Pre Wrath overview

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron.

I'm going to follow thru this reasoning you present to see if I can see it thru your minds eye. I may need some help in spots.

ou suggest the sequence is the same between Matthew and Luke. I suggest that it is different, and that from this point in the accounts one is about the “near†and the other about the “far†application.

When it involves the coming of the son on the clouds which is immediately after the time of distress this is rocky for me right off the start.

Jesus begins with the ultimate dissolution of things, but in Luke, since He is speaking to a mixed crowd, changes from the ultimate to the precursor in Luke 21:12 to lay a pattern. But in Matthew, he is in private discourse with his “Church†core and finding no reason to change from the discussion of ultimate fulfillments continues on to speak of the things that will happen afterwards.

The assumption here is that Jesus is speaking to some other(possibly including) the four that is mentioned in Mark 13.

This is a pretty wild assumption considering the identical quotes of the conversation which are in all written accounts. You would ask me to not accept the word as written in Lukje because didn't mention that the conversation took place out on Mt Olive. We also have to come to grips that Luke shows Jesus answering the exact same question that Mark recorded.
Basiically you are asking to agree that there are two distinct and different conversations that day, starting with identical questions and ending with identical comments such as the son coming on the clouds and all these things will pass etc and NO, that's a strech I don't think is warrented.

I have yet to grasp what you are getting at here. I'll try again.

Matthew 24:9
9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

AND
Luke 21:12

12But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

You are basing this on the fact that the persecutioms are before the famine and after it....I would think the persecutions were around all through that time.I unestand peopel were martyred many years after the time of the rebellion of Judea. So this is saying that the persecutions were before and the other guy says after and in fact they were thruout the whole time. I don't have a problem with that, but I can see how a futurist would pick up on it and apply heavy credance to those words.

AT any rate this isn't down to the end times sequence which leads up to the coming of the son of man anyway. That starts at the abomination.

But even you cannot say that we shall remain in this fallen state forever, existing only with a spiritual reality.

Yes, I can because that is what the bible says happens. 2 Cor 5:1

1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

John 14
I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

1 Cor 15
44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

This pattern speaks of Christ’s kingdom now and it’s inevitable physical reality later.

Which is the reason all futurists have to deny the written word of any verse which points to the parousia being first century.

I will illustrate.
Rev 2
25Only hold on to what you have until I come.

John 21
23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return,

Matthew 10
23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

1 Cor 15
51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality

Paul includes himself or his readers as being alive at the parousia.

1 Thess 4
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Paul again includes himself or his readers to be alive at the coming.

The end of the age..
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.

Dan 12:11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.

It does not say here that the desolation will last 1290 days, just that there is a 1290 period that finds its source from the time that the temple is desolated. The sacrifices and the temple are only desolated exactly 1260. That leaves an additional 30-day for its affect to remain.

What it says is the abomination appears within 1290 days of the ceasing of the daily sacrifice...period. Have there been any Christian type sacrifices in the last 1290 days, NO, the last 1970 years..NO. Therefore the abomination would have appeared.

The Christians buried their dead there closer to the Mount of Olives so that they could be the first of the dead to be raised to be with Jesus when He returns physically just as He left physically in the Ascension.

You use Acts 1:11 to illustrate that Jesus returns physically to earth.

Jesus was invisible to most after He ascended from the grave indicating the devine spiritual being that He always was. Jesus is God it is not for me to consider I will evr reach that status. I die from the earthly physical natural body and, if acceptred, raise a spiritual being to the invisible heavenly realm.

Acts 10
40"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,

The bottom line here, as always, is if the timeframe of the Great tribulation is determined then all specualion that I have or you have is proved or disproved. In 20 years I have never had a futurist stay with that didscussion to work it out. A thread I put up here is another example of that. Phil gave a short reply and that was it.

Let's see how those verses I put up above are explained. A futurist will usually give the explaination for one or two verses but if I lay out a dozen the screen goes blank.

If the Great tribulation was in the first century all this is not worthy of discussion. Exactly the same thing happens from my side if the great trib is futture.

noble6

 

[Cameron]

This is a pretty wild assumption considering the identical quotes of the conversation which are in all written accounts.

I wouldn’t say identical, but, yes, similar. For instance, in Matthew 24 the coming in the clouds is “immediately after†while in Luke it is as the end of the time of the Gentiles. Big difference, eh?

As I said before Mark records Peter’s preaching and Peter is simply restating the original question from his brother Andrew and that is why Andrew was present with the inner three. Mark is really only more specific than Matthew on that one account, I think. Everything else in Matthew is more detailed than in Mark since Matthew was a more carefully written account presumably by all the disciples and penned by the best Greek writer in the bunch who happened to be a tax collector beforehand. This is why I generally only mention Matthew due to the extra detail.

I think Luke was aware of the differences between his account and Matthew and Mark’s (Peter’s) and that is one of the reasons why Luke 21:37-38 exists where it does. Matthew was written first according to tradition and then Mark probably after Peter’s death in 64 AD. It is likely that Luke was written just before Mark because Luke wrote Acts and Acts ends with Paul in Rome before his death near the same time as Peter’s. Luke’s mission, as a Gentile companion of Paul, was to investigate and record the reality of Jesus’ life. Did he go to the remaining disciples that survived martyrdom up to the mid-60s and in old age or did he seek out other eyewitnesses? Is it more likely that he quizzed Peter, who was in Rome, or did he go to Jerusalem and look for others who could corroborate their statements?

Luk 1:4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Basiically you are asking to agree that there are two distinct and different conversations that day, starting with identical questions and ending with identical comments

I wouldn’t phrase it in such unbelievable terminology as you have. I’d say that Jesus taught many more things than is written down and that he taught many things more than once and his pattern was to keep teaching and explaining when asked. Matthew 24-25 is too lengthy of a discourse to repeat. I know that sounds horrifying to our modern ears and world where paper is plentiful and costs a fraction of a penny. However, in the 1st Century they wrote on costly materials that were limited in size. Everything was copied slowly by hand, word for word. It was time consuming and costly. Repeating a lengthy teaching would not serve anyone, but focusing on the explanation was the better thing to do. Luke, had 100s to draw from to hear what Jesus taught in the Temple during the day, why else does he say so in Luke 21:37-38.?

It’s not that it doesn’t make sense, its that it not easy to believe because one is either not aware of the difficulties of 1st Century communication or one is predisposed not to hear it. The differences are there such as Luke 21:12 vs. Matthew 24:9.

