Pre-Trib, Post-Trib, or Two Tribs?

[jasoncran]

I just dont know. Clearing up 'Jerusalem' 70 ad era was surly some kind of separation, judgment. His death changed lots of stuff.

but not the FINAL judgment. any death is a judgment

for its appointed unto all men to die then unto the judgment.

 

[warhorse]

Been out of the loop all day traveling from one end of the country to the other, which is why I haven't been able to respond.

Just to make things clear, Jesus did say there would be "A great tribulation" before His coming, but that great tribulation was meant for Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with us.

Now, where most people get confused is the "coming" part of the Olivet Discourse and what they need to understand that what He meant by His coming is not how people today understand it!

He was coming in judgment upon those who pierced Him and to reward those who remained true to God's Word: His elect, the remnant of Israel God has always saved through times of judgment. You can find them in Revelation 7: they are the 12,000 from every tribe of Israel.

Now, if the following passage doesn't convince people here to adjust their thinking about His coming, then there's simply nothing left to write:

{29} Then He told them a parable: "Behold the fig tree and all the trees; {30} as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. {31} "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. {32} "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. {33} "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. {34} "Be on guard, so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap; {35} for it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth [land,YLT].

{36} "But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man." Luke 21:29-36 (NASB)

Let me reiterate verse 35 from Young's Literal Translation:

{35} for as a snare it shall come on all those dwelling on the face of all the land, Luke 21:35 (YLT)

What land? The land of Israel.

This all happened in 70 AD. But don't take my word for it, take Jesus at His word.

(I wonder where those crazy apostles got the idea He was coming back in their lifetime?)

Just stop digging please it is hard to read this silliness.
1st off, how do you suppose that God pulled 12,000 peeps of each tribe of israel from Jerusalam, when the ten northern tribes were scattered all over the planet like 500 years earlier.
And you still have not explaned 1000 years being fit into five years, remember insisting that Shortly was by mens timing not Gods.
Oh and this generation is in relation to the fig tree parable. Even your own translations show judments is over the face of all the earth. And you even narrow it past the land (israel) to just one city, Jerusalam. Talk about not taking the word at face value. Look Jesus was asked two questions in Mathew 24, they did not relate to each other. One was the destruction of Jerusalam in 70 ad, and the other was the return of the lord. They were simply not the same event.

 

[freeway]

Just stop digging please it is hard to read this silliness.
1st off, how do you suppose that God pulled 12,000 peeps of each tribe of israel from Jerusalam, when the ten northern tribes were scattered all over the planet like 500 years earlier.
And you still have not explaned 1000 years being fit into five years, remember insisting that Shortly was by mens timing not Gods.
Oh and this generation is in relation to the fig tree parable. Even your own translations show judments is over the face of all the earth. And you even narrow it past the land (israel) to just one city, Jerusalam. Talk about not taking the word at face value. Look Jesus was asked two questions in Mathew 24, they did not relate to each other. One was the destruction of Jerusalam in 70 ad, and the other was the return of the lord. They were simply not the same event.

I did not want to be the one who says this:biglol


Also If Jesus returned as you say, history, life after the so called second coming did not measure up to what the bible says it would then.. Jesus would rule with a rod of Iron, all nation of the world would come to Jerusalem to pay respect. Man would live under his own vine.. meaning like would be easy, or easier. I do not think history shows this life style in any form.. especially for the early Christians..

 

[Stormcrow]

1st off, how do you suppose that God pulled 12,000 peeps of each tribe of israel from Jerusalam, when the ten northern tribes were scattered all over the planet like 500 years earlier.

You don't think God knows who His elect are and where and when to gather them???

And you still have not explaned 1000 years being fit into five years, remember insisting that Shortly was by mens timing not Gods.

What's to explain? It's a nonsensical "question."

Oh and this generation is in relation to the fig tree parable.

Are you suggesting Christ didn't know to whom He was speaking when He clearly said "this generation?"

Even your own translations show judments is over the face of all the earth. And you even narrow it past the land (israel) to just one city, Jerusalam.

First of all, they're not "my translations."

Second, what part of this isn't clear to you?

