The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have finally completed and posted my article which walks through all three synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse verse-by-verse. I conclude that all three versions report prophecies from Christ concerning the same set of events, namely the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the events leading up to it. I also conclude that everything in all three versions of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD.

I look forward to discussing it here with anyone who agrees or disagrees. Here is the link:

The Synoptic Apocalypse (http://www.biblewheel.com/theology/Olivet_Discourse.asp)


Richard

[basilfo]

Thanks Richard - I look forward to printing it out and reading it. It looks like a great study that took much effort. Thank you. Is there a good way to print it?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks Richard - I look forward to printing it out and reading it. It looks like a great study that took much effort. Thank you. Is there a good way to print it?
Hi Dave,

There's a "Printer Friendly" button near the bottom of the right sidebar. That will remove the sidebar and the banner bar to give just the text.

I look forward to your feedback,

Richard

PS: It's just a first draft. The problem is that it could easily be expanded into a book if I really wanted to be complete. But that kinda defeats the purpose of a brief overview since the "Big Picture" gets lost in the details.

[TheForgiven]

I look forward to discussing it here with anyone who agrees or disagrees. Here is the link:

The Synoptic Apocalypse


Richard

:clap2::congrats::sunny::woah::woohoo:

Brother Richard, that was the most well presented article of the Olivet Discourse I have ever read! I'm absolutely amazed! How long have you been working on that?

I haven't read the entire thing yet, but the section which covers the Olivet Discourse is dead on, and I'm even going to say ERROR FREE. I especially loved your connection with figures applied to Jerusalem (Sun, Moon, and Stars) and I loved how you used Old Testament prophesies against Egypt and Babylon to prove this point. If it worked for the Old Testament, then it most certainly works for the New Testament.

I was very pleased and proud to read your work sir. Thank you very much. Great Job! :thumb:

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:clap2::congrats::sunny::woah::woohoo:

Brother Richard, that was the most well presented article of the Olivet Discourse I have ever read! I'm absolutely amazed! How long have you been working on that?

I haven't read the entire thing yet, but the section which covers the Olivet Discourse is dead on, and I'm even going to say ERROR FREE. I especially loved your connection with figures applied to Jerusalem (Sun, Moon, and Stars) and I loved how you used Old Testament prophesies against Egypt and Babylon to prove this point. If it worked for the Old Testament, then it most certainly works for the New Testament.

I was very pleased and proud to read your work sir. Thank you very much. Great Job! :thumb:

Joe
Ahh ... shucks! Thanks bro! Those be some very encouraging words.

Of course, the reality is that I learned much of what I wrote from conversations with you and our fellow students here on the forum. There's been some "good fruit."

The biggest problem was deciding what to leave out. If I presented all the evidence the article would have been too big and the power of the primary point would have been lost in all the detail.

I just got back from a road trip to Reno where I witnessed my niece's wedding. I've been gone for nearly a week, so there's lots to catch up on.

God bless!

Richard

[Battyus]

Dear Richard,

I've read your The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse) page and must say that I disagree with your findings.

I've started to compare the Olivet Discourse to the Book of Revelation myself too and was very curious of the outcome.

I came to the conclusion that the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation was not fulfilled by AD70, but rather they describe events that are yet to happen.

As you said you would be willing to discuss the differences, let me give you a link where you can read my study: http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com (http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/)

This study is not as wordy as yours, but has all the verses linked to each other with clear markings that explain the links between the corresponding passages.

Regardless of the results of our conversation I'm sending my brotherly love to you!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Richard,

I've read your The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse) page and must say that I disagree with your findings.

I've started to compare the Olivet Discourse to the Book of Revelation myself too and was very curious of the outcome.

I came to the conclusion that the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation was not fulfilled by AD70, but rather they describe events that are yet to happen.

As you said you would be willing to discuss the differences, let me give you a link where you can read my study: http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com (http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/)

This study is not as wordy as yours, but has all the verses linked to each other with clear markings that explain the links between the corresponding passages.

Regardless of the results of our conversation I'm sending my brotherly love to you!
Battyus
Hello Battyus,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Thank you for your blessings as a brother in Christ. I am thrilled to have a serious student like yourself join our forum. I reviewed your pages to find the reasons for your conclusions, and I think I found one important clue. On your page called Harmony of the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation (http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/olivet_discourse_book_of_revelation_chart.html) I found references to the prophecies of the destruction of the first century Temple but I could not find any references to the fulfillment of that prophecy. Did I miss something? The destruction of the first century Temple is the KEY ELEMENT of Olivet Discourse. It's the "two ton elephant" in the middle of the room. If you left this out of your study, then you will not be able to come to a correct conclusion about the time of the fulfillment (i.e. AD 70).

Also, it appears you did not deal with any of the time statements in which Christ and His Apostles declared that all the events would happen "soon" during the life-times of the first century generation.

As for my conclusions, it would be very helpful to me if you could point out any errors or shortcomings in my presentation that cause you to reject the conclusions.

I very much look forward to discussing this with you.

Many blessings in Christ our Lord,

Richard

[Battyus]

Hello Battyus,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Thank you for your blessings as a brother in Christ. I am thrilled to have a serious student like yourself join our forum.

Thank you Richard for the nice words! It is truly a pleasure to meet brothers and sisters who are eager to get closer to God by studying His word. May He lead all of our studies and may all the glory be His!

#1


I reviewed your pages to find the reasons for your conclusions, and I think I found one important clue. On your page called Harmony of the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation (http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/olivet_discourse_book_of_revelation_chart.html) I found references to the prophecies of the destruction of the first century Temple but I could not find any references to the fulfillment of that prophecy. Did I miss something? The destruction of the first century Temple is the KEY ELEMENT of Olivet Discourse. It's the "two ton elephant" in the middle of the room. If you left this out of your study, then you will not be able to come to a correct conclusion about the time of the fulfillment (i.e. AD 70).
No, you did not miss anything. This is just the core of our different understandings of the Olivet Discourse. There is no reference in the Book of Revelation of the fulfillment of that prophecy (Destruction of the Temple), that's why you did not see any verses grouped together with Mat 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luk 21:6.

#2


Also, it appears you did not deal with any of the time statements in which Christ and His Apostles declared that all the events would happen "soon" during the life-times of the first century generation.
In your study under "The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!" section you say:

"Mat 24:32-35; Mark 13:28-31; Luk 21:29
Here we have the explicit, unequivocal, and incontroverible answer to the disciples' question that began this integrated discourse.
When shall these things be? The Lord Jesus Christ answered with perfect clarity, directly declaring to His audience that "this generation" - that is, they themselves - would not pass before all things were fulfilled.
He used the phrase "this generation" with exactly the same meaning as when He warned them that judgment for all the "righteous blood" shed on the earth would be required of "this generation" in Matthew 23, immediately preceding the Olivet Discourse.
Thus Matthew bracketed this great prophecy before and after with the time marker of "this generation."

My answer:
Each of the 3 passages you mention starts with the parable of the fig tree, but it seems like you skipped over them. If you read these passages in whole you can see that the "This generation" term refers to the generation which sees the Fig tree to put forth leaves.

As we know throughout the scripture the Fig tree identifies Israel.
Israel ceased to be a nation in AD70, and was in this state until 1948 when they became a nation again. This event was prophesied in Ezekiel 37.

In other words the "Fig tree to put forth leaves" expression refers to Israel becoming a nation again in 1948 and the "This generation" term refers to the generation of Israelites that saw this event happening. Therefore these passages do not refer to the 1st century Jewish people but address the generation that actually is alive today.

Please see the corresponding passages at
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/olivet_discourse_book_of_revelation_concordance.ht ml#44 and
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/olivet_discourse_book_of_revelation_concordance.ht ml#45



As for my conclusions, it would be very helpful to me if you could point out any errors or shortcomings in my presentation that cause you to reject the conclusions.
I gave you 2 above, but as a conversation starter I list few more:

#3
In your study you say: "The fact that the disciples did not even know that he would be leaving also argues against the "Second Coming" as possibility."

I say: If the disciples did not know that Jesus would be leaving, then why did they ask the time of his "coming"? They knew he was going to leave since Mat 16:21.

#4
In the beginning of your study under the "The meaning of "end of the age" section You say that the "end of the world [age]" in Mat 24:3 refers to the Temple's destruction and cite Heb 9:26 as a proof that the "end of the world [age]" refers to a 1st century event.

I say: Heb 9:26 states specifically that the "end of the world [age]" was at the sacrificial death of Christ: "... now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:26)

So, you can not use "end of the world [age]" term to refer to an event ~40 years later, when Heb 9:26 puts this expression at the time of the cross!

The apostles clearly asked about the time of the destruction of the temple, yet Christ answered referring to the future events of the Tribulation.

#5
In your study you say:
"Thus we see that the "spirit of antichrist" was already in the world in the first century, and that it was the "last hour" when John wrote his Epistle.
Again, the Bible teaches nothing about an "Antichrist" wanna-be world dictator.
It speaks of the "spirit of antichrist" that fills those who teach specific false doctrines about Christ.
...2 Thessalonians 2:1-10...
Paul wrote this when the literal Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. The mystery of lawlessness was already at work in the first century at the time Paul was writing.
The "man of sin" fits the description of the false prophet that is thrown into the lake of fire (perdition) in Rev 16:13.
He is earlier in Revelation described as the "second beast" that is given his power from the first beast, who in turn received his power directly from Satan"

I say:
So, according to this, there aren't supposed to be any false Christs around us today. Well, unfortunately almost every day I have to hear about false Christs! There are more false Christs today then ever. (Just turn on TBN for a few examples)



I very much look forward to discussing this with you.

Many blessings in Christ our Lord,

Richard
Same here Richard! It looks like a very interesting discussion.

By the way, I've just saw the Bible Wheel app for the first time: I must say, that it looks amazing! (I'll read more about it)

May God bless you,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you Richard for the nice words! It is truly a pleasure to meet brothers and sisters who are eager to get closer to God by studying His word. May He lead all of our studies and may all the glory be His!

Excellent prayer! I concur wholeheartedly.



#1

No, you did not miss anything. This is just the core of our different understandings of the Olivet Discourse. There is no reference in the Book of Revelation of the fulfillment of that prophecy (Destruction of the Temple), that's why you did not see any verses grouped together with Mat 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luk 21:6.

You are correct that there is no explicit reference in the book of Revelation to the destruction of the Temple. But neither is there any explicit reference to the "Church Age" or to "Daniel's 70th week" yet you put those ideas in the header of your table (http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/olivet_discourse_book_of_revelation_chart.html). This exemplifies how your table imposes a futurist system upon the text. If I were to make a table like yours, I would have had a header called "Destruction of Jerusalem" under which I would have linked these verses:


Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

From my perspective, the fulfillment of Christ's prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem are fulfilled in Revelation 17-18 which describes apostate Jerusalem as the Great Whore Mystery Babylon.

Christ spoke the Olivet Discourse as an answer to the question "when shall these things [the destruction of the Temple] be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?". The destruction of the Temple occurred at the same time as the desolation of Jerusalem which was during the lifetime of the generation to whom Christ spoke, whom He referred to as "this generation." It seems to me that all the pieces fit together with great clarity and precision.



#2

In your study under "The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!" section you say:

"Mat 24:32-35; Mark 13:28-31; Luk 21:29
Here we have the explicit, unequivocal, and incontroverible answer to the disciples' question that began this integrated discourse.
When shall these things be? The Lord Jesus Christ answered with perfect clarity, directly declaring to His audience that "this generation" - that is, they themselves - would not pass before all things were fulfilled.
He used the phrase "this generation" with exactly the same meaning as when He warned them that judgment for all the "righteous blood" shed on the earth would be required of "this generation" in Matthew 23, immediately preceding the Olivet Discourse.
Thus Matthew bracketed this great prophecy before and after with the time marker of "this generation."

My answer:
Each of the 3 passages you mention starts with the parable of the fig tree, but it seems like you skipped over them. If you read these passages in whole you can see that the "This generation" term refers to the generation which sees the Fig tree to put forth leaves.

As we know throughout the scripture the Fig tree identifies Israel.
Israel ceased to be a nation in AD70, and was in this state until 1948 when they became a nation again. This event was prophesied in Ezekiel 37.

In other words the "Fig tree to put forth leaves" expression refers to Israel becoming a nation again in 1948 and the "This generation" term refers to the generation of Israelites that saw this event happening. Therefore these passages do not refer to the 1st century Jewish people but address the generation that actually is alive today.

Please see the corresponding passages at
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/olivet_discourse_book_of_revelation_concordance.ht ml#44 and
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/olivet_discourse_book_of_revelation_concordance.ht ml#45

I agree that the fig tree can represent Israel in certain contexts, but I see no justification for the idea that to "put forth leaves" means "become a nation again." Consider what the text actually states:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
It seems evident from the text that the "leaves" represent "all these things" which Christ had just prophesied in the preceding verses. The phrase "putteth forth leaves" means "when the events I prophesied are beginning to happen." There is nothing in the text that suggests anything having to do with Israel becoming a nation again. This is confirmed in Luke's record of this parable:
Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
If the fig tree represents Israel becoming a nation again, what would "all the trees" represent? Was Jesus telling us that "all the nations" would "become nations again" in 1948? No, that would make no sense at all. But it makes perfect sense when we understand that he was speaking of the events he had just prophesied, namely:
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Recall that Jesus was answering the question about when the first century Temple would be destroyed. He answered saying "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies" and we know that happened in AD 66. And He specifically said this was the time when "all things written" would be fulfilled, and "great wrath" would come upon "THIS people" (which is the same "this" as in "this generation." This is why "this generation" can not be some generation in the distant future. Christ was explicitly answering a question about the destruction of the first century temple and Jerusalem. Again, it seems all the pieces fit with great clarity and precision.



#3
In your study you say: "The fact that the disciples did not even know that he would be leaving also argues against the "Second Coming" as possibility."

I say: If the disciples did not know that Jesus would be leaving, then why did they ask the time of his "coming"? They knew he was going to leave since Mat 16:21.

The "coming" does not mean the "second coming." They were asking when Christ would "come" in power and glory as Ruling Messiah. This happened when He poured out the judgment that He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse. It proved that He was Who He said He was, namely, God incarnate - the Lord YHVH who "comes with the clouds" throughout the Old Testament. That's why the High Priest said it was blasphemy when Christ said they would see Him "coming on clouds" - He was telling them that He was God.



#4
In the beginning of your study under the "The meaning of "end of the age" section You say that the "end of the world [age]" in Mat 24:3 refers to the Temple's destruction and cite Heb 9:26 as a proof that the "end of the world [age]" refers to a 1st century event.

I say: Heb 9:26 states specifically that the "end of the world [age]" was at the sacrificial death of Christ: "... now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:26)

So, you can not use "end of the world [age]" term to refer to an event ~40 years later, when Heb 9:26 puts this expression at the time of the cross!

The "end of the age" did not happen at a single moment. It spanned the whole time period from the birth of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem.



The apostles clearly asked about the time of the destruction of the temple, yet Christ answered referring to the future events of the Tribulation.

Why do you think Christ was speaking of a "tribulation" that would be in the distant future after the destruction of the Temple? The whole prophecy began as an answer to the question about when the Temple would be destroyed, and the destruction of 70 AD was the greatest Tribulation ever to come upon Jerusalem. It was the Time of Jacob's Trouble when Jerusalem was utterly destroyed, a million Jews murdered, and the rest driven off into slavery or exile. How can you think that Christ was not speaking of those events as the "great tribulation" that would culminate in the desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple?




Same here Richard! It looks like a very interesting discussion.

Yes, I think this will be a great conversation! :thumb:




By the way, I've just saw the Bible Wheel app for the first time: I must say, that it looks amazing! (I'll read more about it)

May God bless you,
Battyus
Yes, there is a lot of potential for that application, but I have a LOT of work to do on it. Currently, its nothing more than a "demo" app.

Thanks for the blessings. Same to you, my friend!

Richard

[Edward Goodie]

Excellent thoughts RAM...

One tiny clarification, IMO, if you will permit...


#3
In your study you say: "The fact that the disciples did not even know that he would be leaving also argues against the "Second Coming" as possibility."

I say: If the disciples did not know that Jesus would be leaving, then why did they ask the time of his "coming"? They knew he was going to leave since Mat 16:21.