The assumption you have to make when approaching these discourses is that the 2nd Coming will be just as literal as the 1st and that God will fulfill His promises to physical Israel. If you don’t approach it from these presumptions then you will likely never see it. It is just as amazing to me that anybody would not be a futurist at core and have problems with literal fulfillments of prophecy. For instance, if you understand that Jesus would be aware of a destruction in 70 AD and some other future destruction, then you would expect to find these types of variations. In Luke he starts off to answer the far and ultimate and then reels it back into to discuss 70 AD. He does something very much like this in Matthew 10 when he tells the Twelve not to go to the Gentiles but then later with no transition, u]none[/u] He starts telling them what to do when they stand before the Gentiles. At least in Luke we’ve got a clue, but before all that 70 AD has to happen. I don’t think these preceding things in Luke 21:8-11 came to pass in the same manner that preterists would like us to believe or how they interpret the blessed “Josephusâ€Â. Nation rising up against nation is quite a bit different than warring Jewish factions. Luke is missing references to the Gospel being preached and the concept of birth pangs, while in Mark and Matthew it is clear that it is the Disciples who heard and are capable of preaching the Gospel. It’s as if there are two fulfillments if you are observant in these matters, one for preaching to Israel before 70 AD and one to preach to the globe before the end of its systems.

1 Cor 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)

Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
Dan 2:45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.

Since Jesus rose physically and ate fish and was physically touched to show what type of resurrected body we would have, then the manner of understanding passages as you cited previously and these are to be of a physical nature commensurate with the objects they are compared to.

I will illustrate.
Rev 2
25Only hold on to what you have until I come.

There were more than just seven churches in Asia. There were churches at Troas, Heiropolis and Collosee but they were not selected to have letters written to them. Why because the 7 Churches represent “fullness and completionâ€Â, the whole church is some manner and the fact that there are many references to Jesus coming such as a thief. When I say “whole†church I don’t mean 1st Century pre-70 AD only, but that each church is a type of churches that will and do exist. I doubt the reference to Jezebel in one of the letters is really her name. It is what it represents as types of the whole.

John 21
23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return,

A rumor is a rumor. So what?

Matthew 10
23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

I already suggested that Jesus was talking about the whole future of the church in how He said not to go to the Gentiles and then He tells them what to do when they are before the Gentiles. Preterists have problems realizing that there are cities in Israel today and that there are disciples of Christ today thankfully as a result of obedience to Matthew 28:19-20.

1 Cor 15
51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality

Paul includes himself or his readers as being alive at the parousia.

1 Thess 4
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Paul again includes himself or his readers to be alive at the coming.

You’re hung up on this even though I’ve demonstrated to you that this “we†is applicable to any Christian who has ever lived or hoped in the resurrection. It’s the whole Church just like Romans 12:4-5. How many times do I have to type it. I don’t think you want to hear it because you don’t address it.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

There’s only one body of Christ and one resurrected body and “we†are all part of that if we place our faith and trust in what Christ has done for us!

The end of the age..
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.

You’re misreading the tense of the letter. This is in the same sense as Hebrews 1.

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,

The idea to these Hebrews is that God spoke formerly through the prophets (who were servants like Moses in Chp 3), but in these times God is now speaking through His Son (the creator and owner of the house rather than the servant in Chp 3). This is what it means, any thing else is reading into the text. The audience was Hebrew converts, likely Priests, scribes and teachers of the Law.

What it says is the abomination appears within 1290 days of the ceasing of the daily sacrifice...period. Have there been any Christian type sacrifices in the last 1290 days, NO, the last 1970 years..NO. Therefore the abomination would have appeared.

There are differing opinions in many translations as to what exactly was meant. On one side you’ve got the GNB that agrees with me and the GW that agrees with you.

(GNB) "From the time the daily sacrifices are stopped, that is, from the time of The Awful Horror, 1,290 days will pass.

(GW) From the time the daily burnt offering is taken away and the disgusting thing that causes destruction is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

I side on the version that addresses immediate context. In Daniel 12 there is a reference to 3 ½ in the form of time, times and half a time (12:7). That is another way of saying 1260, or half of a seven. The reference to a half of seven is clear in Daniel 9. So all these dates, anywhere in the Bible, I will suggest all begin at the same time, the midpoint of the last Seven. 1260, 1290 and 1335 are all meant to refer to the context of Daniel 9:27.

Here’s another way of looking at it. If one is blessed to reach the 1335th day, then 1290 is part of the 1335, not before it or after it. The same could be said of the 1260 being part of the 1290 and the 1335. And the context lends itself to this type of “nutshelling†of times. One can reach the 1260th or 1290th or 1335th day.

Jesus was invisible to most after He ascended from the grave

I don’t agree. I believe he didn’t show Himself around publicly to just anybody for that would :
1) Coerce belief
2) Subject Him to a second denial from Israel.

Jesus could clearly mask His ID as He did on the road to Emmaus or reveal who He is or walk through walls or eat fish. But similar things He could do before the Resurrection too like walk on water. I wouldn’t hold my breath on obscure translations like Acts 10:40.

Acts 10
40"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,

Act 10:40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
Act 10:41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Like I said, it’s not about being invisible but about rewarding the faithful.

In 20 years I have never had a futurist stay with hat didscussion to work it out.

The fact that I have to repeat my arguments that go unaddressed by you should be of some note. I’ve explained the “we†issue three times now. This is the second time, I’ve explained Acts 10:40 without your response. I feel like I’m spending all these hours discussing but I’m the one talking.
:smt102

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

I wouldn’t say identical, but, yes, similar. For instance, in Matthew 24 the coming in the clouds is “immediately after†while in Luke it is as the end of the time of the Gentiles. Big difference, eh?

Not quite Cameron.

Here is what I wrote:

This is a pretty wild assumption considering the identical quotes of the conversation which are in all written accounts. You would ask me to not accept the word as written in Lukje because didn't mention that the conversation took place out on Mt Olive. We also have to come to grips that Luke shows Jesus answering the exact same question that Mark recorded.
Basiically you are asking to agree that there are two distinct and different conversations that day, starting with identical questions and ending with identical comments such as the son coming on the clouds and all these things will pass etc and NO, that's a strech I don't think is warrented.

*******************************************

What I stated is absolutely correct. They started with identical questions. Mark and Luke are word for word in the question and Matthew records the bit about the temple which is the same as the other two and goes on to mention the end and the coming.
The question is in response to the exact same prophecy which Jesus just spoke.

"I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Near the end of the conversation the exact same comments are recorded by all three writers.

