

A) We agree that four questions were asked:

1) When will these things be fulfilled?
2) What will be the sign when these things will be fulfilled?
3) What will be the sign of your parousia?
4) What will be the sign of the suntelia of the aion?
We agree.



B) We agree that questions 1 & 2 concerned the destruction of the first century Temple, and were fulfilled in AD 70.

C) We disagree about the implied time and scope of the fulfillment of questions 3 & 4.
Correct.



Let's move on to the next section of the text. I believe that the events described in the Olivet Discourse are the same events revealed in the first six seals. Both the content and the order are the same. Here is a review using the record from Luke 21:

Seal 1: White Horse = False Christs (Luke 21:8)
Seal 2: Red Horse = Nation shall rise against nation (Luke 21:10)
Seal 3: Black Horse = Famines (Luke 21:11)
Seal 4: Pale Horse = Pestilence (Luke 21:11)
Seal 5: Martyrs = they shall lay their hands on you (Luke 21:12)
Seal 6: Day of Judgment = Days of Vengeance (Luke 21:22)

Do you agree with the harmony of these passages?

Many blessings my friend!

Richard
We are very, very close! Let me insert other verses too from Mark's and Matthew's corresponding verses and also, the exact verses from Revelation.

Please note that I insert every sentence from all 3 gospels which lists the Olivet Discourse in the order they are mentioned.

Seal 1: White Horse = False Christs (Luke 21:8)
Mat 24:4-5
Mark 13:5-6
Luke 21:8
Rev 6:1-2

Seal 2: Red Horse = Nation shall rise against nation (Luke 21:10)
Mat 24:6-7a
Mark 13:7-8a
Luke 21:9-10
Rev 6:3-4

Seal 3: Black Horse = Famines (Luke 21:11)
Mat 24:7b
Mark 13:8b
Luke 21:11a
Rev 6:5-6

Seal 4: Pale Horse = Pestilence (Luke 21:11)
Mat 24:8
Mark 13:8c
Luke 21:11b
Rev 6:7-8

Seal 5: Martyrs = they shall lay their hands on you (Luke 21:12)
Mat 24:9-13
Mark 13:9-13
Luke 21:12-19
Rev 6:9-11

Up until this point we agree about the harmony, and more importantly the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are totally in harmony too.

But here a very interesting thing happens:
Revelation moves to the 6th seal, but the Olivet Discourse "falls out of sync".

So far, we've used the specific events mentioned in the corresponding sentences to identify them as a match. So, if we continue using the same logic, we must find the same similarity between the sentences in order to identify them as a match.

In Revelation you have 4 very specific events mentioned under the 6th seal (Rev 6:12-17): great earthquake, sun became black, moon became as blood, stars of heaven fell unto the earth, but these events are not mentioned in the Olivet Discourse until much later.

The last verses of the Olivet Discourse that are in sync with Revelation at this point were:
Mat 24:13
Mark 13:13
Luke 21:19

Look which verses in the Olivet Discourse mention the events of the 6th Seal:
Mat 24:29 (16 sentences are skipped since verse 13)
Mark 13:24-25 (11 sentences are skipped since verse 13)
Luke 21:25-26 (6 sentences are skipped since verse 19)

So, if we apply our logic that we've used to harmonize the first 5 Seals with the Olivet Discourse, I only find it natural to apply the same logic for the rest of the text.

According to this, then the 6th Seal Rev 6:12-17 is in harmony with
Mat 24:29
Mark 13:24-25
Luke 21:25-26

Before I would continue, I would like to see how much are we in agreement.

I'll talk to you soon, brother Richard!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, I would not identify myself as a Calvinist, but I see why you asked :)
Hey there my true brother! :sunny:

I am sure we will have some very interesting conversations on issues relating to predestination after we come to perfect agreement about the Olivet Discourse. :D



I asked this question, because if Moses', David's, your and my names are in it, I would say, that this book has a worldwide scope. May it be literal book (My opinion) or metaphorical(Your opinion).
Would you agree on the worldwide scope of the Book of life?

I think you may have missed my point. If there is no literal "book of life" then it is meaningless to say it has a "worldwide scope." The Bible says that Moses and David were in the "book of life" because they were in right relationship with God. If the same metaphor is used of your or me, then we too would be said to be "in the book of life." It's just a metaphor - so the ideas of "worldwide scope" and an "exhaustive list of the redeemed" simply do not apply to this metaphor. Those ideas would apply only if we interpret the "book of life" as a literal book with a literal list of names. It will be very interesting when we get a chance to discuss this in more detail.



We are very, very close! Let me insert other verses too from Mark's and Matthew's corresponding verses and also, the exact verses from Revelation.

Please note that I insert every sentence from all 3 gospels which lists the Olivet Discourse in the order they are mentioned.

Seal 1: White Horse = False Christs (Luke 21:8)
Mat 24:4-5
Mark 13:5-6
Luke 21:8
Rev 6:1-2

Seal 2: Red Horse = Nation shall rise against nation (Luke 21:10)
Mat 24:6-7a
Mark 13:7-8a
Luke 21:9-10
Rev 6:3-4

Seal 3: Black Horse = Famines (Luke 21:11)
Mat 24:7b
Mark 13:8b
Luke 21:11a
Rev 6:5-6

Seal 4: Pale Horse = Pestilence (Luke 21:11)
Mat 24:8
Mark 13:8c
Luke 21:11b
Rev 6:7-8

Seal 5: Martyrs = they shall lay their hands on you (Luke 21:12)
Mat 24:9-13
Mark 13:9-13
Luke 21:12-19
Rev 6:9-11

Up until this point we agree about the harmony, and more importantly the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are totally in harmony too.

Excellent! We have a solid foundation up to this point.



But here a very interesting thing happens:
Revelation moves to the 6th seal, but the Olivet Discourse "falls out of sync".

So far, we've used the specific events mentioned in the corresponding sentences to identify them as a match. So, if we continue using the same logic, we must find the same similarity between the sentences in order to identify them as a match.

In Revelation you have 4 very specific events mentioned under the 6th seal (Rev 6:12-17): great earthquake, sun became black, moon became as blood, stars of heaven fell unto the earth, but these events are not mentioned in the Olivet Discourse until much later.

The last verses of the Olivet Discourse that are in sync with Revelation at this point were:
Mat 24:13
Mark 13:13
Luke 21:19

Look which verses in the Olivet Discourse mention the events of the 6th Seal:
Mat 24:29 (16 sentences are skipped since verse 13)
Mark 13:24-25 (11 sentences are skipped since verse 13)
Luke 21:25-26 (6 sentences are skipped since verse 19)

So, if we apply our logic that we've used to harmonize the first 5 Seals with the Olivet Discourse, I only find it natural to apply the same logic for the rest of the text.

According to this, then the 6th Seal Rev 6:12-17 is in harmony with
Mat 24:29
Mark 13:24-25
Luke 21:25-26

Before I would continue, I would like to see how much are we in agreement.

I'll talk to you soon, brother Richard!
Battyus
I don't think the term "out of sync" is correct. That idea implies that there is a different order of events. I think the correct understanding is that the Olivet Discourse fills in the details of the events between the 5th and 6th Seals. For example, you suggest that Luke 21:20-24 are "out of sync" with the 6th Seal, and that the 6th Seal corresponds to Luke 21:25-26. Let's look more closely at this. I see absolutely nothing that suggests a break between the 5th and 6th seals. Here is the continuous text from Luke 21:16-26.

SEAL 5 Martyrdom: Luke 21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. 18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish. 19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

SEAL 6: For the great day of his wrath is come - Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and WRATH upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

SEAL 6: Sun Darkened, etc. - Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Could you explain why you think Luke 21:20-24 does not fit with the 6th Seal?

Many blessings to you my good friend!

Richard

[Battyus]

Hello again Richard!

I'll jump right in the middle:



... Those ideas would apply only if we interpret the "book of life" as a literal book with a literal list of names. It will be very interesting when we get a chance to discuss this in more detail.
Conclusion of Book of life:
Battyus: Literal book, has the names of all people whom are saved throughout history.
Richard: Not a literal book, just a metaphor, "worldwide scope" does not apply.
(please correct me if needed)



I don't think the term "out of sync" is correct. That idea implies that there is a different order of events. I think the correct understanding is that the Olivet Discourse fills in the details of the events between the 5th and 6th Seals.
I've used the "out of sync" term to express that the strict pattern that each Seal can be identified by the following sentence in the Olivet Discourse is broken. This pattern was true for the first 5 seals as we agreed, but before we can find a matching sentence in the OD for the 6th Seal, there are other sentences.

I did not want to imply with the "out of sync" term that the order of the events is different. I say that the order of the events is chronological in the Olivet Discourse - and I assume that you would agree to this.



For example, you suggest that Luke 21:20-24 are "out of sync" with the 6th Seal, and that the 6th Seal corresponds to Luke 21:25-26. Let's look more closely at this. I see absolutely nothing that suggests a break between the 5th and 6th seals. Here is the continuous text from Luke 21:16-26.

SEAL 5 Martyrdom: Luke 21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. 18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish. 19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

SEAL 6: For the great day of his wrath is come - Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and WRATH upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

SEAL 6: Sun Darkened, etc. - Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Could you explain why you think Luke 21:20-24 does not fit with the 6th Seal?

Certainly, I can try :)

Reason 1:
-We agree that the following verses match without a doubt and identify the 6th Seal:
Mat 24:29 "...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"
Mark 13:24-25 "the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken"
Luke 21:25-26 "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; ... for the powers of heaven shall be shaken"
Rev 6:12-13 "...when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth,..."

-You've characterized the verses in the Olivet Discourse that are "between the 5th and 6th Seals" as sentences that fill in the details between those 2 seals.
These verses are:
Mat 24:14-28
Mark 13:14-23
Luke 21:20-24

-Groups of these verses can perfectly be harmonized with each other and with Revelation as you'll see later. For now let me just mention the matching verses for Luke 21:20-24, since that's what you've asked:
Mat 24:16-20 "16. Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17. Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18. Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20. But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:"
Mark 13:15-18 "15. And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16. And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18. And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter."
Luke 21:20-24 "20. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

-As you can see, Luke 21:20-24 matches with those parts of the Olivet Discourse that you characterized as events between the 5th and 6th Seals, therefore Luke 21:20-24 is not part of the 6th Seal, which comes after these "fill in events". When we get there, You'll see that these verses match perfectly with another part of Revelation (which is not the opening of the 6th Seal)


Reason 2:
-As with the 1st 5 Seals, let me quote the verses from all 3 Gospels plus from Revelation:

Mat 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:

Mark 13:24-25 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

Luke 21:25-26 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26. Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Rev 6:12-17 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16. And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17. For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

-As you can see in Revelation, the events are in this order: first the signs in the Sun and Moon (and more events detailed) and AFTER these the great day of his wrath is come.

-This order is being foretold too in Joel 2:30-31
30. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. 31. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.