The "coming" does not mean the "second coming." They were asking when Christ would "come" in power and glory as Ruling Messiah. This happened when He poured out the judgment that He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse. It proved that He was Who He said He was, namely, God incarnate - the Lord YHVH who "comes with the clouds" throughout the Old Testament. That's why the High Priest said it was blasphemy when Christ said they would see Him "coming on clouds" - He was telling them that He was God.

Was it not "the sign of thy coming" as opposed to just the coming? And I would definitely say that the coming was His Parousia that did occur at the end of the age.

And now more general thoughts...

I think the disciples were well-versed in the OT Scriptures. They would be quite familiar with other "comings" and other "days of the Lord" in judgment. They also knew that the ACTUAL, physical presence of deity was not required for the judgment to take place. The events would be "seen" as the carried out judgment by what transpired. In Babylon's case it was the Medes who were God's divine instruments (Isaiah 13:17). In the Olivets, it would be the Roman armies who would come upon apostate Jerusalem - those who held to the old covenant economy despite Christ's constant teachings against it...

Christ detailed the signs for those 4 disciples who had asked the question. To say that he answered a different question than the one they asked is just speculating in order to hold on to an already devised system of theology...and to say that Christ answered to a different generation as well is also speculating...

I think the disciples knew full well that Christ was talking about the destruction of the temple. This literally meant the end of Judaism, all they had ever known and had ever been taught. 1600 years of history would come crashing down, never to be re instituted again...

The NT was about an exchange of covenants - old to the new. The new had come and the old was "about to" (Mello, Strong's 3195) pass away. It was not "about to" pass away 2,000 years in the future to a generation who had nothing to do with Christ's crucifixion. That would be EXACTLY like punishing all the Japanese who were citizens of the United States in the year 3942 - 2,000 years after Pearl Harbour!

Look how the other two Olivets describe the timing of their question. The Greek word "mello" (Strong's 3195) is used...

Mark 13:4 (YLT) - "Tell us when these things shall be? and what is the sign when all these may be about to be fulfilled?"

Luke 21:7 (YLT) - And they questioned him, saying, "Teacher, when, then, shall these things be? and what is the sign when these things may be about to happen?"

The "about to" (Mello, Strong's 3195) emphasis has a lot to say regarding their question! Unless, of course, one believes that "about to" happen means 2,000 years in the future...

Do you see now how this all ties in with Christ's "this generation"? The generation who had persecuted the church, who had been responsible for crucifying the Lord Jesus.

[CWH]

Richard said: I agree that the fig tree can represent Israel in certain contexts, but I see no justification for the idea that to "put forth leaves" means "become a nation again." Consider what the text actually states:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
It seems evident from the text that the "leaves" represent "all these things" which Christ had just prophesied in the preceding verses. The phrase "putteth forth leaves" means "when the events I prophesied are beginning to happen." There is nothing in the text that suggests anything having to do with Israel becoming a nation again. This is confirmed in Luke's record of this parable:
Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
If the fig tree represents Israel becoming a nation again, what would "all the trees" represent? Was Jesus telling us that "all the nations" would "become nations again" in 1948? No, that would make no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense to me.; fits like a glove. After WW2 i.e.1945, nations began to realize that their colonial powers were not invincible and may not defend them during time of war and therefore they declared their independence.

"Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth....know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." means that when Israel and other nations started to gain their independence... know that the kingdom of God is near.

This is the list of nations that gained their independence after WW2 till 1960:

India/Pakistan
Bangaladesh
The Philippines
Malaya
Singapore: In the '60s these two were going to merge
Burma
Formosa (Taiwan)
Viet nam
Cambodia
Laos
Algeria
Hong Kong
Macau
Ghana
Cyprus
Congo
Fiji
Vanuatu
Niger
Nigeria
Israel (technically it is a creation)

This list is not exhaustive, but also does not include those nations subjugated by Japan or germany during WW2 and liberated at the end.

many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent thoughts RAM...

One tiny clarification, IMO, if you will permit...


The "coming" does not mean the "second coming." They were asking when Christ would "come" in power and glory as Ruling Messiah. This happened when He poured out the judgment that He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse. It proved that He was Who He said He was, namely, God incarnate - the Lord YHVH who "comes with the clouds" throughout the Old Testament. That's why the High Priest said it was blasphemy when Christ said they would see Him "coming on clouds" - He was telling them that He was God.Was it not "the sign of thy coming" as opposed to just the coming? And I would definitely say that the coming was His Parousia that did occur at the end of the age.

Excellent point! :thumb: When Jerusalem was destroyed, it proved that Jesus was who He said He was, and that He had "come in clouds" to judge Jerusalem, just as He (YHVH) "came in clouds" in judgments in the OT. And what was the sign that He was reigning as King of Kings in Heaven? It was the destruction of Jerusalem!

This was the sign of the fact that the Son of Man was seated on His Throne in heaven.

Look at the bold underlined words. They form the phrase "the sign of the Son of Man in heaven."



And now more general thoughts...

I think the disciples were well-versed in the OT Scriptures. They would be quite familiar with other "comings" and other "days of the Lord" in judgment. They also knew that the ACTUAL, physical presence of deity was not required for the judgment to take place. The events would be "seen" as the carried out judgment by what transpired. In Babylon's case it was the Medes who were God's divine instruments (Isaiah 13:17). In the Olivets, it would be the Roman armies who would come upon apostate Jerusalem - those who held to the old covenant economy despite Christ's constant teachings against it...

Exactly correct. This becomes more clear when we understand the God often uses parallelisms in which He states the same thing two or three times using different words. This appears to be what the disciples were asking:

When will these things happen?
What will be the sign of your coming?
When will be the the end of the age?

Those three questions are all asking about the singular event marked by the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem which was the "coming" of Christ and the end of the Jewish age.



Christ detailed the signs for those 4 disciples who had asked the question. To say that he answered a different question than the one they asked is just speculating in order to hold on to an already devised system of theology...and to say that Christ answered to a different generation as well is also speculating...

Exactly correct. There is nothing in the text that justifies ripping it apart into two pieces that are separated by two millennia! On the contrary, there are many things in the Olivet Discourse that indicate it is a total unity. For example, is bracketed between statements that "all these things" will be fulfilled in "this generation" -

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

<The Olivet Discourse>

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Is there any doubt that "this generation" in Matt 23:36 refers to the first century Jews upon whom the judgment came? Why then should we say that the second "this generation" applies to a generation that would exist some 2000 years in the future?



I think the disciples knew full well that Christ was talking about the destruction of the temple. This literally meant the end of Judaism, all they had ever known and had ever been taught. 1600 years of history would come crashing down, never to be re instituted again...

Well stated. The primary error of the futurist point of view seems to be a failure to appreciate the kind of impact the destruction of the Temple had on the Jews. If that was not the "Great Tribulation" and the "time of Jacob's Trouble" what then could be?



The NT was about an exchange of covenants - old to the new. The new had come and the old was "about to" (Mello, Strong's 3195) pass away. It was not "about to" pass away 2,000 years in the future to a generation who had nothing to do with Christ's crucifixion. That would be EXACTLY like punishing all the Japanese who were citizens of the United States in the year 3942 - 2,000 years after Pearl Harbour!

Look how the other two Olivets describe the timing of their question. The Greek word "mello" (Strong's 3195) is used...

Mark 13:4 (YLT) - "Tell us when these things shall be? and what is the sign when all these may be about to be fulfilled?"

Luke 21:7 (YLT) - And they questioned him, saying, "Teacher, when, then, shall these things be? and what is the sign when these things may be about to happen?"

The "about to" (Mello, Strong's 3195) emphasis has a lot to say regarding their question! Unless, of course, one believes that "about to" happen means 2,000 years in the future...

Do you see now how this all ties in with Christ's "this generation"? The generation who had persecuted the church, who had been responsible for crucifying the Lord Jesus.
That is a most excellent point. The use of the Greek "mello" is usually overlooked by futurist exegesis. It is extremely important. Words have meaning. The NT is saturated with statements that the end was "about to happen" very "soon" for the "time was at hand" and the "Lord was standing at the door" and "it IS the last hour" etc., etc., etc. Any eschatological system that ignores the time texts fails before it starts.

Thanks for the excellent insights TS,

Richard

[CWH]

The use of the Greek "mello" is usually overlooked by futurist exegesis. It is extremely important. Words have meaning. The NT is saturated with statements that the end was "about to happen" very "soon" for the "time was at hand" and the "Lord was standing at the door" and "it IS the last hour" etc., etc., etc. Any eschatological system that ignores the time texts fails before it starts.

I have said countless times before, Do not take all these underlined words at face value. Who or what is coming in the 1st century? Who or what is at the door? Who or what is at hand? Who or what is coming soon? Who or what is at the last hour. It was the Church; it was Christianity. Jesus Christ being the head of the Church, the founder of Christianity was bringing this Church and Christianity into this world and it started from AD 70 when the Jews and Christians were dispersed into Europe and other parts of the world thus launching and spreading the Good News, the Church and Christianity.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It makes perfect sense to me.; fits like a glove. After WW2 i.e.1945, nations began to realize that their colonial powers were not invincible and may not defend them during time of war and therefore they declared their independence.

Hi Cheow! :yo:

That is very interesting interpretation, but is there any justification for it in Scripture, or did you just make it up?

This question is very important to a proper understanding of Scripture. When we interpret the Bible, we should begin with what the text actually states, correct? We don't want to just make up stuff and pass it off as the "Word of God" do we?

Furthermore, what do you think of my explanation about what the text actually states? Let's look again:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
It seems evident from the text that the "leaves" represent "all these things" which Christ had just prophesied in the preceding verses. Do you disagree with this?

The phrase "putteth forth leaves" means "the events I prophesied are beginning to happen." If no one told you that it represented the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, where would you get that idea?

I would be very interested to know what you think of this interpretation. It seems to me exceedingly clear that the leaves represent the events Christ had just prophesied. Do you see this as obvious? If not, please explain - I think it would be very helpful if we could establish what the text actually means on this point. It doesn't seem ambiguous at all to me, so it will help a lot if you can explain to me where I have gone wrong.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have said countless times before, Do not take all these underlined words at face value. Who or what is coming in the 1st century? Who or what is at the door? Who or what is at hand? Who or what is coming soon? Who or what is at the last hour. It was the Church; it was Christianity. Jesus Christ being the head of the Church, the founder of Christianity was bringing this Church and Christianity into this world and it started from AD 70 when the Jews and Christians were dispersed into Europe and other parts of the world thus launching and spreading the Good News, the Church and Christianity.

Many Blessings.
Hummm .... that seems like a very large and broad set of verses that we are not supposed to "take at face value." Are you saying that you disagree with the futurist doctrine that states we must take the Bible "literally" whenever possible?

Is there anything in the Bible that suggests that Christ was talking about the coming of "Christianity" as opposed to His Coming? It seems that there are many verses that won't make any sense if we replace the coming of Christ with the coming of Christianity. Did not Christianity "come" at Pentecost? Was not Christianity already here at the time that Peter, Paul, James and John wrote about the coming of Christ? Why then should we think they were talking about the coming of Christianity?

Now in answer to your specific questions:

Who or what is coming in the 1st century?
Christ came, died, resurrected, and ascended to His Throne in Heaven. This was confirmed when He fulfilled His prophecies in His Coming in Judgment against apostate Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Who or what is at the door?
James 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

See that? James said it was the JUDGE, Jesus Christ, standing at the door, for the "coming of the Lord draweth nigh." This is a very helpful verse because it combines both the nearness of the coming of the Lord with the statement that He was the JUDGE standing at the door.

Who or what is at hand?
Christ said the TIME was "at hand." (Rev 1.:3)
Paul said the DAY was "at hand" (Rom 13:12)
Paul said the LORD was "at hand" (Phil 4:5)
Paul said the DAY OF THE LORD" was "at hand" (2Thess 2:2)
Peter said the END OF ALL THINGS was "at hand" (1Pet 4:7)

Is there anything in these verses that suggest they were talking about the "coming of Christianity" was "at hand"?

Who or what is at the last hour? It was the Church; it was Christianity. Jesus Christ being the head of the Church, the founder of Christianity was bringing this Church and Christianity into this world and it started from AD 70 when the Jews and Christians were dispersed into Europe and other parts of the world thus launching and spreading the Good News, the Church and Christianity.

Why do you say it started in 70 AD? The Church was established at Pentecost.

And perhaps the biggest question - are you saying that all the Christians who believe those verses are talking about the "second coming of Christ" are wrong? Are you saying you do not believe in the "second coming" at all? If you translate all the "coming" passages to the "coming of Christianity" what happens to the doctrine of the "second coming?"

There is much to discuss.

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

[CWH]

Hi Cheow! :yo:

That is very interesting interpretation, but is there any justification for it in Scripture, or did you just make it up?

This question is very important to a proper understanding of Scripture. When we interpret the Bible, we should begin with what the text actually states, correct? We don't want to just make up stuff and pass it off as the "Word of God" do we?

Furthermore, what do you think of my explanation about what the text actually states? Let's look again:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
It seems evident from the text that the "leaves" represent "all these things" which Christ had just prophesied in the preceding verses. Do you disagree with this?

The phrase "putteth forth leaves" means "the events I prophesied are beginning to happen." If no one told you that it represented the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, where would you get that idea?

I would be very interested to know what you think of this interpretation. It seems to me exceedingly clear that the leaves represent the events Christ had just prophesied. Do you see this as obvious? If not, please explain - I think it would be very helpful if we could establish what the text actually means on this point. It doesn't seem ambiguous at all to me, so it will help a lot if you can explain to me where I have gone wrong.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

Hi RAM,

This was my response to Joe in one of my post and that answer your request. My post is an inspired extention of what many futurist believe about the interpretations of the verses in Mathew 24 about the fig tree. It is definitely not my make up story. It's very late now on the other side. I respond your the other request later.

Is the fig tree not Israel? See for yourself:

The word "fig" is mentioned in the Scriptures sixty-four times. THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD-Jere 24:5. We see the word "figs," being used to represent the Jews that are carried away.

THE LORD SHOWED ME, AND, BEHOLD, TWO BASKETS OF FIGS...ONE BASKET HAD VERY GOOD FIGS, EVEN LIKE THE FIGS THAT ARE FIRST RIPE: AND THE OTHER BASKET HAD VERY NAUGHTY FIGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE EATEN, THEY WERE SO BAD. THEN SAID THE LORD UNTO ME, WHAT SEEST THOU, JEREMIAH? AND I SAID, FIGS; THE GOOD FIGS, VERY GOOD; AND THE EVIL, VERY EVIL, THAT CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL. AGAIN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME, SAYING, THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD. FOR I WILL SET MINE EYES UPON THEM FOR GOOD, AND I WILL BRING THEM AGAIN TO THIS LAND: AND I WILL BUILD THEM, AND NOT PULL THEM DOWN; AND I WILL PLANT THEM, AND NOT PLUCK THEM UP. AND I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW ME, THAT I AM THE LORD: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD: FOR THEY SHALL RETURN UNTO ME WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART. AND AS THE EVIL FIGS, WHICH CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL-Jere 24:1-8. The word "figs" is used here eight times denoting the Jews.

NOW IN THE MORNING AS HE RETURNED INTO THE CITY, HE HUNGERED. AND WHEN HE SAW A FIG TREE IN THE WAY, HE CAME TO IT, AND FOUND NOTHING THEREON, BUT LEAVES ONLY, AND SAID UNTO IT, LET NO FRUIT GROW ON THEE HENCEFORWARD FOR EVER. AND PRESENTLY THE FIG TREE WITHERED AWAY-Mt 21:18,19; ref Mk 11:12-14,20,21. The fig tree withered away, as it was producing no fruit. It may be noted that the word "fig" here represents Israel, and the word "tree" represents nation.

The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. Nevertheless, the nation of Israel was reborn and will fulfill God’s mission during the Tribulation.

See my post which I have discussed with Carrie a few months ago:

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Now, what does "fig tree" means? what does "twigs get tender and leaves come out" means? what does "summer is near" means? If you can understand what it means then, you will understand what "this generation" was He talking about.

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi RAM,

This was my response to Joe in one of my post and that answer your request. My post is an inspired extention of what many futurist believe about the interpretations of the verses in Mathew 24 about the fig tree. It is definitely not my make up story. It's very late now on the other side. I respond your the other request later.

Is the fig tree not Israel? See for yourself:

The word "fig" is mentioned in the Scriptures sixty-four times. THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD-Jere 24:5. We see the word "figs," being used to represent the Jews that are carried away.