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

There is only one of those and hence this is the same conversation and as you trace back Lukes writing it brings you to :

24They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The Roman soldiers were Gentiles weren't they? Jerusalem was trampled in 70 AD.

The kicker is that Luke also wrote this:

32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Within that list is Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, the gentiles beating on Jerusalem, the coming of the son of man and the flight from Judea.
So Luke is wording it different but so what Mark did too, when he didn't list the question like Matthew did.

I say again, he didn't have to word the question like Matthew as long as the end and the coming were at the time of the destruction. How many tie-ins to 70 AD do you need before you decide that the Olivet Discourse was about the destruction of the very temple that Jesus made the prophecy about that day.

The gentiles or the Roman army were what persecuted the Christians of the times. Paul was crucified by the Romans and God used the roman armies to perform the wrath of God. He used them to pour out that wrath on those who rejected the son.

Rev 11 talks more about the gentiles in Jerusalem.

As I said before Mark records Peter’s preaching and Peter is simply restating the original question from his brother Andrew and that is why Andrew was present with the inner three.

Where was this determined?

These men are devinely inspired. They didn'rt have to go around interviewing people to wrte the gospel. Had they done that man's faults would have entered in. They were devinely given what to write. If they weren't we got big trouble in Christianity.

Did he go to the remaining disciples that survived martyrdom up to the mid-60s and in old age or did he seek out other eyewitnesses? Is it more likely that he quizzed Peter, who was in Rome, or did he go to Jerusalem and look for others who could corroborate their statements?

None of the above...Mark explained that:

Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

The differences are there such as Luke 21:12 vs. Matthew 24:9.

This is dealing with two very insignificant words. Before and whatever. It's there but it's terribly weak.

The assumption you have to make when approaching these discourses is that the 2nd Coming will be just as literal as the 1st and that God will fulfill His promises to physical Israel.

Have you ever interviewed someone who has had a near death experience where they have seen Peace? That second coming is as literal as you'll ever need it as far as I can see.

What tells you God is still going to fullfill what promise to physical Israel or do you mean symbolic Israel? If you mean symbolic Israel what is that?

. In Luke he starts off to answer the far and ultimate and then reels it back into to discuss 70 AD.

Luke records a conversation between Jesus and some of His deciples. It is the same discussion that Matthew and Mark record. We know that because it is in response to the exact same prophecy that Jesus gave as they walked out of the temple in Jerusalem. Mark and Matthew are also recording the convesation about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The thing to grasp is that the 'end' and the 'coming' are at the same time as that destruction. How else could all three write:

32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

It’s as if there are two fulfillments if you are observant in these matters, one for preaching to Israel before 70 AD and one to preach to the globe before the end of its systems.

Unless you can take the son of man verse and the all these things verse out of Luke 21 you do not have a case.

Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever

Would the kingdom of Heaven which is forever and ever fit here?

Since Jesus rose physically and ate fish and was physically touched to show what type of resurrected body we would have, then the manner of understanding passages as you cited previously and these are to be of a physical nature commensurate with the objects they are compared to.

Since Jesus was God He could do a lot of things. When you and I die it goes like this.

44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

I once spent about two weeks discussing this with a dispensalist who insisted this verse only concerned the word 'it.' It is the body and 'it' was physical. The sentence says raised a spiritual body and that is what it means.

In response to my askling what this means......
Rev 2
25Only hold on to what you have until I come.

you wrote......

There were more than just seven churches in Asia. There were churches at Troas, Heiropolis and Collosee but they were not selected to have letters written to them. Why because the 7 Churches represent “fullness and completionâ€Â, the whole church is some manner and the fact that there are many references to Jesus coming such as a thief. When I say “whole†church I don’t mean 1st Century pre-70 AD only, but that each church is a type of churches that will and do exist. I doubt the reference to Jezebel in one of the letters is really her name. It is what it represents as types of the whole.

No Cameron, I want to know what the sentence means.Jesus told John to write to the angel of that church in Thyatira and tell them to Hold till I COME.

That was written to Thyatira, there is no Thyatira now so it was to people many years ago. Did Jesus lie to those peole , did He come or are they still holding. I.m not interested in man made philosophys, I'm not interested in rationalization to deflect attention from the obvious, I want to know what the sentence means. The reason being is that here again there is only one logical explanation and that is that Jesus 'come' in the first century because if He didn't those people would be dead and no longer able to 'hold.'

23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return,{/quote]

A rumor is a rumor. So what?

Nice try.

The rumor was that Jesus had said that John would not die period. That, of course, was not what Jesu said. Jesus said " if I want John to LIVE until I return................

If Jesus returned in 70 AD John would have lived until that return.....right!

I think you would know that too.

I quoted Hebrews 9:26 and you wrote:

You’re misreading the tense of the letter. This is in the same sense as Hebrews 1.

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,

Her is the verse:
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The tense of the statment needs no clarification. What the sentece says is the end of the world was at the time of the cross. Naturally the end of the world means AION, world or age, but it is at the time of the cross.

That is the end that will come when the gospel is preached to the oikoumene too. Which is whay you can read Pauls statment at Colossians 1:23 right off the page.

So no, I have no trouble with tense there in Hebrews 26, I read it off the page as written and it reconciles with the verses I quoted....ALL of them.

The idea to these Hebrews is that God spoke formerly through the prophets (who were servants like Moses in Chp 3), but in these times God is now speaking through His Son

No, it says this: (You are talking about Hebrews 1 here)

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,

You are trying to say that this really means recently...

Well, it didn't in Joel 2 where he says.....

28 "And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.

29 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days

AND it show sup at ..guess what ...the last days in Acts 2
17" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,

The same last days as Hebrews is talking about and it doesn't mean recently.

The fact that I have to repeat my arguments that go unaddressed by you should be of some note. I’ve explained the “we†issue three times now. This is the second time, I’ve explained Acts 10:40 without your response. I feel like I’m spending all these hours discussing but I’m the one talking.

Actually I have the same complaint. I have wanted to see a lot of things addressed that were missed too. However, I have done this before (thousands of times) so I know it happens.

Gotta run NFL football is on. I like Canadian ball better, but any football is great.

noble6

 

[Cameron]

Not quite Cameron.

Here is what I wrote:…
Basiically you are asking to agree that there are two distinct and different conversations that day, starting with identical questions and ending with identical comments such as the son coming on the clouds and all these things will pass etc and NO, that's a strech I don't think is warrented.

