Olivet Discourse Round 3, the best one yet!

[eliyahu]

I am Adam the infamouse futurist :lol:. Apparently some of you are still not converted to futurism yet. I will fix that now.

Read the Olivet discouses in the synoptics for reference. I am chiefly going from Matthew's account. Verses 4-28 have found some form of fulfillment in first century Judea. Vs 29-31 have not at all yet happened.

Jesus has not apeared in the sky over Jerusalem or in close proximity. "The elect" have not been gathered up by angels to meet Him in the air. And to complicate things further, "the kingdom" has not been restored to Israel as was affirmed by Jesus in Acts 1:6-7.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am Adam the infamouse futurist :lol:. Apparently some of you are still not converted to futurism yet. I will fix that now.

Woohoo!

:woohoo:

The infamous futurist is challenging the infamous preterist!

:fencing:



Read the Olivet discouses in the synoptics for reference. I am chiefly going from Matthew's account. Verses 4-28 have found some form of fulfillment in first century Judea. Vs 29-31 have not at all yet happened.

Jesus has not apeared in the sky over Jerusalem or in close proximity. "The elect" have not been gathered up by angels to meet Him in the air. And to complicate things further, "the kingdom" has not been restored to "Israel as was affirmed by Jesus in Acts 1:6-7.
Verses 4-28 have found some form of fulfillment in first century Judea???? :confused2: It was TOTALLY FULFILLED TO ABSOLUTE PERFECTION!

(skuze the ALL CAPS shouting ... that should be a nono! :nono: )

:lol:

But seriously, comparing the OD in Matthew with the version in Luke, we see that Jesus predicted the literal destruction of the literal Temple, the literal destruction of Jerusalem, the fact that many would "fall by the sword" and the diaspora.

Personally, I don't think it is proper to minimize the perfect fulfillment of the prophecy of the Lord Jesus as "some fulfillment."

Now everyone agrees that the plain text SOUNDS LIKE Jesus is talking about the first century. But some folks (like you) say that the "plain sense" just can't be correct because some of the stuff "didn't happen" yet. That's really the only argument for futurism, isn't it?

So here is the problem I see with the futurist intepretation:

The futurist interpetation denies the plain sense of the non-symbolic passages that clearly indicate a first century fulfillment in order to accomodate a false hyper-literal interpretation of the obviously symbolic passages! The description of the "Son of Man" coming on the clouds of heaven is symbolic language that God taught us in Daniel (which happens to have been cited by Christ in the OD) and in Rev 14. Thus the first century fulfillment of the entire Dan/OD/Rev is perfectly self-corehent as well as coherent with the symbolic language that God has taught us elsewhere in Scripture.

So here is where we stand:

The Bible plainly asserts it all happened in the first century. I agree with the plain reading of the Bible. The futurist disagrees, and says that we must reinterpret all the Scriptures in Daniel, Rev, and the OD because it is "obvious" that some of the symbols have not manifested literally.

Sorry I can't be more clear than this tonight. My brain feels fuzzy. I hope you can understand what I'm getting at. But if not, that's ok, we can talk it through.

God bless you my friend and brother!

Richard

PS: Christ did NOT affirm a future earhly ethnic kindom of Israel in Acts 1:6-7. That pasage contains no such statement. You are asserting an argument from silence which is logically invalid.

PPS: It appears that your entire argument for futurism is based entirely on the denial that certain events have happened. I would be very interested to know if there are any POSITIVE arguments for futurism like there is for preterism. For example, Jesus said it would all be fulfilled in His generation, and that is confirmed by Dan 12:7, and Rev opens up saying it would all happen very soon. See what I mean? All the positive biblical declarations concerning when it would happen ALL point to the first century. Is there any positive evidence for futurism?

[eliyahu]

Before I respond to anything you said (which I plan on), I need to clarify something. The reason I said that the first part of the OD found "some form of 1st century fulfillment" is because I do not think that there is enough solid evidence of such things having happened. While Josephus records some amazing apparent fulfillments of the "signs" in the sky and earth etc that Jesus fortold, to me that is pretty good, but not absolutely airtight evidence. I lean toward him being quite credible but I cannot be absolutely certain as if my life depended on it. After all, most scholars, and conservative ones at that, confess that at least some of Josephus writings about Jesus specifically have been embelished over time to be more "preachy."

The other reason is that if, as you believe, the "abomination of desolation" was again fulfilled a second time in finality in 70 AD, there is not sufficient evidence remaining to absolutely verify such. In fact, as these forums have shown, there a a pluthra of ideas as to how it was fulfilled: all of which are reactions to the lack of a clear case from any of the actually recorded historical writings.

I see that event as involving a personal antichrist figure who is to be being an aggressive and successful threat against Israel (and against those Christians who will identify with Israel on any level and/or possibly simply not deny Jesus). I see this in Daniel (however a futurist picks what is past or future) 7 & 11, and Rev 12 & 13. I also see Paul affirming this is 2 Thes. I also see Jesus cryptically affirming this by placing His intervening/rescuing/saving return in the sky immediately after the "tribulation" happening- in direct connection with the "abomination of desolation." The "abomination" is the last draw made by the aggressive antichrist figure in Daniel. That figure is now understood, from the pages of 1 Maccabees and Josephus, to be a forshadowing of the " willful king/little horn," who was partially fulfilled (but historically not completely identical with Daniel's description of his character and the specifics of the end of his military campeighns (?) and the ending of his life) by Antiochus Epiphanes 4 in 173 BC and in the years following. I am out of time but going into the actual scriptures in Daniel will be helpful in this.

[Rose]

Hi eliyahu :yo:

I have a question concerning the "Abomination of desolation".

How can a future temple (if one were to be rebuilt) ever be desecrated?

In order for a future temple to be desecrated it must first be sanctified by God, and we all know that the last temple that was sanctified by God was destroyed in 70 A.D. because it was an abomination to God.

Never again will a temple made of stone be God's dwelling place on earth. Now the body of Christ (the Church) are the living temples of God.


1 Cor. 6:19 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"So the way I see it....the only time in history that the Temple of God could have been desecrated was in the first century, before it was destroyed!

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Before I respond to anything you said (which I plan on), I need to clarify something. The reason I said that the first part of the OD found "some form of 1st century fulfillment" is because I do not think that there is enough solid evidence of such things having happened. While Josephus records some amazing apparent fulfillments of the "signs" in the sky and earth etc that Jesus fortold, to me that is pretty good, but not absolutely airtight evidence. I lean toward him being quite credible but I cannot be absolutely certain as if my life depended on it. After all, most scholars, and conservative ones at that, confess that at least some of Josephus writings about Jesus specifically have been embelished over time to be more "preachy."
There is no question that the Temple was destroyed, and the Jews scattered out of the Holy Land. The disciples had asked when the Temple would be destroyed, and Christ said "this generation." The only question concerns the fulfillment of the passages that used symbolic language. But this question is easily answered when we compare the prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and Babylon from the OT where we see that very similar symbolic language was used.

As for "evidence" I think you have it backwards. We don't need evidence to prove that the Bible is true. You and I accept the truth of Scripture as a given. And what does the Bible say? It says all those things happened in the first century. But you say that you can not believe that some of those things really happened, and then you say this "proves" that the preterist interpretation is wrong. Fine. But that means that the burden of proof is on you to prove those things didn't happen. We all agree that I have provided plenty of evidence the that the primary prophecies were fulfilled (destruction of the Temple and diaspora). You are the one saying that the plain text of the Bible does not mean what it appears to mean. So here is what I need from you:

1) Give the evidence that the "coming in clouds" must be a physically visible phenemenon, and that its nothing like when YHVH was riding the swift cloud in Isaiah 19.1.

2) Give the evidence that the saints in heaven do not currently have their resurrected bodies.

3) Explain why all the primary time indicators point to the first century fulfillment. ("this generation", "the time is at hand", "it is the last days", "the Lord is at the door", "the kingdom of God draweth nigh, it is at the very doors", etc, etc, etc).

But even if you supply all this info, you still are fighting against the overwhelming united testimony of the Bible and History that the first century was indeed the fulfillment of all those prophecies. It all fits together perfectly and it unites to declare the True Gospel. Christ came and fulfilled ALL that was written. And God capped it off with absolute perfection and finality with the end of sin on the Cross followed by the nearly exact 40 year biblical probabtion period unto the destruction of His Temple.

The primary problem with futurist position is that it needlessly attempts to re-create the first century with re-instituted sacrifices and a re-built temple that can then be re-desolated by a re-vived Roman empire, all so that we can have a "literal" re-fulfillment of the symbolic passages. But even if we could recreate the first century, it still wouldn't work because the re-built temple would never be the Temple of God that God was talking about when He prophecied the destruction of the first century Temple. And the whole futurist vision ignores the fact that the prophecies were all about the end of the Old Covenant age and the coming of the New Covenant Messianic Church age. It makes no sense at all for a 2000+ year gap in Daniel's 70 weeks. To ignore the first century fulfillment is to ignore the greatest witness of fufiflled prophecy ever given by God.

Remember, all Christians are "preterists" when it comes to the vast volume of prophecies relating to the first coming of Christ. We all agree that they were all fulfilled. So this understanding is not so foreign as you may think.



The other reason is that if, as you believe, the "abomination of desolation" was again fulfilled a second time in finality in 70 AD, there is not sufficient evidence remaining to absolutely verify such. In fact, as these forums have shown, there a a pluthra of ideas as to how it was fulfilled: all of which are reactions to the lack of a clear case from any of the actually recorded historical writings.

Again, there is no need to prove anything about the AOD. The truth is that no one knows for sure what Christ meant by that term, and so we can not use such inscrutibles as the foundation of our eschatology. We must look elsewhere to determine which eschatological system is true.

Again, it seems you are appealing to ignance but not providing any positive evidence for futurism. And that's the primary appeal of futurism. Anything can be made to "fit" by inventing whatever "future history" is necessary to fill in the gaps. This aspect of futurism is therefore "untestable" meaning "unverifiable" and "unfalsifiable" and so it is not true "knowledge" because there is no way to really test it.

We are still looking for the foundation of futurism. As far as I can tell, you have not provided any positive evidence like we have for preterism, which is supported by countless plain and unambiguous statements from Christ and His Apostles as well as OT prophecies. It is the plain meaning of the Biblical text.


I see that event as involving a personal antichrist figure who is to be being an aggressive and successful threat against Israel (and against those Christians who will identify with Israel on any level and/or possibly simply not deny Jesus). I see this in Daniel (however a futurist picks what is past or future) 7 & 11, and Rev 12 & 13. I also see Paul affirming this is 2 Thes.

Questions about the antichrist are entirely insufficient as a foundaiton for a futuristic eschatology. Any number of interpretations are possible, and God Almighty did not give us sufficient clarity to establish any doctrine of the Antichrist. I have already explained that there is not a single word in the Bible that uses the term "antichrist" in the sense you present it.

We are still looking for the foundation of futurism.


I also see Jesus cryptically affirming this by placing His intervening/rescuing/saving return in the sky immediately after the "tribulation" happening- in direct connection with the "abomination of desolation." The "abomination" is the last draw made by the aggressive antichrist figure in Daniel. That figure is now understood, from the pages of 1 Maccabees and Josephus, to be a forshadowing of the " willful king/little horn," who was partially fulfilled (but historically not completely identical with Daniel's description of his character and the specifics of the end of his military campeighns (?) and the ending of his life) by Antiochus Epiphanes 4 in 173 BC and in the years following. I am out of time but going into the actual scriptures in Daniel will be helpful in this.
"Cryptically affirming" is fine for speculations. But we are not looking for speculations. We are looking for the biblical foundation of the futurist doctrine.

Great chatting, Adam!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I am Adam the infamouse futurist . Apparently some of you are still not converted to futurism yet. I will fix that now.
Read the Olivet discouses in the synoptics for reference. I am chiefly going from Matthew's account. Verses 4-28 have found some form of fulfillment in first century Judea. Vs 29-31 have not at all yet happened.

Jesus has not apeared in the sky over Jerusalem or in close proximity. "The elect" have not been gathered up by angels to meet Him in the air. And to complicate things further, "the kingdom" has not been restored to Israel as was affirmed by Jesus in Acts 1:6-7.

That was cute. :lol: What are the chances of more Futurist coming here? I've tried inviting them over to this site, but many on the Christianity.com forum refuse to leave there. I'd debate them there, but they limit what we're allowed to post on that site, so I left them.

Now about verses 4-28, those are all fulfilled. And for 29-32, I understand your reasons for believing it isn't yet fulfilled, but then again, neither of us were there to witness the 70AD destruction, so there's no telling what anyone saw. Perhaps He did fly high in the heavens and did some awesome cloud surfing. But here's a critical question. If He did gather His elect literally from the four winds in the first century, who would have remained to right about it EXCEPT those who were "Left Behind"? And since we have some testimony of those who were "Left Behind", why then do Futurist reject what they wrote? I'm referring to Josephus, and a Roman Historian which spoke of the miraculous events which took place over Jerusalem prior to its destruction, i.e. the Angels and Chariots flying above Jerusalem, and the earth-quake leading up to the magestic voice heard which said, "Let us leave this place!" We also have the Roman Historian who claims he saw something like a "Departure" which I believe was a resurrection. HOWEVER, these were not Christian writings, so they are rejected. Why? Because they weren't Christian. But if they were Christian, then how could they have been left behind?

So in a sense, we're unable to win either way because Futurist don't believe it happened yet because nobody wrote about it. Rather, what they mean to say is that no Christian remained around to write about it, so it's impossible for Christ to have returned in 70AD. Yet if they did remain to write about (Christian's that is) then how could they be a Christian? So to make it simple, Futurist are creating their own hole by rejecting the witness of first century non-christian witness, while at the same time fail to recognize that no Christians wrote about it because they were probably all taken. :sunny: This would also explain the absense of Christian literature and writing between 70 and 110 AD; almost 40 years of silence.

Finally, when you say, "Restore the Kingdom to Israel...." what do Futurist mean by that? Some believe that geographical Israel will regain authority over the nations. Others interpret that as merely them being included into the Kingdom of God, i.e. the Church. I'd agree with the latter than the previous. Now if you understand that the Israel of God is the Church, then you must also understand that this same "Israel of God" is restored by the grafting of both Jewish flesh and Gentile flesh, creating one new body and one new Kingdom, where there is no slavery, racism, or respect of financial wealth; this Kingdom is about equality. Now how say some of you that Israel of the flesh will regain the Kingdom, as if they are separated from it? Was it not the Apostles which established the Kingdom? Were not the Apostles Israel of the flesh, converted into the Israel of Faith? Wasn't the promise of the Kingdom made to those of Faith, and not the flesh?

And finally, in Acts chapter 1, Christ never said that the Kingdom would be restored to them. When Peter asked the question, he was not yet filled with the Holy Spirit; he was still in the flesh. But on Pentecost, all the answers were given to him. For Christ said, "It is not for you to know the times or events which the Father has set by His own authority. But you go and wait for the PROMISE........key word is PROMISE.....which you heard of from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you will be Baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire...."

What did He say to them? Don't worry about the details right now; you'll know when you receive THE PROMISE....

As for dates, times, and events it was none of their business. So Christ never said that they, Israel of the flesh, would be restored to its former state. IMO, that's the mistake Futurist make, and to be honest, is quite Jew-flesh. Some early first century Fathers were the same way; Papias, Iranaeus, and a few others. But other ECF's took no part in this racial boundary. Rather, they preached the Kingdom of Christ.

But thanks for the input friend.

Joe

[eliyahu]

Now about verses 4-28, those are all fulfilled. And for 29-32, I understand your reasons for believing it isn't yet fulfilled, but then again, neither of us were there to witness the 70AD destruction, so there's no telling what anyone saw. Perhaps He did fly high in the heavens and did some awesome cloud surfing. But here's a critical question. If He did gather His elect literally from the four winds in the first century, who would have remained to right about it EXCEPT those who were "Left Behind"? And since we have some testimony of those who were "Left Behind", why then do Futurist reject what they wrote? I'm referring to Josephus, and a Roman Historian which spoke of the miraculous events which took place over Jerusalem prior to its destruction, i.e. the Angels and Chariots flying above Jerusalem, and the earth-quake leading up to the magestic voice heard which said, "Let us leave this place!" We also have the Roman Historian who claims he saw something like a "Departure" which I believe was a resurrection. HOWEVER, these were not Christian writings, so they are rejected. Why? Because they weren't Christian. But if they were Christian, then how could they have been left behind? Good points :thumb:. I do accept Josephus largely. I just can't bet my doctrines or life on hm because his is a solitary witness with an agenda that is not the same as the authors of scripture. His testimony is great corroborative evidence to the NT and AD 70's fulfillment of prophecy. However, he needs some cross examination which is mostly impossible. If your suspicions are correct, Josephus (who I do not see as a NT believer, if he was his faith was not very deep as expressed in his writings) could have come to faith after 70 AD. "Let us leave this place" could have been God declaring his desolation of Jerusalem. Sure. The armies gathered in the clouds are easily fitted to the final "rapture" section of the OD. But they are also easily applicable to being "signs in the sky" to be lumped with Josephus' other "wonders of the earth" he testified to. All of the miraculous events Josephus described can be understood to be divine portents to Israel of Jerusalem's coming judgment and desolation for their guilt of crucifying Jesus. Especcially the light coming down onto the altar. The red cow giving birth to a spotless male lamb in the eastern gate's entry was a powerful sign of Christ. He is the miraculously born spottless lamb. He is the miraculous provision for cleansing that the unique red cow's ashes required by the Torah as necessary for cleansing the temple grounds which were defiled by the rejection of Jesus and also the killing of one of the Jameses in the temple grounds (apparently). The eastern gate is where Ezekiel prophecied that the glory of God would depart from and it would remain shut until the glory's return. Jesus exited through the eastern gate at his execution and now this miraculous sign of the lamb had taken place in the eastern gate itself! The other sign of specifically the eastern gate opening of itself at night was also a related sign of Jerusalem's condemnation.