-The texts "after the tribulation of those days" in Mat 24:29, "after that tribulation" in Mark 13:24, "And there shall be" in Luk 21:25 make it clear that the signs in the Sun and Moon will come AFTER the events described in the previous verses (Mat 24:16-20, Mark 13:15-18, Luke 21:20-24)

Therefore, you can not say, that Luk 21:20-24 is part of the 6th Seal as the 6th Seal starts with the signs in the Sun and Moon, which is clearly AFTER the events of (Mat 24:16-20, Mark 13:15-18, Luke 21:20-24)

If you say that Luk 21:20-24 (and the matching verses in Mat 24:16-20 and Mark 13:15-18) are supposed to happen at the time of the "For the great day of his wrath is come" phrase under the 6th Seal, then you could not explain the meaning of the following expressions:
"after the tribulation of those days" in Mat 24:29
"after that tribulation" in Mark 13:24
"And there shall be" in Luk 21:25

Conclusion:
According to this, the 6th Seal in Rev 6:12-17 is in harmony with
Mat 24:29
Mark 13:24-25
Luke 21:25-26

Let me know if you see my reason at this point why "Luke 21:20-24 does not fit with the 6th Seal".

Once I hear your opinion (even if you agree, or even if you don't), I suggest the next step to be to harmonize the "fill in verses" with each other and with Revelation.

Your brother,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello again Richard!

I'll jump right in the middle:

Hey ho my friend! Glad you found time for a visit.



Conclusion of Book of life:
Battyus: Literal book, has the names of all people whom are saved throughout history.
Richard: Not a literal book, just a metaphor, "worldwide scope" does not apply.
(please correct me if needed)

Close enough for now, since we are not going to pursue it at this time.



I've used the "out of sync" term to express that the strict pattern that each Seal can be identified by the following sentence in the Olivet Discourse is broken. This pattern was true for the first 5 seals as we agreed, but before we can find a matching sentence in the OD for the 6th Seal, there are other sentences.

I did not want to imply with the "out of sync" term that the order of the events is different. I say that the order of the events is chronological in the Olivet Discourse - and I assume that you would agree to this.

Yes, the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified. But this seems to contradict your assertion below that there are events in the OD that somehow don't fit with the sequence of the seals.



Reason 1:
-We agree that the following verses match without a doubt and identify the 6th Seal:
Mat 24:29 "...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"
Mark 13:24-25 "the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken"
Luke 21:25-26 "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; ... for the powers of heaven shall be shaken"
Rev 6:12-13 "...when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth,..."

-You've characterized the verses in the Olivet Discourse that are "between the 5th and 6th Seals"as sentences that fill in the details between those 2 seals.

...

-As you can see, Luke 21:20-24 matches with those parts of the Olivet Discourse that you characterized as events between the 5th and 6th Seals, therefore Luke 21:20-24 is not part of the 6th Seal, which comes after these "fill in events". When we get there, You'll see that these verses match perfectly with another part of Revelation (which is not the opening of the 6th Seal)

I don't follow your logic. Luke 21:20-24 speaks of the "Days of Vengeance" and the "great distress" and WRATH of God. This coheres perfectly with the 6th seal, and it harmonizes perfectly with the parallel content from Matthew and Mark. So this implies that they all are speaking of the same events that lead up to and include the 6th seal. My use of the phrase "between the 5th and 6th seals" was not meant to mean "exclusive of those seals."

It seems like you are saying that the OD is sequential in time and coheres perfectly with the 6 seals, but that it has some additional information stuck between the 5th and 6th seals that is not part of the events described by those seals.This doesn't make sense to me. It seems to destroy the unity of Scripture. Obviously, we will need to clarify this point.



Reason 2:
-As with the 1st 5 Seals, let me quote the verses from all 3 Gospels plus from Revelation:

...

-The texts "after the tribulation of those days" in Mat 24:29, "after that tribulation" in Mark 13:24, "And there shall be" in Luk 21:25 make it clear that the signs in the Sun and Moon will come AFTER the events described in the previous verses (Mat 24:16-20, Mark 13:15-18, Luke 21:20-24)

Therefore, you can not say, that Luk 21:20-24 is part of the 6th Seal as the 6th Seal starts with the signs in the Sun and Moon, which is clearly AFTER the events of (Mat 24:16-20, Mark 13:15-18, Luke 21:20-24)

If you say that Luk 21:20-24 (and the matching verses in Mat 24:16-20 and Mark 13:15-18) are supposed to happen at the time of the "For the great day of his wrath is come" phrase under the 6th Seal, then you could not explain the meaning of the following expressions:
"after the tribulation of those days" in Mat 24:29
"after that tribulation" in Mark 13:24
"And there shall be" in Luk 21:25

I'm not sure how to answer your question because you seem to be making many assumptions that have not been stated yet. So could you please explain in just a few words how you think the OD fits with Revelation? It seems you think the first five seals were fulfilled in the first century, and then there is a 2000+ year gap and then the 6th seal will be fulfilled. Is this correct? How do you understand the "before" and "after" passages relating to the "great and terrible day of the Lord?"

And it also is very important for us to come to an agreement about the meaning of the "sun going dark" etc. Do you understand that as a standard biblical symbol for the fall of a nation under the judgment of God as in Isaiah 13:10, or do you think it has some sort of "literal" meaning?

Great chatting my friend.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Battyus,

I need an answer to this question. Are these two parallel passages talking about the same events? The underlying Greek of the red text in the two passages is the same:

Matthew 24:15 Therefore when you see (otan idete) the 'abomination of desolation (eremosis),' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains (letter-for-letter identical with Luke 21:21):

Luke 21:20 But when you see (otan idete) Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation (eremosis) is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (letter-for-letter identical with Matthew 24:15), let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.

Richard

[Battyus]

Hello again my friend!


Hey Battyus,
I need an answer to this question. Are these two parallel passages talking about the same events? The underlying Greek of the red text in the two passages is the same:

Matthew 24:15 Therefore when you see (otan idete) the 'abomination of desolation (eremosis),' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains (letter-for-letter identical with Luke 21:21):

Luke 21:20 But when you see (otan idete) Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation (eremosis) is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (letter-for-letter identical with Matthew 24:15), let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.

Richard
These two are parallel passages - we agree.

Let me also quote the verse from Mark too, which is parallel to these two:
Mark 13:14 "14. But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:"

Your question was whether they are describing the same event or not?
I say you can get the full answer if you take a closer look at these 3 verses:

The verses are parallel, so on one hand we can say that they are describing the same event.

But at the same time we can observe differences too in the verses:
Mark and Matthew are almost identical word by word but Luke differs at few points:
The sign to look for is:
In Mat and Mark: "abomination of desolation ... standing in the holy place"
In Luke: "Jerusalem surrounded by armies"

What to do when one sees the sign:
In Mat and Mark: "flee into the mountains"
In Luke: "know that its[Jerusalem's] desolation is near" and then "flee into the mountains"

What do these differences tell us?
They suggest that Luke 21:20-24 has a twofold purpose:
First, it describes the destruction of Jerusalem which already took place in AD 70 (Notice the sign of this event: "Jerusalem surrounded").

Second, it describes how Israel will flee to the wilderness during the Great Tribulation, as in Matthew and Mark the parallel text no doubt describes the "same event" as it is happening during the Tribulation period.

It is also interesting to note that Luke adds another sentence in Luk 21:24 which can not be found in Mat nor in Mark:
24. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

"shall be led away captive into all nations" - Happened in AD70
"Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles" - Started in AD70
"until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" - Still happening until Jesus' 2nd coming.

So, verse 24 gives us more clues about the twofold meaning of Luk 24:20-24:
At one hand it describes the events in AD70 and on the other hand it is a type of the events that are described in Mat and Mark and will take place during the Great Tribulation.

I don't want to jump too far ahead, but let me list all the parallel passages that will explain what events are happening at the same time:
Mat 24:15; Mark 13:14a; Luk 21:20 AND
Rev 13:1-18; Dan 7:25; Dan 9:27b; 2Thes 2:4

And here is the rest of our text with its parallels:
Mat 24:16-20; Mark 13:14b-18; Luk 21:21-24 AND
Rev 12:6-17; Dan 12:1a

Many blessings,
Battyus

[Battyus]

Good Morning Richard!

Hey ho my friend! Glad you found time for a visit.
Well, I try my best! Off topic: I wanted to ask you, how do you have time to participate in so many conversations at the same time?


Yes, the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified. But this seems to contradict your assertion below that there are events in the OD that somehow don't fit with the sequence of the seals.
I'm sorry, if you understood my post like that!
We agree that the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified. But we do not agree, how the verses line up.


I don't follow your logic. Luke 21:20-24 speaks of the "Days of Vengeance" and the "great distress" and WRATH of God. This coheres perfectly with the 6th seal, and it harmonizes perfectly with the parallel content from Matthew and Mark. So this implies that they all are speaking of the same events that lead up to and include the 6th seal. My use of the phrase "between the 5th and 6th seals" was not meant to mean "exclusive of those seals."
This is my point:
-the "Days of Vengeance" and the "great distress" and WRATH of God described in Luk 21:20-24 preceeds Luk 21:25-26.
-We agreed that Luk 21:25-26 is a 100% match for the opening of the 6th Seal (Sun & Moon) events.
-As you can read in Revelation and in Joel the "the great day of his wrath is come" event comes AFTER the Sun and Moon events.
-If you say that the events in Luk 21:22-23 are the same as in Rev 6:17, then you brake the chronological order of the Olivet Discourse. (Basically you move the events of Luk 21:22-23 after Luk 21:25-26)


It seems like you are saying that the OD is sequential in time and coheres perfectly with the 6 seals, but that it has some additional information stuck between the 5th and 6th seals that is not part of the events described by those seals.This doesn't make sense to me. It seems to destroy the unity of Scripture. Obviously, we will need to clarify this point.
I did not say this at all. If I remember correctly (I thnk I do :) ), it was you who said that those events in Mat 24:14-28, Mark 13:14-23, Luke 21:20-24, are "filling in details" between the 5th and 6th Seals, when I stated that "Luk 21:20-24 is not the matching verse from the Olivet Discourse to the 6th Seal, instead it is Luk 21:25-26 that matches the 6th Seal".
Since then I did not make any statements in regards to the timing of these "Filling in verses" as you categorized them, the only thing I was explaining is that why Luk 21:20-24 is not the 6th Seal.


I'm not sure how to answer your question because you seem to be making many assumptions that have not been stated yet. So could you please explain in just a few words how you think the OD fits with Revelation? It seems you think the first five seals were fulfilled in the first century, and then there is a 2000+ year gap and then the 6th seal will be fulfilled. Is this correct? How do you understand the "before" and "after" passages relating to the "great and terrible day of the Lord?"
This could not be any farther from what I'm saying all along :)
So far we agreed the harmony between the first 5 Seals and the Matching parts of the Olivet Discourse and we did not talk about this text's timing in History. (Obviously you believe that it was in the 1st Century, and I believe that it will be a future event.)

Let me read your reply to this post, and then let's continue with the harmonization so you'll see how I see the Harmony between the OD and Revelation.



And it also is very important for us to come to an agreement about the meaning of the "sun going dark" etc. Do you understand that as a standard biblical symbol for the fall of a nation under the judgment of God as in Isaiah 13:10, or do you think it has some sort of "literal" meaning?
I rather understand these signs as the indicators of the arrival of the "Day of the Lord", since every time it is used in the Bible it is used in that sense. Please note below, that in the quotations below these signs never refer to a nation, but always refer to the arrival of God's judgement.