And this was part of my response:
“I wouldn’t say identical, but, yes, similar. For instance, in Matthew 24 the coming in the clouds is “immediately after†while in Luke it is as the end of the time of the Gentiles. Big difference, eh?â€Â
I’ve already shown you the patterns that exist in the Gospels of Jesus going through the same teachings privately to His disciples and how there are indicators of this. I have already shown how there are very large differences in content and tense, but all of these points go unaddressed and I get a general comment about how you feel about it. I’ve already shown you how and why Luke’s account would be different and already established that Jesus taught similar things more than once and had plenty of time to speak of it again in fine detail and I have also explained why the Gospel record would only end up recording one of them.

They started with identical questions. Mark and Luke are word for word

I’ve already explained why this is so and the dates of writing. You’re just repeating without responding to my previous posts.

"I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

I’ve already explained that Luke does not have Jesus leaving the Temple and he explains why in 21:37-38.

Near the end of the conversation the exact same comments are recorded by all three writers.

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

Actually, Matthew reveals the extended teaching of Jesus written first, at least 15 to 25 years prior top the others. Mark recorded Peter’s teaching that he and Luke and Paul heard over and over again in Rome. Notice the connection between the two, Mark and Luke in that Luke was already well versed in Mark’s version. Luke then goes to investigate if what they have received is true. Here’s a quote from PNT (People’s New Testament Commentary)
“THE GOSPEL of Luke differs from the other three in its sources of information. Matthew wrote as an eye witness; Mark probably recalled the recollections of Peter; John recalled his own personal memories of the life and words of the Lord, but Luke draws from the authentic sources of information then accessible, and he carefully presents the results in an orderly narrative.â€Â
Of course, all three are going to agree again at the 2nd Coming. Luke is quite clear that after the time of the Gentiles, a time we are still in, is when the 2nd Coming will occur. Luke’s 1st Century application is from verse 12 to 24 when it transitions to the present and into the future. Although with that said, there is another alternative according to the “near/far†principle which I will expand upon in the response after the next one.

There is only one of those and hence this is the same conversation and as you trace back Lukes writing it brings you to :

Please, the same person can use the same phrases in different contexts. Everyone does it. People are people, not robots.

The Roman soldiers were Gentiles weren't they? Jerusalem was trampled in 70 AD. [quote:a0249]
So were the crusaders, and the Muslims and those who control parts and the Temple mount today.
[quote:a0249]The kicker is that Luke also wrote this:

32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Within that list is Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, the gentiles beating on Jerusalem, the coming of the son of man and the flight from Judea.
So Luke is wording it different but so what Mark did too, when he didn't list the question like Matthew did.

I say again, he didn't have to word the question like Matthew as long as the end and the coming were at the time of the destruction. How many tie-ins to 70 AD do you need before you decide that the Olivet Discourse was about the destruction of the very temple that Jesus made the prophecy about that day.

What is the key thing missing from Luke’s account? Answer: the sending out of angels and the gathering of the elect. I mention this because the near/far principle offers a second option that is agreeable with partial-preterism in that the coming in the clouds (without gathering elect) can be seen as a symbolic coming in judgment just as there are a few scant OT examples. This of course would correspond with Matt. 26:64’s comment and Matthew 23’s obvious 70 AD sense. 70 AD presented a “near†example of a future “far†and ultimately reality. 70 AD was hardly the greatest distress ever. No one in the early church spoke of 70 AD in the same sense that preterists of any ilk do.

Where was this determined?

These men are devinely inspired. They didn'rt have to go around interviewing people to wrte the gospel. Had they done that man's faults would have entered in. They were devinely given what to write. If they weren't we got big trouble in Christianity.

I encourage you to investigate this for yourself. There’s no sense in believing a falsehood. Understanding history and the OT will pay in dividends. When Hebrews 4:12 speaks of the Word of God or 2 Tim. 3:16, they are referring primarily to the OT; it is all they had for the most part. And specifically it was at the LXX translation.

What tells you God is still going to fullfill what promise to physical Israel or do you mean symbolic Israel? If you mean symbolic Israel what is that?

Rom 11:23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
God did not remove the hardened hearts of Israel after 70 AD.

Would the kingdom of Heaven which is forever and ever fit here? (Dan. 2:44)

Only if it is as literal as the nations it destroyed. Preterists are always forgetting that the Roman Empire reached its peak in 200 AD and that 70 AD did absolutely nothing to change that. While Christ’s kingdom was growing larger, so was Rome’s. That doesn’t fit Daniel 2 in any way shape or form, especially with the ten toes.

Quote:
Since Jesus rose physically and ate fish and was physically touched to show what type of resurrected body we would have, then the manner of understanding passages as you cited previously and these are to be of a physical nature commensurate with the objects they are compared to.

Since Jesus was God He could do a lot of things. When you and I die it goes like this.

44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

I once spent about two weeks discussing this with a dispensalist who insisted this verse only concerned the word 'it.' It is the body and 'it' was physical. The sentence says raised a spiritual body and that is what it means.

In response to my askling what this means......
Rev 2
25Only hold on to what you have until I come.

Western minds steeped in Greek thought have trouble breaking out of the “spiritual†is ephemeral mode. That is what made Gnosticism so evil and such a heresy that the Church fought tooth and nail. The basic idea of Gnosticism is that the body is bad and the spirit (in the sense of cloud, ephemeral, ghostly) is good. AS such they denied the bodily resurrection of Christ that Jesus explicitly validated when He asked the disciples to come and touch His body.

There are only two types of bodies:
1) Those that can stand before God in all His glory
2) Those that can not, because they are imperfect and will crack.

Sin is our imperfection and 99.99999999% is not good enough and never can be. A little bit of poison in a body of water is bad. The “spiritual body†is a 100% real and true body that can interact with God. We are shadows of that reality. We are cracked vases, old wine skins, flawed diamonds. What we call the physical is inferior to the “spiritual†in this sense. Adam and Jesus are our examples of what 100% is like.

Cameron wrote:
Quote:
There were more than just seven churches in Asia. There were churches at Troas, Heiropolis and Collosee but they were not selected to have letters written to them. Why because the 7 Churches represent “fullness and completionâ€Â, the whole church is some manner and the fact that there are many references to Jesus coming such as a thief. When I say “whole†church I don’t mean 1st Century pre-70 AD only, but that each church is a type of churches that will and do exist. I doubt the reference to Jezebel in one of the letters is really her name. It is what it represents as types of the whole.


No Cameron, I want to know what the sentence means.Jesus told John to write to the angel of that church in Thyatira and tell them to Hold till I COME.