So in a sense, we're unable to win either way because Futurist don't believe it happened yet because nobody wrote about it. Rather, what they mean to say is that no Christian remained around to write about it, so it's impossible for Christ to have returned in 70AD. Yet if they did remain to write about (Christian's that is) then how could they be a Christian? So to make it simple, Futurist are creating their own hole by rejecting the witness of first century non-christian witness, while at the same time fail to recognize that no Christians wrote about it because they were probably all taken. :sunny: This would also explain the absense of Christian literature and writing between 70 and 110 AD; almost 40 years of silence.

I do not interpret Josephus (really assuming his is utterly reliable) as claiming the "rapture" to have happened in 70 AD. SO I am not denying his witness. His witness is up to unterpretation which Josephus did not explain how you interpret him.


Finally, when you say, "Restore the Kingdom to Israel...." what do Futurist mean by that? Some believe that geographical Israel will regain authority over the nations. Others interpret that as merely them being included into the Kingdom of God, i.e. the Church. I'd agree with the latter than the previous. Now if you understand that the Israel of God is the Church, then you must also understand that this same "Israel of God" is restored by the grafting of both Jewish flesh and Gentile flesh, creating one new body and one new Kingdom, where there is no slavery, racism, or respect of financial wealth; this Kingdom is about equality. Now how say some of you that Israel of the flesh will regain the Kingdom, as if they are separated from it? Was it not the Apostles which established the Kingdom? Were not the Apostles Israel of the flesh, converted into the Israel of Faith? Wasn't the promise of the Kingdom made to those of Faith, and not the flesh?
While the believing of Israel are already included in the kingdom of God, I do not believe that the Kingdom's fullness is the church now. One day the remainder of the surviving members of Israel who are unbelievers will have "the Spirit of grace and supplication pured out" upon them (Zech 12:10)and then they will have an historically unprecedented wave of deep repentance as they finally "look upon Me, the one they have pierced" and "grieve bitterly, as one would grienve over the death of a firstborn son." The "piercing" mentioned in verse 10 should be associated with the practice of executing a false prophet in Zech 13:3b, in that case the parents of the false prophet being pictured as justly execting their own son if he is an evil false prophet to Israel. Israel, which are Jesus' "parents," wrongfully "pierced" Jesus, their "firstborn son" through and crucified him. That is the "peircing" they will "grieve bitterly over" as they vicariously repent for their sins of rejecting Jesus and the as-of-yet unbroken-by-repentance continueum of remaining bloodguilt of the sins of their fathers- who had Jesus killed.

This principle is apparent in 2 Sam 19:9-12 where David wanted firstly for "his own flesh and blood" to welcome the accepted return of their true king, himself. When we couple this idea with Acts 3:19-21 of Jesus "remaining on the heavens" until Israel repents, we see that a believing Jewish Jerusalem must welcome Jesus back first! Then we must apply the concept demonstrated in 2 Sam 21:1 where the land suffered under a famine curse for the sins of the deceased (and now replaced) king Saul. God demanded repentance from the new king David for the sins of his "father," Saul. After David lawfully repented and made just amends for Saul's sin, God lifted the curse and granted blessings on the land again, 2 Sam 21:14. Even so, unbelieving and blinded Israel as a who needs the "Spirit of Mercy/grace" to be "poured out upon them" to "heal their eyes" to "look upon the one that they have pierced" and agree with the God of justice who is again pouring out upon them a limited yet severe and final judgment for their sins which climaxed in Jesus' rejection and crucifixion accomplished by their "fathers" long ago. The bloodguilt of the eternal Son cannot be atoned for through any amount of suffering (like 70 AD or the final time of Jacob's trouble) without forgiveness granted via faith in the Son's blood.


And finally, in Acts chapter 1, Christ never said that the Kingdom would be restored to them. When Peter asked the question, he was not yet filled with the Holy Spirit; he was still in the flesh. But on Pentecost, all the answers were given to him. For Christ said, "It is not for you to know the times or events which the Father has set by His own authority. But you go and wait for the PROMISE........key word is PROMISE.....which you heard of from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you will be Baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire...."
What did He say to them? Don't worry about the details right now; you'll know when you receive THE PROMISE....
As for dates, times, and events it was none of their business. So Christ never said that they, Israel of the flesh, would be restored to its former state. IMO, that's the mistake Futurist make, and to be honest, is quite Jew-flesh. Some early first century Fathers were the same way; Papias, Iranaeus, and a few others. But other ECF's took no part in this racial boundary. Rather, they preached the Kingdom of Christ.

I do not know if I understand the "Jew-flesh" part. I am not Jewish either for the record.

Jesus never said that the kingdom would not be restored to Israel. To interpret Acts 1 as Jesus rejecting this "Jew-flesh" idea is to make Jesus out to be using blatantly deceptive language. Please don't take this as personally :). What Jesus was clearly and obviously (in futurist understanding) saying was this: "You are right to be anticipating God to restore Israel to its Solomonic, yea, exceedingly glorious Davidic Messianic age to come though Me. But that will happen when God chooses at an unrevealed time. What you need to focus on in these "last days" Joel spoke of, until then, is to be a witness of my gospel unto all the Gentile nations everywhere through the power of my coming Spirit."

I believe that the early church fathers who taught various versions of "relpacement theology" were making the most grave mistake. This teaching's introduction was historically the beginning of the church's departure from the apostolic faith into the cesspools of murder and paganism she wallowed in through the "dark ages" of Christian history up until today's fragmented, sef-centered, powerless, and often Christ-less church. The root of all the church's doctrinal failure historically goes back to her "boasting over the branches" which were "cut off" through unbelief. That arrogance brought God's curses upon the church. Those curses grew more pronounced and solidified at the pivotal council of Nicea, in spite of the good that come out of the council. The curses power grew as the church had abandoned and turned against its Jewish root and was moving on completely independantly and even opposed to the "God of Israel" who identifies with the Jewish people, Israel (believers or not). Indeed, the "advantage" Paul said that Jews had from God is that "they were entrusted with the very oracles of God." Once the church rejected the Jews as God's chosen people, she took the scriptures as almost completely to be arbitrarily interpreted as allegory. Finally the church locked the scriptures away from the people. They were read (limitedly) in foreign languages and were kept from the hands of the "laity." The very "oracles of God" were virtually taken from the "laity" by the cursed and crazed "Saul" church!

PS I understand Galatians "Israel of God" as the faithful-to-Paul's-gospel Jewish portion of the church and the "and peace be upon all who walk by this rule" refering to the Gentile portions of the church who also were not "Judiazers."

[TheForgiven]

Good points . I do accept Josephus largely. I just can't bet my doctrines or life on him because his is a solitary witness with an agenda that is not the same as the authors of scripture. His testimony is great corroborative evidence to the NT and AD 70's fulfillment of prophecy. However, he needs some cross examination which is mostly impossible. If your suspicions are correct, Josephus (who I do not see as a NT believer, if he was his faith was not very deep as expressed in his writings) could have come to faith after 70 AD. "Let us leave this place" could have been God declaring his desolation of Jerusalem.

There’s the Roman Historian who records the events of the war, as well as Josephus, though he describes if from a non-religious perspective. I think his name was Tactitus (spelling) who described the same events Josephus did. In his account, he describes what to him looked like the departure of the gods. Keep in mind that Roman’s (and the kingdoms prior to them) worshipped the gods of Satan, i.e. Zeus, Apollo and so forth. So the things they witnessed were probably not significant to them considering the fact that satanic and demonic activity was at an all time high. Of course, Christ came to destroy the works Satan had established, and the world would be transformed worshippers of God, instead of Zeus, Emperor worship and similar practices. At any rate, the loud voice which said, “Let us leave this place” was preceded by an earth quake, of which I like to claim is likened with the resurrection in Matthew. Similarly in Matthew, an earth quake occurred, followed by the tombs broking open, and many who were asleep came to life. The same thing, IMO, happened in the late 60’s AD, just prior to Jerusalem being destroyed. There was an earth quake (Josephus records the earth quake), a loud noise, and then by the Roman Historian’s account, something which looked like a “Departure” of the gods. Thus what he viewed as a departure was probably the resurrection Paul awaited; the first resurrection. However, I understand that ancient writings are limited in this discussion. But is that a good excuse? Ancient writings are also limited on Matthews resurrection, so there’s no difference; both have strong validity, though Matthew’s account is trustworthy because its written in God’s word. I understand that Josephus and the Roman Historian are external sources, but that need not be the determining factor for rejection or acceptance of any fulfillment in prophesy. After all, this isn’t “Doctrine” we’re talking about, but history. And history says that something happened which may have been the awaited resurrection in the first century.

I’ll give you a very strong example. Where in the Bible does it say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD? We know for a fact it was destroyed, but the Bible could not be the source of this fulfillment. (Don’t misunderstand me). The Bible predicts it, but we rely on external history to argue for its fulfillment. The same applies to the fulfillment of all Matthew 24, and the synoptic gospels regarding the destruction of Jerusalem. Additionally, the bible wasn’t meant to be a history book, but a book of Divine godliness and Inspiration, and most importantly, the bible is a book solely about the Christ (Messiah). The OT prophesies about the Messiah, and the NT fulfills this prophesy. Even Revelation, which is not so much a book of world prophesy (as many think) as it is a book which reveals two important aspects:

1. Christ
2. The Nature of His Kingdom

Now if you believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70AD, then you must also believe that the gathering of the elect occurred in 70AD as well. For scripture says, “Immediately after the Tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon into blood, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then shall they see the sign of the son of man, coming in clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he shall send forth his angels to gather His elect from the four winds…………..”; all these things happened in the first century.


The armies gathered in the clouds are easily fitted to the final "rapture" section of the OD. But they are also easily applicable to being "signs in the sky" to be lumped with Josephus' other "wonders of the earth" he testified to. All of the miraculous events Josephus described can be understood to be divine portents to Israel of Jerusalem's coming judgment and desolation for their guilt of crucifying Jesus. Especcially the light coming down onto the altar. The red cow giving birth to a spotless male lamb in the eastern gate's entry was a powerful sign of Christ. He is the miraculously born spottless lamb. He is the miraculous provision for cleansing that the unique red cow's ashes required by the Torah as necessary for cleansing the temple grounds which were defiled by the rejection of Jesus and also the killing of one of the Jameses in the temple grounds (apparently). The eastern gate is where Ezekiel prophecied that the glory of God would depart from and it would remain shut until the glory's return. Jesus exited through the eastern gate at his execution and now this miraculous sign of the lamb had taken place in the eastern gate itself! The other sign of specifically the eastern gate opening of itself at night was also a related sign of Jerusalem's condemnation.

I find your post here fascinating and I agree. Notice the “Eastern” gate. Have you ever wondered why the eastern gate is important? I believe it’s because the rising of the sun occurs in the east, and sets in the west. There’s something significant do this figure.


I do not interpret Josephus (really assuming his is utterly reliable) as claiming the "rapture" to have happened in 70 AD. SO I am not denying his witness. His witness is up to unterpretation which Josephus did not explain how you interpret him. While the believing of Israel are already included in the kingdom of God, I do not believe that the Kingdom's fullness is the church now.

Well that’s a fair and honest statement. And neither do I necessarily interpret with solid validity that the “Rapture” occurred during that time, but that it would certainly fit the bill, so to speak, especially when studying logically and carefully, the account of Matthew 24.


One day the remainder of the surviving members of Israel who are unbelievers will have "the Spirit of grace and supplication pured out" upon them (Zech 12:10)and then they will have an historically unprecedented wave of deep repentance as they finally "look upon Me, the one they have pierced" and "grieve bitterly, as one would grienve over the death of a firstborn son."

I think you are referring to this:

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo

This was fulfilled when Christ was nailed to the cross. This is not a future fulfillment for it was they “The Jews” who wept for Jesus as He died on the cross. Thus, Zach’s prophesy was fulfilled in 30 AD.


The "piercing" mentioned in verse 10 should be associated with the practice of executing a false prophet in Zech 13:3b, in that case the parents of the false prophet being pictured as justly execting their own son if he is an evil false prophet to Israel. Israel, which are Jesus' "parents," wrongfully "pierced" Jesus, their "firstborn son" through and crucified him. That is the "peircing" they will "grieve bitterly over" as they vicariously repent for their sins of rejecting Jesus and the as-of-yet unbroken-by-repentance continueum of remaining bloodguilt of the sins of their fathers- who had Jesus killed.

Again, read above. This is not a future fulfillment, but was fulfilled in 30 AD, when Christ was nailed to the cross.


This principle is apparent in 2 Sam 19:9-12 where David wanted firstly for "his own flesh and blood" to welcome the accepted return of their true king, himself. When we couple this idea with Acts 3:19-21 of Jesus "remaining on the heavens" until Israel repents, we see that a believing Jewish Jerusalem must welcome Jesus back first!

That’s not a logical interpretation my friend. This is merely piecing together certain portions of the scripture to build a thesis. I’m sorry, but I do not agree with this. This presupposes that Israel of the flesh was temporarily destroyed for the sake of bringing in Gentiles, and would later be brought back in. I find no scriptural support for that theory, and I'll explain below.


Then we must apply the concept demonstrated in 2 Sam 21:1 where the land suffered under a famine curse for the sins of the deceased (and now replaced) king Saul. God demanded repentance from the new king David for the sins of his "father," Saul. After David lawfully repented and made just amends for Saul's sin, God lifted the curse and granted blessings on the land again, 2 Sam 21:14. Even so, unbelieving and blinded Israel as a who needs the "Spirit of Mercy/grace" to be "poured out upon them" to "heal their eyes" to "look upon the one that they have pierced" and agree with the God of justice who is again pouring out upon them a limited yet severe and final judgment for their sins which climaxed in Jesus' rejection and crucifixion accomplished by their "fathers" long ago. The bloodguilt of the eternal Son cannot be atoned for through any amount of suffering (like 70 AD or the final time of Jacob's trouble) without forgiveness granted via faith in the Son's blood.

This falls under the assumption that the “Hardening of the Jews” is still taking place. That cannot be for Prophetic reasons. Isaiah inquires of God, as to how long this hardening would take place.

Isaiah 6: 9-10 describes the prophesy of “Hardening”

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


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

Thus we see that Isaiah is told to say to his people, “hearing, but not hearing, seeing but not perceiving…….” And Isaiah then questions the “Length” of time this hardening is to take place:

11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?”
And He answered:


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

How long is this hardening? It lasts until cities are lied wasted, and without inhabitant, the land becomes desolate, and the Lord removes them far away. But only a 10th would remain. This 10th is symbolic of tithes and offerings, and is also symbolic of the “Remnant” who were chosen to replant the tree. The former three which contained dead leaves were dried up, so this tree was cut down. Only the stump remained, which would blossom into another tree. “Tree” as we all know, represents the Kingdom of God. Who were the remnant? The many who were saved during the ministry of the Apostles. Who were destroyed? Those who refused to accept Christ, even after it was too late? How long would this hardening last? Only until the cities were lied wasted, the land desolate, and without inhabitant. We know this to be a solid irrefutable fact in 70AD. Therefore, there is no hardening today, by anyone, except those who have been hardened by the deceitfulness of sin:

Hebrews 3:12

12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,


I do not know if I understand the "Jew-flesh" part. I am not Jewish either for the record.

I meant that many Christians today think like the Jews of the first century. Certainly they don’t hold to the crucifixion or evil desires they had, but their expectancies are exactly the same; they both expect a physical temple, seating a physical Messiah, with Him sitting within a physical city called Jerusalem. Remember, the Jews expected the very same thing, and they did not understand. I propose that many during our time are doing the very same thing, and I mean extreme exactness.


Jesus never said that the kingdom would not be restored to Israel. To interpret Acts 1 as Jesus rejecting this "Jew-flesh" idea is to make Jesus out to be using blatantly deceptive language. Please don't take this as personally . What Jesus was clearly and obviously (in futurist understanding) saying was this: "You are right to be anticipating God to restore Israel to its Solomonic, yea, exceedingly glorious Davidic Messianic age to come though Me. But that will happen when God chooses at an unrevealed time. What you need to focus on in these "last days" Joel spoke of, until then, is to be a witness of my gospel unto all the Gentile nations everywhere through the power of my coming Spirit."

He never said he would restore the Kingdom to Israel. He did, however, tell the Jews that the Kingdom would be taken away from them and given to another who would bear its fruit. That “another” was Christ, for He bares all rule and authority. The Jews no longer own the Kingdom as they once had. That’s why there no longer needs to be a king in geographical Israel, much less a temple to worship in. For Christ is the end of those things, therefore the end of Israel of the flesh. Israel of the Spirit is the fulfillment of all that was flesh. For Israel of the old was a “Shadow” of what was to come, and not the reality itself. And Peter did not yet understand Israel. You have to remember that Peter still thought, ate, and acted like a Jew of the flesh. He was very prejudice about preaching the gospel to Gentiles (Those unclean pigs and crawling things). He later realized that the “Kingdom” would also be granted unto the Gentiles. But the Kingdom he awaited was not yet ready, for they were still in the building process. By the time the gospels went forth unto all the inhabited earth, the Kingdom of Christ was ready for world domination, and the evil Jews were the first ones on the hit-list. They fell in 70AD and again in 132 AD. The Romans would be the next ones, and they finally fell to the Church by the 3rd century. Since that time, the Kingdom of Christ continues to advanced itself upon all nations, and thus shall never end.


