Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Futurism&TheTemple

so the jews need not the blood but a physical seeing of christ to believe? or is it the lie of devil that does it?

i dont get the futurists. they tell them of the gospel and i bet the jews believe because of their sins are forgiven not because of a national salvation plan for isreal.paul to the jews then of the words of christ and how he died for them. did he tell them isreal is being saved ? or that judgement for that regicide? peter taught the later.
 
Not a word about the temple destroyed in Matthew 24 in Jesus' answer to His disciples questions.

Must have been real important!

Not one word!

:biglol:biglol:biglol

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things [You know, these temple buildings, including the temple itself we just left]? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." Matthew 24:1-2 (NASB)

Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.
:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny
 
:biglol:biglol:biglol

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things [You know, these temple buildings, including the temple itself we just left]? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." Matthew 24:1-2 (NASB)

Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.
:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

You missed what JLB said. He said in the part of Matthew 24 that doesn't specifically mention the temple by name, the temple isn't mentioned by name. I hope this clears things up. :p
 
You missed what JLB said. He said in the part of Matthew 24 that doesn't specifically mention the temple by name, the temple isn't mentioned by name. I hope this clears things up. :p

Yes, and of course nothing they asked Him privately, on the Mount of Olives, had anything to do with what He told them leaving the Temple. That's what some would have us believe but we know that's just nonsense, don't we? :D
 
You missed what JLB said. He said in the part of Matthew 24 that doesn't specifically mention the temple by name, the temple isn't mentioned by name. I hope this clears things up. :p

Mat 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.
Mat 24:2 - And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

If the second temple is not mentioned by name, then what makes one think a third temple is mentioned by name? Why not assume a fortieth temple?

Context is important. Clearly Jesus' followers were still proud of their Jewish heritage; enough that they would associate the end of their world with the destruction of their temple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:biglol:biglol:biglol

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things [You know, these temple buildings, including the temple itself we just left]? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." Matthew 24:1-2 (NASB)

Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.
:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny


I wonder why you can't even read a simple phrase -

Try again notice the bold letters in red

Not a word about the temple destroyed in Matthew 24 in Jesus' answer to His disciples questions.


Not one word about the destruction of the temple in The Lord's Olivet discourse about the temple destruction.

Must have been real important!

No wonder you have such far fetched "theories" about God's word.


JLB
 
Time and time again i have reminded you all to stop with the personal attacts. Here i am again scolding you as if your children.... closing the threads is a click away.....you guys( in your own minds) all have enough smarts to understand God's Word do you not grasp the simple requests of the ToS?

These topics are of interest and valuable, well worth discussion. So discuss
 
Not one word about the destruction of the temple in The Lord's Olivet discourse about the temple destruction.
That's simply untrue, as His whole discourse begins with questions about the statement He made over the temple's destruction!
 
That's simply untrue, as His whole discourse begins with questions about the statement He made over the temple's destruction!

Yes it begins with questions about the temple.

It is the answer to the question about the temple that contains no reference to it. This should be an easy point for us to agree. I thought it may lead us to a more fruitful discussion.
But we can't seem to even agree on the obvious.

It is the disciples that placed such a great importance on the temple as did all the Jews. Today we see the Jews ready to rebuild a temple in which the man of sin, false Messiah will occupy.
However the Jews "think" if they build the temple He (Messiah) will come. They couldn't be more wrong!

In Matthew it should be obvious, that there is no mention of the events of the temple destruction.

It is Luke that focus's on that event, for good reason, that was the only question asked, as Luke records.

I had hoped that this obvious lack of evidence in Matthew, concerning the temple destruction and Jesus's focus on explaining His Coming and the end of the age would bring a balance to the discussion.


JLB
 
Yes it begins with questions about the temple.

It is the answer to the question about the temple that contains no reference to it. This should be an easy point for us to agree. I thought it may lead us to a more fruitful discussion.
But we can't seem to even agree on the obvious.

It is the disciples that placed such a great importance on the temple as did all the Jews. Today we see the Jews ready to rebuild a temple in which the man of sin, false Messiah will occupy.
However the Jews "think" if they build the temple He (Messiah) will come. They couldn't be more wrong!

In Matthew it should be obvious, that there is no mention of the events of the temple destruction.

It is Luke that focus's on that event, for good reason, that was the only question asked, as Luke records.

I had hoped that this obvious lack of evidence in Matthew, concerning the temple destruction and Jesus's focus on explaining His Coming and the end of the age would bring a balance to the discussion.
JLB

You've created a false discrepancy between Matthew and Luke's gospels where none exists because you clearly don't understand context. It's like looking at the individual needles on a pine tree and saying because one is shorter than the other, it belongs to a different tree!

It's absurd on its face, and yet this is the way you've consistently dealt with these passages.

You shouldn't presume to teach others that which you clearly don't understand. :shame
 
Yes it begins with questions about the temple.