That was written to Thyatira, there is no Thyatira now so it was to people many years ago. Did Jesus lie to those peole , did He come or are they still holding. I.m not interested in man made philosophys, I'm not interested in rationalization to deflect attention from the obvious, I want to know what the sentence means. The reason being is that here again there is only one logical explanation and that is that Jesus 'come' in the first century because if He didn't those people would be dead and no longer able to 'hold.'

No back. You can not deny that seven is a number referring to completion and that it is used in this fashion here and in Revelation. Whether you want to believe that there were more Churches in the world than just these seven in Western Turkey is up to you since we have epistles written to many other Churches.
You say you want to know what this sentence means but you said elsewhere you are unwilling to take the time to learn the OT through and though. Revelation has over 500 allusions to the OT. How do you know you are not missing a key one? No one can pick and choose which part of the Word of God to believe, Leviticus is important too.
You would like to take “hold fast until I come†in a wooden literal sense in a book of symbols. This is the typical bane of preterism, one thing is literal and then one thing is spiritual, etc. A futurist would approach this by trying to understand the symbolism, context, typology and imagery. If we take your logic to the extreme, then only 6 of these 7 churches were “raptured†to be with the Lord and all other Christians who were not part of these Churches and any that follow are stranded assuming an early date for Rev. That’s totally absurd.
Rev 2:25 Only hold fast what you have until I come.
Rev 2:26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations,
The purpose of “holding fast†is so that these faithful along with any other faithful can have authority over the nations during the MK.

The rumor was that Jesus had said that John would not die period. That, of course, was not what Jesu said. Jesus said " if I want John to LIVE until I return................

If Jesus returned in 70 AD John would have lived until that return.....right!

No way. You’re adding to the Word what you want to see.
“Joh 21:23 So he saying spreadoad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; …â€Â
This is a rumor and trying to deny it is simply self-deceptive.
…yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"

The point is that Jesus simply said “if†it was His will, not that it was His will. The point of this sentence is to squash the rumor. That is why John wrote it to deflect the glory attributed to Him so that it would all go back on Jesus.

I quoted Hebrews 9:26 and you wrote:
Quote:
You’re misreading the tense of the letter. This is in the same sense as Hebrews 1.

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,

The tense of the statment needs no clarification. What the sentece says is the end of the world was at the time of the cross. Naturally the end of the world means AION, world or age, but it is at the time of the cross.

Once again, you are ignoring the context and imposing your own modern idea of what was meant. Will you take the time to reference all the other application of ages and what was meant in 9:9-11? You’ll probably say that the “present age†was at the time of the writing while failing to note the dichotomy set up and that the writer is in fact referring to verse 11 and back again to the premise set out in Hebrews 1.
The whole idea of 9:26 is to point out that Jesus didn’t need to die year after year since the first sin by Adam like the Leviticus system. But that Jesus’ as our High Priest accomplished it all “once for all†at this time in history. The writer of Hebrews is very methodical in his approach and sticks to his theme from the first two verses. I encourage you to go through an extended study of Hebrews. You’ll actually end up reading some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers to identify a likely author who was definitely not Paul. You’re assessment of 9:26 is way off base and totally out of context.

That is the end that will come when the gospel is preached to the oikoumene too. Which is whay you can read Pauls statment at Colossians 1:23 right off the page.

I’ve already shown how this is a hyperbole since the next direct reference is Col. 1:16. Again, this is a passage taken out of context like it or not. It is wrenched out of its purpose to make do for your scheme.
Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Paul was not done being a minister. You would have us believe his work was done, but the contrary was true. After writing Colossians he still sought to proclaim the Gospel. Apparently he still thought he had further work to do in the Roman Empire.
From Smiths Bible Dictionary:
“Period of the later Epistles. -- To that imprisonment to which St. Luke has introduced us -- the imprisonment which lasted for such a tedious time, though tempered by much indulgence -- belongs the noble group of letters to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians. The three former of these were written at one time, and sent by the same messengers. Whether that to the Philippians was written before or after these, we cannot determine; but the tone of it seems to imply that a crisis was approaching, and therefore, it is commonly regarded us the latest of the four.
In this Epistle, St. Paul twice expresses a confident hope that, before long, he may be able to visit the Philippians in person. Phi_1:25; Phi_2:24. Whether this hope was fulfilled or not, has been the occasion of much controversy. According to the general opinion, the apostle was liberated from imprisonment, at the end of two years, having been acquitted by Nero, A.D. 63, and left Rome soon after writing the letter to the Philippians. He spent some time in visits to Greece, Asia Minor and Spain, and during the latter part of this time, wrote the letters (first Epistles) to Timothy and Titus from Macedonia, A.D. 65. After these were written, he was apprehended again and sent to Rome.â€Â

Cameron wrote:
Quote:
The idea to these Hebrews is that God spoke formerly through the prophets (who were servants like Moses in Chp 3), but in these times God is now speaking through His Son


[quote:a0249] No, it says this: (You are talking about Hebrews 1 here)

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,

You are trying to say that this really means recently...

[/quote:a0249][/quote:a0249][/quote:a0249]
You can’t be serious? How can wee have an intelligible dialogue when we’ve got to go over the basics like this? Please take the time to read Hebrews and think about the comparisons between the Leviticus system and Christ’s new way. Please take the time to understand chapter 3’s discussion about the household.
You brought up Joel and Acts by making the connection of the young men prophesying. You want to show that it all points to 32-70 AD while I say that it can be understood in both or either a near/far sense or the same sense as Isaiah 9:6-7 as is typical of prophecy where suddenly one verse speaks of a certain time.

 

[ddubsolo85]

1st century earthquakes

Noblej6,

What's your stance on this?

I was curious about earthquakes in the first century, and I stumbled into this article:

Are the Earthquakes of Prophecy Literal?
Dr. Larry Spargimino
It is becoming quite fashionable to understand the earthquakes mentioned in biblical prophecy to be references to earthquakes that already occurred in the past. What are we to think of this claim?

The word “earthquake†is used seven times in the Book of Revelation to describe five different earthquakes. Preterists (those who believe that prophecy was fulfilled in the past) argue that these earthquakes already occurred in the first century around the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans. In evaluating this claim we need to examine the historical records for earthquakes in the first century.

Ancient histories written by Roman historians indicate that there were three earthquakes in the first century Roman world. Writing in A.D. 77, Pliny the Elder described a massive earthquake that destroyed a large section of Asia Minor ( Turkey ) in the year A.D. 17. It was so devastating that the Roman emperor suspended taxes for five years to enable the citizens to recover from the damage. Pliny says that this was “the greatest earthquake in human memory.†If the earthquake in A.D. 17 was described by a historian writing in A.D. 77 in this way, obviously there was no massive earthquake at the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70.