I believe that the early church fathers who taught various versions of "relpacement theology" were making the most grave mistake.

Not true because “Replacement” never occurred. Rather, Jerusalem of old was a picture, or shadow, and not the realities itself. If it were the reality, then God would have never permitted its destruction. What is a false theology is to assume that the Gentiles were given the kingdom until it’s completed, and then the former Jerusalem will be rebuilt at it formerly was; all about the flesh. But the Jerusalem above is heavenly, and eternal, and is not counted, much less compared, to the former Jerusalem. When Christ died, He died on the “Copy” of Jerusalem, but when He ascended, He entered heaven itself, and is a perpetual High Priest to all those who believe. The Jerusalem you seek is not real, and the one you recognize as geographical Jerusalem, is not Jerusalem, neither in truth nor by copy. Moses was told, “See to it that you build everything as I command….” Is there anything in the 1948 re-gathering that was built according to the commandment of God? Rightfully no, therefore it is not Israel.

The True Israel is in heaven, where is seated the Perpetual High Priest, and the City of the Living God:

In conclusion, the Israel of God is not something we await, for it is both here on earth via the Church, and in heaven for all eternity. The Israel located on the map is not true Israel, and will never be Israel. To believe that it will be is to reject the current Israel of God, and sets-aside the Church, which is the body of Christ. If Israel of the flesh was that important, then Paul himself would have never counted all things but a loss, for the sake of gaining Christ.

The Church is not a temporal kingdom, but is the very kingdom and body of Jesus Christ, the kingdom which the Holy Martyrs died for, and most importantly, the Kingdom which Christ shed His blood for. If he cared about geographical Israel, it would have been restored ages ago, with His rule. In that case, the author of Hebrews is made to be a liar, for he testifies that the Israel of God is the Church:

Hebrews 12:22
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,


Joseph

[eliyahu]

Oops I messed up this post.

[eliyahu]

I understand that Josephus and the Roman Historian are external sources, but that need not be the determining factor for rejection or acceptance of any fulfillment in prophesy. After all, this isn’t 'Doctrine' we’re talking about, but history. And history says that something happened which may have been the awaited resurrection in the first century.
I don't have a problemwith these two based on the fact that their writings are not in scripture. I do not disregard their writings as useless. I respect them and believe that their writings are some of the best sources for historical information we have extant. Its just that you are interpreting their reports as validation of the resurrection having taken place. They did not even say that one did. You would think that they would have if it did happen like you think. You would think that not only Tacitus and Josephus would have heard much about a mass public resurrection, but of the angels gathering all of the "elect" for the entire globe and gathering them in the air over the mount of Olivers to meet the very clearly visible Jesus, as Jesus and Paul fortold, would be common knowledge. The early church fathers would absolutley have written about this a lot. They would have frequently referenced the fact that John was "taken" up to be with Jesus.


Now if you believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70AD, then you must also believe that the gathering of the elect occurred in 70AD as well. For scripture says, 'Immediately after the Tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon into blood, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then shall they see the sign of the son of man, coming in clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he shall send forth his angels to gather His elect from the four winds…………..'; all these things happened in the first century.
Well that last statement is your theory. It is not a substantiated fact. That part of the OD is where I see a jump to the yet future. So do many reputable historic premillenial scholars whome I have read. Jesus also said that his coming would be visible like lightning across the sky. Aftwer his return he is to "split" the mount of Olives as stated in Zech. Then he will "sit on His glorious throne" as in Mat 25.


I find your post here fascinating and I agree. Notice the 'Eastern' gate. Have you ever wondered why the eastern gate is important? I believe it’s because the rising of the sun occurs in the east, and sets in the west. There’s something significant do this figure. Thanks, I agree with the eastern gate bearing that same signifigance. So do many of the ancient rabbis. That is also why the temple faced east. In the OT, East was "forward" and west was "backward."



10 'And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo

This was fulfilled when Christ was nailed to the cross. This is not a future fulfillment for it was they 'The Jews' who wept for Jesus as He died on the cross. Thus, Zach’s prophesy was fulfilled in 30 AD.

Zech explains that the hose of David, Natan, Levi, the Shimeites and "all the families that are left" will experience this outpouring of the spirit in repentance. Your situation at the cross with the Marys and John do not fit this description. It describes the civil and spiritual leadership of Israel and all Israel's survivors being affected in an historic and pivital event.


I meant that many Christians today think like the Jews of the first century. Certainly they don’t hold to the crucifixion or evil desires they had, but their expectancies are exactly the same; they both expect a physical temple, seating a physical Messiah, with Him sitting within a physical city called Jerusalem. Remember, the Jews expected the very same thing, and they did not understand. I propose that many during our time are doing the very same thing, and I mean extreme exactness. While I am not expecting a Millennial temple to be erected (nor am I against the possibility for one with sacrifices of thanksgiving being possibly offered there), I do expect a physical everything to be restored to Israel and the world in the land of Israel from a redeemed Jerusalem. Absolutely. That is what all the prophets saw coming.


He never said he would restore the Kingdom to Israel. He did, however, tell the Jews that the Kingdom would be taken away from them and given to another who would bear its fruit. That 'another' was Christ, for He bares all rule and authority. The Jews no longer own the Kingdom as they once had. Jesus is the King of the Jews and is still a circumcised Jew. So the kingdom was taken from the carnal and uncircumcised in heart Jewish leadership and given to Jesus, Dan 7:13-14.

That’s why there no longer needs to be a king in geographical Israel, much less a temple to worship in. For Christ is the end of those things, therefore the end of Israel of the flesh. Israel of the Spirit is the fulfillment of all that was flesh. For Israel of the old was a 'Shadow' of what was to come, and not the reality itself.
Israel was/is not simply a shadow of things taht were to come. "These things happened as examples for us upon whome the end of the ages has come."

And Peter did not yet understand Israel. You have to remember that Peter still thought, ate, and acted like a Jew of the flesh. He was very prejudice about preaching the gospel to Gentiles (Those unclean pigs and crawling things). He later realized that the 'Kingdom' would also be granted unto the Gentiles. But the Kingdom he awaited was not yet ready, for they were still in the building process. By the time the gospels went forth unto all the inhabited earth, the Kingdom of Christ was ready for world domination, and the evil Jews were the first ones on the hit-list. They fell in 70AD and again in 132 AD. The Romans would be the next ones, and they finally fell to the Church by the 3rd century. Since that time, the Kingdom of Christ continues to advanced itself upon all nations, and thus shall never end.

:eek: Wow! I assume you didn't mean to sound so scary :lol:. I have a few questions, was the devil's broken kingdom gaining headway again in the Nazi occupied Europe in the 1930s and 40s? How about in the seventh century in Arabia with Muhamed? How about when all the communist revolutions took place and multitudes of believers were mercilessly tortured and killed? We are all still undergoing much tribulation, and Jacob continues to suffer regularly also. When did Jesus destroy anyone with the "brightness of His coming?"


Not true because 'Replacement' never occurred. Rather, Jerusalem of old was a picture, or shadow, and not the realities itself. If it were the reality, then God would have never permitted its destruction. What is a false theology is to assume that the Gentiles were given the kingdom until it’s completed, and then the former Jerusalem will be rebuilt at it formerly was; all about the flesh.
Jerusalem was given to Gentiles until "the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled." A physical city is being spoken of there by Jesus. Whenever that is speaking of, it means that the Jews who are beleivers at the time will have that city restored unto their rule via the Messiah. Until then the Jews are under a measure of judgment for their sin and unbelief. When Jesus comes back and "restores EVERYTHING" as Peter said in Acts, then the kingdom will be restored to Israel which has then repented both individually and as a nation.

But the Jerusalem above is heavenly, and eternal, and is not counted, much less compared, to the former Jerusalem. When Christ died, He died on the 'Copy' of Jerusalem, but when He ascended, He entered heaven itself, and is a perpetual High Priest to all those who believe. The Jerusalem you seek is not real, and the one you recognize as geographical Jerusalem, is not Jerusalem, neither in truth nor by copy. Moses was told, 'See to it that you build everything as I command….' Is there anything in the 1948 re-gathering that was built according to the commandment of God? Rightfully no, therefore it is not Israel.
This current Jerusalem is really Jerusalem. It is not yet the city that it is called and destined to become one day. The land of Israel is still the promised land to the Jews. The current state may not be the promise's fulfillment, but it is a part of God's unfolding plan for judgment and mercy. And doesn't the old Testament say that God brought up the Philistines from Caphtor and gave them Philistia? And that God gave Israel's other neighbors their land as they diplaced other previous occupants who were ripe for judgment? That would say that the modern state of Israel by default could not be established outside of the choice of God. It is of God and has a divine purpose like every nation. How much more a nation that bear's God's name and is called His "son?"

[TheForgiven]

This current Jerusalem is really Jerusalem. It is not yet the city that it is called and destined to become one day. The land of Israel is still the promised land to the Jews. The current state may not be the promise's fulfillment, but it is a part of God's unfolding plan for judgment and mercy. And doesn't the old Testament say that God brought up the Philistines from Caphtor and gave them Philistia? And that God gave Israel's other neighbors their land as they diplaced other previous occupants who were ripe for judgment? That would say that the modern state of Israel by default could not be established outside of the choice of God. It is of God and has a divine purpose like every nation. How much more a nation that bear's God's name and is called His "son?"

You missed the over-all point of the Old Testament and the gospel. If the "Promised Land" was about the traditional Israeli territory [which Futurist call Israel] then Joshua would have indeed given them rest, as does the author of Hebrews testifies. Yet the author of Hebrews testifies that God had planned a Sabbath rest for the people of God, just as He once said, "Today if you hear His voice, do not hearden your hearts as in the provocation...." The Author of Hebrews was showing that the land they yearned for was not the promised rest of God, but was just a picture or painting, and a shadow of what was to come. But the Sabbath rest of God is the Heavenly Jerusalem, which was ready to be completed upon those whom the end of the age had come; that is, those in the first century. We are not in the "Last days" or the "Last Age". If so, then John's "Last hour" is one very long hour. For John himself testifies that they were in the "last hour". So how can we, 2000 years later, be in the last age?

The land you speak of was not the promised land as you suppose. There is no scriptural proof that Christ will rebuild the former Israel. The author of Hebrews shows them that they, of the faith, are part of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Paul also testifies that those of the faith, and not the flesh, are part of the Israel of God. So in a sense, even though you don't literally state this, you reject the Church as God's Israel, and you look for another Kingdom; the same kingdom that the Pharisee's looked for.

Now if the Israel of God is shown to exist, how then do Futurists point to Israel of the flesh, which is not even a city of God? If it were, do you think sin would abide in such a great city? Wouldn't you also consider it borderline blasphemy to consider geographical Israel to be called Israel of God? My case is simple. If it were that easy to identify geographical Israel as God's Israel, then it would certainly not be in the sad situation it's been for the last 2000 years, especially with Muslim occupation.

The Israel of God is the Church, and the promised land abides in the heavens, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dwell for all eternity with the King. The Old Testament Israel was given a time-limit, especially Daniel's seventy sevens. Now here's where you will find great difficulty in explaining. Daniel is told that his city and people would have until seventy sevens before they are destroyed. We know without a doubt that this happened in 70 AD. To wait for a future destruction is totally wrong, and unscriptural; there are no scriptural facts of a rebuilt temple, given by the command of God, only to be destroyed again. For Jesus spoke of the temple of His day, "Your temple is left unto you Desolate!" Will Christ then cause another Desolation? Certainly not, and there are no scriptures to support such a claim.

I did not respond to your entire post in order to keep it short. But everything you spoke centers on this one thing alone, that if you do not, and cannot, believe the scriptures (Matthew 24) that spoke of the temple's destruction in 70AD, then everything else crumbles on that fact alone.

Jesus said in Luke, "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near..." They were then warned to flee to the mountains.

Now, historically speaking, did they not see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies? Yes! Did they not flee when these armies began to surround Jerusalem? Yes! So then, knowing this, would you then state that they ran for nothing? If we know that the early Church in Jerusalem fled to Mt. Pella for safety, then what were they running from? Were they not taking heed to the warning that Christ warned them of? And sense they were heeding the warning of the temple's coming destruction, how then do you explain the position of Christ referring to a future rebuilt temple, only to be destroyed? That makes no sense at all my friend. That's like saying that they were running from a destruction that has not yet happened. LOL! How silly is that?

It is impossible for Matthew 24 to be speaking of a future temple; impossible for one solid fact alone. If Matthew 24 were speaking of a future rebuilt temple, only to be destroyed again, then Matthew would have written about a rebuilt temple. But Jesus said to those who adorned the temple, "The time will come when not one stone shall be left standing; they shall all be thrown down!" Yet Futurist claim He wasn't talking about the temple they just left, but a future temple. I couldn't disagree more.

You will not find one ounce of New Testament scripture to support this claim; not a single verse. The only book I know Futurist's use to support a third temple is Ezekiel, and that's because they are making the same mistake the Pharisee's made; they're thinking like Jews of the flesh, and not Spiritual Jews, taking everything log-wooded, and not trying to discern the mystery of God. If God's visions were about the literal fulfillment as it was written, do you think Satan would have had a hard time trying to figure out Christ's death on the cross?

Fleshly Jews looked at circumcision as physical, not realizing that this was symbolic for the removal of all that is unclean (Sin). Fleshly Jews looked at tithing as a physical accumulation of wealth, not realizing this was symbolic for bearing good fruit and sharing all things alike, instead of hording up wealth for the buildings, especially the temple (Churches today are making the same mistake). Fleshly Jews looked at fasting as a physical requirement or work, not realizing that this was symbolic for mourning a committed wrong. Fleshly Jews concentrated on the physical temple, not trying to understand what God was trying to communicate. For God was using the physical temple to paint a picture of our bodies. The fruits of the temple are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. The entrance of the temple is our mouth through our confession (Barnabus 70 AD), the Spirit of God dwelling in the physical temple was symbolic of our hearts and minds; when the Spirit of God was displeased, He departed the temple because of its evil; the same applies to our temples. And our bodies are the temple of the living God. The sacrificing of bulls was taken literal by the Jews, not realizing that the bull was symbolic of their rebellion, and the pig symbolic of Gentile hording of wealth, or hoofs symbolic of wicked leaders of power lording their authority over the people. The seven candles were symbolic of the Seven Spirits of God.

What more can I say? I do not know all the meanings of the "Shadow" but I hope that I'm wise enough to know and understand that the former Israel of the flesh was a picture of what was to come. And that was Jesus Christ and His temple; our bodies, His Church.

Therefore, to expect a physical temple in the future, and offer as you say "sacrifices of thanks" is not wise, considering our gifts of love and thanks are from our offerings to the poor and sharing all things alike; those are the sacrifices God seeks. If God cared about animal sacrifices, then He would have never commanded it to cease.

Keep reading my friend, and fervently pray. Don't look at things on the outside, but the inside, and you will begin to see. But first, you must let go of the fleshly out-look on things. Circumcision means absolutely nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is everything. So as Paul says, those who are physically circumcised, if they violate the Law of God, their physical circumcision is actually un-circumcision. But those who are not circumcised physically, yet keep the Law of God within their heart, show that their un-circumcision is actually Spiritually circumcised.....see the difference?

Joseph

[eliyahu]

Hi Forgiven,

I really do see what you are getting at about the symbolism there in the temple and the circumcision, etc. I am with you in receiving these things as examlpes and lessons of what it is to be a dwelling place of God and to be spiritually serving Him by faith. We are not that far apart in out views. Much, if not most in the law is filled with types and shadows of the gospel of the kingdom.

About a future temple. Firstly I do not expect Ezekiel's temple to ever be built. If there is one built, it is not the fulfillment of that prophecy. I do not want to take the time here to explain why I see it that way but we both do not anticipate his vision in literal fulfillment. As for the popular "millenial temple," I am not sure about it. There is little evidence to expect such. The one or two OT verses about it are unclear enough to be less dogmatic about its certainty. At any rate, that idea is non-essential to any eschatological scheme. I don't really care if there comes one :thumb:. So I do not need to debate it.

I am, however, more open to a temple before the millenium because of the way Jesus described a future abomination of desolation and because of Paul. If you want to argue that Jesus is refering to 70 AD only I understand your view and why you would think such. I agree that the early church fled to Pela in obedience to Jesus in the OD. I would have ran to:lol:! What I have issue with more is that Paul took Jesus' "abomination of desolation" to be accomplished by "the man of sin, the son of perdition, the lawless one" who would "seat himself in the temple of God, claiming he is the same as God." The same would be "destroyed by the brightness of His (Jesus') coming." He would come "working every miracle" to deceive.

This "antichrist" figure in Paul's writings is a literal person to be expected preceding the "great apostacy." All of this was being "restrained" at that time and I submit is still being restrained. That is another issue though and I digress. My point is that there was expected to be a man who would directly attack Israel and the church. He was fortold by Daniel. He found a past fulfillment in 173 BC in Antiochus Epiophenes 4. Jesus cited Daniel and claimed again something alike would happen. Since we have no evidence of such a man recognized by the church or historians, I expect him still. The evidence to expect him is much from the OT, specifically Daniel 11:36-45, and the NT. The evidence of a premillenial temple being constructed relies on understanding (less strongly) Jesus, and more specifically and strongly Paul, having fortold that this man would enter that temple and make himself out to be equal with God.
Why would there need to be another temple? My initial guess is that a number of the Orthodox Jews want to buid one even now! Who is to say that it will never happen? If those determined and persistant Jews who desire it maintain their vision, that day will come one day. That building, whether it is "holy" or not, would be the perfect national symbol of Israel's unique "chosenness" of God to them and the world, whether people agree with this or not. What a tempting target for Israel's enemies. What a prize for some aspiring self deifying ruler to desire to claim as his own. What better way to exalt himself as Israel's conqueror and even their god. It is easy to understand it all. How else do we understand Paul's man of sin? The temple is a necessary element for the antichrist figure's rise to the highest place of power he can grasp.