Isaiah 13:9-10
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.

Isaiah 24:21-23
21. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
22. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
23. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.

Ezekiel 32:3-8
3. Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will therefore spread out my net over thee with a company of many people; and they shall bring thee up in my net. ...
7. And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
8. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.

Joel 2:10-11
10. The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
11. And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Joel 2:31
31. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.

Mat 24:29-30
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:
30. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mark 13:24-26
24. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Luk 21:25-27
25. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26. Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Rev 6:12-17
12. And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16. And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17. For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Rev 8:12 (as part of God's Trumpet Judgments:)
12. And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

Acts 2:20
20. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

Conclusion:
All of these signs are always refer to the judgment (day) of the Lord and never refer to the actual nation being judged.

Have a blessed day,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good Morning Richard!

Well, I try my best! Off topic: I wanted to ask you, how do you have time to participate in so many conversations at the same time?

Good afternoon to you Battyus!

I work from home. I'm an independent software developer and I'm not working on any outside projects right now so I have lots of time to pursue other interests. This is a great blessing because it is simply impossible to find sufficient time for any serious research while working full-time on a mundane job. For example, it is a full-time job just to educate myself. It takes days or even weeks to work through a single serious scholastic book required for competent study of Scripture.




Yes, the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified. But this seems to contradict your assertion below that there are events in the OD that somehow don't fit with the sequence of the seals.
I'm sorry, if you understood my post like that!
We agree that the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified. But we do not agree, how the verses line up.

Your comment really confuses me. It seems to contradict your assertion that all the seals are still future (see below). I thought we had been tracking perfectly on the first five seals which correspond perfectly with the first century context of the Olivet Discourse. Now you say they are all future??? That completely destroys the harmony I thought we had agreed upon. How can we say that "the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified" if they speak of events separated by 2000+ years? I know of nothing the text of the Olivet Discourse that would justify that idea. Basically, it makes me feel like I've just been hit in the head with a brick.

:brick:

That's why I've taken a little longer than usual to answer. It's hard to know where to start since it is now clear that much of our "agreements" have been an illusion. So basically, I have no idea where we are in the conversation now. I don't know what we agree upon, and what we don't.




It seems like you are saying that the OD is sequential in time and coheres perfectly with the 6 seals, but that it has some additional information stuck between the 5th and 6th seals that is not part of the events described by those seals.This doesn't make sense to me. It seems to destroy the unity of Scripture. Obviously, we will need to clarify this point.
I did not say this at all. If I remember correctly (I thnk I do :) ), it was you who said that those events in Mat 24:14-28, Mark 13:14-23, Luke 21:20-24, are "filling in details" between the 5th and 6th Seals, when I stated that "Luk 21:20-24 is not the matching verse from the Olivet Discourse to the 6th Seal, instead it is Luk 21:25-26 that matches the 6th Seal".
Since then I did not make any statements in regards to the timing of these "Filling in verses" as you categorized them, the only thing I was explaining is that why Luk 21:20-24 is not the 6th Seal.

I don't know what you meant to imply, but your statement that "the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified" implies that they both describe the same events, and the events of the OD are all centered on the first century destruction of the Temple.

How can there be "perfect harmony" between the OD and the Seals if they are separated by 2000+ years? I know you don't believe that the OD is entirely future - at least, that's what I thought you said. But now you say that the Seals are entirely future and perfectly unified with the OD??? :dizzy:




I'm not sure how to answer your question because you seem to be making many assumptions that have not been stated yet. So could you please explain in just a few words how you think the OD fits with Revelation? It seems you think the first five seals were fulfilled in the first century, and then there is a 2000+ year gap and then the 6th seal will be fulfilled. Is this correct? How do you understand the "before" and "after" passages relating to the "great and terrible day of the Lord?"
This could not be any farther from what I'm saying all along :)
So far we agreed the harmony between the first 5 Seals and the Matching parts of the Olivet Discourse and we did not talk about this text's timing in History. (Obviously you believe that it was in the 1st Century, and I believe that it will be a future event.)

This is the problem. Your comments simply don't make any sense to me. I thought we agreed a long time ago that the OD began with Christ's statement about the destruction of the first century Temple. You tried to insert a futurist interpretation by saying that the questions about the parousia and end of the age implied it. When I disagreed, you said that your view would be supported by "harmonizing" the text with verses from Revelation. But now you have simply asserted that Revelation is future and you want to use that as "proof" that the OD is future. This is not exegesis. It appears like you are merely "making up" futurism and forcing into the passages. You have not established from Scripture that anything in either Revelation or the OD is still "future."

I trust you understand I am speaking plainly to you as my good friend! I really want to get back to Biblical exegesis without either or us inserting ideas that are not in the Bible.

I don't think we will make progress by going forward at this time. We need to back up to a point were we really agree on what the Bible really says. Then once we have our feet back on the solid rock of the Holy Word, we can move forward again.

Many, many blessings to you, my good and studious friend in the Lord!

Richard

[Battyus]

Hi Richard,

I hope your weekend is going well!


Your comment really confuses me. It seems to contradict your assertion that all the seals are still future (see below). I thought we had been tracking perfectly on the first five seals which correspond perfectly with the first century context of the Olivet Discourse. Now you say they are all future??? That completely destroys the harmony I thought we had agreed upon. How can we say that "the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified" if they speak of events separated by 2000+ years? I know of nothing the text of the Olivet Discourse that would justify that idea. Basically, it makes me feel like I've just been hit in the head with a brick.
I'm truly sorry, if you feel like that!

I believe the mistake we've done is that we agreed on the harmony of the first 5 Seals and the Olivet Discourse, but we did not spell out our understandings about their time in history.

I thought it was natural for you to understand that I'm "as a Futurist" believe that all the Seals are future events as it was natural for me to understand that you believe that they all took place already in the 1st century.

This explains why you started to question me about the ~2000 year gap between the 5th and 6th Seals, which I tell you confused me because I did not understand why you think I would talk about such a gap. (Now I understand that you thought that I believed that the first 5 Seals were 1st Century events)



That's why I've taken a little longer than usual to answer. It's hard to know where to start since it is now clear that much of our "agreements" have been an illusion. So basically, I have no idea where we are in the conversation now. I don't know what we agree upon, and what we don't.
I think everything we agreed so far is still valid. The only thing that we did not talk about (and therefore we did not agree to) is whether the first 5 Seals are in the 1st century or are they future.

Just to make sure we are on the same page: I believe All the seals are in the future, and I assume that you believe All of them happened in the 1st century.



I don't know what you meant to imply, but your statement that "the Olivet Discourse (and the seals) are sequential, chronological, and unified" implies that they both describe the same events, and the events of the OD are all centered on the first century destruction of the Temple.
Here I think you made an honest mistake when you thought my sentence implied that. I stand by my quoted sentence. The only difference is that I never sad that "events of the OD are all centered on the first century destruction of the Temple". I try to spell everything out and leave nothing for you to "guess" even more carefully in the future.



How can there be "perfect harmony" between the OD and the Seals if they are separated by 2000+ years?
I believe they are All future events and there is no gap, thereforethey are in perfect harmony.



I know you don't believe that the OD is entirely future - at least, that's what I thought you said. But now you say that the Seals are entirely future and perfectly unified with the OD??? :dizzy:
We've never talked about the timing of the Seals, that is the root of the problem. I believe they are all future.



This is the problem. Your comments simply don't make any sense to me. I thought we agreed a long time ago that the OD began with Christ's statement about the destruction of the first century Temple. You tried to insert a futurist interpretation by saying that the questions about the parousia and end of the age implied it. When I disagreed, you said that your view would be supported by "harmonizing" the text with verses from Revelation. But now you have simply asserted that Revelation is future and you want to use that as "proof" that the OD is future. This is not exegesis. It appears like you are merely "making up" futurism and forcing into the passages. You have not established from Scripture that anything in either Revelation or the OD is still "future."

I trust you understand I am speaking plainly to you as my good friend! I really want to get back to Biblical exegesis without either or us inserting ideas that are not in the Bible.

I don't think we will make progress by going forward at this time. We need to back up to a point were we really agree on what the Bible really says. Then once we have our feet back on the solid rock of the Holy Word, we can move forward again.
I agree to go back to our original plan:
State the way we believe how the OD can be harmonized with Revelation and with other books and give numbers to our differences. Once we have the full harmonization we can go back and forth supplying supporting information.

I hope the brick did not leave a mark and we can continue (or rather restart) the conversation with nothing else but with pure harmonization and marking our differences.

If you agree, then let me know and I'll continue with the "3rd Section" of the harmonization (as the last time we agreed was the 2nd Section when we agreed on the number of questions)

Many blessings,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I hope your weekend is going well!

Hello my good friend! :yo:

Yes, I am having a wonderful weekend. Rose and I just completed our three mile jog/walk and are feeling great.

I want to thank you for clearing up the confusions. I think this is the best conversation I have ever had with a futurist. You are a true asset to this forum. :thumb:

I want to focus on this one answer you gave. I had asked:
How can there be "perfect harmony" between the OD and the Seals if they are separated by 2000+ years?
You answered by saying:
I believe they are All future events and there is no gap, therefore they are in perfect harmony.
I find this very confusing. Are you really saying that you believe everything in the Olivet Discourse is yet future? I thought you had said that some parts were fulfilled in the past. So now I am guessing that you believe that some parts were fulfilled in the past and that those parts will be fulfilled again in the future at which time ALL parts of the OD will be fulfilled in one continuous series of events.

Is this what you believe? We really need to put our cards on the table because I still don't have a clear understanding of your position.

Thanks my friend!

Richard

[Battyus]

Good afternoon Richard!

I want to thank you for clearing up the confusions. I think this is the best conversation I have ever had with a futurist. You are a true asset to this forum. :thumb:
Thank you Richard :) I feel welcome here, regardless of our different views. The credit must go to Jesus for teaching us how to love our brothers and sisters!


I want to focus on this one answer you gave. I had asked:
How can there be "perfect harmony" between the OD and the Seals if they are separated by 2000+ years?
You answered by saying:
I believe they are All future events and there is no gap, therefore they are in perfect harmony.
I find this very confusing. Are you really saying that you believe everything in the Olivet Discourse is yet future? I thought you had said that some parts were fulfilled in the past. So now I am guessing that you believe that some parts were fulfilled in the past and that those parts will be fulfilled again in the future at which time ALL parts of the OD will be fulfilled in one continuous series of events.

Is this what you believe? We really need to put our cards on the table because I still don't have a clear understanding of your position.

Yes, I believe the Olivet Discourse is in harmony with the book of Revelation and with the other books and it describes entirely Future events.

I believe there are only 2 connections to 1st Century in the Olivet Discourse:

Jesus in Mat 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-4, Luk 21:5-7 was talking about the 1st Century Temple's destruction. We agreed on this in Post#5 http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17387&postcount=5

I also believe that in Luk 21:20-24 the verses suggest a twofold purpose:
First, they describe the destruction of Jerusalem which already took place in AD 70 and at the same time they are a type of how Israel will flee to the wilderness during the future Great Tribulation.
Please see Post#50 for more detailed explanation on this: http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17795&postcount=50

Other than these 2 points I believe the Olivet Discourse has no more connection to the 1st Century.