THE LORD SHOWED ME, AND, BEHOLD, TWO BASKETS OF FIGS...ONE BASKET HAD VERY GOOD FIGS, EVEN LIKE THE FIGS THAT ARE FIRST RIPE: AND THE OTHER BASKET HAD VERY NAUGHTY FIGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE EATEN, THEY WERE SO BAD. THEN SAID THE LORD UNTO ME, WHAT SEEST THOU, JEREMIAH? AND I SAID, FIGS; THE GOOD FIGS, VERY GOOD; AND THE EVIL, VERY EVIL, THAT CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL. AGAIN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME, SAYING, THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD. FOR I WILL SET MINE EYES UPON THEM FOR GOOD, AND I WILL BRING THEM AGAIN TO THIS LAND: AND I WILL BUILD THEM, AND NOT PULL THEM DOWN; AND I WILL PLANT THEM, AND NOT PLUCK THEM UP. AND I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW ME, THAT I AM THE LORD: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD: FOR THEY SHALL RETURN UNTO ME WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART. AND AS THE EVIL FIGS, WHICH CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL-Jere 24:1-8. The word "figs" is used here eight times denoting the Jews.

NOW IN THE MORNING AS HE RETURNED INTO THE CITY, HE HUNGERED. AND WHEN HE SAW A FIG TREE IN THE WAY, HE CAME TO IT, AND FOUND NOTHING THEREON, BUT LEAVES ONLY, AND SAID UNTO IT, LET NO FRUIT GROW ON THEE HENCEFORWARD FOR EVER. AND PRESENTLY THE FIG TREE WITHERED AWAY-Mt 21:18,19; ref Mk 11:12-14,20,21. The fig tree withered away, as it was producing no fruit. It may be noted that the word "fig" here represents Israel, and the word "tree" represents nation.

The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. Nevertheless, the nation of Israel was reborn and will fulfill God’s mission during the Tribulation.

See my post which I have discussed with Carrie a few months ago:

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Now, what does "fig tree" means? what does "twigs get tender and leaves come out" means? what does "summer is near" means? If you can understand what it means then, you will understand what "this generation" was He talking about.

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Many Blessings.
Hey there my friend, :anim_32:

In my first post to you on this topic, I acknowledged that the fig tree is used in some contexts in Scripture as a symbol of Israel. So we agree up to that point.

The disagreement comes from the assertion that "putting forth of leaves" means "Israel restored as a nation." That's not what Jesus said, and it's nowhere in the text of the Bible. We all agree that Jesus used the fig tree, and all the trees, as a symbol that means something. And what does that symbol mean? Christ defined the meaning for us:

Jesus said that a tree "putting forth leaves" MEANS "summer is nigh."

But you say that a tree "putting forth leaves" MEANS "the nation represented by the tree is restored as a nation"

See that? You have introduced an idea that is not in the text. Basically, you said that the appearance of leaves was itself another sign in addition to the signs Christ already had prophesied. But that's not what He said. Christ said that the appearance of the signs are like the appearance of leaves that indicate the time/season is near. The appearance of the signs are not themselves another "sign."

And what does "summer" represent? It is the season of harvest. Christ identified it as the time when "all these things shall be fulfilled." Therefore, the meaning of the parable seems clear:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh [everyone knows that this is true, as stated. It needs no further explanation]: 33 So likewise [Christ tells us to use the same common sense knowledge as with trees and seasons] ye, when ye shall see all these things [the signs prophesied in previous verses], know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

There is a perfect parallel between "appearance of leaves = summer is near" and "appearance of signs = the time of the end is near."

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Brother Cheow. We've discussed the "Fig Tree" a few times before, and once again, I simply do not see any logic in usurping the idea that Christ was referring to the reestablishment of Israel as a nation.

Matthew 24 is a discussion about the temple's destruction. The Apostles wanted to know when this would happen, and what signs would let them know the destruction would be near. Thus, Christ answers their question and gives them a list of signs.

Then we get to the conclusion of the Fig Tree and for some odd reason, the Futurist's believe Christ was changing the subject from the temples destruction, to the rebuilding of Israel. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see the subject disagreement with that idea.

If Christ focused 90% percent of of his answers towards to the signs involving the temple's destruction, how can you justify a single verse as a prophetic picture of Israel's rebirth? That would have been a "supporting detail" outside of the subject line.

In short, this is what you're saying:

1. Answers to the temples destruction
2. Signs of the temple's destruction
3. Rebudding of the Fig Tree means Israel rebuilt.

And then some Futurist skew off into an even wilder tangent and insist that the temple to be destroyed WAS NOT the first century temple, but a temple beyond their scope. Of course scripture would not complement that idea very well, considering Jesus Himself asked, "DO YOU NOT SEE ALL THESE THINGS?" How could they "SEE" what does not yet exist, even today?

The facts are plain. The temple was to be destroyed, and the Apostles wanted to know HOW and WHEN this would take place. This is very important because the MESSIAH could only come with a Kingdom. And Jesus concludes that the temple would be destroyed, but HE would come in his New Kingdom, with an eternal temple not made of hands, but of hearts.

What would you prefer? A temple made of hands, or of hearts? The answer to that question, in truth, defines your idea of Christianity.

This British teaching about a rebudding Israel is not based on New Testament teaching. Furthermore, the temple that Christ promised was us, not bricks.

Joe

[Rose]

Brother Cheow. We've discussed the "Fig Tree" a few times before, and once again, I simply do not see any logic in usurping the idea that Christ was referring to the reestablishment of Israel as a nation.

Matthew 24 is a discussion about the temple's destruction. The Apostles wanted to know when this would happen, and what signs would let them know the destruction would be near. Thus, Christ answers their question and gives them a list of signs.

Then we get to the conclusion of the Fig Tree and for some odd reason, the Futurist's believe Christ was changing the subject from the temples destruction, to the rebuilding of Israel. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see the subject disagreement with that idea.

If Christ focused 90% percent of of his answers towards to the signs involving the temple's destruction, how can you justify a single verse as a prophetic picture of Israel's rebirth? That would have been a "supporting detail" outside of the subject line.

In short, this is what you're saying:

1. Answers to the temples destruction
2. Signs of the temple's destruction
3. Rebudding of the Fig Tree means Israel rebuilt.

And then some Futurist skew off into an even wilder tangent and insist that the temple to be destroyed WAS NOT the first century temple, but a temple beyond their scope. Of course scripture would not complement that idea very well, considering Jesus Himself asked, "DO YOU NOT SEE ALL THESE THINGS?" How could they "SEE" what does not yet exist, even today?

The facts are plain. The temple was to be destroyed, and the Apostles wanted to know HOW and WHEN this would take place. This is very important because the MESSIAH could only come with a Kingdom. And Jesus concludes that the temple would be destroyed, but HE would come in his New Kingdom, with an eternal temple not made of hands, but of hearts.

What would you prefer? A temple made of hands, or of hearts? The answer to that question, in truth, defines your idea of Christianity.

This British teaching about a rebudding Israel is not based on New Testament teaching. Furthermore, the temple that Christ promised was us, not bricks.

Joe

You bring up a very good point Joe. What is the justification of introducing the rebirth of the nation of Israel into the context of the Olivet Discourse. There is nothing in the text that in anyway suggests a destroyed Israel that needs rebuilding. The focus is on the destruction of the Temple that is standing before them.

The example Jesus uses of the "Fig Tree" in no way suggests a withered fig tree coming back to life, but rather a vibrant tree that is waiting to spring forth into growth at the first sign of Spring, declaring that summer is near.

The buds that leaf out on this tree are the signs that Jesus tells His disciples must come first, before the stones of the Temple come down (which was the reason they asked Jesus the question in the first place). There is not one sign in the Olivet Discourse that speaks of, or points to a rebirth of Israel.

Rose

[TheForgiven]

You bring up a very good point Joe. What is the justification of introducing the rebirth of the nation of Israel into the context of the Olivet Discourse. There is nothing in the text that in anyway suggests a destroyed Israel that needs rebuilding. The focus is on the destruction of the Temple that is standing before them.

The example Jesus uses of the "Fig Tree" in no way suggests a withered fig tree coming back to life, but rather a vibrant tree that is waiting to spring forth into growth at the first sign of Spring, declaring that summer is near.

The buds that leaf out on this tree are the signs that Jesus tells His disciples must come first, before the stones of the Temple come down (which was the reason they asked Jesus the question in the first place). There is not one sign in the Olivet Discourse that speaks of, or points to a rebirth of Israel.

Rose

Precisely sister Rose. I've read the Olivet Discourse about a thousand time (exaggeration actually :lol:) but not a single one has led me to believe that Jesus changed the main idea/topic from the Temple's destruction, to the rebirth of Israel. This idea is based on an external belief that God will one day regather Israel (supposedly in 1948), and restore the Kingdom to them, as though that were His purpose in the first place.

I don't think some understand the seriousness of what many Futurist's are proposing. By stating that Israel has to be reborn (or was reborn in 1948) suggests that Israel has been non-existent between the first century, until 1948; almost 2000 years of "NO ISRAEL". What does this mean? It means to the Futurist's Israel and the Church are two separate things.

How can they justify this? If the "NATURAL" branches were Israel, and the Gentile branches were grafted in, then that must mean that Israel never stopped existing. Yet they treat Israel as a cut-off nation for more than 2000 years (until 1948), and the Church as if it's solely Gentile. That idea is easily proven false because this presumes a non-biblical opinion that the Church is entirely Gentile, and that Israel was never part of the Church.

1. Jesus said, "For salvation is of the Jews" - This means that Israel and the Church are one and the same

2. Paul said, "A Jew is a Jew inwardly, and NOT outwardly" - This means that Israel and the Church are the same

3. Paul said, "circumcision (practiced religiously by Jews) means nothing; what matters is a new creation - This means that Israel and the Church are the same.

4. Jesus said, "A time is coming, and NOW IS, when you shall neither travel to this mountain or abroad to worship God; God is Spirit, and He seeks for those who worship in SPIRIT and in TRUTH - This means that Israel and the Church "worship" as one and the same, in Spirit and in Truth.

I could go on and on. The Futurist's seem to ignore the Biblical facts. They read the old testament and fail to realize that Israel is all about the Messiah, Jesus was born from the blood-line of David. God promised David that his throne would not be without a true King. And Jesus is the King, born from the lineage of David. Peter insists that God set Jesus upon His righteous throne (Davids Throne) to rule forever and ever. This can only mean that Jesus is not ruling a Gentile Church as King (or head), but as the King of all Israel. And the Church is Israel, or else Jesus is not a King. And if not a king, then who's ruling the Church? Actually, who's ruling the Gentile Church?

Conclusion? Those who separate the Church and Israel are not stating Biblical fact, but humanistic opinion, as though God deals with man on the basis of race, skin color, blood type, and circumcision.

So, we can now answer the question. Was Israel reborn in 1948? Absolutely not! Israel was reborn in the first century, when the wild branches were grafted in with the natural branches. The end result is what has transpired for more than 2000 years in Church History. God's kingdom would no longer be racially divided, but spiritually divided (good and bad).

I feel I've presented a fair post. But as usual, I'm certain it will go in one ear, and out the other. :lol:

God bless.

Joe

[Battyus]

Dear Rose,


You bring up a very good point Joe. What is the justification of introducing the rebirth of the nation of Israel into the context of the Olivet Discourse. There is nothing in the text that in anyway suggests a destroyed Israel that needs rebuilding. The focus is on the destruction of the Temple that is standing before them.
You are right that the Olivet Discourse in itself does not suggest a destroyed Israel that needs rebuilding.

BUT if you harmonize the Olivet Discourse with other books of the Bible especially with Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel then you can not miss the relationship between their contents. And if you do your study in the context of these books together and not just in the context of the Olivet Discourse alone, then you will see the justification and need of Israel's rebirth.

Let me summarize in a nutshell:
-The Olivet Discourse in its entirety can easily be harmonized with the Book of Revelation
-Ezekiel has many chapters filled with prophecies that historically have not happened yet. (See Ezekiel 37-48)
-The yet unfulfilled prophecies in Ezekiel can also be harmonized with the Book of Revelation, and this already puts the Revelation's fulfillment in the future
-At this point read Daniel and you'll find perfect matches with your already established future prophecy timeline
-Zechariah also describes many of the same events that support the harmonization
-Joel also can be harmonized with Revelation and Ezekiel

By the time you go through the Olivet Discourse with the above mentioned books also open, I believe you'll have no doubt that the only possible way to fit EVERYTHING together is to interpret the Olivet Discourse as a prophecy that will be fulfilled in the future (and not in AD70).

I'm not sure if you've read the previous posts, so allow me to insert a link to a website that shows the above described harmonization: www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/ (http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/)

May OUR Lord bless you,
Battyus

[Battyus]

Dear Joe,


Precisely sister Rose. I've read the Olivet Discourse about a thousand time (exaggeration actually :lol:) but not a single one has led me to believe that Jesus changed the main idea/topic from the Temple's destruction, to the rebirth of Israel. This idea is based on an external belief that God will one day regather Israel (supposedly in 1948), and restore the Kingdom to them, as though that were His purpose in the first place.
Please read my reply to Rose in the previous post, in which I explain why you don't see the justification and need of Israel's rebirth. I humbly ask you to read that post and then visit the site I referred to, where I believe there is enough evidence to prove the Biblical background of the promise and need of Israel's rebirth.



I don't think some understand the seriousness of what many Futurist's are proposing. By stating that Israel has to be reborn (or was reborn in 1948) suggests that Israel has been non-existent between the first century, until 1948; almost 2000 years of "NO ISRAEL". What does this mean? It means to the Futurist's Israel and the Church are two separate things.
I think you've nailed it. :) I could not have explained it better.

"NO ISRAEL" means that Israel haven't existed as a country since AD70 up until 1948.
Clark Clifford writes in the "Counsel to the President: A Memoir", 1991, P 20:
"On May 14, 1948, the day before the end of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel; it was not until this day that the world knew that the new state would be called Israel."

Does it mean that there were absolutely no Jewish people living in the land of Israel between AD70 and 1948? No. I'm sure that there were descendants of all 12 tribes living in that land, but Israel as a sovereign entity have not existed.



How can they justify this? If the "NATURAL" branches were Israel, and the Gentile branches were grafted in, then that must mean that Israel never stopped existing. Yet they treat Israel as a cut-off nation for more than 2000 years (until 1948), and the Church as if it's solely Gentile. That idea is easily proven false because this presumes a non-biblical opinion that the Church is entirely Gentile, and that Israel was never part of the Church.
Joe, here you assume statements that I would never make.

I say that "Israel as a sovereign entity have not existed", there was simply not a country that was called Israel.

This of course DOES NOT mean that the chosen nation was annihilated. They were dispersed to many countries and they regathered to their promised land after the State of Israel was reborn in 1948.

Please read Romans 11:11-24 to understand the "grafted in" expression. Even the Jewish people could be "grafted back in" as verse 23-24 says, so of course nobody is implying that the non existence of the country of Israel means that the chosen nation did not exist for ~2000 years.

I would also never say that the Church is(has been) solely Gentile. I'm sure that many Jewish person was saved right from Pentecost (about 3000 of them) and many more during the following centuries.

From about the 13th century you even have some Hebrew translations of the New Testament which I'm sure lead to even more Jewish (Hebrew speaking) people's salvation.



1. Jesus said, "For salvation is of the Jews" - This means that Israel and the Church are one and the same
Once you read Romans 11:11-24 you'll see that they are separate.


2. Paul said, "A Jew is a Jew inwardly, and NOT outwardly" - This means that Israel and the Church are the same

3. Paul said, "circumcision (practiced religiously by Jews) means nothing; what matters is a new creation - This means that Israel and the Church are the same.
These mean that I'm as a non Jewish origin person (a gentile) can count myself into the chosen nation, because of the "circumcision of my heart" (read the full verse). I believe that if the Church and Israel would be the same, then Paul would not have to talk about the differences of the two, would he?



4. Jesus said, "A time is coming, and NOW IS, when you shall neither travel to this mountain or abroad to worship God; God is Spirit, and He seeks for those who worship in SPIRIT and in TRUTH - This means that Israel and the Church "worship" as one and the same, in Spirit and in Truth.
If Israel and the Church would not be separate then you would not even have to ask your question. Since you've asked it, it means they are separate.