As for the promised land being absolutely nothing more than a shadow... where does the Bible ever say this? God showed Abraham literal boundaries of the land inheritance. God gave Solomon those same boundaries of soveriengty in his lifetime. The prophets fortold a final return from the literal diaspora to the literal land that would be in eternal peace and blessing form God and the nations after the time of severe judgment. I could give numerous examples, especially from Isaiah.

The carnal earth and carnal human bodies are eternally spiritually sacred. God made them and called them "good, " and then "very good" when man was put there. It is not carnal to expect a restored earth and resurrected flesh to be the "home of the righteous" in the end. I assume you expect such. Jesus is in a physical body now. It is a resurrected and quite "glorified" body but very substantial none the less. The carnal land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem are sacred because they "belong to God" in His own words. He "chose" Zion for his resting place. I think a good reason was not at all out of just "needing" someplace to send Jesus. It was because there was nothing especially special about that vile and detestable place inhabited by the most wicked people there were, the original Canaanites. God chooses the things that are not and calls them into being. He chose that place which was the very gate of hell and made it into the gate of heaven. Maybe Adam was formed in Jerusalem. Maybe Isaac was offered up there. Why did David pick that place for the throne? Why did God bless the desire to build His temple there? It all comes down to the fact that God chose that plot of land, that group of people and that city for His name's revelation to the earth. His reputation to be a faithful God who has a home among men is literally staked there. The devil always challenges God's word's. That is why he will never stop challenging that the Jews are God's specially chosen to be His own and that it is to take place in that land, in that city.

One day the heaven and the earth will be entirely the same place. God will dwell fully unveiled on earth with the justified. It is not "this or that." It is the marraige of all things with God's kingdom. All things will be "filled with God's Glory." God's image will be ever deeply stamped on all of creation forever. All things will be somed up in Christ. etc etc.

Again, I do not understand Galatians' "Israel of God" as the whole church. I see that phrase as a specific reference to the Jewish believers who were admirably not "Judaizers" like the ones there in Galatia Paul was rebuking and correcting in that letter. That phrase never is used elswhere. It is not so aboundly clear to mean what you take it to mean that way. Many educated and Spirit filled scholars disagree with your view. Please check out my other thread "the natural children and God's children."

[TheForgiven]

I am, however, more open to a temple before the millennium because of the way Jesus described a future abomination of desolation and because of Paul. If you want to argue that Jesus is referring to 70 AD only I understand your view and why you would think such. I agree that the early church fled to Pella in obedience to Jesus in the OD. I would have ran to ! What I have issue with more is that Paul took Jesus' "abomination of desolation" to be accomplished by "the man of sin, the son of perdition, the lawless one" who would "seat himself in the temple of God, claiming he is the same as God." The same would be "destroyed by the brightness of His (Jesus') coming." He would come "working every miracle" to deceive.

He does not say Future from our perspective, but form their perspective. Let’s examine the scriptures:


Matthew 24:
7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.

Christ explains how the nations [speaking of Rome] would war with each other. That historically happened, as Rome fought against the Barbarians, which we call today Germans. But during, or after these National wars, He then explains how they (The Apostles) would be persecuted from city to city, put to death, and hated by all nations because of their testimony. Did this not happen to them as well? Of course it did. He also explains how the results of this would be increased wickedness and a cold-love towards one another. He then states how the gospels must be preached unto the entire whole world (Literally, Inhabited earth) and then their end (of the temple and city) would come.

Finally, He says that whey they (The Apostles) saw the abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place (Think Antiochus Epiphanies), then let those who are in Judea flea to the mountain, and pray that this flight does not take place during the cold winter. Now what would be so hard about the winter in the future, with our current technology? Traveling it not near as bad now, as it would have been by camel or donkey, during those days. And the last time I saw it, Israel drives cars and planes, so why would "Winter" be such a bad time in our day to travel? The answer is simple; it wouldn't. :D

Now Luke speaks of this very same event, and here is what he says:


Luke 21:20
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. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Now some hold or believe that Luke and Matthew described two different events. These teachers believe Matthew was speaking of a future destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, while Luke spoke of the one which happened in 70AD. Why the separation? Because Futurist insists that the Apostles presented the answers of Christ in two different discussions; one in 70AD and the other in the future. That makes no sense and violates the harmony of the gospels. They were all listening to the same answers, to the very same questions, so it's impossible to claim Luke and Matthew described two different events. And sense Luke was clearly talking about the destruction in 70 AD, the logical conclusion then must be that Matthew did as well.

Matthew states that when "they" saw the abomination standing in the Holy Place, then they were leave Judea and flee to the mountains. Luke says the very same thing, but does not refer to it as Daniel’s abomination, but the armies surrounding Jerusalem. Why the difference? They are not different, for Luke and Matthew spoke of the very same event.

When the temple was destroyed by Antiochus IV, he entered the Holy of Hollies, of which we all know is unlawful for any Gentile to do. General Titus did the very same thing, who’s lust was for the gold and silver which resided within the temple. Now even before Titus committed an abomination within the temple, the “Robbers” as Josephus puts it, did the very same thing. They entered the temple as if it belonged to them, and Josephus records how they stole money from the temple treasury.

Therefore, the Abomination of Desolation was an exact repeat of what happened when Antiochus entered into the temple, lusted and stole the gold and silver, and destroyed the temple.

Additionally, Antiochus claimed he was the son of Apollo. According to Greek mythology, Apollo was the son of the god of Jupiter, which was Zeus. Thus Antiochus IV claimed he was the son of Apollo, as if he was a god. Titus was also claimed to be a relative of the Greek god of Apollo. This matches perfectly with that in Revelation, “They have as king over them, who’s name in Hebrews is Abaddon, and in Greek is Apolyon. Apolyon is the alternate name for Apollos, the Greek god-son of Zeus.

Therefore, the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled when Antiochus IV desecrated the temple, but the likeness was repeated when Titus entered the Holy of Hollies, and offered a pig on an alter after its destruction. All of this happened in 70 AD. The conclusion is thus quite simple. The Abomination of Desolation happened in the first century, and was an exact repeat of what happened under Antiochus IV.

I’ll respond to your other comments on another post to make this one short.

But please answer this one simple question, which I asked in my last post.

If you believe the Abomination of Desolation is a future event, then what were the Christians in Jerusalem running from in the late 60's AD? Do you think they made a mistake?

Joe

[Rose]

Hi Joe, and Adam :yo:

Interesting conversation going on here. :thumb:

Here's some more food for thought.... :pop2:

If Jesus' prophecy of Jerusalem's future destruction is still future....why would the invading army restrict their invasion to just Jerusalem? I would think the whole country of Israel would be attacked, including the main city of Tel Aviv, and it would make no sense to flee to the mountains of Judea since they would be no safer there then anywhere else in Israel. Whereas in the first century it was only Jerusalem that was attacked and destroyed, and the mountains of Judea were a safe haven.

Rose

[TheForgiven]

If Jesus' prophecy of Jerusalem's future destruction is still future....why would the invading army restrict their invasion to just Jerusalem? I would think the whole country of Israel would be attacked, including the main city of Tel Aviv, and it would make no sense to flee to the mountains of Judea since they would be no safer there then anywhere else in Israel. Whereas in the first century it was only Jerusalem that was attacked and destroyed, and the mountains of Judea were a safe haven.

Rose

Hi Rose. :yo: I would agree that this is a good discussion. I'm considering ideas that I've never considered before, so I hope that my last question about their flee to Pella is a good one.

Now maybe I'm wrong, but I believe it wasn't Judea they fled too, but Pella. Pella is several miles from the Jordon, and miles ahead of Galilee. Pella is the location which St. Eusebius of the 3rd century states the Christians fled to. Now some today are threatened by the possibility of this being true, so they're trying to find a way to prove history unreliable. In short, they're trying to say that Christians in Jerusalem never fled to Pella, but all died during the 70AD revolt and destruction by the Romans. I find this quite disturbing, and to be honest, desperate on their attempt to smother history with doubt, merely to prove their particular stance on eschatology.

What some Futurist's are trying to do is discredit all external historical sources, whether by an ECF or Historian, so unless History is written in the scriptures, they'll reject it as possibly false. Yet they'll make claims that they cannot prove, such as claiming the Christians in Jerusalem never left, but died during the slaughter. I find a total lack of proof for that, especially when archeological findings prove that Christians existed in Pella around the first century.

Joseph

[joel]

I have been following this thread, and others that are aligned, and offer some thoughts concerning an affiliated chapter, Luke 21.

The chapter opens with a discussion between Jesus and His disciples concerning a widow who is bringing her offerings to the treasury;

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, this this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: 4 For all these have of their abundance cast unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

In this chapter, Luke 21, this short narrative is a prelude to the discussion that follows concerning the events and timing of the events that are the focus of this discussion.

I wonder if this short story is the basis of the expression, "...my two cents worth...."? Such an expression is meant to convey such as...."...it may not be worth much, but what I have to say is offered forth....." In this case, Jesus acknowledges that her "two cents" were worth more than the offerings of others because of the motive that was behind the gift........the willingness to give sacrificially, and not out of plenty.

As this conversation ensued, attention was diverted to a more expansive view;
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.

As discussion continues concerning this matter of the overthrown temple, it is worthy to keep in mind that;
1.) Jesus uses this conversation concerning the hidden value to the gifts brought to the sanctuary to focus attention on the stones of the temple.
He clearly said that not one stone would remain placed on top of others, and "the days shall come" when this is so.

That portion of the prophecy was fulfilled to the uttermost when the Temple in Jerusalem was overthrown. There is no doubt about this. The truth which Jesus spoke remains true up to this very day.

An agrument against this portion of the truth is vain.

The reference to the destruction of the Temple, and a subsequent re-building is not the topic here discussed. Such references to the overthrow of the sacred building caused, and were to cause, much passionate discourse, and the basis of false witness against him. I encourage you all to read again the cross references throughout the gospel narratives.

2.) The hidden value of the discussion could also point to the "temple not made with hands". We need to be cautious that we do not insist that something may occur which cannot be clearly supported by evidence in the scripture.
Jesus focused on the stones. If we study the cross references to stones we see that spiritually they are symbolic of those certain ones who will be placed within the spiritual temple of God.
If that veiled image is true, then, these stones existing in the literal Temple in Jerusalem would be disrupted and thrown down.
Not only was the actual Temple destroyed by the Romans, but, the system of the Jewish regligion, the rites of worship, and all that was associated with the "people of God", Israel, was disrupted. Those who were pillars in the church at Jerusalem would soon be subject to great pressures that would follow as described by Jesus in the remainder of his discourse.

The question remains;
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?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

I have been following this thread, and others that are aligned, and offer some thoughts concerning an affiliated chapter, Luke 21.

The chapter opens with a discussion between Jesus and His disciples concerning a widow who is bringing her offerings to the treasury;

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, this this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: 4 For all these have of their abundance cast unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

In this chapter, Luke 21, this short narrative is a prelude to the discussion that follows concerning the events and timing of the events that are the focus of this discussion.

I wonder if this short story is the basis of the expression, "...my two cents worth...."? Such an expression is meant to convey such as...."...it may not be worth much, but what I have to say is offered forth....." In this case, Jesus acknowledges that her "two cents" were worth more than the offerings of others because of the motive that was behind the gift........the willingness to give sacrificially, and not out of plenty.

As this conversation ensued, attention was diverted to a more expansive view;
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.

As discussion continues concerning this matter of the overthrown temple, it is worthy to keep in mind that;
1.) Jesus uses this conversation concerning the hidden value to the gifts brought to the sanctuary to focus attention on the stones of the temple.
He clearly said that not one stone would remain placed on top of others, and "the days shall come" when this is so.

That portion of the prophecy was fulfilled to the uttermost when the Temple in Jerusalem was overthrown. There is no doubt about this. The truth which Jesus spoke remains true up to this very day.

An agrument against this portion of the truth is vain.

The reference to the destruction of the Temple, and a subsequent re-building is not the topic here discussed. Such references to the overthrow of the sacred building caused, and were to cause, much passionate discourse, and the basis of false witness against him. I encourage you all to read again the cross references throughout the gospel narratives.

2.) The hidden value of the discussion could also point to the "temple not made with hands". We need to be cautious that we do not insist that something may occur which cannot be clearly supported by evidence in the scripture.
Jesus focused on the stones. If we study the cross references to stones we see that spiritually they are symbolic of those certain ones who will be placed within the spiritual temple of God.
If that veiled image is true, then, these stones existing in the literal Temple in Jerusalem would be disrupted and thrown down.
Not only was the actual Temple destroyed by the Romans, but, the system of the Jewish regligion, the rites of worship, and all that was associated with the "people of God", Israel, was disrupted. Those who were pillars in the church at Jerusalem would soon be subject to great pressures that would follow as described by Jesus in the remainder of his discourse.

The question remains;
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?

Joel

:applause: Great Job Joel; you saw the connection with the temple's destruction and the gifts given, as well as their (Jews) abuse of those gifts. Christ was showing, in a sense, that the money and gifts being used to beautify the temple was a waste. In fact, He shows that this waste would come to nothing when the temple would be destroyed without one single stone being left.

So in short, He condemns them for giving out of their wealth, while the poor lady gave all that she had. But their defense was that the gifts of the wealthy contributed to the beautification of the temple. He then explains how that was a waste, for "Not one stone shall be left standing", as if to say, "Where is all that beauty now"?

His over-all point was that the poor woman who gave all that she had should not have been poor. Even in the older days they were commanded to share all things alike. But as it was, the Jews used the temple system to obtain great wealth, and they spent it on their own pleasures, instead of providing gifts of love.

Now all of this is important for us, because as you rightly say, the spiritual temple can be neglected in the same fashion. When Christian's give of their money, and Elders or Ministers vote to use this for beautification and expansion of their buildings, they are in fact making the very same mistake, especially if there are poor Christians (Financially) mixed with rich Christians attending the service or mass. As Christ said, "A tree is known by it's fruit". Well fruits are meant to be shared and partaken of, not adorned. For nobody stares at an apple tree and admires it beauty. Rather, when they are hungry, they partake of the fruits offered by the tree. These fruits are symbolic for acts of love and righteousness. That was a solid fact of God's kingdom the Jews kept missing, and sadly many Churches today are doing the very same thing.

Good Job Joel! :thumb: I'm very pleased.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That portion of the prophecy was fulfilled to the uttermost when the Temple in Jerusalem was overthrown. There is no doubt about this. The truth which Jesus spoke remains true up to this very day.

An agrument against this portion of the truth is vain.

Amen! :thumb:


The reference to the destruction of the Temple, and a subsequent re-building is not the topic here discussed. Such references to the overthrow of the sacred building caused, and were to cause, much passionate discourse, and the basis of false witness against him. I encourage you all to read again the cross references throughout the gospel narratives.

2.) The hidden value of the discussion could also point to the "temple not made with hands". We need to be cautious that we do not insist that something may occur which cannot be clearly supported by evidence in the scripture.
Jesus focused on the stones. If we study the cross references to stones we see that spiritually they are symbolic of those certain ones who will be placed within the spiritual temple of God.
If that veiled image is true, then, these stones existing in the literal Temple in Jerusalem would be disrupted and thrown down.
Not only was the actual Temple destroyed by the Romans, but, the system of the Jewish regligion, the rites of worship, and all that was associated with the "people of God", Israel, was disrupted. Those who were pillars in the church at Jerusalem would soon be subject to great pressures that would follow as described by Jesus in the remainder of his discourse.

The question remains;
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?

Joel
Excellent insight into the deeper meaning of the stones and the destruction of the Temple Joel!


In answer to your final question, I would offer my "two cents" - the first being from Luke 21:
Luke 21:20-22 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.

And my second "cent" is that the first century fulfillment declared by the Lord Christ is confirmed by Daniel, which is quite relevent since that book was referenced by Christ in the same context:
Daniel 12:6-7 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.
I do not understand how there could be any question whatsoever about the past fulfillment of these prophecies. Am I missing something? If so, would someone please point it out to me?

Thanks!

Richard

[Rose]

Good post Joel. :thumb:


I am now going to give my 'two cents worth' as you so aptly described.


To begin with the whole focus was on the stones of the Temple, and when they would be thrown down, that is what the disciples wanted to know. All of things that Jesus said was in response to those questions. The Olivet Discourse is about the signs they were to expect to see leading up to 'those stones' being thrown down, and who it was that would see those things. It seems pretty clear that Jesus was talking to His Disciples and telling them that they would be the ones who would experience these things 'this generation' since they were the ones asking the questions and since they were the ones 'those stones' had meaning to.


When those stones were thrown down that would conclude the end of that age. Never again would the stones of a temple have the meaning that those stones had. They were the stones that housed the Holy of Holies, God’s dwelling place on earth. Now the Old was completely done away with….finished. The age of 'living stones' was come in with the Disciples being the first pillars in the New Temple of God, which is the body of Christ.