Two other earthquakes occurred in the first century, one in A.D. 33 and one in A.D. 48, both of which only did slight damage to the Temple in Jerusalem . This makes it clear that there were no earthquakes that occurred around the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans. This poses a serious problem for anyone who claims that the earthquakes of Revelation occurred in the first century. There just weren’t any earthquakes that fit into the preterist understanding of Revelation.

http://www.swrc.com/qanda/earthquakes.htm

God Bless!

 

[ddubsolo85]

1st century earthquakes

Noblej6,

What's your stance on this?

I was curious about earthquakes in the first century, and I stumbled into this article:

Are the Earthquakes of Prophecy Literal?
Dr. Larry Spargimino
It is becoming quite fashionable to understand the earthquakes mentioned in biblical prophecy to be references to earthquakes that already occurred in the past. What are we to think of this claim?

The word “earthquake†is used seven times in the Book of Revelation to describe five different earthquakes. Preterists (those who believe that prophecy was fulfilled in the past) argue that these earthquakes already occurred in the first century around the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans. In evaluating this claim we need to examine the historical records for earthquakes in the first century.

Ancient histories written by Roman historians indicate that there were three earthquakes in the first century Roman world. Writing in A.D. 77, Pliny the Elder described a massive earthquake that destroyed a large section of Asia Minor ( Turkey ) in the year A.D. 17. It was so devastating that the Roman emperor suspended taxes for five years to enable the citizens to recover from the damage. Pliny says that this was “the greatest earthquake in human memory.†If the earthquake in A.D. 17 was described by a historian writing in A.D. 77 in this way, obviously there was no massive earthquake at the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70.

Two other earthquakes occurred in the first century, one in A.D. 33 and one in A.D. 48, both of which only did slight damage to the Temple in Jerusalem . This makes it clear that there were no earthquakes that occurred around the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans. This poses a serious problem for anyone who claims that the earthquakes of Revelation occurred in the first century. There just weren’t any earthquakes that fit into the preterist understanding of Revelation.

http://www.swrc.com/qanda/earthquakes.htm

God Bless!

 

[noblej6]

Hi ddubsolo85,

Only two earthqukes you say......

Wasn't there a couple right around when Jesus died and then there was this one in Acts.16.

26Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody's chains came loose.

There were earthquakes in diverse places I would say. I have never looked up anything about earthquakes because earthquakes happen all the time and they happened then and will continue to happen.

So my stance on earthquakes is that they have little importance in determining the timeframe of biblical prophecy.

noble6

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

Rev 2
25Only hold on to what you have until I come.

He tells John to write to the angel of the church.......the angel of the church of THYATIRA.

No, I won't accept that Jesus actually meant the First Uprighteous Church of Pascacula, it says the church in THYATIRA. There was a church in Thyatira in the first century. There is no church of Thyatira now.
Jesus explains that there were those in Thyatira who followed Jezebel and He wasnt real cool with that. Jesus also said there were some in Thyatira that were doing good and should hold until He comes.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to determine that if Jesus doesn't come in THAT generation those poor for folks in Thyatira can't hold til He comes.

So once again.
1) did Jeus give those people of Thyatira false hope?
2)Did Jesus come?
3) Are they still holding

If you have scripture that indicates the exact words of this verse should be explained other than written lets go thru it.

noble6

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

There are only two types of bodies:
1) Those that can stand before God in all His glory
2) Those that can not, because they are imperfect and will crack.

Actually that's not quite right. I guess it isn't even close. The wicked can stand in front of God just as easy as the righteous and they will to hear their judgent. It goes downhill quick after that I bet, but technically, what you wrote wouldn't be strictly correct I dont think.

The two types of bodies are
1) earthly...physical, natural, visible, mortal,perishable

2) Heavenly..spirtual,immortal, imperishable, invisible

And the spiritual comes AFTER the natural or the heavenly comes AFTER the earthly.

Please, the same person can use the same phrases in different contexts. Everyone does it. People are people, not robots.
[quote:392ae]The Roman soldiers were Gentiles weren't they? Jerusalem was trampled in 70 AD. [quote:392ae]
So were the crusaders, and the Muslims and those who control parts and the Temple mount today.

[/quote:392ae][/quote:392ae]

You're not allowing yourself to see this.
If you take Lukes sentences in reverse order from where he states that the son of man comes in glory it takes you back to the flight to the mountains from Judea.

Now because the great trib is immediately before that coming in glory , it follows that the bit about the gentiles beating on Jerusalem IS THE GREAT TRIBULATION. The surrounding of Jerusalem IS THE ABOMINATION.

I highly doubt that anyone reading this doesn't know that, but some refuse to allow it to register in their mind.

Lets go at this one a different way.

Luke says :

32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Is this one of ALL THESE things?

20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

Remember Jesus did make aprophecy that said the temple of Jerusalem would be thrown down.......

Are these part of ALL THESE THINGS?

"Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom

21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars.

AND most importantly is this one of ALL THESE THINGS?

27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

noble6

 

[Cameron]

There was a church in Thyatira in the first century. There is no church of Thyatira now.

Clearly you are focused on this. So your thinking is that Jesus said he was coming to them, the folks in Thyatira right? Do you really think there was an actual person named “Jezebel†in that Church.

Rev 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Is it not obvious that it is a symbolic name describing who the person is like, the Jezebel of the OT? No Jew or Christian connected to Jewish society in their right mind would name any kid Jezebel. The point is, is that these letters are symbolic of all churches, not just Thyatira, which is one type of Church.

All that aside, you still want to dispense with the overt symbols and say that Thyatira actually expected the Lord to return. That is really the question. Should and would these Churches have understood these letters literally? I propose that if you are arguing for this then where do we draw the lines for all the other images in Revelation? You want it literal here but not when people are forced to take a Mark on the forehead or right hand? Maybe you want a literal sword flashing from Jesus’ mouth in Revelation 1? The point is, these seven Churches clearly understood two things:

1) Jesus walks in the midst of more than just seven churches and therefore, they play a symbolic role in the corporate body as a type with commensurate issues.

2) “Hold fast until I come is applicable to any Christian just as are all the other references to Jesus’ coming.

To say it as you say, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that there are more than just seven lampstands and that the “seven spirits†like seven lampstands or stars is also a symbol of completeness.