Of course they can be justified before God only through Christ, so in that sense they are one, but in that sense all 6 billion of us are the same, yet we still distinguish ourself in many other ways. (sadly)



I could go on and on. The Futurist's seem to ignore the Biblical facts. They read the old testament and fail to realize that Israel is all about the Messiah, Jesus was born from the blood-line of David.
Again, Joe you assume something that I would never say. As Jesus explained in Luk 24:27 all the Old Testament is about Him.


God promised David that his throne would not be without a true King. And Jesus is the King, born from the lineage of David. Peter insists that God set Jesus upon His righteous throne (Davids Throne) to rule forever and ever. This can only mean that Jesus is not ruling a Gentile Church as King (or head), but as the King of all Israel. And the Church is Israel, or else Jesus is not a King. And if not a king, then who's ruling the Church? Actually, who's ruling the Gentile Church?
Good point, you bring up here! See, when Jesus WILL START His Earthly Kingdom, there will be no more separate "Church" and "Israel". By that time the "Church" will be raptured (including the saved Israelites) and they will reign with Christ over the people who survived the Tribulation as believers.



Conclusion? Those who separate the Church and Israel are not stating Biblical fact, but humanistic opinion, as though God deals with man on the basis of race, skin color, blood type, and circumcision.

So, we can now answer the question. Was Israel reborn in 1948? Absolutely not! Israel was reborn in the first century, when the wild branches were grafted in with the natural branches. The end result is what has transpired for more than 2000 years in Church History. God's kingdom would no longer be racially divided, but spiritually divided (good and bad).

I feel I've presented a fair post. But as usual, I'm certain it will go in one ear, and out the other. :lol:

God bless.

Joe
Your post was fair indeed, but not one that I would agree with. I anyways thank you for your thoughts as they made me spend a little more time with God. I wish you the same in regards of my thoughts!

Blessings,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Rose,

You are right that the Olivet Discourse in itself does not suggest a destroyed Israel that needs rebuilding.

BUT if you harmonize the Olivet Discourse with other books of the Bible especially with Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel then you can not miss the relationship between their contents. And if you do your study in the context of these books together and not just in the context of the Olivet Discourse alone, then you will see the justification and need of Israel's rebirth.

Let me summarize in a nutshell:
-The Olivet Discourse in its entirety can easily be harmonized with the Book of Revelation
-Ezekiel has many chapters filled with prophecies that historically have not happened yet. (See Ezekiel 37-48)
-The yet unfulfilled prophecies in Ezekiel can also be harmonized with the Book of Revelation, and this already puts the Revelation's fulfillment in the future
-At this point read Daniel and you'll find perfect matches with your already established future prophecy timeline
-Zechariah also describes many of the same events that support the harmonization
-Joel also can be harmonized with Revelation and Ezekiel

By the time you go through the Olivet Discourse with the above mentioned books also open, I believe you'll have no doubt that the only possible way to fit EVERYTHING together is to interpret the Olivet Discourse as a prophecy that will be fulfilled in the future (and not in AD70).

I'm not sure if you've read the previous posts, so allow me to insert a link to a website that shows the above described harmonization: www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/ (http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/)

May OUR Lord bless you,
Battyus
Hey there Battyus! :yo:

Before I comment on your post, I want to say how wonderful it is that you are so clear about our unity as Christians when you gave Rose a blessing in the name of OUR Lord. That gives me great hope that our conversation will be fruitful and full of grace and mutual respect. Thanks!

:signthankspin:

Now it is interesting that you and I have a very similar understanding that we must "harmonize the Olivet Discourse with other books of the Bible especially with Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel." I usually refer to this as the integrated prophetic complex of the Bible. It is precisely this integration that proves the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century.

Before digging into the endless mountain of details of all the prophecies in all the books of the Bible, I think we should deal with your conclusion that the Olivet Discourse was not fulfilled in 70 AD. Your conclusion appears to directly contradict the plain and explicit teaching of Scripture. The Bible declares:
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Jesus was talking about the first century Temple. He said it would be destroyed. The disciples asked "when" the first century Temple would be destroyed. Christ said "this generation shall not pass till all these things are fulfilled." History confirms Christ's prophecy - the Temple was indeed destroyed in the first century.

So my question to you is very simple. Do you deny that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the first century temple? If not, then how can you say that he was talking about things that would happen 2000 years after that Temple was destoyed?

There is much more to say, but this point must be addressed first. You believe the Olivet Discourse was not fulfilled in the first century, yet Christ declared that the first century Temple would be destroyed and history confirms this prophecy to have been fulfilled.

Many blessings in Christ, OUR Lord!

Richard

[Rose]

Dear Rose,


You are right that the Olivet Discourse in itself does not suggest a destroyed Israel that needs rebuilding.

BUT if you harmonize the Olivet Discourse with other books of the Bible especially with Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel then you can not miss the relationship between their contents. And if you do your study in the context of these books together and not just in the context of the Olivet Discourse alone, then you will see the justification and need of Israel's rebirth.

Let me summarize in a nutshell:
-The Olivet Discourse in its entirety can easily be harmonized with the Book of Revelation
-Ezekiel has many chapters filled with prophecies that historically have not happened yet. (See Ezekiel 37-48)
-The yet unfulfilled prophecies in Ezekiel can also be harmonized with the Book of Revelation, and this already puts the Revelation's fulfillment in the future
-At this point read Daniel and you'll find perfect matches with your already established future prophecy timeline
-Zechariah also describes many of the same events that support the harmonization
-Joel also can be harmonized with Revelation and Ezekiel

By the time you go through the Olivet Discourse with the above mentioned books also open, I believe you'll have no doubt that the only possible way to fit EVERYTHING together is to interpret the Olivet Discourse as a prophecy that will be fulfilled in the future (and not in AD70).

I'm not sure if you've read the previous posts, so allow me to insert a link to a website that shows the above described harmonization: www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/ (http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/)

May OUR Lord bless you,
Battyus

Hi Battyus,

First off I would like to welcome you to our Forum...:welcome: It's always a joy to have good folk to discuss God's Word with.

The main point I would like to address is that of altering the meaning of a text by inserting an idea. I feel there is never justification for that no matter how you feel it harmonizes other passages.

There are so many different viewpoints that people hold, the Bible would lose its integrity if everyone at will chose to insert their own ideas to harmonize their interpretations.

As for me, I see a wonderful integration of all the books you mentioned, harmonizing beautifully into a complete picture: beginning with the birth of our Messiah, and ending with the presence of His power being manifest in judgment on Jerusalem.

Many blessing to you my friend,

Rose

[CWH]

Hummm .... that seems like a very large and broad set of verses that we are not supposed to "take at face value." Are you saying that you disagree with the futurist doctrine that states we must take the Bible "literally" whenever possible?

Is there anything in the Bible that suggests that Christ was talking about the coming of "Christianity" as opposed to His Coming? It seems that there are many verses that won't make any sense if we replace the coming of Christ with the coming of Christianity. Did not Christianity "come" at Pentecost? Was not Christianity already here at the time that Peter, Paul, James and John wrote about the coming of Christ? Why then should we think they were talking about the coming of Christianity?

Now in answer to your specific questions:

Who or what is coming in the 1st century?
Christ came, died, resurrected, and ascended to His Throne in Heaven. This was confirmed when He fulfilled His prophecies in His Coming in Judgment against apostate Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Who or what is at the door?
James 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

See that? James said it was the JUDGE, Jesus Christ, standing at the door, for the "coming of the Lord draweth nigh." This is a very helpful verse because it combines both the nearness of the coming of the Lord with the statement that He was the JUDGE standing at the door.

Who or what is at hand?
Christ said the TIME was "at hand." (Rev 1.:3)
Paul said the DAY was "at hand" (Rom 13:12)
Paul said the LORD was "at hand" (Phil 4:5)
Paul said the DAY OF THE LORD" was "at hand" (2Thess 2:2)
Peter said the END OF ALL THINGS was "at hand" (1Pet 4:7)

Is there anything in these verses that suggest they were talking about the "coming of Christianity" was "at hand"?

Who or what is at the last hour? It was the Church; it was Christianity. Jesus Christ being the head of the Church, the founder of Christianity was bringing this Church and Christianity into this world and it started from AD 70 when the Jews and Christians were dispersed into Europe and other parts of the world thus launching and spreading the Good News, the Church and Christianity.

Why do you say it started in 70 AD? The Church was established at Pentecost.

And perhaps the biggest question - are you saying that all the Christians who believe those verses are talking about the "second coming of Christ" are wrong? Are you saying you do not believe in the "second coming" at all? If you translate all the "coming" passages to the "coming of Christianity" what happens to the doctrine of the "second coming?"

There is much to discuss.

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

Hi RAM,

You see the wrong futurist in me. I am not a full futurist. I believe some futurist may be right and some are obviously wrong in their interpretations of the scriptures. I am a "preterist-futurist". I believe in some of the symbols used by preterists, I also believe that there are some indications that the destruction of the Temple of AD 70 was mentioned in Matthew 24. At the same time. I also believe that Matthew 24 also mentioned of the end of creation.

What I meant by the Who (Jesus) and What(Christianity); Who or what is at the door, who or what is at hand, who or what is coming soon, is that Jesus never came in AD 70. Now if Jesus came in AD 70, historian such as Josephus would have recorded it, ECF would have mentioned it, His apostles would have written about it, the whole world would have seen it. So if the Who(Jesus) did not come then the What(Christianity) must have came. And we knew from history that the What(Christianity) came in the 1st century. Such a big event as the second coming of Jesus, and such low profile doesn't make any sense to me. Why would Jesus came spiritually when He always appeared to his apostles after the resurrection in His physical form or as a sign? So far, no one in this forum is able to answer me.

There is also a possibility that at hand, soon, at the door, last hour etc. is based on God's time which a day to the Lord is but a thousand years (I know you will respond with your reverse interpretation of a thousand years is but one day).

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. He is not talking about Himself but of what He taught. What Jesus meant is He represents Christianity and who ever believes and follows him who taught about the Christian Way, Christian Truth and Christian Life will have eternal life. Therefore, when Jesus said He "is coming soon", He may mean that Christianity is coming soon... at the door during the 1st century.

I believe this is the plan of God. Christianity was launched in the 1st century and by 2,000 years or so later, Jesus is coming back to gather the results of what Christianity which He had launched have achieved.

Of course, I believe in the second coming of Jesus and I do sincerely hope you would follow also. But I do not at this moment have full hope as Joe have said, "But as usual, I'm certain it will go in one ear, and out the other".

Many Blessings.

[CWH]

Hey there my friend, :anim_32:

In my first post to you on this topic, I acknowledged that the fig tree is used in some contexts in Scripture as a symbol of Israel. So we agree up to that point.

The disagreement comes from the assertion that "putting forth of leaves" means "Israel restored as a nation." That's not what Jesus said, and it's nowhere in the text of the Bible. We all agree that Jesus used the fig tree, and all the trees, as a symbol that means something. And what does that symbol mean? Christ defined the meaning for us:

Jesus said that a tree "putting forth leaves" MEANS "summer is nigh."

But you say that a tree "putting forth leaves" MEANS "the nation represented by the tree is restored as a nation"

See that? You have introduced an idea that is not in the text. Basically, you said that the appearance of leaves was itself another sign in addition to the signs Christ already had prophesied. But that's not what He said. Christ said that the appearance of the signs are like the appearance of leaves that indicate the time/season is near. The appearance of the signs are not themselves another "sign."

And what does "summer" represent? It is the season of harvest. Christ identified it as the time when "all these things shall be fulfilled." Therefore, the meaning of the parable seems clear:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh [everyone knows that this is true, as stated. It needs no further explanation]: 33 So likewise [Christ tells us to use the same common sense knowledge as with trees and seasons] ye, when ye shall see all these things [the signs prophesied in previous verses], know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

There is a perfect parallel between "appearance of leaves = summer is near" and "appearance of signs = the time of the end is near."

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

Hi RAM,

Let's look at the BIble definition of budding and blossoming i.e. "branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves". Budding seems to mean growth or development in stature, power, status:

Genesis 40:9 So the chief cupbearer told Joseph his dream. He said to him, "In my dream I saw a vine in front of me, 10 and on the vine were three branches. As soon as it budded, it blossomed, and its clusters ripened into grapes. 11 Pharaoh's cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes, squeezed them into Pharaoh's cup and put the cup in his hand."
*12 "This is what it means," Joseph said to him. "The three branches are three days. 13 Within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your position, and you will put Pharaoh's cup in his hand, just as you used to do when you were his cupbearer. 14 But when all goes well with you, remember me and show me kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison. 15 For I was forcibly carried off from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing to deserve being put in a dungeon."

Numbers 17:*1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and get twelve staffs from them, one from the leader of each of their ancestral tribes. Write the name of each man on his staff. 3 On the staff of Levi write Aaron's name, for there must be one staff for the head of each ancestral tribe. 4 Place them in the Tent of Meeting in front of the Testimony, where I meet with you. 5 The staff belonging to the man I choose will sprout, and I will rid myself of this constant grumbling against you by the Israelites."......8 The next day Moses entered the Tent of the Testimony and saw that Aaron's staff, which represented the house of Levi, had not only sprouted but had budded, blossomed and produced almonds. 9 Then Moses brought out all the staffs from the LORD's presence to all the Israelites. They looked at them, and each man took his own staff.
*10 The LORD said to Moses, "Put back Aaron's staff in front of the Testimony, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so that they will not die." 11 Moses did just as the LORD commanded him.


Isaiah 55:10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Isaiah 27:6 In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit.

*Ezekiel 7:10 "The day is here! It has come! Doom has burst forth, the rod has budded, arrogance has blossomed! 11 Violence has grown into [b] a rod to punish wickedness; none of the people will be left, none of that crowd—no wealth, nothing of value.

So in Matthew 24 :32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; (means learn of Israel). When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, (When Israel is budding and blossoming in growth of status, nationhood etc.)ye know that summer is nigh (everyone will know that the harvest of the elect is near). 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things (the signs that Israel is budding and blossoming i.e. growing as a nation), know that it is near, even at the doors (know that the end of creation is near). 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation (those born during Israel's independence) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

So in Matthew 24 :32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; (means learn of Israel). When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, (When Israel is budding and blossoming in growth of status, nationhood etc.)ye know that summer is nigh (everyone will know that the harvest of the elect is near). 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things (the signs that Israel is budding and blossoming i.e. growing as a nation), know that it is near, even at the doors (know that the end of creation is near). 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation (those born during Israel's independence) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Many Blessings.

Hi Cheow,

It's one thing to interpret the fig tree as Israel without violating the meaning of the parable, but to change the signs that Jesus had just spoken to be those things leading up to the Temples destruction (famines, wars, false christs, persecutions..ect.) to that of Israel's budding out is totally unjustified.

When Jesus was speaking the Temple was standing before Him, and Jerusalem was a thriving city....all of His words were about the signs leading up to its destruction, not its budding out!

God Bless,

Rose

[CWH]

Hi Cheow,

It's one thing to interpret the fig tree as Israel without violating the meaning of the parable, but to change the signs that Jesus had just spoken to be those things leading up to the Temples destruction (famines, wars, false christs, persecutions..ect.) to that of Israel's budding out is totally unjustified.

When Jesus was speaking the Temple was standing before Him, and Jerusalem was a thriving city....all of His words were about the signs leading up to its destruction, not its budding out!

God Bless,

Rose

Hi Rose,

Is Israel budding today? Look at its economy, look at its cities, look at its military, look at its infrastructure....it is certainly budding and blossoming. Compare the current Israel with the Israel 1,900 years ago, it was a low profile area then, occupied by various nations such as The Roman Empire, the Muslims, the Crusaders, The Ottomans, the British etc, It was never a nation for over 1,900 years. Only in 1948, then Israel managed to claim its independence. Even then till now the Arab League did not recognized Israel's independence and was eager to wipe Israel out of the face of the earth the moment it gained its independence. But God forbid and every attempt to do so to wipe out Israel by the Arab League always ended in defeat. Is God with Israel? YES! But I believe one day, Israel will succumb and be trampled under feet by its enemies and then God will come back again to rescue Israel. Talking about history, God is the master planner of history... He knows the beginning and end of every country.... the Alpha and the Omega.