It seems that we all (those of us talking on this thread) agree that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., and that never again could a temple be rebuilt having the same meaning and purpose. That leads to the point that there can never be another 'abomination of desolation' because a rebuilt temple cannot be desecrated if it is not sanctified by God. So if all the prophecies in the OD are fulfilled up through Matt. 24:28…..then the following verses must also be fulfilled, because Matt. 24:29 says: 'Immediately after the tribulation of those days'….the tribulation of those days is the days that we just concluded were fulfilled leading up to the destruction of the Temple….and then it says immediately following the tribulation of those days would be 'the sign of the Son of Man in heaven': I don’t see how it is possible to insert a gap of 2000 years between Matt.24:28 and Matt. 24:29 :confused2:

Rose

[joel]

As we continue on with the Luke narrative, I present some additional thoughts before we continue;

1.) the widow in the story......does she represent anyone or anything other than a person who gives out of their lack?

2.) the stones in the sanctuary.....do they represent anything of note?

3.) does it mean anything of note that the word used here for the "temple" is "hieron" which is a sacred place, rather than "naos" which would be the the central sanctuary itself of the Temple at Jerusalem?

6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

4.) The stones would be "thrown down". This word, as used in this context, seems to speak more of "loosening, and breaking apart" that which has been closely joined. This symbolic imagery seems to imply that the system behind the religion which binds together the collective members of the nation of Israel will become disjointed.

"These things which ye behold" seems to refer to the sacred place, but more particularly the stones that adorn the walls and edifice.

"the days will come".......and we can agree that those days did, in fact, come and came soon.

We should also be able to agree that the overthrown stones remain in a thrown down state until even this day.

What we are still discussing in hopes of reaching agreement is that the ongoing condition of the thrown down stones, which were thrown down in a past time, and remain thrown down throughout this current time, will remain so, in that condition, indefinitely.

7 Now they inquire of him, saying, Teacher, when, then, will these things be, and what is the sign whenever these things may be about to be occuring?
8 Now he said, "Beware that you may not be deceived, for many shall be coming in my name, saying that 'I am' and 'The season is near'. You may not, then, be going after them.

The warning to them is in two parts; 1.) many will come forth and claim to be speaking in behalf of Christ, and, 2.) they will say 'season is near'.
He warns that they were not to be gong after those who would do so.

We know that the days during which the temple stones were to be overthrown would be occurring soon thereafter.

As to the "season", however, Jesus includes this time period into his warning.

9 Now whenever you should be hearing of battles and turbulences you may not be dismayed, for these must occur first, but not immediately is the consummation (...but the end is not by and by. KJV)

The consummation is "telos" which the point aimed at as the limit, the conclusion of the act.

Our on-going point of disagreement is in whether the "telos" (consummation) occurred shortly after the commencement (which at this point we seem to be in agreement that the commencement point is the actual throwing down of the temple stones which occurred in 70 A.D.).

"...But not immediately..." ("...is not by and by" KJV) is "entheos"...which is "at once" or "soon".

10 He then said to them, "Roused shall be nations against nations, and kingdoms against kingdoms.

This "roused" is a word describing awakening someone from sleep. Can this imply events which would occur suddenly, or over an extended period of time?

11 Besides, there shall be great quakes and, in places, famines and pestilences. There shall be fearful sights besides great signs also from heaven.

Again, this appears to be describing events occuring over an extended period of time.

12 Yet before all these things, they shall be laying hands on you and they shall be persecuting you, giving you up into the synagogues and jails, being led off to kings and governors on account of my name.

Certainly, verse 12 occurred in the first century. It can be categorized as something which occurred before "all these things" (vs. 10,11).

In summary, as to this section of Luke, the events can be classified as;
1.) those occuring immediately in conjunction with the throwing down of the temple stones.......vs. 9a.

2.) the consummation (telos)....vs. 9b.

3.) those events occurring over a period of time (duration unspecified).....vs. 10, 11.

In conjunction with the immediately occurring events (....1.) above...), the following verses can be said to have occurred immediately;

13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony. 14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer. 15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist. 16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, 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 head perish. 19 In your patience possess ye your souls.
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 Judea 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 thereunto. 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 upon the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by 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.

There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that these events occurred in the first century. The throwing down of the temple stones was a part of this wrath.

To date, the temple stones have remained thrown down. And, it is apparent that they will remain so concurrently with the "times of the Gentiles". The Jewish people have been "led away captive into all nations". And "...Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles..." continues to this day.

But as to the seasons......"the times of the Gentiles"......these have run unabated since the wrath described above. These "times" must reach a "filling" (pleroo).

Do these "times of the Gentiles" run until the consummation (telos)?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that these events occurred in the first century. The throwing down of the temple stones was a part of this wrath.

To date, the temple stones have remained thrown down. And, it is apparent that they will remain so concurrently with the "times of the Gentiles". The Jewish people have been "led away captive into all nations". And "...Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles..." continues to this day.

But as to the seasons......"the times of the Gentiles"......these have run unabated since the wrath described above. These "times" must reach a "filling" (pleroo).

Do these "times of the Gentiles" run until the consummation (telos)?

Joel

The times of the Gentiles represented the period when the Romans attacked Jerusalem until they completed its Desolation. This period is said by most to have elapsed 42 months.

John in Revelation says the same thing, as does Daniel:

Revelation 11:2
2 But the court which is outside the temple, leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles; and the Holy City shall they tread under foot for forty and two months.

Wstruce would probably be the best person to tell you the exact dates, especially with all of his research on the different Calendar settings. As for me, I'm quite comfortable believing that the 42 month period represented the time of the walls erected around Jerusalem, until the entire city was destroyed by fire. This was approximately 42 months, or 3 1/2 years.

When Jerusalem was destroyed, thus completed the "Times of the Gentiles".

Now some try to usurp the idea that the times of the Gentiles represent the entire Church age until the 1948 re-gathering of geographical Israel, but I reject the teaching to the highest possible extent. The times of the Gentiles according to John, and according to Daniel, was approximately 42 months, not 2000+ years. So their teaching has absolutely no scriptural support and is a theological assumption based on their deductive reasoning, or understanding, of eschatology. In short, there are no black and white words which read their understanding; it's all made-up.

In conclusion, the times of the Gentiles was completed when God sent forth His army against His enemies and destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.

Joe

[joel]

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.

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword,.........it happened then, and it was of a short duration. It was visibly evident.

, and shall be led away captive into all nations:..........it has occurred over a period of time, and continues to this day. It is not visibly evident such as occurred in the Babylonian captivity. They, Israel, are a captive people.

and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled...........it also extends over a period of time, extending even to this day, and being completed only when the Father says so.

The times of the nations will continue. If they have ended, and were concluded way back then.......what time is it now?

Joel

[Rose]

Hi Joel :yo:


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.The "times of the Gentiles" has been fulfilled. We are not in them now, nor are we in any other "times" of races of people.

If you read verse 24 carefully you will find there are three conditions that need to be met before the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. First, the Jews shall fall by the edge of the sword, which we know happened: secondly, they shall be led away captive into all nations, which we know happened: thirdly, Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, which we know happened. Those are the three conditions.....they have been met.

The term "Gentiles" does not hold the same meaning now as it did in the first century or before. Then it was God's people (the Jews) and everyone else (the Gentiles). Now there are believers and non believers.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree with Joe and Rose that the "times of the Gentiles" ended in 70 AD, but I agree with Joel that the third element (taken in isolation) in Luke 21:24 could be interpreted as continuing on and on into an indefinite future. But the ambiguity seems to be eliminated by the context. The verse immediately following Luke 21:24 speaks of 70 AD:
Luke 21:24-25 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. 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;

The first century timing of the "signs in the sun, and in the moon" is confirmed in the parallel account in Matthew:
Matthew 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:
So if we carefully hold to the context and understand that Christ was warning of the great tribulation of the first century, then we see that the triple witness of Daniel, Rev 11, and the OD fit well with a first century end of the "times of the Gentiles."

But there is an "odd man out." The "fulness of the Gentiles" in Romans 11 is difficult to understand in this scenario. But to properly understand that would require a full exegesis of Romans 9-11. :eek: :lol:

Richard

[joel]

If you read verse 24 carefully you will find there are three conditions that need to be met before the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. First, the Jews shall fall by the edge of the sword, which we know happened: secondly, they shall be led away captive into all nations, which we know happened: thirdly, Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, which we know happened. Those are the three conditions.....they have been met.


The verse seems clearly stated to me, Rose.

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 nations, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

It is apparent that the first two parts of the prophecy were fulfilled soon after they were spoken. But, it is not apparent that the last portion has been fulfilled, but is being still in process.

If the last portion of verse 24 is viewed as a transition, and that it is still underway, then, the following verses fall into place;

25 And there 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 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. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

This final section of the prophecy of Luke 21 speaks of those things that will occur when "these things begin to come to pass".

They seem to grouped together.

The Son of man coming in a cloud, returning back to the earth, did not visibly occur, but, is an eagerly anticipated, awaited, and expected event.

He departed in a certain manner, and, He will come back in the same manner as foretold in Acts 1;
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

He will return as the Son of Man. This connects Him with all of humanity, not just with the Jewish people as He once appeared as reported in the four gospels as He came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, nor exclusively for the Gentiles, who will continue to remain as the nations separate from Israel, and who will look to Israel as the channel to learn and be brought close to God as there still remains things which must occur upon the earth as His glorious plan continues to unfold.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If the last portion of verse 24 is viewed as a transition, and that it is still underway, then, the following verses fall into place;

25 And there 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 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. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

This final section of the prophecy of Luke 21 speaks of those things that will occur when "these things begin to come to pass".

They seem to grouped together.

The Son of man coming in a cloud, returning back to the earth, did not visibly occur, but, is an eagerly anticipated, awaited, and expected event.

He departed in a certain manner, and, He will come back in the same manner as foretold in Acts 1;
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


Hey there Joel, :yo:

You have certainly presented the strongest case for a still future literal visible coming. But the issue is not simple. Christ said that His coming would happen "immediately after the tribulation of those days" - speaking specifically of the first century destruction of the Temple.

How do you suggest we understand that?

Richard

[TheForgiven]

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

This passage can be understood in two different ways:

1. Christ will literally return and "cloud surf" with power and glory
2. Christ will return in a cloud of power and glory

See how close those translations are, and which one sounds more realistic? Futurist make a very grave mistake because their understanding interprets the above verse in a sensational fashion. But that's because everyone, from their youth on up, has been taught that Jesus would return riding clouds of gas and white pillow cases. But that is not the case at all.

The only reason this interpretation is still so influential to the Futurist's is because of Acts chapter 1.

I discusses this before, and I'll show this again; I'm here to help in any way that I can.


Acts 1:9
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.'

Now think clearly brothers and sisters. Did the Angel tell them that Jesus would return in "identical" manner, or "Like" manner? I know the urge of those who want to sensationalize, or rather dramatize, the return of Christ as if the entire world could even see this event in the first place. Never mind about trying to explain how the entire world would see an event like this; for I know their "Bruce Lee" approach to lightening fast cloud surfing. Yet if Christ returned in that fashion (speed of light) who in the world would be able to discern it? :lol: Too much movie influence if you ask me.

Anyways, the Angel doesn't say that Christ would return in identical fashion, but in likeness. The cloud receiving Him indicates a return to glory. And when He returns, it will be in POWER AND GLORY.

Now reviewing the gospels, we see two readings:


Matthew 24:29
29 'Immediately after the tribulation of those days [70AD] the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Now notice that Matthew says "The Sign" of Jesus return upon the clouds of power and glory. This can be interpreted in two ways:

1. Jesus return is the sign of power and glory
2. The cloud of power and glory IS the sign of Jesus return

I'm sure you could probably interpret that another way, but the above are the most two common interpretations. Futurist's interpret Jesus cloud surfing as the sign of power and glory. But listen to the ridiculousness of that interpretation. For that presupposes Jesus will declare His power and glory THROUGH cloud surfing, as if He's saying, "Yea! Look at me!":woah: See the error behind that interpretation?

Rather we correctly interpret that the signs of the figures (Sun losing light, Moon into blood) are all indications of God's power being poured out unto the earth. For instance, when Pentecost happened, and they all spoke in tongues, that was a sign that the Holy Spirit was upon them. The same thing with the events which happened in 70AD, that the things they were seeing were clearly signs that the "Presence" of Christ was being witnessed.

Therefore, Jesus did return in 70AD "Immediately" following the tribulation of the mothers bearing children, and those who fell by the sword, and the miraculous events they witnessed occurring all throughout Israel was a clear indication that the power and glory of Christ was manifesting itself.

One last ounce of proof. I've shown this before, but lets look at Jeremiah once again:


Jeremiah 4:
11 At that time it will be said
To this people and to Jerusalem,

' A dry wind of the desolate heights blows in the wilderness
Toward the daughter of My people—
Not to fan or to cleanse—
12 A wind too strong for these will come for Me;
Now I will also speak judgment against them.'
13 ' Behold, he shall come up like clouds,
And his chariots like a whirlwind.
His horses are swifter than eagles.
Woe to us, for we are plundered!' 14 O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness,
That you may be saved.

Now this prophesy is exactly like we read in the gospels and similar to Acts chapter 1. We know this was fulfilled against Jerusalem and the people when the king of Babylon, Nebochegnedzar, destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. This destruction was the sign of God's destructive cloud of judgment upon the people and city. This same "cloud of judgment" is recognized to have occurred in 70AD. Yet when did the Jews see God cloud surfing when the king of Babylon destroyed them? Never, therefore either Jeremiah 4 was never fulfilled, or the vision was fulfilled in a figurative manner, as is rightly interpreted.

In conclusion, the literal expectancy of "cloud surfing" is the reason why many did not, and will not, understand the prophesies of Jesus return. That's the very same reason why some of the Early Church Fathers throughout Asian Minor and Alexandria, kept missing the mark. Others, such as Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and a few others understood that Christ did return in 70AD as indicated by the many signs they were seeing. These knew that Christ kept His promise and even mentions that in their writings, but were deemed a heretic by some such as Iranaeus, and a few other committee's. Yet we know for a fact that a few things Iranaeus taught were no where near scriptural, and some of what Iraneaus said was a lie, such as the age of Christ being more than 50 years old at death. So his creditability means nothing. But my point is simple. Jesus returned in a cloud of power and great glory, and His Kingdom demonstrated its purpose, judgment, and power upon Jerusalem, and upon all nations to this day. His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and His clouds shall always been seen.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you all.

Joe

[eliyahu]

I want to chime in here again. :) One quick Q, or questions. How do preterists interpret the statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come? Like the judging between the sheep and the goats, The parable of the talents, the parable of the king going away on a LONG journey to receive a kingdom and then returning, Jesus saying "of the day or hour no one knows, not the angels, nor the Son, only the Father." etc, etc.

Especially the last one, "of that hour no one knows..."
If the "day of the Lord" involving Jesus' coming "in the clouds" is understood by Jesus' in His own words, and is "immediately after the tribulation of those days," then how is that day and hour of Jesus' coming still such a big secret to Jesus Himself? If it all happened in the sky over Jerusalem in 70 AD, then why was it so important that Jesus share all of the parables about being focused, patient and watchful until His return at an "hour which you think not?"

[Rose]

Act 1:6-11 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.Another angel to look at these verses in Acts is from the viewpoint of what the Disciples were feeling, and seeing. They had just asked Jesus if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel, and He answered them by saying it’s not for them (the Disciples) to know when God is going to accomplish this. Then in verse 8 Jesus tells them that they are going to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, and they are going to be witnesses of Him in all the earth.

This is a very personal conversation; all of the questions they ask and the answers Jesus gives apply to the things that are going to happen to them. Then they watch as Jesus ascends up into Heaven until He disappears into a cloud. They continue to stand there looking up into Heaven as two men clothed in white (most likely angels) approach them and question them as to why they are gazing up into the sky. Then the angels proceed to tell them that this same Jesus they have just watched ascend into Heaven will come back from Heaven in the same manner as they have just seen Him go.

Now we know that the Disciples standing there are the only ones who truly know what manner Jesus ascended into the clouds in, all we know is that He ascended and disappeared into the clouds. On the other hand though the Disciples saw everything, they knew Jesus, what He looked like, how He talked and the manner in which He left. We on the other hand know none of those things, all we know for sure is that Jesus ascended out of the sight of the Disciples and was received into a cloud.

We also must bear in mind that the two angels are talking to the Disciples for a reason; it could be to comfort them because they appear to be concerned about His leaving, and to assure them that Jesus is coming back, and it will be in the same manner in which He left. Or they could also be referring to the upcoming feast of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit will be poured out upon the Disciples giving them the power to be witnesses for Jesus.

So what I’m saying is that these verses may not be speaking of Christ’s second coming as is commonly believed, but may in fact be referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Just some more food for thought. :pop2:

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Especially the last one, "of that hour no one knows..."
If the "day of the Lord" involving Jesus' coming "in the clouds" is understood by Jesus' in His own words, and is "immediately after the tribulation of those days," then how is that day and hour of Jesus' coming still such a big secret to Jesus Himself? If it all happened in the sky over Jerusalem in 70 AD, then why was it so important that Jesus share all of the parables about being focused, patient and watchful until His return at an "hour which you think not?"
It seems to me that the "day and hour" refered to the time of the whole complex of events that culminated in 70 AD when the "lights went out" over Israel. So Jesus was saying that in 30 AD "no man knew" how long it would be till the judgment came down. In hindsight, we now know it happened in 70 AD.

As for "why it mattered" - it was because the Christians were saved by obeying the Lord and watching and getting out of town before the judgments came down.

And there is the timeless application, which applies to every Christian in every age in the sense who knows not how long they will be living. Our soul could be "required" of us at any moment.