Your argument isn't the least bit satisfactory to someone not stubbornly committed to futurism. Jesus raised the issue of the temple and was asked a question about the temple, and he answered it, even if the word "temple" isn't in his answer.
 
You've created a false discrepancy between Matthew and Luke's gospels where none exists because you clearly don't understand context. It's like looking at the individual needles on a pine tree and saying because one is shorter than the other, it belongs to a different tree!

It's absurd on its face, and yet this is the way you've consistently dealt with these passages.

You shouldn't presume to teach others that which you clearly don't understand. :shame

Well the facts don't lie.

Where is the word or phrase in Matthew 24 and 25, the Olivet Discourse Specifically JESUS'S ANSWER which is Matthew 24:4 - Matthew 25:46, that speaks of the destruction of the temple?

Until you show where Jesus discussed the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:4 - 25:46 then it is you who presume to teach something you yourself don't understand!

Matthew 24 teaches of the return of Jesus Christ!

It's that simple.

Luke 21 focus's more on the events of the city and sanctuary being destroyed.

You presume to merge the two together.

JLB
 
Where is the word or phrase in Matthew 24 and 25, the Olivet Discourse Specifically JESUS'S ANSWER which is Matthew 24:4 - Matthew 25:46, that speaks of the destruction of the temple?

Until you show where Jesus discussed the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:4 - 25:46 then it is you who presume to teach something you yourself don't understand!

Matthew 24 teaches of the return of Jesus Christ!
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. Matthew 24:35 (NASB)

As noted in the other thread, "heaven and earth" is a metaphor for the holy city and its holy temple, and this is a direct reference to Matthew 5:18.

The passing away of Jerusalem and its temple is seen in Revelation 21:1-2.

His "return" is linked directly to the "great tribulation" that befalls Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple. You can't cherry pick verses to support your nonsensical view that Matthew and Luke are describing two different things. They are describing the same thing!!!

Peter and the apostles got it. Why don't you???

But congratulations for dragging this discussion into the realm of the utterly absurd. :silly:silly:silly
 
Your argument isn't the least bit satisfactory to someone not stubbornly committed to futurism. Jesus raised the issue of the temple and was asked a question about the temple, and he answered it, even if the word "temple" isn't in his answer.

Disciples: Aren't these temple buildings cool?
Jesus: They're all going to be destroyed.
Disciples: When?
Jesus: When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies - the abomination of desolation - then you'll know it's near.

There's a lot of "camel-swallowing" we're being asked to do here by the futurists. :lol
 
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. Matthew 24:35 (NASB)

As noted in the other thread, "heaven and earth" is a metaphor for the holy city and its holy temple, and this is a direct reference to Matthew 5:18.

The passing away of Jerusalem and its temple is seen in Revelation 21:1-2.

His "return" is linked directly to the "great tribulation" that befalls Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple. You can't cherry pick verses to support your nonsensical view that Matthew and Luke are describing two different things. They are describing the same thing!!!

Peter and the apostles got it. Why don't you???

But congratulations for dragging this discussion into the realm of the utterly absurd. :silly:silly:silly

First you said Heaven and earth = the old covenant.

Now, you say heaven and earth is a metaphor for the holy city and its holy temple.

As the word's that Peter writes has once again proved you wrong as I have done over and over.

All the twisting and misapplying meanings and words will not change one thing.

Peter says heaven and earth is just what he says they mean heaven and earth.


11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. You just can't explain away the truth of God's word! 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


... by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Where's the holy city and temple in this phrase?

Where's the old covenant is this phrase?

Where's the metaphor in this phrase?

Show me where they are!

Break it down for me so all who read this can understand.

Where is the holy city and metaphor and old covenant in the flooding of the earth in Noah's day.

JLB
 
Owen On the 'New Heavens and Earth.'
(2 Peter iii. 13)

The apostle makes a distribution of the world into heaven and earth, and saith they were destroyed with water, and perished. We know that neither the fabric nor substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that liveth on the earth; and the apostle tells us (ver. 7) of the heaven and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle's time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth, whereof he spake, were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing of our foundation a little, consider what the apostle intends by the heavens and the earth in these two places.

' 1. It is certain that what the apostle intends by the world, with its heaven, and earth (vers. 5, 6), which was destroyed ; the same, or some-what of that kind, he intends by the heavens and the earth that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire (ver. 7) ; otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle's discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.

' 2. It is certain that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of person or men living in the world.

'3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And since it is that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language which seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4, which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman Empire (Rev. vi. 14), which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.) He sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.

' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-

'(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.

'(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), " We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,' etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, " It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell." But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28.


http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/russ-ap2o.html
 
while i understand from my studies of judiasm that heaven and earth does mean jerusalem and the temple. i use and most see that as the renewing of the earth. i get that from an amil pastor.
 
Back
Top