Sounds far-fetched to you? Well, you are entitled to your belief as I am entitled to mine.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So in Matthew 24 :32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; (means learn of Israel). When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, (When Israel is budding and blossoming in growth of status, nationhood etc.)ye know that summer is nigh (everyone will know that the harvest of the elect is near). 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things (the signs that Israel is budding and blossoming i.e. growing as a nation), know that it is near, even at the doors (know that the end of creation is near). 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation (those born during Israel's independence) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Many Blessings.
Hey there my friend, :yo:

Do you realize that you are saying that the phrase "all these things" in the parable of the fig tree does NOT refer to "all these things" that Jesus spoke just before introducing that parable?

Have you forgotten the question that Jesus was answering? Jesus said that the first century Temple would be destroyed and the disciples asked "Tell us when will all these things be?". Jesus went on to speak of all the things that would happen before the destruction, culminating in the parable of the fig tree:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things [Christ is now answering the original question!!!], know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled [Christ answers the original question again!!!].
Here we see that Christ has twice answered the original question in the parable of the fig tree. He doubled it to leave no doubt. Your interpretation ignores the context of the parable and how it relates to everything that was said in the immediate context.

If your interpretation is correct, then Jesus NEVER ANSWERED their question, and the parable of the fig tree has nothing to do with the rest of the Olivet Discourse and the entire chapter of Matthew 24 becomes utterly meaningless. It begins by asking a very specific question about when the Temple would be destroyed, but Christ then IGNORES that question and begins talking about Israel 2000 years AFTER the destruction that was never explained!

I hope you will work with me to clarify this issue.

Many blessings in Christ,

Richard

[CWH]

Hey there my friend, :yo:

Do you realize that you are saying that the phrase "all these things" in the parable of the fig tree does NOT refer to "all these things" that Jesus spoke just before introducing that parable?

Have you forgotten the question that Jesus was answering? Jesus said that the first century Temple would be destroyed and the disciples asked "Tell us when will all these things be?". Jesus went on to speak of all the things that would happen before the destruction, culminating in the parable of the fig tree:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things [Christ is now answering the original question!!!], know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled [Christ answers the original question again!!!].
Here we see that Christ has twice answered the original question in the parable of the fig tree. He doubled it to leave no doubt. Your interpretation ignores the context of the parable and how it relates to everything that was said in the immediate context.

If your interpretation is correct, then Jesus NEVER ANSWERED their question, and the parable of the fig tree has nothing to do with the rest of the Olivet Discourse and the entire chapter of Matthew 24 becomes utterly meaningless. It begins by asking a very specific question about when the Temple would be destroyed, but Christ then IGNORES that question and begins talking about Israel 2000 years AFTER the destruction that was never explained!

I hope you will work with me to clarify this issue.

Many blessings in Christ,

Richard

Hi RAM, :yo:

I am not trying to be disrespectful of preterist's belief. But based on my belief, Jesus was asked about 3 things.... When will the Temple be destroyed? What is the sign of His coming and When will be the end of creation.

Looking at the flow of thoughts, the signs of His coming comes before the parables of the fig tree i.e. Israel:

Matthew 24:29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]

Here He was talking about the signs of His coming before the end of creation. I don't think He was talking about the signs of is coming at the destruction of the Temple because there is no historical record of such things during the destruction of the Temple.

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Here He was talking of the signs of His coming at the end of creation and not about His coming in AD 70 during the destruction of the Temple because there is no such historical record.

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Here then He gave a hint of when to expect the signs of His coming.... the parable of the fig tree i.e. when Israel gained its independence. These things refers to the signs of His coming i.e. the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light.........the Sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky...

This is based on my own understandings. If you have your own different understandings, it's fine with me. :)

Many Blessings.

[Battyus]

Dear Richard,



So my question to you is very simple. Do you deny that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the first century temple? If not, then how can you say that he was talking about things that would happen 2000 years after that Temple was destoyed?

There is much more to say, but this point must be addressed first. You believe the Olivet Discourse was not fulfilled in the first century, yet Christ declared that the first century Temple would be destroyed and history confirms this prophecy to have been fulfilled.

I've just realized something. We're all guilty of the very thing you and me wanted to avoid: taking verses out of the Olivet Discourse and using them to explain/protect our understandings without taking all the other corresponding verses into consideration.

I've done the harmonization in order to avoid this very thing! I assume you've had the same core reason creating your study.

I have a proposal: Let's go through the Olivet Discourse verse by verse and let's bring in the corresponding verses, just as you did on your study page and just as I did on my website.

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

How does this sound to you?

Indeed, I liked the "OUR Lord" expression too!
So may He bless you Brother!
Battyus

[TheForgiven]

Greetings brother Cheow. I hope you don't mind me responding to your comments towards brother Ram. I'd like to reply to some of your comments if that's ok.


Hi RAM,

I am not trying to be disrespectful of preterist's belief. But based on my belief, Jesus was asked about 3 things.... When will the Temple be destroyed? What is the sign of His coming and When will be the end of creation.

How do you know that the 3rd question involved the destruction of the world? The Greek text is "age" not "world". Furthermore, there's no indication that the Apostles were asking when Christ would come to "end the world", especially when Luke and Mark never included that question in their discourse. Yet they recorded the answers. So can you prove that the mindset of the Apostles was on the "end of the world"? The main idea/topic involved the temple, not the world.


Looking at the flow of thoughts, the signs of His coming comes before the parables of the fig tree i.e. Israel:

Matthew 24:29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]

Now be careful. When does the theory of "the end of the world" take place? "Immediately" after the distress (Tribulation) of those days. So then, when did the Tribulation happen? The answer is in the text. The Tribulation involved the wrath upon "this people"; that is, the first century Jews. THEN they would be carried away captive. Therefore, would you now suggest that the captivity is yet to come?

Luke 21:

20 'But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 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.

25 'And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.'

Your time flow doesn't match brother Cheow. Futurist believe that their captivity started in 70AD, and ended in 1948. Huh, but this doesn't match the text. Jesus Himself stated (according to Luke) that the Tribulation would lead to the sign of His coming in the sky; an event Futurist's claim has not yet happened..at least not according to their expectation.

In short, the Tribulation, the signs of the end, and of the Son of Man are all part of the same event. THAT is why some Futurist believe that Jesus wasn't referring to the Tribulation in 70AD, but yet to come.

Sorry brother, but this theory cannot, and will not work....with all due respect.


Here He was talking about the signs of His coming before the end of creation. I don't think He was talking about the signs of is coming at the destruction of the Temple because there is no historical record of such things during the destruction of the Temple.

Correction my brother. There's not historical proof according to the Futurist expectation. That's because what they expect is not necessarily what was to happen....much like John the Baptist. Elijah never came, according to the Jews, so that was one strong reason to reject Christ as the Messiah; the one who was to come and save His people.


30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Here He was talking of the signs of His coming at the end of creation and not about His coming in AD 70 during the destruction of the Temple because there is no such historical record.

Where does it say, "End of creation/world?"


32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Here then He gave a hint of when to expect the signs of His coming.... the parable of the fig tree i.e. when Israel gained its independence. These things refers to the signs of His coming i.e. the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light.........the Sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky...

This is based on my own understandings. If you have your own different understandings, it's fine with me.

Many Blessings.

I'm sorry bro, but that is not scriptural. The text does not say that Israel would be reborn. To suggest this violates any form of paragraphing and structure.

What is the main idea of Matthew 24? The destruction of the temple they loved. The Parable of the Fig Tree is a supporting detail of the Main Idea/Topic. It makes no sense to assume that Jesus was explaining to them the signs of the pending Tribulation, destruction of the temple, and the end of the world, especially when "world" is not even an accurate translation; nearly all Bible Scholars admit this. Only the 1611 King James Bible uses the word "world", when the correct translation is "age".

I respect your comments, but I hope you understand that the time-lines you've proposed cannot work.

Read closer, and try to stay within Context.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi RAM, :yo:

I am not trying to be disrespectful of preterist's belief. But based on my belief, Jesus was asked about 3 things.... When will the Temple be destroyed? What is the sign of His coming and When will be the end of creation.

Hi Cheow,

I never get a sense of "disrespect" from you in any way. We are just discussing what the Bible means to us, and if those meanings can be justified by what the Bible really says. I trust the same is true for you ... I would never purposely say anything disrespectful to you. You are a wonderful friend and brother in the Lord, and we are blessed that you are here to share with us. :highfive:




Looking at the flow of thoughts, the signs of His coming comes before the parables of the fig tree i.e. Israel:

Matthew 24:29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]

Here He was talking about the signs of His coming before the end of creation. I don't think He was talking about the signs of is coming at the destruction of the Temple because there is no historical record of such things during the destruction of the Temple.

Are you really saying that you think those figurative words are LITERAL???? We've gone over this many times. In the OT God used language like that when He destroyed Babylon.
Isaiah 13:1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. 2 Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles. ... 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
I am very confused. You recently said that all those time statements like "soon" and "for the time is at hand" etc. "must not be taken at face value" but you insist that these obviously figurative words must be literal??? This is very confusing. It seems totally inconsistent.

A simple and direct reading of those words in light of the rest of the Bible makes it perfectly clear that Christ was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem using the same figures of speech used in reference to the destruction of Babylon in the OT.




30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Here He was talking of the signs of His coming at the end of creation and not about His coming in AD 70 during the destruction of the Temple because there is no such historical record.

So you are saying that Christ never answered the question "When will these things be" that the disciples asked at the beginning of the discourse?

That seems really strange, especially since Christ pretended to answer the question in the parable of the fig tree:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
If those words are not an answer to the question asked in vs. 3, then the Bible is absolutely incoherent and utterly meaningless.




This is based on my own understandings. If you have your own different understandings, it's fine with me. :)

Many Blessings.
I agree completely that is it fine if we have your own different understandings. But I also believe that we both have a lot to benefit by testing our understandings in light of Scripture.

Many blessings in Christ,

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I found two great aritcles for your reading.

Daniel's seventy weeks:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/The_Anti-Rapture_Page/70week.htm

Matthew 24:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/The_Anti-Rapture_Page/matt24.htm

You will find that many of the early church fathers believed in the Preterist position of Matthew 24. Only Iranaeus, Papias, and a few others believed it was in the near future of "their" time; not ours.

So that makes both wrong; them and those of today. If Iranaeus was wrong about Matthew 24 being fulfilled soon after his time, how much more of those today who hold to his teachings? Because the Futurist rely heavily upon Iranaeus, and his followers, yet even their predictions were wrong.

Iranaeus claimed that the AC would come from Dan. Yet the Futurist's insist he will come from Spain (Jack Vanimpie).

Iranaeus claimed that the 666 figure would possibly be Latin, since it was "ROME" who was in charge.

Papais thought that Christ would return to increase the fruits of his literal garden (grapes) so they could fulfill the prophesy and drink "wine" when He returns.

I hope you take the time to read the articles I've posted.

Oh, and sister Rose, you may (or may not) like the article on Daniel's weeks.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Richard,

I've just realized something. We're all guilty of the very thing you and me wanted to avoid: taking verses out of the Olivet Discourse and using them to explain/protect our understandings without taking all the other corresponding verses into consideration.

I've done the harmonization in order to avoid this very thing! I assume you've had the same core reason creating your study.

I have a proposal: Let's go through the Olivet Discourse verse by verse and let's bring in the corresponding verses, just as you did on your study page and just as I did on my website.

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

How does this sound to you?

Indeed, I liked the "OUR Lord" expression too!
So may He bless you Brother!
Battyus
Battyus, my true friend! :hug:

I LOVE your proposal! It is precisely in the format required to really come to a resolution on these questions. I will start a thread for this topic. It will be just between you and me so we can have a discussion without interruption and can focus on answering each others' points. Folks can use this thread to comment on our discussion if they so desire. I'll let you know when it is set up.

I think your suggestion that we set aside questionable verses until the end is a good idea. I trust we will enter into this discussion with the mutual desire to establish what the Bible really teaches on these matters. We will not be "debating" so much as working together to articulate the truth of Scripture. I also have a suggestion that I would like you to consider. I call it The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics (http://biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.asp). I would like to suggest that we agree to this methodology. Here is how I state it:
The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics

Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:


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

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.
Many blessings to you, my new friend!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The new thread for my one-on-one discussion with Battyus is set up here:

Battyus and Richard discuss the Olivet Discourse (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1435)

That thread is restricted to Battyus and myself. Everyone else is encouraged to comment on our discussion here in this thread.

Richard

[Rose]

I found two great aritcles for your reading.

Daniel's seventy weeks:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/The_Anti-Rapture_Page/70week.htm

Matthew 24:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/The_Anti-Rapture_Page/matt24.htm

You will find that many of the early church fathers believed in the Preterist position of Matthew 24. Only Iranaeus, Papias, and a few others believed it was in the near future of "their" time; not ours.

So that makes both wrong; them and those of today. If Iranaeus was wrong about Matthew 24 being fulfilled soon after his time, how much more of those today who hold to his teachings? Because the Futurist rely heavily upon Iranaeus, and his followers, yet even their predictions were wrong.

Iranaeus claimed that the AC would come from Dan. Yet the Futurist's insist he will come from Spain (Jack Vanimpie).

Iranaeus claimed that the 666 figure would possibly be Latin, since it was "ROME" who was in charge.

Papais thought that Christ would return to increase the fruits of his literal garden (grapes) so they could fulfill the prophesy and drink "wine" when He returns.

I hope you take the time to read the articles I've posted.

Oh, and sister Rose, you may (or may not) like the article on Daniel's weeks.

Joe

Hey Joe,

I read the article....it was good.

As you well know, I too believe the 70th seven was fulfilled in the first century, only my time frame covers the whole picture from the birth of Messiah to His coming in power, which as you know I feel is very important.

Jesus did fulfill all 7 decrees, but those decrees also encompassed and filled out a larger picture (inclusive of the Jews and the Temple) continuing until the destruction of the Temple. In both viewpoints (his, yours and mine) the cutting off of Messiah does fall in the midst of the last seven (on the one hand its in the middle of 7 years, and on the other hand it's approx. AD 35 which is between the birth of Christ and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70), both ways fall in the midst.

The way I see it - whichever way the picture is presented no structural integrity is lost, and no major conflicts arise - my view just covers a little more ground before and after (no gaps), so as to complete and fulfill the whole picture (as the symbolic image of 70 x 7 represents).

God Bless,

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi RAM,

Is the fig tree not Israel? See for yourself:

The word "fig" is mentioned in the Scriptures sixty-four times. THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD-Jere 24:5. We see the word "figs," being used to represent the Jews that are carried away.

THE LORD SHOWED ME, AND, BEHOLD, TWO BASKETS OF FIGS...ONE BASKET HAD VERY GOOD FIGS, EVEN LIKE THE FIGS THAT ARE FIRST RIPE: AND THE OTHER BASKET HAD VERY NAUGHTY FIGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE EATEN, THEY WERE SO BAD. THEN SAID THE LORD UNTO ME, WHAT SEEST THOU, JEREMIAH? AND I SAID, FIGS; THE GOOD FIGS, VERY GOOD; AND THE EVIL, VERY EVIL, THAT CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL. AGAIN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME, SAYING, THUS SAITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL; LIKE THESE GOOD FIGS, SO WILL I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM THAT ARE CARRIED AWAY CAPTIVE OF JUDAH, WHOM I HAVE SENT OUT OF THIS PLACE INTO THE LAND OF THE CHALDEANS FOR THEIR GOOD. FOR I WILL SET MINE EYES UPON THEM FOR GOOD, AND I WILL BRING THEM AGAIN TO THIS LAND: AND I WILL BUILD THEM, AND NOT PULL THEM DOWN; AND I WILL PLANT THEM, AND NOT PLUCK THEM UP. AND I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW ME, THAT I AM THE LORD: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD: FOR THEY SHALL RETURN UNTO ME WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART. AND AS THE EVIL FIGS, WHICH CANNOT BE EATEN, THEY ARE SO EVIL-Jere 24:1-8. The word "figs" is used here eight times denoting the Jews.

NOW IN THE MORNING AS HE RETURNED INTO THE CITY, HE HUNGERED. AND WHEN HE SAW A FIG TREE IN THE WAY, HE CAME TO IT, AND FOUND NOTHING THEREON, BUT LEAVES ONLY, AND SAID UNTO IT, LET NO FRUIT GROW ON THEE HENCEFORWARD FOR EVER. AND PRESENTLY THE FIG TREE WITHERED AWAY-Mt 21:18,19; ref Mk 11:12-14,20,21. The fig tree withered away, as it was producing no fruit. It may be noted that the word "fig" here represents Israel, and the word "tree" represents nation.