Richard

[eliyahu]

This is a very personal conversation; all of the questions they ask and the answers Jesus gives apply to the things that are going to happen to them. Then they watch as Jesus ascends up into Heaven until He disappears into a cloud. They continue to stand there looking up into Heaven as two men clothed in white (most likely angels) approach them and question them as to why they are gazing up into the sky. Then the angels proceed to tell them that this same Jesus they have just watched ascend into Heaven will come back from Heaven in the same manner as they have just seen Him go.

Now we know that the Disciples standing there are the only ones who truly know what manner Jesus ascended into the clouds in, all we know is that He ascended and disappeared into the clouds. On the other hand though the Disciples saw everything, they knew Jesus, what He looked like, how He talked and the manner in which He left. We on the other hand know none of those things, all we know for sure is that Jesus ascended out of the sight of the Disciples and was received into a cloud.

We also must bear in mind that the two angels are talking to the Disciples for a reason; it could be to comfort them because they appear to be concerned about His leaving, and to assure them that Jesus is coming back, and it will be in the same manner in which He left. Or they could also be referring to the upcoming feast of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit will be poured out upon the Disciples giving them the power to be witnesses for Jesus.

So what I’m saying is that these verses may not be speaking of Christ’s second coming as is commonly believed, but may in fact be referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Rose
Hi Rose, your name is fitting for this particular post's topic :). I think you did a great job of underscoring that, according to the angels in Acts 1, Jesus is going to come back in literal clouds in full view of many people in the sky one day. That is "the same manner" is which He left. Jesus is the one who is to come "back," not the very distinct and seperate Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The outpouring on Shavuot or Pentecost was the fulfillment of Shavuot, but the return of Jesus is the fulfillment of the next holidy feast, Shofars or trumpets.

[Rose]

Hi Rose, your name is fitting for this particular post's topic :). I think you did a great job of underscoring that, according to the angels in Acts 1, Jesus is going to come back in literal clouds in full view of many people in the sky one day. That is "the same manner" is which He left. Jesus is the one who is to come "back," not the very distinct and separate Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The outpouring on Shavuot or Pentecost was the fulfillment of Shavuot, but the return of Jesus is the fulfillment of the next holiday feast, Shofars or trumpets.

Hi eliyahu, :yo:

My point in drawing attention to those verses in Acts was to point out that the focus seems to be on what the Disciples are going to see. The verses say nothing about how many people will see this event, only that Jesus will return in the same "manner" in which He left. The only people that witnessed the "manner" in which Jesus left were His Disciples. So my point is, that from the context of whats being said it seems that it will be the Disciples who will witness Christs return.

Rose

[eliyahu]

Hi eliyahu, :yo:

My point in drawing attention to those verses in Acts was to point out that the focus seems to be on what the Disciples are going to see. The verses say nothing about how many people will see this event, only that Jesus will return in the same "manner" in which He left. The only people that witnessed the "manner" in which Jesus left were His Disciples. So my point is, that from the context of whats being said it seems that it will be the Disciples who will witness Christs return.

Rose

Sorry, I was thinking your point was that Pentecost was the return of the Lord and not some other event in 70 AD as some of you are submitting. As to the disciples (yiou mean the twelve apostles, right?) being necessarily present when Jesus returns in the same manner, that never happened. If it was Pentecost then you have the angels misleading the people to expect Jesus to return in the sky in the clouds, physically. If it was not Pentecost, then by 70 AD not all of the twelve apostles, and likely not Mary, were still alive.

Besides, I think it is obvious that the "manner in which He left" is not speaking of the people who watched it happen. It is talking about the "manner in which He left" specifically in reference to "He" and "left." Acts describes this as Jesus in the sky in clouds. That much is clear. This sign cannot be and has not been duplicated by any imposter as of yet.

[eliyahu]

I want to chime in here again. :) One quick Q, or questions. How do preterists interpret the statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come? Like the judging between the sheep and the goats, The parable of the talents, the parable of the king going away on a LONG journey to receive a kingdom and then returning, Jesus saying "of the day or hour no one knows, not the angels, nor the Son, only the Father." etc, etc.

Especially the last one, "of that hour no one knows..."
If the "day of the Lord" involving Jesus' coming "in the clouds" is understood by Jesus' in His own words, and is "immediately after the tribulation of those days," then how is that day and hour of Jesus' coming still such a big secret to Jesus Himself? If it all happened in the sky over Jerusalem in 70 AD, then why was it so important that Jesus share all of the parables about being focused, patient and watchful until His return at an "hour which you think not?"

Just was waiting for a response to this :pop2:.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I want to chime in here again. :) One quick Q, or questions. How do preterists interpret the statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come? Like the judging between the sheep and the goats, The parable of the talents, the parable of the king going away on a LONG journey to receive a kingdom and then returning, Jesus saying "of the day or hour no one knows, not the angels, nor the Son, only the Father." etc, etc.

Especially the last one, "of that hour no one knows..."
If the "day of the Lord" involving Jesus' coming "in the clouds" is understood by Jesus' in His own words, and is "immediately after the tribulation of those days," then how is that day and hour of Jesus' coming still such a big secret to Jesus Himself? If it all happened in the sky over Jerusalem in 70 AD, then why was it so important that Jesus share all of the parables about being focused, patient and watchful until His return at an "hour which you think not?"

Just was waiting for a response to this :pop2:.
Did you notice my response a few posts back? My point was simply this - when Jesus said no man knew the day or hour, He was talking about the time of the whole complex of events that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which was still about 35 years in the future at the time He preached. Is there a problem with this view?

As for your other questions, I was going to answer after you responded to my first response, since I didn't want to write a big post addressing multiple issues because that style of posting tends towards ever-expanding and ultimately unmanageable posts. But I will answer now.


You bring up a very broad topic when you ask "How do preterists interpret the statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come?" There is no single answer because your question is actually a complex mix of many questions which begins with "How do we interpret the entire chapter of Matthew 25?" But I will attempt to answer by stating the obvious. You asserted that Matthew 25 contained "statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come." But is that really what it's about? Let's start with the first verse of Matthew 25:
Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

See that? Matthew 25 begins with a PARABLE about the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. Then Christ explained the MORAL of the PARABLE:
Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Christ here was giving instruction to His people about the soon coming Great Tribulation, the Time of Jacob's Trouble, when Jerusalem would be UTTERLY DESOLATED, a million Jews murdered, and the Temple destroyed. So far, everything makes perfect sense from a preterist perspective.

The moral of the second PARABLE about the man going on a "LONG" journey seems obvious given the "coin" of the Kingdom of God being saved souls. Recall His parable in Luke 15 where He compared the salvation of a soul with the finding of a lost coin. So in this parable He was teaching His disciples to busy themselves in the business of the Kingdom, which was preaching the gospel and saving souls. This then is the same theme of the final parable where Christ explained that only those who occupied themselves in serving others were truly His disciples.


I see only one point that might be used by futurists to argue that all this is talking about a literal future coming of Christ on the earth -
Matthew 25:31-32 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Off the top of my head, I can't think of how this would correlate with any historical event, nor with any earthly future event. So my first impression is that Christ here is speaking of His eternal Judgment of everyone (= all nations) in heaven before they enter their "eternal state." Is there a problem with this view? Is there any reason to understand this "coming" as the same as all the other "comings"? If you INSIST on saying that all the references to the "coming" of the Lord are the same, then you must explain all the verses that say it would happen in the first century:

Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Good chatting Eliyahu,

Richard

PS: You might want to meditate on this verse to understand another aspect of the biblical meaning of the "coming of the Lord"

Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by eliyahu http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6237#post6237)
I want to chime in here again. :) One quick Q, or questions. How do preterists interpret the statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come? Like the judging between the sheep and the goats, The parable of the talents, the parable of the king going away on a LONG journey to receive a kingdom and then returning, Jesus saying "of the day or hour no one knows, not the angels, nor the Son, only the Father." etc, etc.

Especially the last one, "of that hour no one knows..."
If the "day of the Lord" involving Jesus' coming "in the clouds" is understood by Jesus' in His own words, and is "immediately after the tribulation of those days," then how is that day and hour of Jesus' coming still such a big secret to Jesus Himself? If it all happened in the sky over Jerusalem in 70 AD, then why was it so important that Jesus share all of the parables about being focused, patient and watchful until His return at an "hour which you think not?"Hi Eliyahu :yo:

I'm not quite sure what kind of answer you want, so I'll just tell you the way I see it.

The first century was a time upon which the ends of the ages had come!

1 Cor. 10:11 "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

At no other time in all of history had an event like this happened, and everything hung upon those who were a part of it. If the firstborn church had been snuffed out because of lack of faith, there would be no church today.

So I think that at the time Jesus was telling His Disciples that they needed to watch, and pray and that even He did not know the hour in which He would come back, was because God had not shared that knowledge with the Man, Jesus. It was only after all things were finished on the cross that Jesus, the reigning Son of God knew.

Even though it would be that generation who would experience the ushering in of the Kingdom of God, culminating in 70 A.D. it must have been imperative that no one knew the exact hour of His coming. A lot of things can happen in 40 years.......and a lot of things did happen. The Church was born, and the Gospel was preached to the nations.

Matt. 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."

Rose

[eliyahu]

Did you notice my response a few posts back? My point was simply this - when Jesus said no man knew the day or hour, He was talking about the time of the whole complex of events that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which was still about 35 years in the future at the time He preached. Is there a problem with this view?

Sorry about the forgetfulness there Richard. I did read your post and forgot about it by the time I posted again.

My problem with your above view is that I see the OD as answering when the temple would be destroyed and when Jesus would "come." I believe that everything before verse 29 can be applied to the time between Pentecost through 70 AD's events. I do not understand Jesus' "coming" to be accomplised in 70 AD. The second part of Jesus' OD answer is in response to when He would "come." I believe that the apostles understanding of His "coming" (at the time) was not fully accurate yet. They did not anticipate Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension or the outpouring of the Spirit on day of Pentecost (as a vital element to be anticipating). So Jesus' words about His "coming" must be interpreted in light of His understanding of the future as opposed to their limited and partial understanding at the time. He was saying that all these things would happen in their generation preceding the destruction of the temple. It happened :yo:. We can agree on that much for sure. As for His "coming," that is what Jesus was referring to when He said "of that day and hour no one knows... not the angels, nor the Son, only the Father." That establishes the "blessed hope" Paul anticipated someday. The signs preceding such were the "great apostacy" and the revelation of the "man of sin." That is where the OD debate brings us next, Paul. Paul and Jesus both bring us back to Daniel for understanding.



As for your other questions, I was going to answer after you responded to my first response, since I didn't want to write a big post addressing multiple issues because that style of posting tends towards ever-expanding and ultimately unmanageable posts. But I will answer now.

Sorry, no disrespect friend. :(



You bring up a very broad topic when you ask "How do preterists interpret the statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come?" There is no single answer because your question is actually a complex mix of many questions which begins with "How do we interpret the entire chapter of Matthew 25?" But I will attempt to answer by stating the obvious. You asserted that Matthew 25 contained "statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come." But is that really what it's about? Let's start with the first verse of Matthew 25:
Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

See that? Matthew 25 begins with a PARABLE about the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. Then Christ explained the MORAL of the PARABLE:
Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Christ here was giving instruction to His people about the soon coming Great Tribulation, the Time of Jacob's Trouble, when Jerusalem would be UTTERLY DESOLATED, a million Jews murdered, and the Temple destroyed. So far, everything makes perfect sense from a preterist perspective.
The moral of the second PARABLE about the man going on a "LONG" journey seems obvious given the "coin" of the Kingdom of God being saved souls. Recall His parable in Luke 15 where He compared the salvation of a soul with the finding of a lost coin. So in this parable He was teaching His disciples to busy themselves in the business of the Kingdom, which was preaching the gospel and saving souls. This then is the same theme of the final parable where Christ explained that only those who occupied themselves in serving others were truly His disciples.
I see only one point that might be used by futurists to argue that all this is talking about a literal future coming of Christ on the earth -
Matthew 25:31-32 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Off the top of my head, I can't think of how this would correlate with any historical event, nor with any earthly future event. So my first impression is that Christ here is speaking of His eternal Judgment of everyone (= all nations) in heaven before they enter their "eternal state." Is there a problem with this view?
Well I do not see how Preterists would understand this as having been a past event. When and where did God eternally judge all nations in relation to their treatment of Himself in His people and those He cares for?
Specifically, Jesus said that this would happen at His "coming." The natural flow of His thought here implies that this is the same "coming" being spoken of the whole time.


Is there any reason to understand this "coming" as the same as all the other "comings"? If you INSIST on saying that all the references to the "coming" of the Lord are the same, then you must explain all the verses that say it would happen in the first century:

Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Good chatting Eliyahu,
Richard
Mat 10:23... Chiefly applicable to the apostolic evangelization endevors pre 70 AD. But it is also broadly applicable to anyone who obeys Mat 28's commision to go and spread the gospel of the kingdom to the whole earth.
Mat 16:27-28... Verse 28 is best understood to be in referrence to the transfiguration which happens in the immediately following context in each gospel account in the synoptics. This order of Jesus' statement followed by the transfiguration of Jesus into His heavenly glory, along with the saints of old in fellowship with Him, is a picture and an actual fortaste of Jesus' (then) actively coming Kingdom. It is to note that, though the synoptics quite often change the order of events (for the authors specific reasons for writing their respective gospels when compared), this statement of Jesus is always followed by the transfiguration. There is a message in this uniformity of chronology here. It is that the transfiguration was the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy that some standing there would not die before they saw the reality of Jesus coming in His glorious kingdom of the resurrection.


PS: You might want to meditate on this verse to understand another aspect of the biblical meaning of the "coming of the Lord"

Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

I think that "is come" refers to the fact that Jesus came the initial time to begin a mission to save people and each person was infinitely important to Him. John 3:17 is understood the same kind of way. The context dictates if Jesus is speaking of His mission He began in His ministry in Judea or His coming in the full power of the escatological kingdom to be expected. Context is the key in these things.

Rose
"Hi Eliyahu

I'm not quite sure what kind of answer you want, so I'll just tell you the way I see it.

The first century was a time upon which the ends of the ages had come!

1 Cor. 10:11 "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

At no other time in all of history had an event like this happened, and everything hung upon those who were a part of it. If the firstborn church had been snuffed out because of lack of faith, there would be no church today.

So I think that at the time Jesus was telling His Disciples that they needed to watch, and pray and that even He did not know the hour in which He would come back, was because God had not shared that knowledge with the Man, Jesus. It was only after all things were finished on the cross that Jesus, the reigning Son of God knew.

Even though it would be that generation who would experience the ushering in of the Kingdom of God, culminating in 70 A.D. it must have been imperative that no one knew the exact hour of His coming. A lot of things can happen in 40 years.......and a lot of things did happen. The Church was born, and the Gospel was preached to the nations.

Matt. 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."

Rose"

I think that Jesus' intimate knowledge of the events of 70 AD disqualifies the idea that the unknown "day and hour" is the hour of the temple's destruction. He told them that it would happen in their lifetime. That is a pretty specific time. That was exactly what they actually needed to know at that time. Many of the following parables are best understood as encouragement to those not only coincidently awaiting 70 AD's events (exactly why wait for such?), but to all people everywhere who would be awaiting Jesus' delayed kingdom to fully come on the earth when He physically returned to take it- hence the millenium (however long it will literally last).

And I completely disagree that the gospel has been preached to all the nations ever yet. It was preached to the Roman empire of the first century. But that does not at all account for rest of the majority of the world as a whole at all. There are a number of people groups still who have never heard the true gospel. That is one reason to reach them, so that this broken world can be fixed by Jesus when He returns.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sorry about the forgetfulness there Richard. I did read your post and forgot about it by the time I posted again.

No worries there, bro. Things like that happen all the time.


My problem with your above view is that I see the OD as answering when the temple would be destroyed and when Jesus would "come." I believe that everything before verse 29 can be applied to the time between Pentecost through 70 AD's events. I do not understand Jesus' "coming" to be accomplised in 70 AD. The second part of Jesus' OD answer is in response to when He would "come." I believe that the apostles understanding of His "coming" (at the time) was not fully accurate yet. They did not anticipate Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension or the outpouring of the Spirit on day of Pentecost (as a vital element to be anticipating). So Jesus' words about His "coming" must be interpreted in light of His understanding of the future as opposed to their limited and partial understanding at the time.

Those are some excellent points. :thumb:

I do not base my understanding on the misunderstandings of the disciples! They were ignorant of many things even after Christ had told them, as you noted. I disagree only in that I think there is ample evidence that He was talking about His coming on clouds in judgment in 70 AD.


He was saying that all these things would happen in their generation preceding the destruction of the temple. It happened :yo:. We can agree on that much for sure.
Excellent! We are making real progress in defining where we agree and where we differ.


As for His "coming," that is what Jesus was referring to when He said "of that day and hour no one knows... not the angels, nor the Son, only the Father." That establishes the "blessed hope" Paul anticipated someday. The signs preceding such were the "great apostacy" and the revelation of the "man of sin." That is where the OD debate brings us next, Paul. Paul and Jesus both bring us back to Daniel for understanding.

I agree that they all come together (Paul, Jesus, Daniel). And that's the source of my understanding. Daniel said it would all be fulfilled in 70 AD. Jesus confirmed it. And Paul in 2 Thess 2 spoke of the man of sin standing in the first century Temple that still existed at the time he wrote his letter. So all the pieces converge on the first century.


Well I do not see how Preterists would understand this as having been a past event. When and where did God eternally judge all nations in relation to their treatment of Himself in His people and those He cares for?

We don't know all the things going on in heaven, do we? Matthew 25 begins with an explicit parable stating "the kingdom of heaven is likened to ..." and now you want to assert it is literal? Matthew 25 is not the place to look for the foundation of your eschatology.