{36} "But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man." Luke 21:29-36 (NASB)

Third, I gave you the literal translation of verse 35:

{35} for as a snare it shall come on all those dwelling on the face of all the land, Luke 21:35 (YLT)

"The land" was understood by every Jew past and present to mean "the land" that was given to them by God through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But you know what? Don't take my word for it: look it up yourself. It's not my job to lead you into truth, only to show it to you and hope you'll be drawn to it. Do a word study on "the land" with a good concordance from the OT.

Finally, I cited the most conclusive passage yet provided - words spoken by Christ Himself - about whom, to whom, and for whom all these things were going to take place. I don't care if you don't believe me, but you shouldn't spit all over God's Word and try to call it "rain."

 

[Stormcrow]

They were simply not the same event.

Says you. 2

 

[jasoncran]

well then this jewshould be living in isreal and all of my kin. has the acts 1 question been fulfilled

wilt thou at this time restore the KINGDOM to isreal? when has that happened?

 

[reba]

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus did not say one way or the other. just like the passage below is used by folks here to say John was to be alive at His return. I read both passages sort like it aint none of your business. Just do what i told you.


Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

 

[farouk]

r:

The moral is, surely, "I must be ready".

(Rather than, "Hey, look at me, I can count better than other people!")

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus did not say one way or the other. just like the passage below is used by folks here to say John was to be alive at His return. I read both passages sort like it aint none of your business. Just do what i told you.


Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

GREAT POINT REBA!!!!!!!!
I was thinking it, but reluctant to put it out there because I worry about saying too many things that are not in line with the mainstream and being dismissed as a full time contrarian.
Thank you for pointing this out!

 

[Lehigh3]

So you believe what Jesus told Peter came to pass in John 21-
but you don't believe what He said about John?

Futurists want it both ways & they contradict themselves to try to prove "orthodoxy" in the creeds which said "He will come to judge...." as in the future past AD70!

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

So you believe what Jesus told Peter came to pass in John 21-
but you don't believe what He said about John?

Futurists want it both ways & they contradict themselves to try to prove "orthodoxy" in the creeds which said "He will come to judge...." as in the future past AD70!

Huh? This response seems both confused and confusing. But nonetheless, I'll try to reply.
I believe that John 21 was neither a promise or necessarily prophetic. It seems to be Jesus saying "maybe he will, maybe he won't, what's it to you?"
What reason do you have for bringing futurism into what we were speaking of about Acts 1 and John 21? No one said anything about that subject. My point was that Jesus simply never answered one way or the other the question they posed him about restoring the kingdom to Israel. He did say the 'WHEN' nor did he confirm the 'IF' of it.

 

[Lehigh3]

Huh? This response seems both confused and confusing. But nonetheless, I'll try to reply.
I believe that John 21 was neither a promise or necessarily prophetic. It seems to be Jesus saying "maybe he will, maybe he won't, what's it to you?"
What reason do you have for bringing futurism into what we were speaking of about Acts 1 and John 21? No one said anything about that subject. My point was that Jesus simply never answered one way or the other the question they posed him about restoring the kingdom to Israel. He did say the 'WHEN' nor did he confirm the 'IF' of it.

Hmm, I sure do appreciate ppl who can handle criticism without being offended & giving the backlash!

Anyhoo, I disagree that you cannot see what Jesus said in John 21 about what "was to be" for Peter & John. Acts 1 is not the point to be compared with. What Jesus inferred or didn't infer in Acts 1 was answered in other passages by Him. (ie: the kingdom will be taken away from you & given to...- The Rev.of Jesus Christ WHICH GOD gave Him - where it was the Father who knew the hour & day, etc)
So, can you follow me so far bc I my spare time for this is limited?

Now, why in the world would Jesus hurt Peter's feelings directly in John 21 - with an obvious statement of "yes, this John will live till I return, but you are going to be crucified to glorify Me?"

If you can't see what future prediction He had for Peter & John respectively in John21- then those that can -are blessed with wisdom & discernment - & others just are not. :waving

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Hmm, I sure do appreciate ppl who can handle criticism without being offended & giving the backlash!