1) There’s no false hope – the same hope is applicable to all Christians today.
2) Jesus did not come.
3) Dead Christians do not need to “hold on†any more, they have Peace.

The burden for you is to show why you would take this passage to one of seven churches literal and not the flashing sword from Jesus’ mouth or other similar imagery. Are we supposed to think of Jesus as the slain lamp with seven eyes in Rev. 5 or as He appears in Rev. 1?

 

[Cameron]

The two types of bodies are
1) earthly...physical, natural, visible, mortal,perishable

2) Heavenly..spirtual,immortal, imperishable, invisible

This is only partially correct. It is from the perspective of the fallen nature. The idea is reversal/restoration:

1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

The ideal state is what Adam was before the Fall and what Jesus represented after the Resurrection as our pathway to the ideal and intended state of our existence.

1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Adam was not invisible. Being “heavenly†is being with God face to face, immortal, imperishable and able to witness His full glory.

Now because the great trib is immediately before that coming in glory , it follows that the bit about the gentiles beating on Jerusalem IS THE GREAT TRIBULATION.

It’s been said that 609-586 BC was worse than 70 AD because ALL of Judaism was focused in Judea as opposed to being more spread out in the Roman words by 70 AD. Jacob’s trouble was worse then and worse in WW2.

The surrounding of Jerusalem IS THE ABOMINATION.

That is a misuse of the word. Jerusalem can be desolated but only the temple can be abominated. 70 AD does not fit the pattern of the previous well-known abomination of the Temple…not even close. It’s useless to insist that the abomination of desolation is anything close to the desolation of Jerusalem by armies.

AND most importantly is this one of ALL THESE THINGS?

I already gave you the two options above for looking at it. It totally fits with the futurist core understanding. If you are going to take the “armies part literally then take the sun, moon and stars literallyâ€Â. Stop picking and choosing when to accept something literally. Be consistent and focus on ALL. You’re missing the forest by staring at a tree.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

You quote two verses that lay out what I said about there being a natual body and a spiritual one.

It’s been said that 609-586 BC was worse than 70 AD because ALL of Judaism was focused in Judea as opposed to being more spread out in the Roman words by 70 AD. Jacob’s trouble was worse then and worse in WW2.

Being worse than, bigger than, more dead than, ...it doesnt say the Great trib is worse than other times in this or that respect. It says like no other in history or ever again. Why did Jesus choose to call it the GREAT TRIB, who knows? I guess because He had already decied that another real horrible thing with the Jew was going to be called the holocaust.

Im going to jump to another statement youmadeand hope we can eventually shorten these posts down to get more directness to points.

3) Dead Christians do not need to “hold on†any more, they have Peace.

Besides changing the word of God here you have brought up that the dead Christians have 'Peace.' Just how and where do you suggest these dead Christians of Thyatira would have peace?

noble6

 

[Cameron]

noble6,

Being worse than, bigger than, more dead than, ...it doesnt say the Great trib is worse than other times in this or that respect. It says like no other in history or ever again. Why did Jesus choose to call it the GREAT TRIB, who knows? I guess because He had already decied that another real horrible thing with the Jew was going to be called the holocaust.

Luk 21:22 because these are days of vengeance to fulfill all the things that are written.
Luk 21:23 Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days, for there will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.
Luk 21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Look. My point is that Luke says nothing about his account referring to the greatest of all distresses. That is left to Matthew and Mark for when Jesus is explaining the ultimate end of all things before He establishes His MK. Luke’s “great distress†is a far cry from how it is described elsewhere in the ultimate sense.

Mar 13:19 For those will be days of tribulation, the kind that hasn't been from the beginning of the world, which God created, until now and never will be again!
Mar 13:20 Unless the Lord limited those days, no one would survive. But He limited those days because of the elect, whom He chose.

And

Mat 24:21 For at that time there will be great tribulation, the kind that hasn't taken place from the beginning of the world until now and never will again!
Mat 24:22 Unless those days were limited, no one would survive. But those days will be limited because of the elect

How can you say that this “great tribulation†isn’t the worst ever? Matthew and Mark as so clear that unless the days are “amputated†then no life would remain. You can only cut short time that has been previously specified elsewhere. Guess where? This is why Jesus’ connection to Daniel is so important in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14

(AMP) Mark 13:14 But when you see the abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel the prophet standing where it ought not to be--[and] let the one who reads take notice and consider and understand and heed [this]--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. [Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11.]

(AMP) Dan 12:1 AND AT that time [of the end] Michael shall arise, the great [angelic] prince who defends and has charge of your [Daniel's] people. And there shall be a time of trouble, straitness, and distress such as never was since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the Book [of God's plan for His own].

(CEV) Dan 12:1 Michael, the chief of the angels, is the protector of your people, and he will come at a time of terrible suffering, the worst in all of history. And your people who have their names written in The Book will be protected.

Besides changing the word of God here you have brought up that the dead Christians have 'Peace.' Just how and where do you suggest these dead Christians of Thyatira would have peace?

You’re not suggesting dead Christians still suffer in a purgatory are you?

2Co 5:6 Therefore, though we are always confident and know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord--
2Co 5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight--
2Co 5:8 yet we are confident and satisfied to be out of the body and at home with the Lord.

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.

These 7 Churches represent all Churches; the whole body of Christ. If Jesus wanted to be literal He should have written to at least the 10 Churches of this area that we know of. And then there were so many more. Jesus walks among 7 lampstands just as He is a slain lamb with seven eyes. It is all symbolic. Everybody knew it at Thyratira.

Rev 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Clearly the eyes reflect Jesus’ all knowing especially what it is to be a man and suffer and hence the reference to the Passover sacrifice that was repeated over and over in the Levitical system, but Jesus came once for all to solve the issue and make a way for us to be restored. It is his sacrifice that was key, the perfect obedience that led to the perfect sacrifice to become the eternal source of life for those who believe. The seven horns represent his sovereign authority and right for He has conquered sin and death and is therefore worthy to open the seals.

 

[Vic C.]

Matthew 24 (LITV)
21 For there will be great affliction, such as has not happened from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.

...

It’s been said that 609-586 BC was worse than 70 AD because ALL of Judaism was focused in Judea as opposed to being more spread out in the Roman words by 70 AD. Jacob’s trouble was worse then and worse in WW2.

Being worse than, bigger than, more dead than, ...it doesnt say the Great trib is worse than other times in this or that respect. It says like no other in history or ever again. Why did Jesus choose to call it the GREAT TRIB, who knows? I guess because He had already decied that another real horrible thing with the Jew was going to be called the holocaust....
noble6

I think the following verse explains just how bad the Great Tribulation will be. It will even surpass Stalin, Hitler, the genocide in Sudan, etc.