Specifically, Jesus said that this would happen at His "coming." The natural flow of His thought here implies that this is the same "coming" being spoken of the whole time.

Ahhh ... now that's the rub. The same logic applies to Matthew 10:23 and 16:28 which says His coming would happen during the first century, as discussed below.




Is there any reason to understand this "coming" as the same as all the other "comings"? If you INSIST on saying that all the references to the "coming" of the Lord are the same, then you must explain all the verses that say it would happen in the first century:

Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Good chatting Eliyahu,
Richard

Mat 10:23... Chiefly applicable to the apostolic evangelization endevors pre 70 AD. But it is also broadly applicable to anyone who obeys Mat 28's commision to go and spread the gospel of the kingdom to the whole earth.

But you didn't answer the question. How do you understand the "coming of the Son of Man" in that passage? Obviously you must believe it is a "different" coming than the one spoken of in the Olivet Discourse. How do you justify that idea?


Mat 16:27-28... Verse 28 is best understood to be in referrence to the transfiguration which happens in the immediately following context in each gospel account in the synoptics. This order of Jesus' statement followed by the transfiguration of Jesus into His heavenly glory, along with the saints of old in fellowship with Him, is a picture and an actual fortaste of Jesus' (then) actively coming Kingdom. It is to note that, though the synoptics quite often change the order of events (for the authors specific reasons for writing their respective gospels when compared), this statement of Jesus is always followed by the transfiguration. There is a message in this uniformity of chronology here. It is that the transfiguration was the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy that some standing there would not die before they saw the reality of Jesus coming in His glorious kingdom of the resurrection.

I understand your argument, and admit that it is possible. But there is one very big problem with it. The transfiguration happened about one week later, so the statement that "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" does not make any sense at all because it is unlikely that anyone in the audience died during that week.


The problem is compounded by the context, where the same language as the OD is used:
Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Obviously, you don't believe that Christ "rewarded every man according to his works" at the Transfiguration. So now you need to introduce an artificial division into the middle of this single passage, and assert that the first "coming" refers to the distant future, while the second "coming" refers to the next week, all in the space of two sentences.

No such problems exist with the preterist interpretation. The statement that some would not "taste death" makes PERFECT sense given that most but not all of his audience actually died before 70 AD. And this passage is then consistent with the similar passages in the OD. The only challenge is that you assume that the judgment had to be an earthly rather than heavenly event. I see no justification for that assertion, especially since it causes so many contradictions amongst the other passages.


I think that "is come" refers to the fact that Jesus came the initial time to begin a mission to save people and each person was infinitely important to Him. John 3:17 is understood the same kind of way. The context dictates if Jesus is speaking of His mission He began in His ministry in Judea or His coming in the full power of the escatological kingdom to be expected. Context is the key in these things.

Yes indeed, context is essential to any interpretation of Scripture. It appears we are in very close agreement here. We agree that the second "coming" was to bring in the judgment. The only difference is that I believe that the prophesied judgment was executed on apostate Jerusalem in 70 AD, and you think it is yet to happen.

The primary problem with the idea of a future application of the OD is that Jesus was talking about the Jerusalem that then was, and that was coming to an END because the NEW JERUSALEM was coming into being. NONE of those ideas apply to the "Jerusalem" that now exists in the Middle East. None of the OD makes any sense at all applied to the future. Jesus was not waring some generation 2000 years in the future to "flee Jerusalem" when His followers see a revived Roman empire getting ready to redestroy a rebuilt temple! It just does not make any sense to me at all.

But I'm glad you are working with me on this Eliyahu, :yo:

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I want to chime in here again. One quick Q, or questions. How do preterists interpret the statements Jesus made about what happens when he was to come? Like the judging between the sheep and the goats, The parable of the talents, the parable of the king going away on a LONG journey to receive a kingdom and then returning, Jesus saying "of the day or hour no one knows, not the angels, nor the Son, only the Father." etc, etc.

Okay if Jesus was talking about the judgment after the resurrection, then why would He go through all the trouble and use parables? That was one of the questions I often asked myself during my studies of these parables. He used parables to explain the spiritual implication of the Kingdom, and how judgment was to come upon Jerusalem, and the entire inhabited earth.

So the parable of the sheep and the goat was applied to the judgment of Jerusalem in 70AD. The Sheep are the same sheep that Christ tells Peter to "Feed my sheep". Now before I answer your question, ask yourself this. Why does God nearly always use animals to describe men upon the earth? Animals have a distinct characteristics. For instance, pigs are often viewed as Gentile leaders who are like scavengers. These are brute dirty little animals that roll around in the mud, and even after you clean them, they're right back in the mud again. Peter used this analogy of those who have fallen knee high into sin again, after having been cleansed from their sins. And like pigs, they not only remain soiled due to the mud, but also eat anything they can sink their teeth into. This figure applies to sinners who were once cleansed by the blood, but fell away and returned to the mud they were cleansed from. This is the same as a dog that eats its own vomit after spewing it out. This is an Apostate sinner, who tasted the gift of God, but his heart was not right with God and returned to the sin that Christ set Him free from; must like the dog eating its own vomit it was at first rid of.

Now sheep are like innocent children who follow their shepherd; in this case, Christ. They are easy, peaceful, and timid creatures, easily trained, but sometimes go astray. It's the shepherds responsibility to keep watch over them, and provide them good pasture to feed on. This is symbolic of a Shepherd to trains His sheep to be righteous. Pretty easy eh?

So what about the goat? Well, goats as we all know are stupid animals, impossible to train, and eat nearly anything in sight. This is a representation of sinners who do no listen to rebuke or instruction, and are willing to scavenge anything that's in front of them; much like pigs.

So how does all this fit in with the judgment of Jerusalem in 70AD? The answer is simple. The sheep, otherwise represented as Christians, were spared from the judgment that was to come upon Jerusalem. These were warned for a coming wolf that was going to cause chaos and destruction; these fled to Mt. Pella in the last 60's AD. The goat, on the other hand, sense they failed to heed the warnings of the Apostles, chose to remain where they were. When the attackers came, they were left to utter chaos and destruction. When their wealth was taken away from them, instead of them being asked for food, it would be they who would starve to death, resulting in severe famine, hunger, looting, and death. Their eventual death was by the great fire of Jerusalem in 70AD that destroyed not only the temple, but the entire city for miles.

In conclusion, the goat and the sheep was a representation of Christians who were spared from the wrath that came in 70AD, while the goats who became fat in their wealth, were stricken with famine, starvation, and destruction in the fires. And "Fires" is now always literal flames burning up the elements, but is also symbolic for persecution. And we know that many Jews who were taken captive after this destruction, were either led into slavery or thrown into the newly built Roman Arena in honor of Vespasian and Titus. These were used as victims during the gladiator games, or were used as amusement when the animals were let loose from the cages. The Judgment of those who persecuted the Saints, and crucified the Lord, were left unto Judgment of the Great day of His wrath; the judgment upon Jerusalem.

Finally, the Kingdom He received was the Church. The Kingdom was being built by the Apostles, but after 40+ years of building, what was once originally a gathering of about 3000 souls on Pentecost, had grown into millions, to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. And to this day, His righteous kingdom endures forever, and each generation are judged by the things they do, or have done. To the blessed God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who reigns forever and ever! Amen!

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Okay if Jesus was talking about the judgment after the resurrection, then why would He go through all the trouble and use parables? That was one of the questions I often asked myself during my studies of these parables. He used parables to explain the spiritual implication of the Kingdom, and how judgment was to come upon Jerusalem, and the entire inhabited earth.

So the parable of the sheep and the goat was applied to the judgment of Jerusalem in 70AD. The Sheep are the same sheep that Christ tells Peter to "Feed my sheep". Now before I answer your question, ask yourself this. Why does God nearly always use animals to describe men upon the earth? Animals have a distinct characteristics. For instance, pigs are often viewed as Gentile leaders who are like scavengers. These are brute dirty little animals that roll around in the mud, and even after you clean them, they're right back in the mud again. Peter used this analogy of those who have fallen knee high into sin again, after having been cleansed from their sins. And like pigs, they not only remain soiled due to the mud, but also eat anything they can sink their teeth into. This figure applies to sinners who were once cleansed by the blood, but fell away and returned to the mud they were cleansed from. This is the same as a dog that eats its own vomit after spewing it out. This is an Apostate sinner, who tasted the gift of God, but his heart was not right with God and returned to the sin that Christ set Him free from; must like the dog eating its own vomit it was at first rid of.

Now sheep are like innocent children who follow their shepherd; in this case, Christ. They are easy, peaceful, and timid creatures, easily trained, but sometimes go astray. It's the shepherds responsibility to keep watch over them, and provide them good pasture to feed on. This is symbolic of a Shepherd to trains His sheep to be righteous. Pretty easy eh?

So what about the goat? Well, goats as we all know are stupid animals, impossible to train, and eat nearly anything in sight. This is a representation of sinners who do no listen to rebuke or instruction, and are willing to scavenge anything that's in front of them; much like pigs.

So how does all this fit in with the judgment of Jerusalem in 70AD? The answer is simple. The sheep, otherwise represented as Christians, were spared from the judgment that was to come upon Jerusalem. These were warned for a coming wolf that was going to cause chaos and destruction; these fled to Mt. Pella in the last 60's AD. The goat, on the other hand, sense they failed to heed the warnings of the Apostles, chose to remain where they were. When the attackers came, they were left to utter chaos and destruction. When their wealth was taken away from them, instead of them being asked for food, it would be they who would starve to death, resulting in severe famine, hunger, looting, and death. Their eventual death was by the great fire of Jerusalem in 70AD that destroyed not only the temple, but the entire city for miles.

In conclusion, the goat and the sheep was a representation of Christians who were spared from the wrath that came in 70AD, while the goats who became fat in their wealth, were stricken with famine, starvation, and destruction in the fires. And "Fires" is now always literal flames burning up the elements, but is also symbolic for persecution. And we know that many Jews who were taken captive after this destruction, were either led into slavery or thrown into the newly built Roman Arena in honor of Vespasian and Titus. These were used as victims during the gladiator games, or were used as amusement when the animals were let loose from the cages. The Judgment of those who persecuted the Saints, and crucified the Lord, were left unto Judgment of the Great day of His wrath; the judgment upon Jerusalem.

Finally, the Kingdom He received was the Church. The Kingdom was being built by the Apostles, but after 40+ years of building, what was once originally a gathering of about 3000 souls on Pentecost, had grown into millions, to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. And to this day, His righteous kingdom endures forever, and each generation are judged by the things they do, or have done. To the blessed God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who reigns forever and ever! Amen!

Joe
Excellent explanation Joe! :thumb:

I particularly like the thoroughness. Thanks.

Richard

[eliyahu]

HI Richard and theforgiven,
I've just read your post, Richard. I will have to respond another time. I will carefully read yours then theforgiven. I overlooked the part where you asked about "Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." I will have to consider this and other things you said before I come here again. I have much to do here though.

FYI: I understand the "new Jerusalem" similarly to y'all as well. I do not expect anything to come out of space to the middle east or anything of the sort. I do expect that city to become the center of the millennial theocracy of Israel though. That is not the new Jerusalem in Rev though. I understand Hebrews' "city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem..." much similiarly (probably not excactly the same) to you and apply it to the kingdom of God right now. I do not confuse the city in Hebrews with the new Jerusalem in Revelation. Two different authors and two different points being made, however close. Rev's New Jerusalem to me is the kingdom of God in absolute unveiled fulness on earth. That is not now, it is not in the millennium. The "city" is divine familial community one day to be completely on earth in unbroken, unchallenged fellowship (as it is in heaven now) after there is no remnant left of sin, death, demons nor any possibility for the resurgence of any such thing on earth again. That is what is meant by "I saw (the city)... prepared as a bride... coming down out of heaven. 'Now the dwelling of God is with men.'"


I just found out that I am not going to loose my job in a week! :pray: You need a little smiley to jump up and praise God or something! I am not out of the woods yet though. At the end of the month I am going to have a meeting when I will find out if I will keep this job or not. The boss said that if I am to leave than he will give me sufficient time to get another job first. God has spared me. It has been a roller coaster.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

HI Richard and theforgiven,
I've just read your post, Richard. I will have to respond another time. I will carefully read yours then theforgiven. I overlooked the part where you asked about "Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." I will have to consider this and other things you said before I come here again. I have much to do here though.
No rush ... we'll be hanging round here for a while.


I just found out that I am not going to loose my job in a week! :pray: You need a little smiley to jump up and praise God or something! I am not out of the woods yet though. At the end of the month I am going to have a meeting when I will find out if I will keep this job or not. The boss said that if I am to leave than he will give me sufficient time to get another job first. God has spared me. It has been a roller coaster.
Hallelujah!

:woohoo:

:sunny:

:congrats:

We've got a few smileys to express ourselves ... but I think it would be a good idea to get a few more.

Richard

[eliyahu]

Hi theforgiven, Is that the name I must call you? it seems strang calling someone that. I fell like a character form a fantasy novel. So I guess that is fun :).

Your understanding of sheep and goats is quite popular and nearly identical to one circulating in my circles of the church. Art Katz has passed on similar teacings to Rick Joyner and also to Micke Bickle over near me in Grandview Mo. Bickle is the head of the IHOP in Grandview Mo. He teaches about how a sheep has a completely different nature than a pig. A sheep gets into the deep mud at times. But a sheep is not at home there like a pig. Beleivers find themselves in sin or failure at times. But a believer will never be at home in this like an unbeliever.

As to your interpretation of the sheep and goats parable. It does fit perfectly into the preterist's eschaton. I think that you took the symbolism in the parable in a way that Christ was not intending at all, even if He is a preterist like you, which I submit that He is not. You took the symbols way too far. The difference between the two animals was how they treated Jesus and those Jesus identified Himself with. Jesus gave us this interpretaion. All of the other word pictures are not so abundantly clear like you put them. Jesus did not explain the parable like you did.

People similarly misinterpret the ten virgins parable. Every element of the parable has meaning for us in their view. The oil in the virgins' lamps represents the Holy Spirit, or lack of His presence, in our lives. I believe that though we need as much of the Spirit in our lives as possible, that is not what the parable was saying at all.

[TheForgiven]

Hi theforgiven, Is that the name I must call you? it seems strang calling someone that. I fell like a character form a fantasy novel. So I guess that is fun .

Your understanding of sheep and goats is quite popular and nearly identical to one circulating in my circles of the church. Art Katz has passed on similar teacings to Rick Joyner and also to Micke Bickle over near me in Grandview Mo. Bickle is the head of the IHOP in Grandview Mo. He teaches about how a sheep has a completely different nature than a pig. A sheep gets into the deep mud at times. But a sheep is not at home there like a pig. Beleivers find themselves in sin or failure at times. But a believer will never be at home in this like an unbeliever.

As to your interpretation of the sheep and goats parable. It does fit perfectly into the preterist's eschaton. I think that you took the symbolism in the parable in a way that Christ was not intending at all, even if He is a preterist like you, which I submit that He is not. You took the symbols way too far. The difference between the two animals was how they treated Jesus and those Jesus identified Himself with. Jesus gave us this interpretaion. All of the other word pictures are not so abundantly clear like you put them. Jesus did not explain the parable like you did.

People similarly misinterpret the ten virgins parable. Every element of the parable has meaning for us in their view. The oil in the virgins' lamps represents the Holy Spirit, or lack of His presence, in our lives. I believe that though we need as much of the Spirit in our lives as possible, that is not what the parable was saying at all.

Hello again my friend, and I'm very glad that you will not be losing your job. God always takes care of those who have faith in Him, even when the answeres aren't always as soon as we hope. This comes to test our faith and that we ensure our trust and faith are solely on Him. Of course, this doesn't mean to be lazy Christians, as some Christians teach on TBN. These false teachers believe that faith in Christ Jesus is about tempting God and bursting the flood gates of financial wealth; a face we know is quite the opposite in the Kingdom. Granted riches are provided for abundant giving of thanks, but not for personal pleasure or greed. In all this, I thank God that you are taken care of.

My name is Joe so you can call me that instead of Forgiven. :lol:

Now about the symbols, again I refer you to my previous question. If the Kingdom and Judgment are not some-what symbolic, then why all the Parables.

Read the Gospels again and notice how many times when Jesus provides a parable, he always says, "That is what it will be like" or "is likened unto" and other similar phrases. Christ always used a traditional Jewish approach to explaining the nature of certain things or events. Animals are used to describe the conduct and nature of particular men. If Christ were speaking of a hell-fire judgment, I see no reason for Him to use parables. Why not simply say, "On the day of Judgment, sinners will be separated from the righteous, for the sinners failed to share water, food, clothing, and provide the needs for anyone who walks in my name. They will say that we never saw you hungry Lord, or in need of food...." The same for the Righteous; He would not have explained the Judgment in such a parabolic fashion.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like....."
"That is how it will be like on that day...."
"The farmer goes out to sow seed...."
"Seeds are rocky soil are those....."
"Look! This is the Heir! Lets kill Him....."

These Phrases tell me He was trying to explain the circumstances using simple language of a farmer or shepherd. But many Jews were not listening. At the same time, the Pharisees who rejected Christ still understood that one parable was directed solely at them.

Try listening to what the message is trying to tell you, instead of merely reading it for what it says. Remember, faith in the Spirit reveals these truths. The Great Day of Wrath happened in 70AD.

And no, Jesus was not a Preterist, for during His day that was all Future. We are not, however, part of their future, but our Past. There's a difference.

Their Future is our Past.

Joe

[yeshua_seven]

"Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows" (Matthew 24:4-8, NKJV).