Anyhoo, I disagree that you cannot see what Jesus said in John 21 about what "was to be" for Peter & John. Acts 1 is not the point to be compared with. What Jesus inferred or didn't infer in Acts 1 was answered in other passages by Him. (ie: the kingdom will be taken away from you & given to...- The Rev.of Jesus Christ WHICH GOD gave Him - where it was the Father who knew the hour & day, etc)
So, can you follow me so far bc I my spare time for this is limited?

Now, why in the world would Jesus hurt Peter's feelings directly in John 21 - with an obvious statement of "yes, this John will live till I return, but you are going to be crucified to glorify Me?"

If you can't see what future prediction He had for Peter & John respectively in John21- then those that can -are blessed with wisdom & discernment - & others just are not. :waving

Maybe I'm missing something and not thinking things through, so if you don't mind and you have the time, help me see. Reading from a 2001 Translation John 21:18-23 reads:

‘I tell you the truth; When you were young, you used to wrap your clothes around you and walk wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will wrap you up and take you where you don’t want to go.’ (He said this to show [Peter] the type of death he would [die, to] glorify God.) And after that, he said: ‘Keep on following me!’
Well, when he turned around, Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to love following them (the one who at the evening meal, leaned back on [Jesus’] chest and asked, ‘Lord, who will betray you?’). And on seeing him, Peter asked Jesus: ‘Lord, what about him?’
And Jesus answered, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, why should you care? You keep on following me!’
But because of that, word was spread among the brothers that this disciple wouldn’t die. However, Jesus didn’t say he wouldn’t die, he just said, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, why should you care?’

What I do not see is Jesus answering Peter's question as it pertained presumably to John. It sounds like Jesus was saying "do you, his fate is not yours to be concerned with." I could of course be wrong, but what i sayings is that that is all I see it saying at this point, so if I am missing something, please enlighten me.

 

[Lehigh3]

What I do not see is Jesus answering Peter's question as it pertained presumably to John. It sounds like Jesus was saying "do you, his fate is not yours to be concerned with." I could of course be wrong, but what i sayings is that that is all I see it saying at this point, so if I am missing something, please enlighten me.

Well, what I look at is "what" Jesus said to the both of them. Jesus seemed to restore Peter 3 times (as to wipe out Peter's 3 previous denials) Then Jesus says...(I will use the NKJV) John 21:18-23.
18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.†19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.â€
The Beloved Disciple and His Book


20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?†21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?â€
22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.â€
23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?â€

Peter asks about "the disciple that Jesus loved" (We know & at least agree on that this is John, one of the sons of Zebedee, the apostle of love, the one who was present at Christ's crucifixion in John 19)
So Peter inquires "what about this man?" And it is what Jesus says about John that is a prediction & a forecast just as Peter's forecast. "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you. You follow Me."

Now should Jesus blatantly have said, "this John here will live till I come- don't be offended that you won't & will be crucified- but I chose him for that blessed fate & not you! So mind your own business!?"

I don't think so. What is clear is what Jesus' words implied. He had to include "if I will" or His favoritism towards John would have been distracting & cold.

And what Jesus implied makes historical sense as church history says John lived to be in his 90's, into the AD90's. Well past the Second coming.

 

[reba]

Yup Lehigh.

Sure shows the importance of context. My short post and comment was right on for the verses i used. But

Joh 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
Joh 21:19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.


Sure bring a different/correct understanding to

Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

 

[jasoncran]

GREAT POINT REBA!!!!!!!!
I was thinking it, but reluctant to put it out there because I worry about saying too many things that are not in line with the mainstream and being dismissed as a full time contrarian.
Thank you for pointing this out!

no he didnt, but you and the like claim that that all of revalation is done and this is the best its going to get. no return, no physical return. yes i know your claim reba, but.. agian the bible does have verses that alude to that 1000yrs and describes the jew in his land and the gentiles asking him to lead him to the lord.

or the final end of satan and all sinners. the final judgment hasnt occured.

i know in full context of things said and read much on myself my position has shifted as end times wasnt something and isnt so cut and dry issue.

neither is the creation account and how the arguments of creationism says. which the church doesnt even teach fully imho. they read the bible and teach the important stuff but nothing on the actual counter arguments.

we dont know when God will restore the kingdom to isreal but the point was it aint happened yet. you all claim that it has. not me.