So, if we are OK at this point stating our differences, I suggest to continue the harmonization.

May you have a blessed day,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good afternoon Richard!

Thank you Richard :) I feel welcome here, regardless of our different views. The credit must go to Jesus for teaching us how to love our brothers and sisters!

It is good to praise the Lord for the work he does in our hearts. :pray:

I am very glad you feel welcome - because that is the truth! I have been rather frustrated over the years by the unwillingness of most futurists to "go the distance" and really dig down to the ROCK FOUNDATION of what the Bible really teaches on the question of eschatology. It is in the interaction between two believers with different views that the truth can be best discerned. I have found a true brother in you with whom I can sharpen my iron!

:fencing:



Yes, I believe the Olivet Discourse is in harmony with the book of Revelation and with the other books and it describes entirely Future events.

I believe there are only 2 connections to 1st Century in the Olivet Discourse:

Jesus in Mat 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-4, Luk 21:5-7 was talking about the 1st Century Temple's destruction. We agreed on this in Post#5 http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17387&postcount=5

I also believe that in Luk 21:20-24 the verses suggest a twofold purpose:
First, they describe the destruction of Jerusalem which already took place in AD 70 and at the same time they are a type of how Israel will flee to the wilderness during the future Great Tribulation.
Please see Post#50 for more detailed explanation on this: http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17795&postcount=50

Other than these 2 points I believe the Olivet Discourse has no more connection to the 1st Century.

So, if we are OK at this point stating our differences, I suggest to continue the harmonization.

May you have a blessed day,
Battyus
We have come to a very strange situation. We are in perfect agreement that Revelation and the the OD are completely harmonious. Yet we differ as to the time of fulfillment. How can this be?

This is why I have been slow to reply. I thought about it for a good number of hours last night but still could not find a satisfactory solution. So I slept on it, and now I think I see the answer.

You deny the internal harmony of the Olivet Discourse!

This seems very strange. You assert complete harmony between the OD and Revelation, but deny complete harmony within the OD itself! You believe it is a mish-mash of events separated by 2000+ years, even when those events are described using exactly the same words that are found in the same context.

This seems to me to be the primary error of your method of interpretation. The Gospels are filled with parallel passages that have slight differences. We work to harmonize them to show how they fit together to resolve apparent contradictions. When parallel passages have the same context and use exactly the same words, we would never take the differences as evidence that they represent completely different events. For example, we have four accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ. There are some pretty big discrepancies amongst them. Do we then conclude that Jesus really died and rose again four times???

With this in mind, let us review your primary argument by which you have denied the perfect internal unity of the parallel passages that define the Olivet Discourse. In Post #50 (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17795&postcount=50) you wrote (my red highlights):
The verses are parallel, so on one hand we can say that they are describing the same event.

But at the same time we can observe differences too in the verses:

Mark and Matthew are almost identical word by word but Luke differs at few points:
The sign to look for is:
In Mat and Mark: "abomination of desolation ... standing in the holy place"
In Luke: "Jerusalem surrounded by armies"

What to do when one sees the sign:
In Mat and Mark: "flee into the mountains"
In Luke: "know that its[Jerusalem's] desolation is near" and then "flee into the mountains"

What do these differences tell us?
They suggest that Luke 21:20-24 has a twofold purpose:
First, it describes the destruction of Jerusalem which already took place in AD 70 (Notice the sign of this event: "Jerusalem surrounded").
I have a number of problems with your comments:

1) Can you explain why the differences in Luke "suggest" it has a "twofold purpose?" I see no such "suggestion." On the contrary, it seems obvious that Luke is describing the same events using slightly different words to give us a slightly different view (and hence deeper understanding, like stereoscopic vision). We harmonize the passages so that they can be understood as describing the same event. This is how it works in all other cases of parallel passages. This is why God gave us four Gospels - it reveals Christ from slightly different perspectives so we can have some depth perception. The differences do not imply that there are four different Christs! Can you give any justification for denying the perfect internal harmony of the Olivet Discourse on this point?

2) Outside of the Olivet Discourse, can you give me any examples of "parallel verses" that on one hand are "describing the same event" while on the other hand are describing completely separate events?

3) It seems that you ignored the word "desolation" that is found in the parallel passages, and you separated the warning to run to the hills under two different categories. This seems to be an effort to destroy the obvious harmony between these parallel passages:
Matthew 24:15 Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Luke 21:20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.
Here we see identical sequences that include the following words:
when you see ... desolation ... then let those who are in Judea flee ...
What possible justification could there be to rip apart these parallel passages and then declare that they apply to events separated by 2000+ years? Is there anything in the text that would suggest this? This seems to me to be an extremely violent act against the natural and obvious integrity of Holy Scripture.

Again, let me affirm how thrilled I am to be having this conversation with a diligent brother like you! :thumb:

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[Battyus]

Hello again my friend!


I have found a true brother in you with whom I can sharpen my iron!
Amen, my brother :)


I thought about it for a good number of hours last night but still could not find a satisfactory solution. So I slept on it, and now I think I see the answer.
I thank you for thinking about the conversation and not just shoot at the brought up ideas. I'm doing the same, and I't is great to spend this much time in the Word digging deeper and deeper.


You deny the internal harmony of the Olivet Discourse!
Guilty as charged! Let me clarify:
If you go back to http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17450&postcount=22, you can see that I said this first:
"You'll be surprised again: I agree, if you only read the Olivet Discourse. If you take these chapters out of the Bible, then I could understand the reasons behind the Preterist interpretation. But as long as you harmonize it with other books I think a totally different picture emerges."

I'm well aware that the harmonization of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation (and the other books) creates the illusion of "chopping up scripture".

But if we say that the Bible as a whole is a self supporting writing, then we must identify and learn from the different passages that are in harmony instead of categorizing the harmonies as "chopping up scripture".


This seems very strange. You assert complete harmony between the OD and Revelation, but deny complete harmony within the OD itself! You believe it is a mish-mash of events separated by 2000+ years, even when those events are described using exactly the same words that are found in the same context.
These words do not express my beliefs, but I understand your position. This is why I suggest to go through the harmonization, so you'll see in each section what provides the harmony and what can we learn form it.


This seems to me to be the primary error of your method of interpretation.
I think we can only analyze my interpretation once we've went through the harmonization.


The Gospels are filled with parallel passages that have slight differences. We work to harmonize them to show how they fit together to resolve apparent contradictions. When parallel passages have the same context and use exactly the same words, we would never take the differences as evidence that they represent completely different events. For example, we have four accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ. There are some pretty big discrepancies amongst them. Do we then conclude that Jesus really died and rose again four times???
I'm 100% with you on this one. These "parallel passages" all give some additional information about the same events.

Please note that there is a difference though between "parallel passages" and "types".

"Types" foretell us some events that will happen in the future and will have many resemblances to the original event. When we see these "types" fulfilled, we can not say that, "see these must be the same events because they have the same characteristics"! Let me bring some examples:

Type: Melchizedek Christ’s non-levitical descent,
Meaning: Melchizedek line ministry, superior
OT reference: Gen 14
NT reference: Hebr 7

Type: Circumcision
Meaning: New life available in Christ
OT reference: Gen 17, Lev 26:1
NT reference: Rom 4:11, Col 2:11f

Type: Water from the Rock
Meaning: Eternal life provided by Christ
OT reference: Exo 17
NT reference: Jn 4:11, 7:35f, 1 Cor 10:4-5

Type: Brazen Serpent
Meaning: His being lifted up in crucifixion that all who see may live
OT reference: Num 21:8f
NT reference: John 3:14-15

I think you get the idea :)


With this in mind, let us review your primary argument by which you have denied the perfect internal unity of the parallel passages that define the Olivet Discourse. In Post #50 (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17795&postcount=50) you wrote (my red highlights):
The verses are parallel, so on one hand we can say that they are describing the same event.

But at the same time we can observe differences too in the verses:

Mark and Matthew are almost identical word by word but Luke differs at few points:
The sign to look for is:
In Mat and Mark: "abomination of desolation ... standing in the holy place"
In Luke: "Jerusalem surrounded by armies"

What to do when one sees the sign:
In Mat and Mark: "flee into the mountains"
In Luke: "know that its[Jerusalem's] desolation is near" and then "flee into the mountains"

What do these differences tell us?
They suggest that Luke 21:20-24 has a twofold purpose:
First, it describes the destruction of Jerusalem which already took place in AD 70 (Notice the sign of this event: "Jerusalem surrounded").
I have a number of problems with your comments:

1) Can you explain why the differences in Luke "suggest" it has a "twofold purpose?" I see no such "suggestion." On the contrary, it seems obvious that Luke is describing the same events using slightly different words to give us a slightly different view (and hence deeper understanding, like stereoscopic vision). We harmonize the passages so that they can be understood as describing the same event. This is how it works in all other cases of parallel passages. This is why God gave us four Gospels - it reveals Christ from slightly different perspectives so we can have some depth perception. The differences do not imply that there are four different Christs! Can you give any justification for denying the perfect internal harmony of the Olivet Discourse on this point?
Here you ignore the "type" properties of the passage. As I explained the differences in the "The sign to look for" and "What to do when one sees the sign" are the base of recognizing that there is a "type" here, not just a "parallel passage".


2) Outside of the Olivet Discourse, can you give me any examples of "parallel verses" that on one hand are "describing the same event" while on the other hand are describing completely separate events?
I give you another one from the OD, in which the "type" event is being fulfilled in the OD:
Type: Flood
Meaning: WORLDWIDE JUDGEMENT
OT Reference: Gen 6-8
NT Reference: Mat 24:37-39, 2 Peter 3:3-9

And I give you another one, which will be very important in our conversation for other reasons too:
Type: Battle of Gog and Magog
Meaning: God's divine intervention to protect the beloved city
OT Reference: Ezekiel 38-39
NT Reference: Rev 20:7-10



3) It seems that you ignored the word "desolation" that is found in the parallel passages, and you separated the warning to run to the hills under two different categories. This seems to be an effort to destroy the obvious harmony between these parallel passages:
Matthew 24:15 Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Luke 21:20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.
Here we see identical sequences that include the following words:
when you see ... desolation ... then let those who are in Judea flee ...
What possible justification could there be to rip apart these parallel passages and then declare that they apply to events separated by 2000+ years? Is there anything in the text that would suggest this? This seems to me to be an extremely violent act against the natural and obvious integrity of Holy Scripture.
I think it is you , who are ignoring the words in these passages, when you say:
"Here we see identical sequences that include the following words:
when you see ... desolation ... then let those who are in Judea flee ..."

I agree that these are the same words, but you left out important parts of the sentences:
Luke says, to flee, when the "desolation is near", while Matthew says flee when "the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place".

If you say that the 2 "desolation" words refer to the same thing, then according to Matthew, the Jews supposed to flee, when the Temple is already destroyed, when "the 'abomination of desolation,' ... standing in the holy place". I think it would have been kinda late to flee, by the time the Temple was destroyed!