Looking at this paragraph should be sufficient in making my point that the Olivet Discourse was not completely fulfilled in AD 70, and moreso, the discourse wasn't all about AD 70. Rather, the discourse is about the coming of the end, in which the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 is one of the many events that fall under the prophecy of the age. Notice above the parts in bold. There will be false messiah's, there will be wars and rumors of wars, however, "the end is not yet." Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, as well as famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, yet again, these are "the beginning of sorrows." The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the war that brought that about is just the "beginning of sorrows."

These things continue unto this day. The entire age is characterized by these things mentioned. Today we still have wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, nations rising against nations, kingdoms rising against kingdoms, etc, but the end is not yet. Jesus second coming is not yet. All throughout the church age we have seen persecution, betrayal, deception, wickedness and lovelessness, and plenty of Christians yet standing firm. Many have attempted to claim to be the Messiah. Jewish rebel Simon Bar Kokhba in the second-century was proclaimed to be the Messiah. Many others have attempted such throughout the age.

Jesus mentioned the abomination of desolation which was spoken by Prophet Daniel. In the days of the Maccabees, Antiochus IV Ipiphanes decreed that an altar to Olympian Zeus be erected in the temple on 15 Chislev, 167 BC. Apparently, despite that abomination of desolation, the prophecy was not yet fulfilled, for Jesus speaks of an abomination of desolation as well. Even the abomination of desolation in the first century doesn't mean that is the final one necessarily.

I believe this is sufficient for now in showing that the Olivet Discourse was about the things that would characterize the church age. The church age began at Pentecost (or as some believe, when Jesus blew His Spirit on the disciples after His resurrection but before the ascension). The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 is part of the beginnng of sorrows, and clearly not the end of sorrows.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows" (Matthew 24:4-8, NKJV).

Looking at this paragraph should be sufficient in making my point that the Olivet Discourse was not completely fulfilled in AD 70, and moreso, the discourse wasn't all about AD 70. Rather, the discourse is about the coming of the end, in which the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 is one of the many events that fall under the prophecy of the age. Notice above the parts in bold. There will be false messiah's, there will be wars and rumors of wars, however, "the end is not yet." Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, as well as famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, yet again, these are "the beginning of sorrows." The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the war that brought that about is just the "beginning of sorrows."
Hey there Yeshua_Seven,


I agree completely that such things characterize every generation. That was the point Christ was making. He didn't want His followers to panic and run for the hills at every rumor of war or earthquake or famine. He told them spefically when the end would begin:
Luke 21:20-24 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.

This is confirmed at the very end of the Book of Daniel:
Daniel 12:6-7 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.
The fulfillment happened in 70 AD.


These things continue unto this day. The entire age is characterized by these things mentioned. Today we still have wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, nations rising against nations, kingdoms rising against kingdoms, etc, but the end is not yet. Jesus second coming is not yet. All throughout the church age we have seen persecution, betrayal, deception, wickedness and lovelessness, and plenty of Christians yet standing firm. Many have attempted to claim to be the Messiah. Jewish rebel Simon Bar Kokhba in the second-century was proclaimed to be the Messiah. Many others have attempted such throughout the age.

I understand that you beleive the coming of Christ in judgment on Jerusalem is not the coming that He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse, but I have not seen any reason to believe that yet. The language of the OD is very similar to Daniel and Revelation, and they all point to a first century fulfillment. Is there anything in the OD that suggests a future fulfillment? Just saying "it didn't happen" doesn't work for me, because I believe it did happen, and that you are merely misunderstanding the common biblical language that speaks of judgment from God in terms of "coming on clouds" and so forth.


Jesus mentioned the abomination of desolation which was spoken by Prophet Daniel. In the days of the Maccabees, Antiochus IV Ipiphanes decreed that an altar to Olympian Zeus be erected in the temple on 15 Chislev, 167 BC. Apparently, despite that abomination of desolation, the prophecy was not yet fulfilled, for Jesus speaks of an abomination of desolation as well. Even the abomination of desolation in the first century doesn't mean that is the final one necessarily.

I believe this is sufficient for now in showing that the Olivet Discourse was about the things that would characterize the church age. The church age began at Pentecost (or as some believe, when Jesus blew His Spirit on the disciples after His resurrection but before the ascension). The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 is part of the beginnng of sorrows, and clearly not the end of sorrows.
I understand you point, but I don't understand why you think the "sorrows" go on for thousands of years. There is nothing in the text that suggests such a long span of time. On the contrary, the text clearly says "this generation" and it also is confirmed by Daniel who said it would be finished when the power of Jews was shattered, and again the 70 weeks terminate in the first century (unless you invent a gap, which is not easily justified).

So I don't think its quite as "obvious" as you suggest. But I'm very glad you joined the conversation, because a discussion between a futurist and a preterist can throw a lot of light on the questions of eschatology.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

"Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows" (Matthew 24:4-8, NKJV).

Looking at this paragraph should be sufficient in making my point that the Olivet Discourse was not completely fulfilled in AD 70, and moreso, the discourse wasn't all about AD 70. Rather, the discourse is about the coming of the end, in which the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 is one of the many events that fall under the prophecy of the age.

The topic and discussion was about "THE END" of the temple, not the world. The destruction of the Jewish Age would come, but first there would be wars and rumors of wars, persecution of the Apostles as they were dragged from city to city, and some were put to death. But Christ tells them not to panic, for "That is not yet the end". First, nation rises against nation and kingdom against kingdom. History is filled with these events which happened within the Roman Empire and the Barbarians. Rome was losing ground on one end, and gaining it on others. But Jerusalem caused a great war in their rebellion, and that was the focus of their discussion.

The famines and pestilences were a result of this war between the Romans, and that was their sign that the end was just around the corner, and their redemption was about to come. And as Peter said, "The end of all things is at hand". Peter knew that the words spoken to him by the Lord some 35 years earlier, was about to be fulfilled.

Now, considering you took "The end" to be somewhat future, and I'm assuming you believe it wasn't fulfilled in 70 AD, then I'll ask you the same following question.

History records in St. Eusebius that the Christians in Jerusalem fled to Mt. Pella. What do you think they were doing brother? Were they running by their own accord, or were they heeding the warning of the Lord? And if they were heeding the warning of the Lord, would you then say they made a mistake?

I don't believe they made a mistake; I believe they rightfully, to include Peter, understood the signs of the times and fled. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD marked the end of the Torah age, the end of Daniel's people, and the end of the "Shadow".

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The topic and discussion was about "THE END" of the temple, not the world.

Exactly correct. This is super obvious when we compare the question Christ was answering and the related prophecy in Daniel:
Matthew 24:1-3 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 (sunteleia) of the world [age]?

The word "sunteleia" appears six times in Daniel 9:24-27 (LXX), and most significantly twice in reference to the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Jewish age:
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 (sunteleia) thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end (sunteleia) of the war desolations are determined.

So there it is. Christ was speaking specifically of the time of the destruction of the Temple as the end (sunteleia) of the age, and His Words confirmed those of the Prophet Daniel, and both Christ and Daniel confirmed again the first century fulfillment of these prophecies when they both linked them to the destruction of 70 AD:
Daniel 12:6-7 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.



Luke 21:20-22 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.
Any attempt to push the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse into the future must answer these verses as well as the entire intregrated prophetic complex of Daniel-Revelation-Olivet Discourse that declares a first century fulfillment.

Richard

[yeshua_seven]

I popped into this discussion without the intention of digging dip into it, maybe that was a mistake on my part or maybe not.

I've heard more than once about AD 70 being the end of the Jewish age, etc, but that doesn't make sense to me at all. The Jewish age ended when Jesus died on the cross and rose again. For the Jewish age to end in AD 70 means to me that from Jesus death up to AD 70, people didn't need to trust in Jesus to be saved but could still be forgiven of sins by sacrificing animals in the temple. Jesus came to be the final sacrifice, so why would the animal sacrifices still go on after His death until AD 70. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that is how I interpret it. The end of the Old Covenant was about 40 years before the destruction of the Temple.

I know I haven't answered any specific questions yet, but like I said, I kind of popped into the discussion without the intention of spending time digging deep into the discussion. In order to answer the questions, I'd have to read the scriptures for I don't know the answers off the top of my head, but I don't have much time for that right now.

Again, the other so called "impossibilities" to me because they don't make any sense are what I heard before about the Marriage Supper of the Lamb has already taken place and perhaps even the Great White Throne Judgment. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I guess I need to understand your views a little more (beyond the Olive Discourse) before I can focus more directly on the discourse itself.

Sorry for not answering any direct questions yet. God willing, I will do so in time.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I popped into this discussion without the intention of digging dip into it, maybe that was a mistake on my part or maybe not.
I hope not! I absolutely delight in digging deep. :thumb:


I've heard more than once about AD 70 being the end of the Jewish age, etc, but that doesn't make sense to me at all. The Jewish age ended when Jesus died on the cross and rose again. For the Jewish age to end in AD 70 means to me that from Jesus death up to AD 70, people didn't need to trust in Jesus to be saved but could still be forgiven of sins by sacrificing animals in the temple. Jesus came to be the final sacrifice, so why would the animal sacrifices still go on after His death until AD 70. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that is how I interpret it. The end of the Old Covenant was about 40 years before the destruction of the Temple.

Actually, your statement contains the seed of the answer. I agree compeltely that the Jewish age ended with the sacrifice of Christ, and that all people everywhere were then called to believe in Christ and His Gospel. But you also correctly noted that the temple sacrifices continued until the destruction of 70 AD. That destruction was the outward outworking of the truth established at the Cross. You ask "why should animal sacrifices still go on after His death until 70 AD?" Good question! I don't really know, except to say that it was God's will to allow the unrepentent Jews to continue for a space in their religion until He ended it once and for all in 70 AD.


I know I haven't answered any specific questions yet, but like I said, I kind of popped into the discussion without the intention of spending time digging deep into the discussion. In order to answer the questions, I'd have to read the scriptures for I don't know the answers off the top of my head, but I don't have much time for that right now.

Again, the other so called "impossibilities" to me because they don't make any sense are what I heard before about the Marriage Supper of the Lamb has already taken place and perhaps even the Great White Throne Judgment. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I guess I need to understand your views a little more (beyond the Olive Discourse) before I can focus more directly on the discourse itself.

Sorry for not answering any direct questions yet. God willing, I will do so in time.
No rush bro, and no worries. I applaud your willingness to admit that you would like to study a little more before commenting. That is very wise. We will be here to discuss more when you find time.

I would encourage you to not worry to much about having all the answers before commenting. We're a pretty good bunch, and it seems we all know how to admit when we are wrong or made a mistake. So comment freely and we'll figure things out as we go along.

One thing to remember is that we've been talking about these issues for a number of months now, so some of our answers come out very "matter of factly" as if there was no question about anything. But that could be very misleading. I hope you test and question everything I say, since that is what helps us all come closer to the truth.

I look forward to "digging deep" into these fascinating and important questions with you.

God bless!

Richard

[basilfo]

Hi eliyahu,
First, let me echo Joe and Richard's congratulations about keeping your job. That is an answer to prayer and I'm glad your family was spared what sounded like a rough time.


"Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows" (Matthew 24:4-8, NKJV).

Looking at this paragraph should be sufficient in making my point that the Olivet Discourse was not completely fulfilled in AD 70, and moreso, the discourse wasn't all about AD 70.

why not? Those statements say nothing about the necessity of extending past 70ad. And there is sufficient testimony that all of those signs that Jesus gave actually did happen in the first century prior to 70ad. Which one of the signs would you say did not occur at that time?



Rather, the discourse is about the coming of the end, in which the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 is one of the many events that fall under the prophecy of the age. Notice above the parts in bold. There will be false messiah's, there will be wars and rumors of wars, however, "the end is not yet."

Right. Those things happened first, but some other stuff has to happen before the end.


Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, as well as famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, yet again, these are "the beginning of sorrows."

Yup, more stuff Jesus ID's, but the actual end (the final destruction of the temple and city and unmistakable end of the temple worship culture are 'not yet'). No problem so far.


The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the war that brought that about is just the "beginning of sorrows."

That's where I would disagree. That was 'the end', which removed all question of whether Jesus was the Messiah, and what He taught about a New Covenant with the Houses of Israel and Judah was truely sanctioned by God, or was the Old Covenant and temple worship to continue on. After 70AD, there was no doubt. 'Every eye could see' that.



These things continue unto this day. The entire age is characterized by these things mentioned. Today we still have wars, rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, nations rising against nations, kingdoms rising against kingdoms, etc, but the end is not yet.

Well, we still have rain today too, but that doesn't mean God's prophesy about it raining for 40 days and 40 nights wasn't fulfilled.



Jesus second coming is not yet.

If you consider this:

Matt 24:30 "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

the second coming, and say it hasn't happened yet, then you need to explain why Jesus said this:

Matt 24:34 "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

and this:

Matt 16:27 "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

and this (speaking to the disciples):

Matt 10:23 "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

and this:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by [His] Son.....

Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
(sounds like the end of the ages was placed in the first century to me)

Peace to you all,
Dave

[Brother Les]

Hi eliyahu,
First, let me echo Joe and Richard's congratulations about keeping your job. That is an answer to prayer and I'm glad your family was spared what sounded like a rough time.

Dittio here, too, Brother.



Yeshua_seven posted
I've heard more than once about AD 70 being the end of the Jewish age, etc, but that doesn't make sense to me at all. The Jewish age ended when Jesus died on the cross and rose again. For the Jewish age to end in AD 70 means to me that from Jesus death up to AD 70, people didn't need to trust in Jesus to be saved but could still be forgiven of sins by sacrificing animals in the temple. Jesus came to be the final sacrifice, so why would the animal sacrifices still go on after His death until AD 70. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that is how I interpret it. The end of the Old Covenant was about 40 years before the destruction of the Temple.

Brother, look at this in the frame of mind of the types and anti-types.....

Shadow....Passover in Egypt, with Lambs ...coming 'out of Egypt'
Real.....The Cross, Jesus is The Passover Lamb ....'coming 'out of Babylon'


Shadow...Mt. Sinai Betrothal 3,000died
Real...Pentecost Betrothal 3,000lived


Shadow...40years wonderin in the wilderness and maturing
Real....40years, Temple, Fading, The Church maturing


Shadow....Joshua circumcising 'The Children' of those at Sinai all others died, Judgement....New Creation,'The reproach' of Egyt removed
Real....The Temple burns and 'The Mosaic World' is gone, Judgement....New Creation, The reproach of Babylon removed


Shadow....Joshua leads 'The Children' into The Promised Land are now 'Children of God'
Real....Joshua Messiah leads and lives with 'The Children' in Beulah Land and 'Tabernacles there with them (us)


AD 70 is a major part of the types and anti-types....The Cross 'Ended' the 'Power' of The Mosaic Covenant...but....there still had to be 'Judgment' on that Covenant and Judgment for all of the Sins 'of The World' all the way back to Adam.

Do you 'see' it now?

Blessings Brother Les

[Rose]

Brother, look at this in the frame of mind of the types and anti-types.....

Shadow....Passover in Egypt, with Lambs ...coming 'out of Egypt'
Real.....The Cross, Jesus is The Passover Lamb ....'coming 'out of Babylon'


Shadow...Mt. Sinai Betrothal 3,000died
Real...Pentecost Betrothal 3,000lived


Shadow...40years wandering in the wilderness and maturing
Real....40years, Temple, Fading, The Church maturing


Shadow....Joshua circumcising 'The Children' of those at Sinai all others died, Judgment....New Creation,'The reproach' of Egypt removed
Real....The Temple burns and 'The Mosaic World' is gone, Judgment....New Creation, The reproach of Babylon removed


Shadow....Joshua leads 'The Children' into The Promised Land are now 'Children of God'
Real....Joshua Messiah leads and lives with 'The Children' in Beulah Land and 'Tabernacles there with them (us)


AD 70 is a major part of the types and anti-types....The Cross 'Ended' the 'Power' of The Mosaic Covenant...but....there still had to be 'Judgment' on that Covenant and Judgment for all of the Sins 'of The World' all the way back to Adam.

Do you 'see' it now?

Blessings Brother Les

Thanks, Brother Les :thumb:

Very clearly stated!
Yes, it was all finished at the Cross.....but Judgment didn't come until 70 A.D..

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks, Brother Les :thumb:

Very clearly stated!
Yes, it was all finished at the Cross.....but Judgment didn't come until 70 A.D..

Rose
I've gotta chime in and say "Well done, Brother Les!" That was an excellent explanation.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Very well done Brother LES. That was a well organized post describing the differences between the former Shadow with today's reality; more so of the first century.

Everything I read about the stories of the Old Testament, I know that those are pictures which we refer to as "Shadow".

One well known "Shadow" is Jonah, who as in the belly of the beast for three days. Jesus, the reality, was in the pits of Hades for three days. In the same way, Jonah, although upset for having to suffer three days, resulted in an effective warning to the people and led to their salvation (Sparing). In the same way, the warnings of the Messiah led to many being saved; shadow became reality.

Moses leading the Israelites through the red sea is a picture of salvation, when we passed through the waters of Christ Jesus.

The entire temple system the Jews practiced was not the reality of worship, but a shadow explaining spiritual truths. The temple system is a picture of our bodies, and our bodies, like the former temple system, is a temple dedicated unto the Lord. The temple system also had animal sacrifices; each animal depicted a particular violation for sin; bull for rebellion, lamb for innocents, ram for what I like to refer to as territorial trouble maker. :lol:

The key is listening to what the Spirit says unto the Churches, and not what the word says to our brain cells. :thumb:

Joe