This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world...

[Theodore A. Jones]

And then the end will come.

"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14 (NASB)

Some say the "end" hasn't come because this gospel hasn't been preached in the whole world. Paul writes otherwise:

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. Romans 1:8 (NASB)

but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; Romans 16:26 (NASB)

the gospel which has come to you, just as in all the world Colossians 1:5-6 (NASB)

the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven Colossians 1:23 (NASB)

I wonder how Paul, called by Christ Himself, could've been so wrong.

Perhaps Paul was near sighted , but I doubt it.

 

[reba]

Jesus is now seated with His Father in HIS throne. He is NOT seated on HIS throne. Upon His coming He will sit on HIS OWN throne, the place of King of Israel under the Davidic Covenant. [FONT=verdana,arial]

[/FONT]

Seated with God is some how less than .. on the sand... on earth under covenant made for man?

What a low thought of Thee King

 

[reba]

JLB in all of my 65 years you are the only person i have ever heard say Luke was Jewish.

 

[JLB]

I don't see it to be true. In Acts 21, Paul is falsely accused of bringing gentiles into the Temple. There's no mention of Luke being in the Temple, or accused of bringing gentiles into the Temple.

There's no mention of Luke being in the Temple,

Luke records the most detailed account of the temple and the details of John the Baptist's birth.

You think these are the words of an uncircumcised Gentile -

3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:3-4



having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first...

How did Luke come by this perfect understanding?

Luke was a Jew! No question.


JLB

 

[Hammer]

Luke records the most detailed account of the temple and the details of John the Baptist's birth.

You think these are the words of an uncircumcised Gentile -

3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:3-4



having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first...

How did Luke come by this perfect understanding?

Luke was a Jew! No question.


JLB

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke compiled an account from information he has collected from others. Luke does not credit his understanding to personal experience. The KJV uses the word "understanding" rather than "investigated" in verse 2, but the meaning in the KJV is clear enough. You took the dated KJV out of context by leaving out verses 1 and 2, to make it look like it said something other than what it said. Luke was not a Jew and your argument is irresponsible.

 

[Hammer]

JLB in all of my 65 years you are the only person i have ever heard say Luke was Jewish.

Really? There's a significant number of Christians who adore a certain false religion and who practically consider it blasphemy to think a Gentile could have contributed to the Bible.

 

[JLB]

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke compiled an account from information he has collected from others. Luke does not credit his understanding to personal experience. The KJV uses the word "understanding" rather than "investigated" in verse 2, but the meaning in the KJV is clear enough. You took the dated KJV out of context by leaving out verses 1 and 2, to make it look like it said something other than what it said. Luke was not a Jew and your argument is irresponsible.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,[Jews] 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses [Moses and the Prophets] and servants of the word,


those who from the beginning -clearly refers to Moses

us - refers to Jews who were given the stewardship of Gods Word down through time.


Thank you for being open minded.


JLB

 

[jasoncran]

well you dont think that some gentiles wanted to learn and did learn about the temple? Nah jeff doesnt know more then me a jew and my dad on jewry? nah nope that can never happen.

 

[Stormcrow]

just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses [Moses and the Prophets] and servants of the word,

those who from the beginning -clearly refers to Moses

us - refers to Jews who were given the stewardship of Gods Word down through time.

"Eyewitnesses and servants from the beginning" refers to Christ, not Moses!!! John's gospel puts it this way:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (ASV)

But again, whether Luke was a Gentile or Jew is irrelevant to your assertion that Luke records a different event in his version of the Olivet Discourse than do Matthew and Mark. All three are writing of the same event and Luke is explaining what the other two assume their readers already know.

 

[Hammer]

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,[Jews] 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses [Moses and the Prophets] and servants of the word,


those who from the beginning -clearly refers to Moses

us - refers to Jews who were given the stewardship of Gods Word down through time.


Thank you for being open minded.


JLB

You argue, Luke (a Christian with a Greek name) writing about Jesus to Theophilus (a Christian with a Greek name) means Jews when he refers to "us". Therefor, you argue, Luke is a Jew. Your logic would have to improve just to rise to the level of Begging the Question.

 

[JLB]

"Eyewitnesses and servants from the beginning" refers to Christ, not Moses!!! John's gospel puts it this way:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (ASV)

But again, whether Luke was a Gentile or Jew is irrelevant to your assertion that Luke records a different event in his version of the Olivet Discourse than do Matthew and Mark. All three are writing of the same event and Luke is explaining what the other two assume their readers already know.