The nation of Israel did wither and was destroyed. Nevertheless, the nation of Israel was reborn and will fulfill God’s mission during the Tribulation.


I appreciate the study Cheow:

Something to point out is that Jeremiahs prophecy was written about the Babylonian Captivity when many of the jews were scattered throughout the land of the Chaldese. Both good and bad figs left the land during the Curse of the law of Moses (Deut 29) and the Babylonian siege and captivity. According to verses 8-10 many of the 'bad figs' died to the swords of the other nations. It was from wherever they were after that captivity that they would be drawn back to the land.

Now read what Moses prophesied about in Deut 30.. Daniel confirms that the Babylonian captivity is the curse of the law of Moses written in Deut 29.


1And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations,

2And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;

3That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

4If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:

5And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

6And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

7And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. (see Isaiah 13)

8And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.
Daniel confirms that the Babylonian captivity is the curse of the law of Moses written in Deut 29.
Daniels and Nehemiah prayers were the confession and remembrance of these parts of the law necessary to enact the return promised in Deut 30. Now read Daniels prayer in chapter 9:


1In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

2In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

3And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

4And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

5We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments:

6Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

7O LORD, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.

8O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.

9To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;

10Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.

11Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

12And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.

13As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.

14Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.

15And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.

16O LORD, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.

17Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake.

18O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.

19O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.


Now read Nehemiah 1:


1The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace,

2That Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem.

3And they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire.

4And it came to pass, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven,

5And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:

6Let thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before thee now, day and night, for the children of Israel thy servants, and confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have sinned against thee: both I and my father's house have sinned.

7We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandedst thy servant Moses.

8Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations:

9But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there.

10Now these are thy servants and thy people, whom thou hast redeemed by thy great power, and by thy strong hand.

11O LORD, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to the prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who desire to fear thy name: and prosper, I pray thee, thy servant this day, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man. For I was the king's cupbearer.



The figs of judah (both good and evil) returned from the land of the Chaldese when the Medes conquered Babylon.

Both israel and judah returned to the land between the babylonian captivity in preparation for the Messiah and installation of the new covenant and ending of the mosaic covenant.

Note that in Jeremiah they are called 'figs'; not fig tree. But I admit that there is an association between judah and a fig tree.

After the return from captivity, they were to love him with their hearts for his provisions, but soon some would turn away again which would bring upon theme the final generation of the mosaic covenant and the end of it's administration and the nation that if formed. That's Deut 32.




See my post which I have discussed with Carrie a few months ago:

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Now, what does "fig tree" means? what does "twigs get tender and leaves come out" means? what does "summer is near" means? If you can understand what it means then, you will understand what "this generation" was He talking about.

What it means in my own interpretation is this:
Now learn this, when you see Israel (fig tree) got its independence (twigs get tender and leaves come out) in May 14, 1948, you will know that summer is near (summer in UK starts from May 15, and generally in the Northern hemisphere, summer starts in June). Truly, I tell you, this generation (those who was born during Israel's independence) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

In your final paragraph you leave out the portion of the passage which Richard explains; the pushing of the leaves was a sign that summer was just around the corner. So also when they saw the signs mentioned (all of which occured in the first century) they were to know that Jerusalems destruction was just around the corner. These were the signs that those in Judea were to look for to know the time of their escape.

Furthermore; since the one passage includes and all the trees; IF Jesus' use of the fig tree is intended by him to be a metaphor for the nation/people of Israel, then all the trees would be other nations of the Roman empire. Their pushing of their leaves may then have been their attempts to ascert themselves as independant nations. But again, Jesus' emphasis of 'this' generation not passing before 'all these things' involved the desolation of the temple that the disciples commented upon and their need to know the timing signs of his coming and how to prepare. It need not and can not go any further than the generation that was before him. I think they were likely well aware of Deut 32 and the end and 'latter end' of the Mosaic covenant. Constantly John the Baptist and Jesus pronounced woes to that generation even calling it as Sodom, or Babylon. See also Ezekiel 14.

Jesus had told them that they would hear of wars and rumors of wars. But the time when he told them this had been a time of Peace for almost 60 yrs. It would be another 40 yrs before the Empire would become unstable due to Nero's administration. Some of the nation-states would rise up in rebellion as did Judea. This, in my mind, would be a better parallel to an already established nation 'pushing it's leaves' along with the other trees /nations rather than a nation/state being formed.


Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD. Since it was established by Caesar Augustus it is sometimes called Pax Augusta. Its span was approximately 200 years (27 BC to 180 AD). ,Despite the term, the period was not without armed conflict,The greatest crisis was the Year of Four Emperors in AD 69, followed by a few rebellions (against Claudius, Domitian)
This was also parallel to Jesus saying; nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom; thus implying in my mind the civil wars. Thus, even if we insist or believe that Jesus intended his hearers to think that the fig tree was to represent the nation-state of Judea, the time of it's pushing it's leaves along with the other nation-states was during the several nation-states revolts of perhaps 67-69 and just before the armies led by Gaius Cassius or Titus commenced the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Blessings.

[Rose]

.
Jesus told His Disciples one thing: and that was the stones of the Temple were going to come down. In response to that statement the Disciples asked Jesus: when shall this be? Jesus proceeded to tell them other things that must first happen, but the End (stones of the temple coming down) was not yet. The only thing the End could be referring to was the Temples destruction, because that was the only prophecy that Jesus made.
.
Matt.24:1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end (telos) is not yet.


Jesus said:............................................. ................Disciples asked:

1.Stones of the Temple are coming down…………………......1a When will that happen?

2. Other things must first happen, but the End (telos) is not yet.

The End = Stones coming down
τελος telos {tel'-os} from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); TDNT - 8:49,1161; n n AV - end 35, custom 3, uttermost 1, finally 1, ending 1, by (one's) continual + 1519 1; 42 1) end 1a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of time) 1b) the end 1b1) the last in any succession or series 1b2) eternal 1c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue 1d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose 2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)
From the above presentation it seems clear that the only End Jesus could have been speaking of was the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which we know from history was destroyed in AD 70.


Rose

[Battyus]

Dear Rose,

I think the match is a lot stronger between the following two words:

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 (sunteleias) of the world?
...
6. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end (telos) is not yet.

This way, "The End" = "The End" and you don't have to interpret scripture. Let's scripture interpret itself!

συντελείας - sunteleias from a primary sunteleó: entire completion, i.e. Consummation (of a dispensation) -- end.



τελος telos {tel'-os} from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); TDNT - 8:49,1161; n n AV - end 35, custom 3, uttermost 1, finally 1, ending 1, by (one's) continual + 1519 1; 42 1) end 1a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of time) 1b) the end 1b1) the last in any succession or series 1b2) eternal 1c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue 1d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose 2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)




From the above presentation it seems clear that the only End Jesus could have been speaking of was the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which we know from history was destroyed in AD 70.
Rose
It seems to me, that this is rather your interpretation, then the full truth from scripture.

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

May you have a blessed day!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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

May you have a blessed day!
Battyus
Hey there Battyus,

I'm really enjoying our one on one conversation on the other thread. But I think it is important to clarify your statement. No one is saying that those two statements "mean the same thing." As pointed out in the other thread, they mean very different things! The point is that they happened at the same time, not that they "mean the same thing." For example, the destruction of the Temple is a very different thing than the scattering of the Jews, but both happened at the same time (70 AD). Likewise, that event marked the end (suntelia) of the Jewish age (aion) - Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews scattered - none of these are the "same thing" but they all happened at the same time and so the disciples asked questions relating to different aspects of that one event.

Many blessings in Christ,

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Greetings all. Hope everyone is doing well. Here's some news you haven't heard in a while, regarding my health. According to the tests I had done yesterday, this old man will be around with you all (God willing) a bit longer. :winking0071: The old heart is doing just fine. Well, perhaps not old heart, but a heart getting old. Apparently, my chest pain/leg pain problems were caused by the medication that was supposed to help me. Zocor, taken for high cholesterol, was the evil culprit causing damage to my nervous system, and muscles. Don't want to get into the details, but my cardiologists took me off that medication now for a little more than a month, and things are actually getting much better. After much research, apparently all Statin drugs are dangerously bad for you and can cause damage to the cerebrum, and the nerves within the muscles. There are other toxic side effects, but we know this isn't a health forum, but a spiritual forum. SO, on with the discussion.

The Futurist position invokes an external idea based on its own eschatology (from the text of Matthew 24) that the Apostles who questioned Jesus about the Temple's destruction, were asking Him three different questions.

Here's the obvious mistake often overlooked by many.

IF, and I stress "IF", the Apostles were asking Jesus to explain the signs of the temples destruction, AND the signs of the ages end, then there's a major problem here.

Assuming the Futurist's agree that the destruction of the temple happened in 70AD, then they have to explain how Matthew 24: 32-34 jumps thousands of years into the future from 70AD.

It appears that brothers Cheow and Battyus believe that the Apostles were asking Jesus what signs would there to indicate the pending doom of the temple, AND what signs there would be before Jesus would "RETURN", and finally what signs there would be that the world (or age) was about to end. This could only mean that they view Matthew 24 as recording answers to the same questions Luke and Mark asked, but in Matthew adds details about the "end of the world/age".

So, this is what a time span would look like based on their view, if I understand them correctly.

70AD (temples destruction) ------2000+ years-----1948 (generation who witnesses rebirth of Israel------signs of Christ's return------end of the age/world.

Is this right?

If so, then I'd recommend reading the context of Matthew 24 again. For why would the Apostles see any possible connection of the temple's destruction that's to happen in their generation, then change their focus of Christ's RETURN some 2000 years into the future. What I'm asking is this. What does the temple's destruction have to do with the end of the world? This isn't logical at all.

And finally, I'll ask another tough question to brothers Cheow and Battyus.

If the Apostles were asking Jesus when He would return, then this would presume the idea that they expected Him to leave. But did they? Of course not! They had no idea He was going to leave, so why would they be asking Him when He would return? Remember the final meal they shared, and Jesus explained to them that He would be betrayed, murdered, and killed? They were shocked in disbelief because their new found Messiah could not be killed. For how could He rule Israel, and set them free from Roman oppression, if He was going to be killed? Now they heard Him speak of being killed, and rising on the 3rd day days earlier, but they did not understand what He was talking about.

There's no indication that the Apostles were asking when He would return, if they had no idea He was even leaving. What, in fact, they were asking Him is when He was "COMING" to Israel and announce His kingship. I'm under the impression that they expected HIM to destroy the temple. And this thought matches perfectly with the context of the discussion.

The temple is prophesied to be destroyed. The Apostles, who just marveled at its beauty and appearance, asked Him, "How shall we know when this will happen, and what are the signs of your coming [to destroy the temple].

Remember Jesus challenged the false Jews, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it"? I'm certain the Apostles didn't know He was talking about His body.

Summary of questions:

1. How can Matthew 24 be divided into two time periods? 70AD and 2000+ years

2. How could the Apostles be asking Jesus when He would return, when they had no expectation of His departure?

Good luck brothers.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Greetings all. Hope everyone is doing well. Here's some news you haven't heard in a while, regarding my health. According to the tests I had done yesterday, this old man will be around with you all (God willing) a bit longer. :winking0071: The old heart is doing just fine. Well, perhaps not old heart, but a heart getting old. Apparently, my chest pain/leg pain problems were caused by the medication that was supposed to help me. Zocor, taken for high cholesterol, was the evil culprit causing damage to my nervous system, and muscles. Don't want to get into the details, but my cardiologists took me off that medication now for a little more than a month, and things are actually getting much better. After much research, apparently all Statin drugs are dangerously bad for you and can cause damage to the cerebrum, and the nerves within the muscles. There are other toxic side effects, but we know this isn't a health forum, but a spiritual forum. SO, on with the discussion.

Hey bro!

That's some good news!
:talk008:




The Futurist position invokes an external idea based on its own eschatology (from the text of Matthew 24) that the Apostles who questioned Jesus about the Temple's destruction, were asking Him three different questions.

Here's the obvious mistake often overlooked by many.

IF, and I stress "IF", the Apostles were asking Jesus to explain the signs of the temples destruction, AND the signs of the ages end, then there's a major problem here.

Assuming the Futurist's agree that the destruction of the temple happened in 70AD, then they have to explain how Matthew 24: 32-34 jumps thousands of years into the future from 70AD.

Yep - that's how it seems to me too. I see nothing in the text that would support that view. It is a preconceived idea imposed upon the text.

There is a perfect continuous flow in the text if we understand the "tree parable" as being what it obviously is - a simple example from nature that blooming trees function as a natural sign of the soon coming summer season. Christ used this parable to answer the original question of "what will be the sign when these things will be fulfilled." The "fig tree parable" is organically connected with everything that preceded it. To suggest that it is completely disconnected from its immediate context shreds Scripture into bits of confetti that can be arbitrarily arranged to create whatever mosaic comes into the imagination. This destroys both the meaning and the integrity of Scripture.

Many blessings to you, and thank God for your health!

Richard

[CWH]

Hi Joe,

Good to hear about your health. Every medicine has their side-effects. I pray for your full recovery. :pray:Amen.

In a nutshell, you said that what Jesus said applied to his contemporaries, it doesn't make sense to tell them about things 2,000 year later; they won't be interested. Is that right? In the same logic, Daniel foretell about the coming of the Roman Empire, 500 years later after his death; would that mattered for those living during his time? Would they be interested as the prophesy doesn't concern them in their life time. Moses prophesied about Jesus 1,500 years after his death, would that mattered to those living during his time? Would those people be interested? I am sure it did not concerned them and they probably would not be interested to know. Then why would Daniel and Moses want to waste their time mentioning about these prophesies?... unless in was intended for those living in those era, 500 years and 1,500 years later to know. It goes the same with Matthew 24 and many other prophesies in the Gospels and Revelations they were intended for the generations living in those era in the later times.

Hope this helps, Joe and hope it doesn't create a chest pain.

In my view of Matthew 24. Jesus may be trying to answer all three questions in one.

Let's imagine that Jesus was asked about 3 things:
1) When is the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple?
2) What will be the sign of His second grand coming? (grand to indicate the final coming and to differentiate from the several comings that he did after HIs resurrection).
3) What will be the signs of the end of creation? (end of creation means end of the present created world not amounting to total destruction after which a new creation commence so as to differentiate from the end of the Jewish age).

We must also imagine that the period which Christ was talking about ranged from AD 70 till say AD 2050. I stressed the word "say" because no one knows when will be the end of creation except God the Father. I also don't want to be labelled as a "date setter".

See the flow of thoughts in red:

Matthew 24:3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation 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. (Jesus was talking in summary to answer all 3 questions of the time period between AD 70 till say AD 2050. This is true as throughout that period there were false prophets, wars, revolutions, famines, earthquakes).

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. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Jesus was talking about the period of AD 70 till say AD 2050 as persecutions of Christians happened since AD 70 and also the signs of the end of creation).

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then 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. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time. ( Jesus was talking of the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the signs of the end of creation).

26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. (Jesus was talking about the signs of His grand coming).

29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Jesus was talking about the signs of His grand coming and the end of creation).

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (Jesus was talking of the sign of His grand coming with reference maybe to the creation of the nation of Israel in 1948).

Hope this do not create a heart attack, Joe(joke):winking0071:.

Have a speedy full recovery. :)


Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In my view of Matthew 24. Jesus may be trying to answer all three questions in one.

Let's imagine that Jesus was asked about 3 things:
1) When is the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple?
2) What will be the sign of His second grand coming? (grand to indicate the final coming and to differentiate from the several comings that he did after HIs resurrection).
3) What will be the signs of the end of creation? (end of creation means end of the present created world not amounting to total destruction after which a new creation commence so as to differentiate from the end of the Jewish age).

Hi Cheow! :yo:

Two questions:

1) Where did you get the idea of a "second grand coming?" The Bible never says anything about a "second coming" (except Hebrews 9:28 which applies only to believers, not the world).

2) Where did you get the idea of the "end of creation?" The disciples asked about the end of the aion (age) not creation. The book of Hebrews tells us that this happened in the first century:
Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now [in the first century] once in the end (suntelia) of the world (aion) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
It would be good if you could show me where your ideas are taught in Scripture.

Thanks!

Richard

[Battyus]

Hey there Battyus,
I'm really enjoying our one on one conversation on the other thread. But I think it is important to clarify your statement.
Me too, Richard! I'm sorry I could not get back to you earlier!