Again, let me affirm how thrilled I am to be having this conversation with a diligent brother like you!
Me too Richard, and I think by now we both know that even if there are some down to the point questions/answers, they are not there to hurt, but to "provoke the other into deeper thinking".

May God bless you my friend!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I thank you for thinking about the conversation and not just shoot at the brought up ideas. I'm doing the same, and I't is great to spend this much time in the Word digging deeper and deeper.

It seems we have found some of the keys to a fruitful study. Take time for a thoughtful response. Engage what the other person actual said. Seek to identify the true reasons for our different understandings. Hide nothing. Respect each other.

Who would have thought it would be so simple?

Of course, the actual work is not so simple. But working with you is a true joy.




You deny the internal harmony of the Olivet Discourse!
Guilty as charged! Let me clarify:
If you go back to http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17450&postcount=22, you can see that I said this first:
"You'll be surprised again: I agree, if you only read the Olivet Discourse. If you take these chapters out of the Bible, then I could understand the reasons behind the Preterist interpretation. But as long as you harmonize it with other books I think a totally different picture emerges."

I'm well aware that the harmonization of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation (and the other books) creates the illusion of "chopping up scripture".

But if we say that the Bible as a whole is a self supporting writing, then we must identify and learn from the different passages that are in harmony instead of categorizing the harmonies as "chopping up scripture".

We are in perfect agreement that "the Bible as a whole is a self supporting writing." This is one of my fundamental conclusions after years of studying Scripture. Indeed, I wrote a book with the subtitle "A Revelation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible."

I'm really glad that you repeated your statement from Post #22. I was going to quote it myself. But I think it is not quite accurate. You say that "I agree, if you only read the Olivet Discourse. If you take these chapters out of the Bible, then I could understand the reasons behind the Preterist interpretation." This is not my experience at all. On the contrary, it seems to me that the Preterist understanding of the OD is the only view that is consistent and unified with the "Big Picture" of the entire Bible. It is exactly the opposite of the futurist methodology which really does "chop up Scripture." It will be very good to examine the reasons why we differ on this point.



I'm 100% with you on this one. These "parallel passages" all give some additional information about the same events.

Please note that there is a difference though between "parallel passages" and "types".

"Types" foretell us some events that will happen in the future and will have many resemblances to the original event. When we see these "types" fulfilled, we can not say that, "see these must be the same events because they have the same characteristics"! Let me bring some examples:
...

I think you get the idea :)

Yes, I certainly do get that idea! I agree absolutely that types are a fundamental aspect of Holy Scripture. Indeed, I believe that it is impossible to have even a proper understanding of Scripture without a thorough knowledge of types.

But I disagree with your statement that "Types foretell us some events that will happen in the future." That's not how they function. I think it is the other way around. The Jews did not know the meaning of the Types until after the revelation of the Antitype (Reality/Substance) in Christ. For example, the Jews could not predict the crucifixion of Messiah using the type of the Brazen Serpent. They didn't even know that it was a "type." The meaning of the Type could not be known until the Antitype was revealed.



Here you ignore the "type" properties of the passage. As I explained the differences in the "The sign to look for" and "What to do when one sees the sign" are the base of recognizing that there is a "type" here, not just a "parallel passage".

I will need further explanation. I have no idea how the differences could form "the base of recognizing that there is a type here." Do you use this logic anywhere outside the Olivet Discourse?



I give you another one from the OD, in which the "type" event is being fulfilled in the OD:
Type: Flood
Meaning: WORLDWIDE JUDGEMENT
OT Reference: Gen 6-8
NT Reference: Mat 24:37-39, 2 Peter 3:3-9

This is a legitimate type. But your emphasis on "worldwide" contains a hidden assumption. You think it means "global." This is a modern idea that is not harmonious with the general usage of "world" in the Bible. Consider these verses:


Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Is there a reason we should understand "all the world" differently in Matthew 24:14 as compared with all those other verses in which we know with certainty that it does not mean "global?" Note particularly that Colossians 1:6 speaks of exactly the same thing as Matthew 24:14. Both passages speak of the "preaching of the Gospel" in "all the world." The only difference is that Colossians 1:6 declares that it is an accomplished fact!

Christ emphasized two aspects of the Flood as a type of the judgment to come:


It would be sudden. Folks would be eating and drinking as normal and then BANG! - down comes the judgment.
It would affect everyone in the Biblical world.

In my estimation, the type of the flood was fulfilled with perfect precision in the Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD. Jerusalem was filled with Passover Pilgrims from "every nation under heaven" and then they were suddenly trapped in Jerusalem by the Romans and died or were taken captive as slaves. Josephus speaks about the suddenness of the event.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[Battyus]

Hey Brother,


It seems we have found some of the keys to a fruitful study. Take time for a thoughtful response. Engage what the other person actual said. Seek to identify the true reasons for our different understandings. Hide nothing. Respect each other.
Well said :thumb:



Indeed, I wrote a book with the subtitle "A Revelation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible."
Can I download or purchase it somewhere? I'm sure it would be an interesting read!


It will be very good to examine the reasons why we differ on this point.
Yes, let's go ahead with the harmonization!



But I disagree with your statement that "Types foretell us some events that will happen in the future." That's not how they function. I think it is the other way around. The Jews did not know the meaning of the Types until after the revelation of the Antitype (Reality/Substance) in Christ. For example, the Jews could not predict the crucifixion of Messiah using the type of the Brazen Serpent. They didn't even know that it was a "type." The meaning of the Type could not be known until the Antitype was revealed.
This is how I meant "foretell", just failed to express it correctly. I agree with you!


I will need further explanation. I have no idea how the differences could form "the base of recognizing that there is a type here." Do you use this logic anywhere outside the Olivet Discourse?
For instance the same situation is in Rev 20:8, when the Last battle of Satan for the first read looks like it is the battle of Gog and Magog mentioned in Ezekiel 38-39. Yet, if you compare these passages, you'll see differences between the battles, and these differences tell you that they are not the same battles. How come, then Rev 20:8 still refers to it as the battle of Gog and Magog? Because it is using the original battle in Ezekiel 38-39 as a "type" to express the magnitude of the battle in Rev 20:8.

The same way, the differences between the accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luk 21:20-24 let us know that there is a type here. It is not possible to reconcile the differences as "additional information" about the same event.



This is a legitimate type. But your emphasis on "worldwide" contains a hidden assumption. You think it means "global." This is a modern idea that is not harmonious with the general usage of "world" in the Bible. Consider these verses:


Romans 1:8, First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world kosmō.
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world oikoumenēn should be taxed.
Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world oikoumenēn: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven ouranon.
Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world kosmō; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world oikoumenē for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Is there a reason we should understand "all the world" differently in Matthew 24:14 as compared with all those other verses in which we know with certainty that it does not mean "global?" Note particularly that Colossians 1:6 speaks of exactly the same thing as Matthew 24:14. Both passages speak of the "preaching of the Gospel" in "all the world." The only difference is that Colossians 1:6 declares that it is an accomplished fact!

In http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17457&postcount=23 you said that "But as for the verses you used to arrive at a "planetary" implication - were you careful to note that the word "ge" (often mistransalted as "earth") usually denotes the land of Israel and surrounding nations? This is a very important point." (emphasis mine)

In the above verses we see kosmō, oikoumenēn, ouranon and you suggest that because in these verses these words "with certainty do not have global meaning", therefore they can not have global meanings elsewhere.

Now, what word can the poor greek use to describe global events, if ge, kosmō, oikoumenēn, ouranon are "not good for that"? :)



Christ emphasized two aspects of the Flood as a type of the judgment to come:


It would be sudden. Folks would be eating and drinking as normal and then BANG! - down comes the judgment.
It would affect everyone in the Biblical world.

Well, this is my point exactly: Just as the flood effected everybody in the world, the Judgment described in the Olivet Discourse and in Revelation will effect everybody in the World, and not just in local Israel.



In my estimation, the type of the flood was fulfilled with perfect precision in the Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD. Jerusalem was filled with Passover Pilgrims from "every nation under heaven" and then they were suddenly trapped in Jerusalem by the Romans and died or were taken captive as slaves. Josephus speaks about the suddenness of the event.
Your estimation is based upon the interpretation of "every nation under heaven" as a localized event. As I said above, if we interpret the Bible this way, then we leave no room for the Bible to express anything concerning the whole world.

Using the same thinking, would you say, that John 1:10 talks about local Israel, just because it uses the same kosmō word as Colossians 1:6 above?
"He was in the world kosmō, and the world kosmos was made by him, and the world kosmos knew him not."

Great chatting :)
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Halloo my good friend! :anim_32:



This is how I meant "foretell", just failed to express it correctly. I agree with you!

Excellent. I'm glad we agree.



For instance the same situation is in Rev 20:8, when the Last battle of Satan for the first read looks like it is the battle of Gog and Magog mentioned in Ezekiel 38-39. Yet, if you compare these passages, you'll see differences between the battles, and these differences tell you that they are not the same battles. How come, then Rev 20:8 still refers to it as the battle of Gog and Magog? Because it is using the original battle in Ezekiel 38-39 as a "type" to express the magnitude of the battle in Rev 20:8.

That makes sense to me, but I do not want to enter into any discussion about that aspect of Rev 20 just yet. It's too uncertain. We're still laying the bricks for the foundation. Rev 20 is on the tippy-top pinnacle of this hermeneutical Tabernacle we are building.



The same way, the differences between the accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luk 21:20-24 let us know that there is a type here. It is not possible to reconcile the differences as "additional information" about the same event.

That is an invalid conclusion based on your suggestion that harmonization would require an absurd equation, namely:

"desolation of Jerusalem" = "abomination of desolation"

That equation is false and I do not assert it. Therefore, it is an illegitimate argument against my position.

My position is that no one knows the exact meaning of the Abomination of Desolation (AoD). This commentary by Donald A. Hagner (Word Biblical Commentary, Matthew) is helpful:
15 τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, lit. “the abomination of the desolation,” is language taken directly from the LXX of Daniel (exactly in Dan 12:11; without definite articles in 11:31; and with the plural τῶν ἐρημώσεων, “of the desolations,” in 9:27), where it refers to an image set upon the altar of the temple in connection with the destruction of the city. It functions here, therefore, as a technical expression for an idolatrous “abomination” (שִׁקּוּץ, šiqqûṣ, “detested,” i.e., by God). The genitive construction is to be understood as meaning “the abomination that makes desolate,” an allusion to the accompanying devastation of the sacrilege.
Exactly the same Greek phrase is used in Dan 12:11 (LXX) where it was translated as suggested by Hagner:
Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Thus, we understand that Christ was talking about an "abomination" that "maketh desolate." We do not know it's exact nature, but we do know the result of its presence. It will lead directly to the "desolation of Jerusalem." Therefore, the two passages are clearly talking about the same thing and are harmonized with no difficulty at all. The AoD is "seen" around the same time that the armies surrounding Jerusalem are seen. And this is the sign that it is time to get out of town.

Now it is important for me to let you know what I think about the futurist position on this point. I consider your assertion that the presence of the AoD in Matthew implies that it is talking about an event in the distant future to be a prime example of the fundamental error of futurist hermeneutics. You are attempting to build your eschatology upon things unknown and things not clearly stated in Scripture. This is exactly the opposite of valid hermeneutics. We must build our eschatology upon what the Bible actually states, not upon what it does not state! It seem to me that the entire futurist doctrine is built on nothing but speculation about things that are not written and things that are not confirmed by two or three clear and unambiguous witnesses. We'll be talking more about this later.