 

[warhorse]

You don't think God knows who His elect are and where and when to gather them???



What's to explain? It's a nonsensical "question."



Are you suggesting Christ didn't know to whom He was speaking when He clearly said "this generation?"



First of all, they're not "my translations."

Second, what part of this isn't clear to you?



Third, I gave you the literal translation of verse 35:



"The land" was understood by every Jew past and present to mean "the land" that was given to them by God through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But you know what? Don't take my word for it: look it up yourself. It's not my job to lead you into truth, only to show it to you and hope you'll be drawn to it. Do a word study on "the land" with a good concordance from the OT.

Finally, I cited the most conclusive passage yet provided - words spoken by Christ Himself - about whom, to whom, and for whom all these things were going to take place. I don't care if you don't believe me, but you shouldn't spit all over God's Word and try to call it "rain."

So your saying that you really dont have any viable answers for all the inconsistancies in your positions. ok

 

[Sam21]

Well, what I look at is "what" Jesus said to the both of them. Jesus seemed to restore Peter 3 times (as to wipe out Peter's 3 previous denials) Then Jesus says...(I will use the NKJV) John 21:18-23.
18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.†19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.â€
The Beloved Disciple and His Book


20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?†21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?â€
22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.â€
23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?â€

Peter asks about "the disciple that Jesus loved" (We know & at least agree on that this is John, one of the sons of Zebedee, the apostle of love, the one who was present at Christ's crucifixion in John 19)
So Peter inquires "what about this man?" And it is what Jesus says about John that is a prediction & a forecast just as Peter's forecast. "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you. You follow Me."

Now should Jesus blatantly have said, "this John here will live till I come- don't be offended that you won't & will be crucified- but I chose him for that blessed fate & not you! So mind your own business!?"

I don't think so. What is clear is what Jesus' words implied. He had to include "if I will" or His favoritism towards John would have been distracting & cold.

And what Jesus implied makes historical sense as church history says John lived to be in his 90's, into the AD90's. Well past the Second coming.

Not to intrude in this discussion...but how could John, or any of the apostles of Christ, LIVE PAST the second coming of Christ since Jesus had told the apostles that when he returned He would gather them off the earth(no death). The church at that time understood that when Christ returned the living church would be gathered off the earth and therefore not die ,that is why it was spread in the church that John would not die.

 

[Sam21]

no he didnt, but you and the like claim that that all of revalation is done and this is the best its going to get. no return, no physical return. yes i know your claim reba, but.. agian the bible does have verses that alude to that 1000yrs and describes the jew in his land and the gentiles asking him to lead him to the lord.

or the final end of satan and all sinners. the final judgment hasnt occured.

i know in full context of things said and read much on myself my position has shifted as end times wasnt something and isnt so cut and dry issue.

neither is the creation account and how the arguments of creationism says. which the church doesnt even teach fully imho. they read the bible and teach the important stuff but nothing on the actual counter arguments.

we dont know when God will restore the kingdom to isreal but the point was it aint happened yet. you all claim that it has. not me.

Also,in my bible study this morning I was just reading where a 200 million man army would sweep across the earth and kill 1/3 of mankind, I wonder if the preterists would be so kind as to show us the historic account of this taking place in the first century. Rome only had about 20 million folks at that time so an army ten times that big would have been hard to miss.

 

[Sam21]

Maybe I'm missing something and not thinking things through, so if you don't mind and you have the time, help me see. Reading from a 2001 Translation John 21:18-23 reads:



What I do not see is Jesus answering Peter's question as it pertained presumably to John. It sounds like Jesus was saying "do you, his fate is not yours to be concerned with." I could of course be wrong, but what i sayings is that that is all I see it saying at this point, so if I am missing something, please enlighten me.

Yes Jesus said to Peter that the fate of John was not his concern, Jesus also said,"what if I will that he tarry till I come",by saying this Jesus implied that John may live to see the return of Christ and of course be gathered as described in Matt 24 and not die,that is why,John21:23 then went this saying abroad among the brethren that that disciple should NOT DIE. Paul said, we which are alive and remain shall be caught up to be with the Lord. None of this is hard to see in the bible unless you just reject it.