The language is clearly different in Luke than that of Matthew.

Luke records the language associated with the question of the temple destruction.

Matthew records two questions and Jesus refers to Daniel the prophet.

The end of the age whereby the resurrection and rapture take place is clearly referred to by the writers of the new testament, as occurring when The Lord returns.

You would have to dispute all the writers of the new testament to deny that.

The end of the age is when Jesus returns. Simple as that!


JLB

 

[Stormcrow]

The language is clearly different in Luke than that of Matthew. Luke records the language associated with the question of the temple destruction.

And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. Matt 24:1 (ASV)

And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, Luke 21:5 (ESV)

But he answered and 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. Matt 24:2 (ASV)

“As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.†Luke 21:6 (ESV)

The context of the Olivet Discourse is identical in both Matthew and Luke and it's Christ's claim that the Temple would be destroyed that causes the disciples to ask what they did in both Matthew and Luke.

Matthew and Luke record the discourse from their own, unique perspectives.

Neither Matthew nor Luke was on the Mount of Olives when Jesus spoke privately to Peter, James, Andrew, and John (Mark13:3) but it's clear from the opening verses of each account they are describing what they heard from those who were.

How anyone can rationally suggest that Matthew and Luke are not both talking about the destruction of the Temple is beyond me.

 

[Hitch]

How anyone can rationally suggest that Matthew and Luke are not both talking about the destruction of the Temple is beyond me.

Rationalism and Scofieldism dont mix.

 

[JLB]

And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. Matt 24:1 (ASV)

And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, Luke 21:5 (ESV)

But he answered and 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. Matt 24:2 (ASV)

“As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.†Luke 21:6 (ESV)

The context of the Olivet Discourse is identical in both Matthew and Luke and it's Christ's claim that the Temple would be destroyed that causes the disciples to ask what they did in both Matthew and Luke.

Matthew and Luke record the discourse from their own, unique perspectives.

Neither Matthew nor Luke was on the Mount of Olives when Jesus spoke privately to Peter, James, Andrew, and John (Mark13:3) but it's clear from the opening verses of each account they are describing what they heard from those who were.

How anyone can rationally suggest that Matthew and Luke are not both talking about the destruction of the Temple is beyond me.

Matthew records two different questions.

Luke records one

 

[jasoncran]

sheesh i dont buy that all of matthew 24 was about the temple, but i cant see a national isreal being judged for the sin their ancestors did. its a stretch.

i agree with the grandson of billy graham on matthew 25. for in the days of the son of man it shall be liken unto the days of noah.. make sense when the wicked are taken and the righteous left. jesus talks about the wheats and the the tares. the tares are removed not the wheat. that is harvested.

 

[reba]

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Who planted the good seed? Who planted the tares?

Any good farmer will increase the productivy of His field. With care the wheat will be much more plentiful then the tares.....

He is the best farmer... i guess to be spiritual i should say husbandman

Luk 12:28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

 

[JLB]

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Who planted the good seed? Who planted the tares?

Any good farmer will increase the productivy of His field. With care the wheat will be much more plentiful then the tares.....

He is the best farmer... i guess to be spiritual i should say husbandman

Luk 12:28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Joh 15:1I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Matthew 13:12


Reba, what is the meaning of this verse?

What must one have to receive more?


JLB

 

[reba]

You totally lost me JLB

 

[Stormcrow]

Matthew records two different questions.

Luke records one

And every question these disciples asked in Matthew, Mark, and Luke revolved around what He had just told them regarding the Temple and its destruction.

There are three things critical to understanding the Bible:

Context. Context. Context.

Without it, you've got nothing.

 

[JLB]

It is clear from Daniel that the city and sanctuary are to be destroyed.

26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary...

Yet, clearly after the event of the city and sanctuary being destroyed we see the language of sacrifice and offering in the next verse.

27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate...

which the Holy Spirit is indicating yet another temple.

Jesus makes this distinction as well, as Luke records -

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.

Yet Matthew records Jesus using the language of Daniel, in that the temple activities are resumed when the "prince of the people who is to come" "puts and end to sacrifice and offering and sets up the abomination of desolation.

"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

The Lord's instructions in Matthew are to flee when the see the abomination of desolation, which speaks of a defiling action of the temple.

The Lord's instructions in Luke are clearly different!

"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.

Luke records Jesus as saying, when you see the armies surround Jerusalem, flee, which is quite different than when you see the activity "in the temple" flee.

Two different actions, two different sets of instructions. Two different events.

Physical destruction on the one hand, Spiritual defilement on the other.




JLB