In http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17457&postcount=23 you said that "But as for the verses you used to arrive at a "planetary" implication - were you careful to note that the word "ge" (often mistransalted as "earth") usually denotes the land of Israel and surrounding nations? This is a very important point." (emphasis mine)

Correct emphasis! :thumb: I wrote that word quite deliberately.



In the above verses we see kosmō, oikoumenēn, ouranon and you suggest that because in these verses these words "with certainty do not have global meaning", therefore they can not have global meanings elsewhere.

I never said that they "can not have global meanings elsewhere." The meaning needs to be determined by context. And in my estimation, the context of the OD is clearly the "world" of Israel. Jesus was not talking about Eskimoes or Japanese.



Now, what word can the poor greek use to describe global events, if ge, kosmō, oikoumenēn, ouranon are "not good for that"? :)

They would use those words, and indicate by their context their proper meaning. For example, if the Bible said "the ge orbits the sun at 93 million miles" there would be no dispute about the correct meaning. It's usually pretty simple to get an idea of the intended meaning from the context ... unless someone is trying to support a certain doctrine .... <snicker>



Your estimation is based upon the interpretation of "every nation under heaven" as a localized event. As I said above, if we interpret the Bible this way, then we leave no room for the Bible to express anything concerning the whole world.

No, I do not believe that "every nation under heaven" refers to an "event." It refers to the identity of the Jews at Pentecost. The BIBLE says they came from "every nation under heaven."

Also, it is not correct to say that "we leave no room for the Bible to express anything concerning the whole world." The Bible can express everything with perfect clarity by the context. In some contexts, "world" is obviously local, as you admit. In other contexts, it is global. It is a primary error to simply assume global, since many examples are local, such as the five that I posted in the previous post.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Can I download or purchase it somewhere? I'm sure it would be an interesting read!

The full title is THE BIBLE WHEEL: A Revelation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible. You can download it free from here:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/eBook.asp

Enjoy! I'd love to know what you think!

[Battyus]

Good morning brother Richard!


That makes sense to me, but I do not want to enter into any discussion about that aspect of Rev 20 just yet. It's too uncertain. We're still laying the bricks for the foundation. Rev 20 is on the tippy-top pinnacle of this hermeneutical Tabernacle we are building.
I agree to talk about it later.


That is an invalid conclusion based on your suggestion that harmonization would require an absurd equation, namely:

"desolation of Jerusalem" = "abomination of desolation"

That equation is false and I do not assert it. Therefore, it is an illegitimate argument against my position.
I thought you meant they were the same when you said in http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17983&postcount=56 that:
"Here we see identical sequences that include the following words:
when you see ... desolation ... then let those who are in Judea flee ..."

So, if the "desolation" part does not mean the same in your quoted argument, then the "when you see", and "then let those who are in Judea flee" parts should not mean the same either, right? Or should they? :)

I was not saying that "desolation of Jerusalem" = "abomination of desolation" and this is exactly the base of my argument:
They are talking about different things, therefore we have a reason to believe that Luk 21:20-24 has a twofold purpose, namely a prophesy of the "desolation of Jerusalem" and a prophesy about an event when the "abomination of desolation" (whatever this means) will stand in the holy place.

Richard, this conversation is very interesting! We are I think very close on many subjects. Here is what I mean:

If you say that there is no "type" in Luk 21:20-24 and this passage is simply just mean the same as Mat 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, then I can drop pushing for the "type"'s existence here. This would bring the passage to even closer harmony to the book of Revelation and this will bring it closer to the futurist view as it will loose its connection to the temple's destruction in AD70. (I mean if this is not a type, then it will mean plain future fulfillment)




My position is that no one knows the exact meaning of the Abomination of Desolation (AoD). This commentary by Donald A. Hagner (Word Biblical Commentary, Matthew) is helpful:
15 τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, lit. 'the abomination of the desolation,' is language taken directly from the LXX of Daniel (exactly in Dan 12:11; without definite articles in 11:31; and with the plural τῶν ἐρημώσεων, 'of the desolations,' in 9:27), where it refers to an image set upon the altar of the temple in connection with the destruction of the city. It functions here, therefore, as a technical expression for an idolatrous 'abomination' (שִׁקּוּץ, šiqqûṣ, 'detested,' i.e., by God). The genitive construction is to be understood as meaning 'the abomination that makes desolate,' an allusion to the accompanying devastation of the sacrilege.
Exactly the same Greek phrase is used in Dan 12:11 (LXX) where it was translated as suggested by Hagner:
Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Thus, we understand that Christ was talking about an "abomination" that "maketh desolate." We do not know it's exact nature, but we do know the result of its presence. It will lead directly to the "desolation of Jerusalem." Therefore, the two passages are clearly talking about the same thing and are harmonized with no difficulty at all. The AoD is "seen" around the same time that the armies surrounding Jerusalem are seen. And this is the sign that it is time to get out of town.

Now it is important for me to let you know what I think about the futurist position on this point. I consider your assertion that the presence of the AoD in Matthew implies that it is talking about an event in the distant future to be a prime example of the fundamental error of futurist hermeneutics. You are attempting to build your eschatology upon things unknown and things not clearly stated in Scripture. This is exactly the opposite of valid hermeneutics. We must build our eschatology upon what the Bible actually states, not upon what it does not state! It seem to me that the entire futurist doctrine is built on nothing but speculation about things that are not written and things that are not confirmed by two or three clear and unambiguous witnesses. We'll be talking more about this later.
Before we bury the Futurists' eschatology :) let me give you some rebuttal:
My views are based strictly about scripture and its harmony as a Whole Book. I do not build my futurist doctrine on "speculation", but on scripture which makes logical sense. Please take a look at the following example, where I see a logical error placing the AoD in AD66 (I assume, that's where you put it):

In your explanation above the following events should happen at the same time:
-in the midst of the week (Dan 9:27) (AD66)
-he shall take away the daily sacrifice (Dan 11:31)
-the abomination that maketh desolate set up (Dan 12:11; Mat 24:15)
-flee to the mountains (Mat 24:16)

and then 1290 days later:

-there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days (Dan 12:11)
-the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (Dan 9:26) (AD70)

Questions (Please answer them):
-Was the the daily sacrifice taken away in AD 66?
-Did the people who knew scripture leave the city in AD66, or they stuck around for 3.5 more years? Why?
-What kind of a covenant was made in AD63 as Dan 9:27 suggests: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" ? (1 week = AD70 - 7 years = AD63)

See, I don't see any logical answers to these questions, if we put the AoD in AD66. While, if I put it in the future, then I have perfect answers and also a matching harmony with Revelation, etc.


I never said that they "can not have global meanings elsewhere." The meaning needs to be determined by context.
We agree 100%, and this is what I said in Post #37
"We need to explore each context."



And in my estimation, the context of the OD is clearly the "world" of Israel. Jesus was not talking about Eskimoes or Japanese.

No, I do not believe that "every nation under heaven" refers to an "event." It refers to the identity of the Jews at Pentecost. The BIBLE says they came from "every nation under heaven."

The reason why we're talking about the "every nation under heaven" expression is, because the original question was, whether the judgment will be only in Israel (Preterist view), or will it be a global (futurist view) event.

As you've said it in http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18001&postcount=58:
"Christ emphasized two aspects of the Flood as a type of the judgment to come:
1. It would be sudden. Folks would be eating and drinking as normal and then BANG! - down comes the judgment.
2. It would affect everyone in the Biblical world."

So, at this point you admit, that the judgment would affect the whole "Biblical world" as you call it.

Refer to those 16 countries in Acts 2:9-11, and also refer to your other post, when you said, that this list was not even exhaustive http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18080&postcount=17

So, at this point can you please tell me, what judgement happened in AD70 on those 16 countries, plus on Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Malta?

Many blessings my friend, and I really enjoy this sharpening of our irons :)
Battyus

[Battyus]

Hy My friend!


The full title is THE BIBLE WHEEL: A Revelation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible. You can download it free from here:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/eBook.asp

Enjoy! I'd love to know what you think!
Actually I downloaded it weeks ago, just never got the time to read it. (see, I've got myself involved with a really time consuming conversation on the net :) )

I will definitely make some time to at least peek into it!

Thank in advance!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning brother Richard!

Hey there brother Battyus!

I hope you won't get tired of hearing how much I am enjoying this discussion, and that you are an absolutely wonderful person to study Scripture with!




That is an invalid conclusion based on your suggestion that harmonization would require an absurd equation, namely:

"desolation of Jerusalem" = "abomination of desolation"

That equation is false and I do not assert it. Therefore, it is an illegitimate argument against my position.
I thought you meant they were the same when you said in http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17983&postcount=56 that:
"Here we see identical sequences that include the following words:
when you see ... desolation ... then let those who are in Judea flee ..."

So, if the "desolation" part does not mean the same in your quoted argument, then the "when you see", and "then let those who are in Judea flee" parts should not mean the same either, right? Or should they? :)

I guess my explanation was not sufficiently clear. The "desolation" part is the same in both cases in as much as it refers to the desolation of Jerusalem. It appears to be different only because in Matthew Christ refers to the abomination that will result in the desolation of Jerusalem, whereas in Luke he refers to the effect of that abomination, namely, the desolation of Jerusalem. The important point is this - it seems obvious to me that the two texts are talking about the same thing because they contain the same series of the same words in the same context.

... when you see ... desolation ... then let those who are in Judea flee ...

The variations are just different ways of expressing the same essential meaning. Remember, in Post #56 (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17983&postcount=56) I quoted your statement that "The verses are parallel, so on one hand we can say that they are describing the same event." I then asked this question that still needs to be answered:
2) Outside of the Olivet Discourse, can you give me any examples of "parallel verses" that on one hand are "describing the same event" while on the other hand are describing completely separate events?
I think it is very important to have an answer to this question. Otherwise it will seem like you invented an ad hoc "principle" just for your argument in this specific case.



I was not saying that "desolation of Jerusalem" = "abomination of desolation" and this is exactly the base of my argument:
They are talking about different things, therefore we have a reason to believe that Luk 21:20-24 has a twofold purpose, namely a prophesy of the "desolation of Jerusalem" and a prophesy about an event when the "abomination of desolation" (whatever this means) will stand in the holy place.

Your assertion that "they are talking about different things" needs to be supported by argument. I assert the opposite. I supported my position by showing that in every other case of "parallel verses" we never would believe that slight variations in parallel verses that use a continuous sequence of identical words in identical order in identical context would imply the texts were talking about separate events.

That's why I repeated the question marked by the number "2" above.

I need an explanation of why the differences give us a "reason to believe that Luk 21:20-24 has a twofold purpose." I know of nothing that would support that position.



Richard, this conversation is very interesting! We are I think very close on many subjects. Here is what I mean:

If you say that there is no "type" in Luk 21:20-24 and this passage is simply just mean the same as Mat 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, then I can drop pushing for the "type"'s existence here. This would bring the passage to even closer harmony to the book of Revelation and this will bring it closer to the futurist view as it will loose its connection to the temple's destruction in AD70. (I mean if this is not a type, then it will mean plain future fulfillment)

I say there is no type. So let's drop that line of argument.