No one is saying that those two statements "mean the same thing." As pointed out in the other thread, they mean very different things! The point is that they happened at the same time, not that they "mean the same thing." For example, the destruction of the Temple is a very different thing than the scattering of the Jews, but both happened at the same time (70 AD). Likewise, that event marked the end (suntelia) of the Jewish age (aion) - Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews scattered - none of these are the "same thing" but they all happened at the same time and so the disciples asked questions relating to different aspects of that one event.

Many blessings in Christ,

Richard
Point taken! I will reply to this on the other thread when the sun comes up.

May all of us have a blessed night!
Battyus

[CWH]

Hi Cheow! :yo:

Two questions:

1) Where did you get the idea of a "second grand coming?" The Bible never says anything about a "second coming" (except Hebrews 9:28 which applies only to believers, not the world).

2) Where did you get the idea of the "end of creation?" The disciples asked about the end of the aion (age) not creation. The book of Hebrews tells us that this happened in the first century:
Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now [in the first century] once in the end (suntelia) of the world (aion) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
It would be good if you could show me where your ideas are taught in Scripture.

Thanks!

Richard

These are beliefs of Futurists, Historists, Idealists and Partial Preterists; ask them!

Historists, Futurists, Idealists and Partial Preterists all believe in the second coming of Jesus, only Full Preterists do not believe in the second coming.:confused:

Let me expand on Hebrews 9:26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Every believing Christians is waiting for Him....at the second grand coming.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

These are beliefs of Futurists, Historists, Idealists and Partial Preterists; ask them!

Huh???? I thought you said they were your beliefs! I don't care what other people might believe - I'm not talking to them right now. You and I are chatting, so I thought it would be helpful if you could tell me what verses of the Bible clearly and unambiguously teach about a "second coming" that is separate from the other "comings" mentioned in the NT.




Historists, Futurists, Idealists and Partial Preterists all believe in the second coming of Jesus, only Full Preterists do not believe in the second coming.:confused:

We are not talking about the beliefs of other people. I am asking what you believe, and if it is based on what the Bible teaches. This is important because groups of people tend to believe only what they've been taught, and can not support their beliefs on what the Bible really teaches. For example, there is no mention of a "second coming" in the Bible. People believe that because it was included in the early creeds. Now it's perfectly fine if you say you believe it because it is a Christian tradition, but if that's the case, then we should be clear an up front about it. Myself, I base my beliefs on what the Bible actually teaches. The creeds tell me what early groups of Christians believed, but they didn't always agree, and creeds are not inspired, so I just stick to Scripture.



Let me expand on Hebrews 9:26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Every believing Christians is waiting for Him....at the second grand coming.

Many Blessings.
How does that "expand" on the verse? The text says that He will appear for "those who are waiting for him." But you believe that everyone will see him at the "second grand coming" - so your belief does not fit with this text.

Is there any verse in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously teaches there will be a "second grand coming?"

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

[CWH]

Nope, RAM,

I would like to hear from others first so that you know that it is not my own belief. The second coming of Jesus is basic belief of partial preterist, idealist. futurist and historidst; the reasons are basically the same. As I said again, only full preterists do not believe in the second coming.

Many Blessings.

[Pop]

Cheow Wee Hock Nope, RAM,

I would like to hear from others first so that you know that it is not my own belief. The second coming of Jesus is basic belief of partial preterist, idealist. futurist and historidst; the reasons are basically the same. As I said again, only full preterists do not believe in the second coming.

Many Blessings.

Hi,

New here, I am not a full preterist, nor a partial preterist, I'm more on the futurist side of scripture. Since you wanted to hear from others, I believe that Christ will come again. :thumb:

Pop

[CWH]

Hi,

New here, I am not a full preterist, nor a partial preterist, I'm more on the futurist side of scripture. Since you wanted to hear from others, I believe that Christ will come again. :thumb:

Pop

Thank you so much, Pop and well said :thumb::yo: and welcome to the forum:welcome: Good to see new guys around.

Every Christians believe in the second coming except the Full preterists. If Christ were to come today to the US, all the full preterists in US will pack their bags and leave; not to welcome the Lord but to run away as far as possible because they are too ashamed to see Him coming back with their mistaken belief.:lol:

Many Blessings to you.

[Pop]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop View Post
Hi,

New here, I am not a full preterist, nor a partial preterist, I'm more on the futurist side of scripture. Since you wanted to hear from others, I believe that Christ will come again.

Pop
Thank you so much, Pop and well said and welcome to the forum Good to see new guys around.

Every Christians believe in the second coming except the Full preterists. If Christ were to come today to the US, all the full preterists in US will pack their bags and leave; not to welcome the Lord but to run away as far as possible because they are too ashamed to see Him coming back with their mistaken belief.

Many Blessings to you.

Easy there big fella!!:D You don't want to start a war here do you?:) But I will say, it's very difficult to debate with a Full Preterist. I constantly debate with them and it is like I'm speaking to a brick wall. But I keep trying!

Be good, Pop

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Every Christians believe in the second coming except the Full preterists. If Christ were to come today to the US, all the full preterists in US will pack their bags and leave; not to welcome the Lord but to run away as far as possible because they are too ashamed to see Him coming back with their mistaken belief.
Easy there big fella!!:D You don't want to start a war here do you?:) But I will say, it's very difficult to debate with a Full Preterist. I constantly debate with them and it is like I'm speaking to a brick wall. But I keep trying!

Be good, Pop
Hey there Pop, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I agree with Cheow that it is good to have a new member who will challenge Preterism. I hope (and expect) that your experience here will be different than on other forums where you say that you feel like you were "speaking to a brick wall." The top priority of most folks here is to discern what the Bible really teaches regardless of preconceived ideas or pet doctrines. I trust that you are aware that many Pretersists would describe their interactions with futurist using the same "brick wall" metaphor. So let us join together in an effort to destroy any wall that divides Bible believing Christians! The best way to accomplish that is to work together toward the common goal of articulating what the Bible really teaches.

And I want to thank you for your action as a peacemaker - that is extremely valuable on any forum. But there are no worries. Cheow is an old friend here and it is very unlikely that any of the other seasoned members would take any real offense at his comment despite that fact that it was way out of line and utterly false. It appears to be the product of some of the frustration that often arises from the clash of different views of eschatology which gives folks on both sides the feeling of "speaking to a brick wall." Cheow is not known for persisting in rudeness or unnecessary provocation. I think everyone here sees him as a good friend and valuable member of our community with much to contribute.

Talk more soon,

Richard

PS: I love your avatar!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Nope, RAM,

I would like to hear from others first so that you know that it is not my own belief. The second coming of Jesus is basic belief of partial preterist, idealist. futurist and historidst; the reasons are basically the same. As I said again, only full preterists do not believe in the second coming.

Many Blessings.
Hey there Cheow,

As mentioned in the previous posts, I'm not interested in what you think other people believe. I want to know if you have any Biblical basis for your beliefs.

Your answer sounds like a cop-out. When I first asked you to specify which Scriptures you use as a basis for your belief in a "second grand coming" you cited Hebrews 9:28. I then showed that that verse says nothing about a "second grand coming" that would be visible to the world because it specifically states that Christ would appear a "second time" for "those who are waiting for him" - not for the world. This is confirmed by John 14 in which Christ said He (and the Father and the Holy Spirit) would "come again" to make their dwelling place in believers, but NOT manifest themselves to the world in general. These verses confirm each other, and the Preterist understanding:


John 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him [the indwelling of the believers!].
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him [believers!] shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The mutual confirmation of these verses is extremely significant, especially in light of the fact that almost all futurists woefully misinterpret Hebrews 9:28 and John 14 as prophecies of a "second coming" that will be visible to the world. There is no excuse for such shoddy exegesis that is directly contradicted by what the Bible really says.

So let me ask again - do you know of any verses in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously teach a "second grand coming" that will be physically visible to the world? Is this doctrine taught in the Bible or not?

Thanks for helping me to understand why I should (or should not) believe in that doctrine.

Many blessings in Christ my friend,

Richard

[CWH]

Wow, Thanks Richard, that is a very good compliments my friend :signthankspin: Thank you so much.:yo: So far, I have enjoyed this fellowship in this forum and I must thank Richard for his kind hospitality to me. I really admire Richard not only for his excellent work in this forum in creating the BIble Wheel but also his vast knowledge of the scriptures. :yo: And I do leart a lot from this forum. I believe Pop, you will also. I am not looking for a war with preterists, Never, but to understand them in why they behave and interpret scriptures that way and to discover the truth and learn more of the scriptures from their viewpoints.

Yes, we may debate hard but at the end of the day, we bear no grudges against one another. And if we are worthy to see each other in heaven, we will probably laugh at ourselves looking at "those were the days in the Bible Wheel forum".

Sorry about the part of preterist running away when they see the Lord coming. It is meant as a humor and not as a sarcastic remark. It reminds me of a joke in which if Jesus were to come to New York today, people will weep and cry in excitement when they see Him coming and they will packed their belongings and drove their cars, not to see and welcome the Lord but to run away from Him as they will be very ashamed to meet Him. Sorry if it sounds offending to anyone.

Richard, I hesitated to debate with you on the second coming as I am afraid of a long-drawn debate which will end up in circles. It is the prolonged time that I could least afford to spend and I will cite things like Matthew 24 and the separation of the sheep and goats from the typical futurist's point of views to indicate the evidence of second coming. On the other hand, you will cite evidence from your preterist's point of views and we will end up going no where. I have nothing new to offer and I would rather seek the views of others who perhaps they may have better evidences to prove the second coming of Christ.

Hope you understand.

MANY BLESSINGS.:)

[joel]

Maybe we could change the focus somewhat.
I have asked questions before concerning what we hope for......
and I received answers like.....world peace......that the brotherhood of man comes into peace...
but, now.....I'll change it....to what are we waiting for?
Those of us who look for....the second coming.....are given the answer that He has already come.........in 70 A.D.
So.....to those who hold this view.....another coming would be a 3rd coming.....something which none of us believe.

What are we then waiting for?.............the word for waiting is....apekdechomai (#553).

If you check it out........you will see that Paul used the word 6 times, and the writer of Hebres once.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Originally Posted by Pop View Post
Hi,

New here, I am not a full preterist, nor a partial preterist, I'm more on the futurist side of scripture. Since you wanted to hear from others, I believe that Christ will come again.

Pop

:welcome: Welcome to the Biblewheel forum. I hope our discussions will be fruitful.

We are always glad to hear from others of different opinion. No doubt, your addition will contribute to the other Futurist's who are on here.

You stated on another post that you've been debating Preterist for a long time. I'm interested on what forums you were part of because most Futurist forums often make it difficult for Preterist to debate; but not so here for all branches of eschatology are welcome here, to test their swords.

I've debated Futurist's on other forums for a long time, but was often banned because of my so called "Hyper-Preterism".

I started off as a Futurist from childhood, having been taught that a Great Tribulation would occur in the future, the Church would be raptured, and then the earth would be engaged in WWIII, on a global scale.

During my teen years, I latched on to the Jack Vanimpie belief of eschatology. But after years of tracking his predictions, or guesses, and watching them collapse these past three decades, I realized he was a fraud and not trustworthy.

I was then introduced to Partial Preterism, and that was my primary mode of belief until about two or three years ago, where I changed over to full preterism.

Now you believe that Christ will come again, please share scripture which you feel solidifies this expectation. As I'm sure you know, we believe that Jesus kept His promise to the first century Saints, and came for them after removing the Harlot from office, and establishing His kingdom forever; the kingdom that still dominates the entire earth, despite the other religious kingdoms in existence.

Looking forward to your responses.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Maybe we could change the focus somewhat.
I have asked questions before concerning what we hope for......
and I received answers like.....world peace......that the brotherhood of man comes into peace...
but, now.....I'll change it....to what are we waiting for?
Those of us who look for....the second coming.....are given the answer that He has already come.........in 70 A.D.
So.....to those who hold this view.....another coming would be a 3rd coming.....something which none of us believe.

What are we then waiting for?.............the word for waiting is....apekdechomai (#553).

If you check it out........you will see that Paul used the word 6 times, and the writer of Hebres once.

Joel
Hi Joel,

I think you bring up a great question that we should explore in detail. It is off-topic for this thread, so I made a new thread called What are we waiting for? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1447) I ask that anyone who wants to pursue this question to respond there.

Thanks!

RAM

[Victor]

So far, I have enjoyed this fellowship in this forum and I must thank Richard for his kind hospitality to me. I really admire Richard not only for his excellent work in this forum in creating the BIble Wheel but also his vast knowledge of the scriptures. :yo:

Hey Cheow, just one little thing for the sake of accuracy:

Richard didn't 'create' the Bible Wheel. He just discovered what was already there.

The Bible Wheel is the alphabetic structure of the Bible. Richard just perceived that it was there all along.

And of course this is a major finding! It is the Capstone and Seal of the Bible.

[Pop]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop View Post
Hi,

New here, I am not a full preterist, nor a partial preterist, I'm more on the futurist side of scripture. Since you wanted to hear from others, I believe that Christ will come again.

Pop
Welcome to the Biblewheel forum. I hope our discussions will be fruitful.

We are always glad to hear from others of different opinion. No doubt, your addition will contribute to the other Futurist's who are on here.

You stated on another post that you've been debating Preterist for a long time. I'm interested on what forums you were part of because most Futurist forums often make it difficult for Preterist to debate; but not so here for all branches of eschatology are welcome here, to test their swords.

I've debated Futurist's on other forums for a long time, but was often banned because of my so called "Hyper-Preterism".

I started off as a Futurist from childhood, having been taught that a Great Tribulation would occur in the future, the Church would be raptured, and then the earth would be engaged in WWIII, on a global scale.

During my teen years, I latched on to the Jack Vanimpie belief of eschatology. But after years of tracking his predictions, or guesses, and watching them collapse these past three decades, I realized he was a fraud and not trustworthy.

I was then introduced to Partial Preterism, and that was my primary mode of belief until about two or three years ago, where I changed over to full preterism.

Now you believe that Christ will come again, please share scripture which you feel solidifies this expectation. As I'm sure you know, we believe that Jesus kept His promise to the first century Saints, and came for them after removing the Harlot from office, and establishing His kingdom forever; the kingdom that still dominates the entire earth, despite the other religious kingdoms in existence.

Looking forward to your responses.

Joe

In answer to my debating full preterists, I am a member of Planetpreterist.com since 2006. There is where I held most of my debates with them. Like this site, they allow different camps to discuss scripture.

I have found in doing so, that it is best not to just begin a discussion by just throwing out a few scriptures in the "middle" of some context being discussed, but rather start from the beginning. Or rather the thread that holds one's paradigm together. That in my view would be the dating of the book of Revelation. For it is the "glue" that holds one's doctrine (whether preterist or futurist) all together. It connects Exekiel, Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and the Epistles, with its prophetic passages together with Revelation. This is my feelings on it, would you agree?

Pop

[Rose]

In answer to my debating full preterists, I am a member of Planetpreterist.com since 2006. There is where I held most of my debates with them. Like this site, they allow different camps to discuss scripture.

I have found in doing so, that it is best not to just begin a discussion by just throwing out a few scriptures in the "middle" of some context being discussed, but rather start from the beginning. Or rather the thread that holds one's paradigm together. That in my view would be the dating of the book of Revelation. For it is the "glue" that holds one's doctrine (whether preterist or futurist) all together. It connects Exekiel, Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and the Epistles, with its prophetic passages together with Revelation. This is my feelings on it, would you agree?

Pop

Hi Pop,

Looks like we're in for some very good conversations...:D

The dating of Revelation is extremely important to being able to fully understand how the whole picture fits together. The one big problem is that most Futurists start with an assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus, in so doing there whole perspective becomes distorted.

As you said "Revelation is the glue", whereas I would say Revelation is the Capstone that finishes off the building tying the whole structure together. It is from the rest of the Bible that we find the dating of Revelation, not from one lone extra-Biblical source.

With that said.... :talk005: let the discussions begin.


God Bless,

Rose

[Pop]

Rose said,

Hi Pop,

Looks like we're in for some very good conversations...

The dating of Revelation is extremely important to being able to fully understand how the whole picture fits together. The one big problem is that most Futurists start with an assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus, in so doing there whole perspective becomes distorted.

As you said "Revelation is the glue", whereas I would say Revelation is the Capstone that finishes off the building tying the whole structure together. It is from the rest of the Bible that we find the dating of Revelation, not from one lone extra-Biblical source.