It will be interesting to see why you think this strengthens your case for separating it from the 70 AD destruction of the Temple. I must tell you, this is a point that absolutely mystifies me. Christ opened the OD by declaring that the first century Temple would be destroyed, and then spoke specifically of the events leading up to that very destruction! And history confirms his prophecy. I can not think of anything in the Bible that is stated with greater clarity. If these connections can be broken, then it seems to me that Scripture is transformed into a meaningless swamp of utter confusion.



Before we bury the Futurists' eschatology :) let me give you some rebuttal:
My views are based strictly about scripture and its harmony as a Whole Book. I do not build my futurist doctrine on "speculation", but on scripture which makes logical sense.

I certainly did not intend to "bury the Futurist's eschatology" in that one paragraph. My intent was to direct us back to the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics. You are attempting to destroy the internal and contextual harmony between the three parallel passages of the OD (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) as well as their harmony with the hundreds of other passages found elsewhere in the Bible that clearly teach of a first century fulfillment. You seek to replace this large-scale extensive harmony of the OD with everything in the whole Bible with a speculation about a "twofold purpose" of Luk 21:20-24 that has no foundation in the Bible. You are not doing exegesis here on this point. You are "spinning a story" by adding elements that are not in the Bible and ignoring elements that are in the Bible. If we agree to adhere to the fundamental principle of what the Bible actually states, the Preterist position will become self-evident.



Please take a look at the following example, where I see a logical error placing the AoD in AD66 (I assume, that's where you put it):

There are ambiguities about the meaning and timing of the AoD. No one (futurist or preterist) has all the answers on this point because God did not even tell us what it means exactly. All we know is that it is connected with the desolation of Jerusalem and the appearance of the Roman armies. We simply don't have enough specific details to say much more than that, and it is altogether wrong to attempt to base our eschatology on mere speculation about unknowns.



In your explanation above the following events should happen at the same time:
-in the midst of the week (Dan 9:27) (AD66)
-he shall take away the daily sacrifice (Dan 11:31)
-the abomination that maketh desolate set up (Dan 12:11; Mat 24:15)
-flee to the mountains (Mat 24:16)

Why do you say the AoD would be set up at the same time as the "midst of the week?"

Are you familiar with the common preterist understanding that the midst of the week refers to 3.5 years after Jesus began his ministry? In this scenario, the midst of the week happened around 33 AD (depending on your date of the crucifixion) with the destruction of the Temple happening after the 70th week. Other preterists see a 40 year gap between the 69th and 70th week. In this scenario, the 70th week began in either 63AD or 66AD depending on various attempts to interpret obscurities such as when the sacrifice ended (since it almost certainly ended before 70 AD since the godless zealots had by then filled the temple with the ABOMINATION of many dead bodies, including those of Gentiles).



and then 1290 days later:

-there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days (Dan 12:11)
-the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (Dan 9:26) (AD70)

Questions (Please answer them):
-Was the the daily sacrifice taken away in AD 66?
-Did the people who knew scripture leave the city in AD66, or they stuck around for 3.5 more years? Why?
-What kind of a covenant was made in AD63 as Dan 9:27 suggests: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" ? (1 week = AD70 - 7 years = AD63)

There are a variety of opinions about when the sacrifice was taken away. It could be when the veil was torn when Christ, the final sacrifice was offered. It could be when the godless zealots took over the Temple during the siege sometime in 66-70 AD. No one knows for sure, so this is not a sufficiently solid point upon which to build our eschatological understanding. Different answers will appear valid depending on the truth that we determine from the main and the plain things established by many witnesses.

As for when the people left the city. The answer is probably when the armies appeared, just like Jesus warned. But no one knows for sure.

As for the covenant that was confirmed. That is anyone's guess. There are arguments for many different points of view, but since God has not made this point clear with many mutually confirming verses, it will always be subject to debate. It will never, therefore, be sufficiently certain to serve as a way to discern between futurism and preterism. The answer will depend on which system is correct, not the other way around.

I hope you see why speculation about these enigmatic passages will not help us determine the truth of Scripture. We need to establish the BIG PICTURE upon the main and the plain things that God has taught in His Word and established with at least two or three clear and unambiguous witnesses. When the BIG PICTURE is seen and understood, then the more difficult, obscure, and ambiguous passages can be understood in their proper context. But if we attempt to build the BIG PICTURE upon the enigmatic passages that are not supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous mutually confirming verses, then we will inventing yet another speculative idiosyncratic private interpretation of the Bible. And it is my opinion that that world has more than enough of those!



See, I don't see any logical answers to these questions, if we put the AoD in AD66. While, if I put it in the future, then I have perfect answers and also a matching harmony with Revelation, etc.

There is a HUGE problem with your assertion. There can be no match whatsoever with Revelation if Revelation is still future. It is an absolute impossibility. The Temple has been destroyed and we know that there can never again for many reasons:


The Temple was only a TYPE. The Body of Christ is the true Temple. And now that the True has come, there is no place for the shadow.
There is no Biblical prophesy of a rebuilt Temple
Even if the Jews built something and called it a "Temple" God would not sanctify it because they are in rebellion against God and Christ. So it would be impossible to "desecrate" a non-sanctified building.

Do you believe that there will be a re-built Temple that will be re-desolated by something like the re-vived Roman empire? I see absolutely no biblical support for that scenario at all.

Many blessings to you my good friend!

Richard

[Battyus]

Hello again Richard,

This post will be very hard for you to read, as I could not hold myself back at certain points. So in advance I ask for your brotherly love to overcome my weakness of expressing my feelings without a filter.


2) Outside of the Olivet Discourse, can you give me any examples of "parallel verses" that on one hand are "describing the same event" while on the other hand are describing completely separate events?
[/INDENT]I think it is very important to have an answer to this question. Otherwise it will seem like you invented an ad hoc "principle" just for your argument in this specific case.
In http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17999&postcount=57 I gave you 2 answers for this question.


I say there is no type. So let's drop that line of argument.

It will be interesting to see why you think this strengthens your case for separating it from the 70 AD destruction of the Temple. I must tell you, this is a point that absolutely mystifies me.
If you say that there is no "type" in Luk 21:20-24 then this passage is simply just mean the same as Mat 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, which passages have their counterparts in Revelation, which is clearly in the future.


Christ opened the OD by declaring that the first century Temple would be destroyed, and then spoke specifically of the events leading up to that very destruction! And history confirms his prophecy. I can not think of anything in the Bible that is stated with greater clarity. If these connections can be broken, then it seems to me that Scripture is transformed into a meaningless swamp of utter confusion.

So, you say that the futurist view means that "Scripture is transformed into a meaningless swamp of utter confusion."

On the other hand, once I read your answers given to my questions below, I was very sad to see, that the Preterist view makes False prophet out of Ezekiel, Daniel, John and even from Jesus.

As we know from Scripture, we recognize a false prophet because his prophecy will not come true. And how do we know that a prophecy comes true? We verify it and if it happened then we conclude it is true.

Now you tell me that the events in the Olivet Discourse already happened, but nobody knows when.

Wow! If my history teacher would have told me that the World War I happened, but we don't know when, then I would have asked him, how do you know it happened at all?

So, according to this, when Daniel spoke about the 70th 7, he spoke about a prophecy that already happened we just don't know when.

Ezekiel talked about Israel's regathering, which must have happened, we just don't know when.

Ezekiel talked about the war of Gog and Magog, which must have happened, we just don't know when.

John talked about a bunch of things in Revelation, which must have happened, we just don't know when.

Christ talked about many things in the Olivet Discourse, which must have happened, we just don't know when.

Where is Josephus, where are all the early church fathers when we need them!

You tell me, that All of these things happened, but there is not a single person in the whole "world" that would be able to confirm any of these events? What does this make out of scripture then?

Of course all the other things (resurrection, Christ's 2nd coming, etc) must have been spiritualized in order to invent the Preterist view, as none of these things were ever recorded happening either.

Add to this mix the Covenants that God promised to fulfill and let's just say, they are all invalid now and we just turned God into a false prophet too.

Please forgive me for this rant, but the more details I see about the Preterist "eschatology" the more I can not believe its absurdity.

I was thinking, how would a Preterist evangelize:
I thought, hey it must be pretty easy, because they would say: Look, this is what Christ said in the OD, and see, it happened in AD63, when so and so made this and this covenant. And also, look this is when Daniel's 70th 7 starts, and see, 7 years later Bam Jerusalem is history.

But now I see, that it can not go like this, because absolutely none of the events are verifiable that supposed to already happen.

If I would go to an atheist and say, look, you better believe because all these fulfilled prophecies prove that the Bible is true, then he would dismantle All my arguments with 1 question: WHEN? Then I could tell him, well, we don't know. We know these happened, we just don't know when. I think it would be the last time, when that atheist would take me serious.

Richard, I don't know how you will take what I just said above, but I could not stop writing it! I'm sorry if any of these hurt you, that's not my intention.

You accused me of building my eschatology on speculations about future events, but as I see the Preteris view speculates about past events that supposed to be clearly verifiable.

So, what is worst, if I speculate about the future or if I speculate about the past?

I think if you must speculate about the past, because it can not be verified, then it is a much worst place to be than if I speculate about the future that could very well be true if you look around the world today.


Why do you say the AoD would be set up at the same time as the "midst of the week?"
Dan 9:27 says so.


Are you familiar with the common preterist understanding that the midst of the week refers to 3.5 years after Jesus began his ministry? In this scenario, the midst of the week happened around 33 AD (depending on your date of the crucifixion) with the destruction of the Temple happening after the 70th week.
This makes the 7 years long 70th week inconsistent.
This makes all the 42 months, 1260 days expressions meaningless.
No scripture suggests this.



Other preterists see a 40 year gap between the 69th and 70th week. In this scenario, the 70th week began in either 63AD or 66AD depending on various attempts to interpret obscurities such as when the sacrifice ended (since it almost certainly ended before 70 AD since the godless zealots had by then filled the temple with the ABOMINATION of many dead bodies, including those of Gentiles).
These are events, that already happened according to the Preterist view.
I know why not even the Preterist can agree the timing of these already happened events: Because nobody on the world recorded none of them, because they never happened.



There are a variety of opinions about when the sacrifice was taken away. It could be when the veil was torn when Christ, the final sacrifice was offered. It could be when the godless zealots took over the Temple during the siege sometime in 66-70 AD. No one knows for sure, so this is not a sufficiently solid point upon which to build our eschatological understanding. Different answers will appear valid depending on the truth that we determine from the main and the plain things established by many witnesses.
Richard, you can not possibly expect me to believe any of these. How can a prophecy be called fulfilled, when nobody has any clue when they were fulfilled?



As for when the people left the city. The answer is probably when the armies appeared, just like Jesus warned. But no one knows for sure.
At his point I'm not surprised that nobody knows for sure.