With that said.... let the discussions begin.


God Bless,

Rose

Speaking for myself, I don't start with the "assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus,---." I have studied the external and internal evidence to find if indeed whether it was written pre 70 A.D. or post 70 A.D. My studies brought me to the conclusion that the book of Revelation was written post 70 A.D. and had nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I have written a 30 page article on it. It's not a full blown thesis, that will come later. I believe this is the first step necessary to debating the position of preterism vs. futurism. For as you know, if preterists can prove beyond a doubt that it is a pre 70 A.D. dating, then their paradigm remains solid. And the futurists would have to review their paradigm. Other wise, if it can be proven beyond doubt that it is a post 70 A.D. dating then the preterists will have to review their paradigm. But not to conform with "particular camps," but to conform to "God's Word," and camp only; the Camp of the Saints.

If you wish to view and study my evidence I can give it to you and your readers. In the same way I hope that you also have an article or writings that you can present to me to study as well. This would be a good and proper start on discussing scripture, and no time is wasted "running around in circular reasoning" on passages already discussed ad infinitum.!

Pop

[Rose]

Speaking for myself, I don't start with the "assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus,---." I have studied the external and internal evidence to find if indeed whether it was written pre 70 A.D. or post 70 A.D. My studies brought me to the conclusion that the book of Revelation was written post 70 A.D. and had nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I have written a 30 page article on it. It's not a full blown thesis, that will come later. I believe this is the first step necessary to debating the position of preterism vs. futurism. For as you know, if preterists can prove beyond a doubt that it is a pre 70 A.D. dating, then their paradigm remains solid. And the futurists would have to review their paradigm. Other wise, if it can be proven beyond doubt that it is a post 70 A.D. dating then the preterists will have to review their paradigm. But not to conform with "particular camps," but to conform to "God's Word," and camp only; the Camp of the Saints.

If you wish to view and study my evidence I can give it to you and your readers. In the same way I hope that you also have an article or writings that you can present to me to study as well. This would be a good and proper start on discussing scripture, and no time is wasted "running around in circular reasoning" on passages already discussed ad infinitum.!

Pop

I think the perfect place to start would be with your article, presented one point at a time in its own thread, so myself and others here can respond to and discuss your evidence for a late dating (post AD 70) of Revelation.

I don't have a single article on the dating of Revelation per-say, but rather many posts scattered about the Forum all pointing to a mid AD 60's dating.

If you desire to discuss this topic, please start a thread and let the discussions begin....:talk002:

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Speaking for myself, I don't start with the "assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus,---." I have studied the external and internal evidence to find if indeed whether it was written pre 70 A.D. or post 70 A.D. My studies brought me to the conclusion that the book of Revelation was written post 70 A.D. and had nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I have written a 30 page article on it. It's not a full blown thesis, that will come later. I believe this is the first step necessary to debating the position of preterism vs. futurism. For as you know, if preterists can prove beyond a doubt that it is a pre 70 A.D. dating, then their paradigm remains solid. And the futurists would have to review their paradigm. Other wise, if it can be proven beyond doubt that it is a post 70 A.D. dating then the preterists will have to review their paradigm. But not to conform with "particular camps," but to conform to "God's Word," and camp only; the Camp of the Saints.

If you wish to view and study my evidence I can give it to you and your readers. In the same way I hope that you also have an article or writings that you can present to me to study as well. This would be a good and proper start on discussing scripture, and no time is wasted "running around in circular reasoning" on passages already discussed ad infinitum.!

Pop
Hey Pop! I agree with Rose - it would be great if you started a thread on Dating the Book of Revelation and presented your understanding point by point. I am eager to review your research because I have done a similar study and come to the opposite conclusion. This means that we have a great opportunity for mutually sharpening our iron!

:fencing:

All the best,

Richard

[Pop]

Hey Pop! I agree with Rose - it would be great if you started a thread on Dating the Book of Revelation and presented your understanding point by point. I am eager to review your research because I have done a similar study and come to the opposite conclusion. This means that we have a great opportunity for mutually sharpening our iron!



All the best,

Richard

I first need to know how much character space am I allowed on one post. I looked at the forum rules and could not find anything on this. The reason I ask is because if not enough space is allowed it would be fruitless to start. It would take to long and we'd lose focus on the whole of the context totaling many pages.

Pop

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I first need to know how much character space am I allowed on one post. I looked at the forum rules and could not find anything on this. The reason I ask is because if not enough space is allowed it would be fruitless to start. It would take to long and we'd lose focus on the whole of the context totaling many pages.

Pop
You are allowed 20,000 characters per post. Is that enough? I would certainly hope so, since otherwise it's pretty unlikely that anyone would try to read them anyway.

Does your article naturally divide into smallish sections? It seems like that would be the best way to present it.

Also, you could just attach the whole document to your first post, and folks could download it and read it on their computers and then comment on the sections as they see fit. What is the format of the doc (word, txt ...)?

Let me know what you need and I will do what it takes to make this work.

All the best,

Richard

[Pop]

http://www.twospiritshendora.com/Dating%20of%20Revelation%20Expanded.pdf

[TheForgiven]

We had a thread discussing the dating of Revelation. I'm not sure if it's still in existence.

Brother Richard, let me know if you plan on starting a new thread on this discussion....this is one of my favorites ones....but I won't get in your way bro. :D I don't want to work in another mans field. :winking0071:

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We had a thread discussing the dating of Revelation. I'm not sure if it's still in existence.

Brother Richard, let me know if you plan on starting a new thread on this discussion....this is one of my favorites ones....but I won't get in your way bro. :D I don't want to work in another mans field. :winking0071:

Joe
Hey bro!

Don't worry about getting in my way. I think we know how to work "shoulder-to-shoulder." :winking0071:

Have you noticed the new tag system? This was added when I upgraded the software recently. If you click on Search on the menu bar at the top you will see an option called "Tag Search." Click on that and you will see all the articles that have been tagged. One of them is called "dating revelation." I clicked on it and found this old thread that you had started:

Dating the Book of Revelation (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=292)

I think we'll probably start a new thread to review Pop's doc.

Talk more soon,

Richard

[Pop]

You are allowed 20,000 characters per post. Is that enough? I would certainly hope so, since otherwise it's pretty unlikely that anyone would try to read them anyway.

Does your article naturally divide into smallish sections? It seems like that would be the best way to present it.

Also, you could just attach the whole document to your first post, and folks could download it and read it on their computers and then comment on the sections as they see fit. What is the format of the doc (word, txt ...)?

Let me know what you need and I will do what it takes to make this work.

All the best,

Richard

The article can be divided into smaller sections to be discussed.
I'd be happy to attach the document here if you want. This way it can be read on one's leisure then comment later.

Since you are the Administrator, and know how to set up these things, I'll just attach the document here, and you take it from there, okay? I'll wait for you're answer.

Here's the link: http://www.freewebs.com/twospirits/Dating&#37;20Revelation%201.pdf

Pop

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The article can be divided into smaller sections to be discussed.
I'd be happy to attach the document here if you want. This way it can be read on one's leisure then comment later.

Since you are the Administrator, and know how to set up these things, I'll just attach the document here, and you take it from there, okay? I'll wait for you're answer.

Here's the link: http://www.freewebs.com/twospirits/Dating%20Revelation%201.pdf

Pop
Hi Pop,

I restored the post with the link that was accidentally deleted. We now have two links to two different articles. Let me know which you would like to use in the discussion and I will start the new thread.

http://www.twospiritshendora.com/Dating%20of%20Revelation%20Expanded.pdf

http://www.freewebs.com/twospirits/Dating%20Revelation%201.pdf


All the best!

Richard

[Pop]

Ram,

This is the correct one:

http://www.freewebs.com/twospirits/Dating&#37;20Revelation%201.pdf



The other one is old and I forgot to take it off my website. I'll have to do that. But the one above is my most recent work on the dating of Revelation.

Thanks, will be seeing you---

Pop

[CWH]

Excellent work Pop,:congrats:

I have read your work, I must say it is the best article that I have read regarding the dating of the Book of Revelation. You also refuted the coming of christ in AD 70 very well. Well done and written very clearly.:yo:

Thank you so much.:thumb::clap2:

Many Blessings to you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent work Pop,:congrats:

I have read your work, I must say it is the best article that I have read regarding the dating of the Book of Revelation. You also refuted the coming of christ in AD 70 very well. Well done and written very clearly.:yo:

Thank you so much.:thumb::clap2:

Many Blessings to you.
I agree that there are a lot of good arguments in the paper. We will all learn a lot by studying and discussing it.

[Brother Les]

by Forgiven
You stated on another post that you've been debating Preterist for a long time. I'm interested on what forums you were part of because most Futurist forums often make it difficult for Preterist to debate; but not so here for all branches of eschatology are welcome here, to test their swords.
Joe

Hello Joe, Ram, Rose

"Pop/Twospirits/Henry", has spent a lot of time over at Gary DeMars "American Vision" and hitting a 'brick wall' with the Full and partial Preterists there.... I know that Henry will enjoy his time here, with such wonderful hosts. As being on 'the other side' of many of his posts, it seems to me that he uses a lot of 'double speak' that 'warps' the average futurest paradiym. keep your eye and mind on what he is saying, because there are a few 'twists' in his futurest mindset vision.

Henry,
Please enjoy your time here and I will try my hardest to stay on the sideline and watch and let others interact with you.

Blessings
Brother Les

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Ram,

This is the correct one:

http://www.freewebs.com/twospirits/Dating&#37;20Revelation%201.pdf



The other one is old and I forgot to take it off my website. I'll have to do that. But the one above is my most recent work on the dating of Revelation.

Thanks, will be seeing you---

Pop

Hi pop,
Just a quick comment on this thread so as not to disturb other comments on the other thread.

I noticed that you made note of two different words for 'presence' with one inferring a literal presence. I'll have to check into that some more.

I also noticed that you acknowledge that the fall of Jerusalem was the ending of the mosaic covenant. But in some of the various prophecies about that fall and destruction, it is indicated that God himself would administer the vengeance and recompense with His Sword.

The chapter of my signature name has several indications that if taken literally would indicate that God Himself would descend and administer the judgment and ending. Isaiah 66:6 is another verse that brings out the vengeance and recompense idea.

And then near the latter part of the chapter he clarifies How he would do this. In Deut 32:42 in what is now an often quoted verse of mine; God says through Moses:

1If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.

42I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.

The NKJV has it this way:


41 If I whet My glittering sword,
And My hand takes hold on judgment,
I will render vengeance to My enemies,
And repay those who hate Me.

42 I will make My arrows drunk with blood,
And My sword shall devour flesh,
With the blood of the slain and the captives,
From the heads of the leaders of the enemy.”’

Combining the ideas leaves us with the concept that God would administer Vengeance towards those who Hated him through the minds of the leaders of Israels enemies.
His coming through the "prince of the people who were to come" or as Hebrews said... "he who must come shall come and not delay". His coming through the Romans was the very Revelation that Jesus was God the Creator/originator incarnate.

As mentioned to Rose, the people in Rev 15 sing the Song of Moses which is Deut 32. They recognize that they must separate from Judaism and it's idolatry as being unfavored. They recognized that the covenant of Grace was the favored covenant all along.

Part of the helps might be to stretch the understanding of the Triune nature of God as described by John chapters 14-16. 1=1=1.

I don't' see the demand for literal/physical/bodily return but rather a necessity of the Revealing of Jesus as God omnipotent incarnate through the events of 60-75 AD.

[Pop]

Quote:
by Forgiven
You stated on another post that you've been debating Preterist for a long time. I'm interested on what forums you were part of because most Futurist forums often make it difficult for Preterist to debate; but not so here for all branches of eschatology are welcome here, to test their swords.
Joe
Hello Joe, Ram, Rose

"Pop/Twospirits/Henry", has spent a lot of time over at Gary DeMars "American Vision" and hitting a 'brick wall' with the Full and partial Preterists there.... I know that Henry will enjoy his time here, with such wonderful hosts. As being on 'the other side' of many of his posts, it seems to me that he uses a lot of 'double speak' that 'warps' the average futurest paradiym. keep your eye and mind on what he is saying, because there are a few 'twists' in his futurest mindset vision.

Henry,
Please enjoy your time here and I will try my hardest to stay on the sideline and watch and let others interact with you.

Blessings
Brother Les

Brother Les, Joe, Ram, Rose, and readers, First I want to thank Ram for being kind enough to start a thread on the dating of Revelation article I presented. But because of this post I will not be participating in it. I will give my reasons in a moment. If you wish to continue the thread amongst yourselves please do, you have the article and can rebutt it as you go along.

My reason is this: Henry and I (Pop) are good friends and brothers in Christ. We share very similar views on doctrine and discuss it together. Henry has a website and I go there to get material, work with him on it, check it over, and if I wish to have it, he allows me to have it and use it the way I see fit. I share in his website and material, because we both work on it, but he works on the biggest part of it. In short we work together. His work is mine and my work is his. Thus he came up with the name "Twospirits." This is what I have done here. The article is his that has been presented here, done so "with his blessing."

Henry goes under the name "Twospirits" when posting on AV and Planetpreterist, as now I'm sure you know through Brother Les' post. I go under a different name when posting on those sights. And it will be kept confidential, as I'm sure you realize why I want it this way. I don't need someone mischaracterizing me if they see my user name on a site they post on. I will speak to Henry about changing his name and what is said about him on this post. To at least give him the opportunity to answer this accusation made by Brother Les.

Now I didn't know that a member would post statements such as he (Brother Les) states here. How Henry "uses a lot of double talk"---"keep your eye and mind on what he says"-- Insinuating that the man is dishonest and not to be trusted. This to me speaks of a person who holds a great bias towards Henry. At least that's how it comes across to me. Since I hold similar views to Henry's, and a friend of his, this then "poisons the well" so to speak. I then, in discussing the issues would fall in the same category as Henry! Because of this insinuation I would be looked at with an "evil eye" so to speak. I cannot in good conscience debate with this hanging over me when discussing Henry's article, the views I agree with. So I must decline the invitation. I am very sorry that this occurred.

Pop

[Rose]

Brother Les, Joe, Ram, Rose, and readers, First I want to thank Ram for being kind enough to start a thread on the dating of Revelation article I presented. But because of this post I will not be participating in it. I will give my reasons in a moment. If you wish to continue the thread amongst yourselves please do, you have the article and can rebutt it as you go along.

My reason is this: Henry and I (Pop) are good friends and brothers in Christ. We share very similar views on doctrine and discuss it together. Henry has a website and I go there to get material, work with him on it, check it over, and if I wish to have it, he allows me to have it and use it the way I see fit. I share in his website and material, because we both work on it, but he works on the biggest part of it. In short we work together. His work is mine and my work is his. Thus he came up with the name "Twospirits." This is what I have done here. The article is his that has been presented here, done so "with his blessing."

Henry goes under the name "Twospirits" when posting on AV and Planetpreterist, as now I'm sure you know through Brother Les' post. I go under a different name when posting on those sights. And it will be kept confidential, as I'm sure you realize why I want it this way. I don't need someone mischaracterizing me if they see my user name on a site they post on. I will speak to Henry about changing his name and what is said about him on this post. To at least give him the opportunity to answer this accusation made by Brother Les.

Now I didn't know that a member would post statements such as he (Brother Les) states here. How Henry "uses a lot of double talk"---"keep your eye and mind on what he says"-- Insinuating that the man is dishonest and not to be trusted. This to me speaks of a person who holds a great bias towards Henry. At least that's how it comes across to me. Since I hold similar views to Henry's, and a friend of his, this then "poisons the well" so to speak. I then, in discussing the issues would fall in the same category as Henry! Because of this insinuation I would be looked at with an "evil eye" so to speak. I cannot in good conscience debate with this hanging over me when discussing Henry's article, the views I agree with. So I must decline the invitation. I am very sorry that this occurred.

Pop

Hi Pop,

I responded to this same post on your other thread, so I will say the same thing here. Brother Les has been on our Forum practically since we started it, and I can assure you nothing dishonest was meant by his words, and there was no accusations....he merely said for us to "keep an eye on what you were saying" meaning for us to carefully read your words.

Also, I think it is a very good thing that you decided to share with us your partnership with Henry, because I for one was under the impression that it was all you! That does make a difference.

I am truly sorry to see you leave, but the discussion will go on....:talk002:
Many blessings to you,

Rose