As for the covenant that was confirmed. That is anyone's guess. There are arguments for many different points of view, but since God has not made this point clear with many mutually confirming verses, it will always be subject to debate. It will never, therefore, be sufficiently certain to serve as a way to discern between futurism and preterism. The answer will depend on which system is correct, not the other way around.
Well, by now I think it is clear that none of the above mentioned prophecies can be verified, and that gives us an answer, which system is correct.


I hope you see why speculation about these enigmatic passages will not help us determine the truth of Scripture. We need to establish the BIG PICTURE upon the main and the plain things that God has taught in His Word and established with at least two or three clear and unambiguous witnesses. When the BIG PICTURE is seen and understood, then the more difficult, obscure, and ambiguous passages can be understood in their proper context. But if we attempt to build the BIG PICTURE upon the enigmatic passages that are not supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous mutually confirming verses, then we will inventing yet another speculative idiosyncratic private interpretation of the Bible. And it is my opinion that that world has more than enough of those!
The Preterist view even speculates aout events that are already supposedly happened. If we can not verify past events to be true or false, then I really do not know what kind of method we could use to discern truth from lie.


There is a HUGE problem with your assertion. There can be no match whatsoever with Revelation if Revelation is still future. It is an absolute impossibility. The Temple has been destroyed and we know that there can never again for many reasons:


The Temple was only a TYPE. The Body of Christ is the true Temple. And now that the True has come, there is no place for the shadow.
There is no Biblical prophesy of a rebuilt Temple
Even if the Jews built something and called it a "Temple" God would not sanctify it because they are in rebellion against God and Christ. So it would be impossible to "desecrate" a non-sanctified building.

Please read Ezekiel 40-48, then let me know when was that temple built. (I assume someone would have recorded such a temple in History)



Do you believe that there will be a re-built Temple that will be re-desolated by something like the re-vived Roman empire? I see absolutely no biblical support for that scenario at all.
I know that you don't see biblical support for that, but as a Preterist you don't even see when the allegedly happened events took place either.

Richard, at this point I still suggest to go back to the harmonization and let's get through the OD. We keep talking about other subjects and it seems like we'll never continue with our original goal.

May you have a blessed time smiling about how I can loose my cool :)
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello again Richard,

This post will be very hard for you to read, as I could not hold myself back at certain points. So in advance I ask for your brotherly love to overcome my weakness of expressing my feelings without a filter.

No worries bro. None at all. I want you to speak freely and directly. I intend to do the same. I do not have a thin skin, and we have already established that our desire is to find the truth with much mutual respect. I will interpret your answers in the best light possible, and trust that you will do the same with me. We have come a long way, but now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty that can cause some emotions to stir. Let us continue in the grace of the Lord.




2) Outside of the Olivet Discourse, can you give me any examples of "parallel verses" that on one hand are "describing the same event" while on the other hand are describing completely separate events?

I think it is very important to have an answer to this question. Otherwise it will seem like you invented an ad hoc "principle" just for your argument in this specific case.
In http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17999&postcount=57 I gave you 2 answers for this question.

Yes, you gave two answers but they were absolutely inadequate. Here is what you wrote:
I give you another one from the OD, in which the "type" event is being fulfilled in the OD:
Type: Flood
Meaning: WORLDWIDE JUDGEMENT
OT Reference: Gen 6-8
NT Reference: Mat 24:37-39, 2 Peter 3:3-9

And I give you another one, which will be very important in our conversation for other reasons too:
Type: Battle of Gog and Magog
Meaning: God's divine intervention to protect the beloved city
OT Reference: Ezekiel 38-39
NT Reference: Rev 20:7-10
Neither of these "examples" have anything to do with the question I asked. I specifically asked for examples where there are parallel verses (as in the three versions of the OD) that on one hand are "describing the same event" while on the other hand are describing completely separate events.



If you say that there is no "type" in Luk 21:20-24 then this passage is simply just mean the same as Mat 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, which passages have their counterparts in Revelation, which is clearly in the future.

That is absurd. Revelation was written in the first century to first century churches, with admonitions that were applied directly to those churches. It opens with the statement that the events would happen "soon" for the "time is at hand" in the first century. It identifies the "Great City" as Jerusalem, and describes its destruction. It's harmonization with the OD proves that it is talking about the same events, and the OD confirms the first century fulfillment because Christ was explaining the events that would culminate in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

In short, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that justifies the statement that Revelation is "clearly in the future." This is the fundamental problem in our discussion. You have merely asserted what you are supposed to be proving. Do you not realize that you have not yet attempted to prove that Revelation is future? You merely assert it and then use that assertion as "proof" that the Olivet Discourse is future. This is a fundamental error in your presentation so far.



So, you say that the futurist view means that "Scripture is transformed into a meaningless swamp of utter confusion."

Yes. That is my conclusion after years of study. The futurist doctrines are built upon speculations and inventions of things found no where in Scripture such as the 2000+ year gap in Daniel's 70 weeks, the rebuilt temple, the wanna-be world dictator called "Antichrist" etc., etc., etc.. Furthermore, futurism denies fundamental biblical truths such as the first century appearance of antichrists that John understood as a fulfillment of the OD and proof that the "last hour" was happening in the first century. I could write a large book just listing the extremely obvious and egregious errors of futurist doctrines.



On the other hand, once I read your answers given to my questions below, I was very sad to see, that the Preterist view makes False prophet out of Ezekiel, Daniel, John and even from Jesus.

As we know from Scripture, we recognize a false prophet because his prophecy will not come true. And how do we know that a prophecy comes true? We verify it and if it happened then we conclude it is true.

And that's the beauty of futurism! You can not verify any of your primary assertions because they have not happened yet! Very convenient indeed. This is why you focus on the ambiguous passages that God did not establish with two or three clear and unambiguous passages. You are trying to refute Preterism by complaining that we can not explain things that God Himself chose not to explain in His Word. This is a pretty effective strategy until you encounter someone who demands that we adhere to The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics. Now all your favorite "proofs" have gone "poof" because you agree that NOTHING can be taught as doctrine if it has not been established by God in Scripture with at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages. This means you can not disprove Preterism by demanding answers for enigmatic passages.



Now you tell me that the events in the Olivet Discourse already happened, but nobody knows when.

Wow! If my history teacher would have told me that the World War I happened, but we don't know when, then I would have asked him, how do you know it happened at all?

That is absolutely absurd. Are you telling me that you have not noticed the date "70 AD" once or twice in our discussions? I can tell you with great certainty when the Temple was destroyed.

But if you think that Preterism falls short because it can not tell you the hour of Christ's birth or the date the Christians escaped Jerusalem, then you have an entirely irrational criterion.

Remember, you can not tell me when any of your futurist speculations "will happen" because they are all speculations. This gives you all the "wiggle room" you need to invent scenarios that appear to "match" with your personal interpretation of the enigmatic verses.



So, according to this, when Daniel spoke about the 70th 7, he spoke about a prophecy that already happened we just don't know when.

Nobody knows "when" each and every detail was fulfilled because the historical record is imperfect, and nobody knows exactly what God meant by many of those enigmatic verses. Have you never read any futurist literature? Try Walvoord's book on Daniel called the Key to Prophetic Revelation. He very thoroughly reviews all the different opinions that futurists hold, and proves that no one has the answers to many of these questions.



Ezekiel talked about the war of Gog and Magog, which must have happened, we just don't know when.

Futurists have just as many troubles understanding the Gog and Magog passages as any body else. You really need to read up on this stuff.



John talked about a bunch of things in Revelation, which must have happened, we just don't know when.

Now you are just repeating yourself. This is not edifying.



You tell me, that All of these things happened, but there is not a single person in the whole "world" that would be able to confirm any of these events? What does this make out of scripture then?

Your comment is absurd. The destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the Jews are two of the most commonly understood facts of history. This is the great error of futurism. In you effort to prove your doctrines, you deny the greatest single proof of the truth of divine inspiration of the Holy Bible. Six hundred years before Christ, Daniel said that Christ would be "cut off" and then the Temple destroyed. And when Christ came, he too prophesied the destruction of the Temple. The prophesies were fulfilled so we have absolute proof of Christ and the Bible. Futurism attempts to destroy this witness by ripping the Olivet Discourse from its first century context. How many souls have failed to see the truth of Christ because of this error?



Of course all the other things (resurrection, Christ's 2nd coming, etc) must have been spiritualized in order to invent the Preterist view, as none of these things were ever recorded happening either.

Yes - the great evil of "spiritualization." All real Christians know that the Bible and the Gospel are really carnal!

I wonder why Paul taught that we would be given spiritual bodies at the resurrection, and what could he have possibility meant when he told us to understand spiritual things? And what could he possibly have meant when he said that the CARNAL MIND can not understand the spiritual things of God?



Add to this mix the Covenants that God promised to fulfill and let's just say, they are all invalid now and we just turned God into a false prophet too.
Well, there is one other possibility. You could read what the Bible really says and adjust your opinions to match those that God has taught in His Word. :winking0071:



Please forgive me for this rant, but the more details I see about the Preterist "eschatology" the more I can not believe its absurdity.

The "absurdity" is contained entirely within your own misapprehension of the Preterist teachings.

But don't worry about the "rant." My answer probably seems like a "rant" to you. Don't forget how fresh the air is after a thundershower. I trust our conversation will return to a more irenic tone.



But now I see, that it can not go like this, because absolutely none of the events are verifiable that supposed to already happen.

Absolutely none? What, you never heard of 70 AD??? I've never heard such an abjectly absurd assertion. But don't worry ... you can have a pass on this one since you've been on a rant I'll just assume that you've temporally lost your mind.



Richard, I don't know how you will take what I just said above, but I could not stop writing it! I'm sorry if any of these hurt you, that's not my intention.

That's ok bro. Truly! :) I love direct speech. Most folks can't handle it. I hope you can handle my response.



You accused me of building my eschatology on speculations about future events, but as I see the Preteris view speculates about past events that supposed to be clearly verifiable.

I stand by my assertion. Futurism = Speculation.

But you have made a big mistake about Preterism. You are assuming that a lack of complete knowledge implies a complete lack of knowledge.



So, what is worst, if I speculate about the future or if I speculate about the past?

BOTH ARE WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO LAYING THE FOUNDATION OF OUR ESCHATOLOGY!!!

WE MUST ADHERE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.

And the sooner you get on board, the sooner we will have a solid and certain understanding of what God intends for us to understand from His Word.

Whew! Now that was a post!

Let's see if we can find the FOUNDATION of our eschatology. It's not in "harmonizing" the OD with Revelation at the expense of the hundreds of other verses that you ignore that speak specifically of the first century fulfillment.

Many blessings my friend. And don't worry ... I'm not the least bit offended, though I do feel that you have a LOT of study to do, and I wish you would really deal with what the Bible really teaches instead of speculating about the meanings of enigmatic passages.

Richard

[Battyus]

Hey Richard,

Just wanted to let you know, I've read your answer. If for nothing else these 2 posts were good for waking up the readers, if they got bored by now :winking0071:

God bless you Brother and I'll continue with the harmonization in the next post.
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard,

Just wanted to let you know, I've read your answer. If for nothing else these 2 posts were good for waking up the readers, if they got bored by now :winking0071:

God bless you Brother and I'll continue with the harmonization in the next post.
Battyus
Hey bro!

Have you forgotten this thread?

Richard