22 And except those days were shortened, not any flesh would be saved. But on account of the elect, those days will be shortened.
(LITV)

Now that I've seen Cameron has already addressed this, I'm sorry for the redundancy.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Vic and Cameron,

You mention the times being shortened and they were. What I would like to know is shortened from what? Were they shortened from Daniel's time or when were they shortened? The times of the gentiles trapling Jerusalem was 3.5 years. Was that how long Roman armies pestered Jerusalem in 70 AD? I don't know, but unless I know when the times were shortened it doesn't matter.

There are countless reasons why Jesus could choose to call that the Great Tribulation. I think the fact that God was directing the battle to pour out His promised wrath should qualify for that event being a GREAT time of tribulation/distress.

In Luke it does say that this is when all written are fulfilled. I take that literally too.

Cameron, you have a pretty biased translation there, I don't count that as being a strict adherrant to the MSS.

noble6

 

[Vic C.]

Good question. The time that will be shortened is the actual time God's elect will be persecuted by antichrist. It doesn't take anything away from Daniel's 70th. week.

http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/ep_0011.html

 

[Cameron]

nobel6,
One should use many English translations. I like to look at many at once and study the root words. Amplified usually does a good job of explaining the shades of meaning. For instance, the Greek word we translate as “believe†in English also carries with it the idea of “adhere to, rely on and trust inâ€Â. Therefore, the Amplified includes those so that we are reminded of the true meaning not just the English word some translator chose to describe what they thought it means. In some sense, the Amplified may actually be the most literal due to its wordiness, but at the same time it can be lose its flow for the same reason. That’s why there are paraphrases to capture the flow of idea verse the word for word to capture the construction of the idea. Every English translation involves bias and give and take. The ESV actually recorded the process they went through and documented the discussion points between the scholars and the reasons they adopted certain readings and MSS’s over others. The Scriptorium in Orlando has a small exhibit to it in the book store at the end of the exhibit on how we got the Bible in English.

There are many nebulous times mentioned in Scripture in regards to this time. There are the amputated/cut short times Jesus speaks of, the day and hour only known by the Father, the time that the martyrs have to wait until their number is complete and the time that the Devil knows he has for his own wrath in Rev. 12:12. All these times are juxtaposed to times that are specified to the day, such as 42 months or 1260 days. And as I mentioned before, these specified times find their root in the 70 Sevens, particularly the last Seven and even more specifically, the Second Half.

So the idea is that there is an abomination that desolates the Temple at the mid point of a 7 year covenant, none of which finds any alignment in 70 AD. But there is something in the 70 Sevens that aligns with 70 AD! It is an event that happens after the 69th Seven and before the 70th Seven begins. It is the destruction of Jerusalem. In a simple literal sense, it says that the city will be destroyed after the 69th Seven. To me, and many others, as we look back in hindsight, we see the existence of a gap between the 69th and 70th Weeks/Sevens of at least 38 years (32 AD – 70 AD) before the 70th Seven can even happen.

My point is that the strict sequence of Daniel 9 does not align with the events that preterists want to make happen. It doesn’t align because it doesn’t align in type with abomination or greatest ever distress or even the Trampling of Jerusalem that you call the time if the Gentiles:

Luke 21:24…trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

It does not follow that all Israel was saved in 70 AD as implied in Romans 11, for the plain idea is that now that the Gospel is going out to the world, someday it will end and no more wild olive branches will be grafted in. This is a process still occurring.

The idea of the 70 Sevens and its end goal is not destruction but Restoration. That is why the 70 AD destruction has nothing to do with the last Seven and why it is correctly out of it and in relation to the 69th. The six promises of Daniel 9:24 are about a restored relationship.

We are still living in this Gap, where the nations are hearing the Gospel.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Guys,

We are still throwing around assumptions that prove a furutist point and which have no biblical basis. Again I read that the Great Tribulation was the worst of somethoing...the bible DOES NOT say that. That is an assumptiomn that futurists have written up. A link provided talks about the WORST of whatever.. Jesus never said it was the WORST, He never said it was the longest, He never said anything but that it hadn't happened before and won't again.

Nothing will ever change that. It doesn't matter how much logic one feels is in the argument, the fact remains Jesus never said it was the WORST.

The gap theory is just somebodies guess. We have to get closer than that. It comes down to it doesn't fit a guess therefore it is future....not by a long shot.

My point is that the strict sequence of Daniel 9 does not align with the events that preterists want to make happen. It doesn’t align because it doesn’t align in type with abomination or greatest ever distress or even the Trampling of Jerusalem that you call the time if the Gentiles:

Once again I will outline what it DOES align with:

The abomination that causes desolation would be any soldier of the invading Roman army that walked into the Holy Place of the temple. When the people saw that they would know that it is time to flee from Judea.

Luke says:
21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

For ALL that has been written. Time of punishment...like God's wrath maybe, that would sure be GREAT tribulation wouldn't it. Can you imagine anything WORSE than the wrath of God?

The gentiles (Roman army) trample on the city for how long?

Rev 11
do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

42 months, not two thousand years.

How long did the rebellion of Judea last? I thought it was from 66-70 AD, but I wasn't there so I don't know.

I do know from the historian Josephus that followers of Christ did flee Judea to the town of Pella which apparently was in the mountains.

AND then Luke says this:

24They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

AND Paul says it was. I'll believe Paul because that aligns with Matthew 10:23 which says:
23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

WhenI quote these verses from the new testament I take them exactly as they come off the page. I consider the NT verse to be taken literally and the OT to be more symolical. The exception on course, is Revelation which jumps back and forth.

However, Jesus is the founder, the leader and the very reason there is Christianity so I say His words trump anything else including Daniel. If we can't make Daniel equate with what Jesus says, then we don't know or haven't correctly understaood what Daniel has said. There is zero possibility that simply because we don't think Daniel agrees with Jesus ,that it is Jesus who is wrong.

ANTICHRIST

I assume from what I've read here that you feel that th antichrist is the man of lawlessness of 2 Thess 2 which has ro appear before Christ returns.
Here again is a verse that pins down the date to first century:

2 Thess 2
6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

noble6

 

[Vic C.]

ANTICHRIST

I assume from what I've read here that you feel that th antichrist is the man of lawlessness of 2 Thess 2 which has ro appear before Christ returns.
Here again is a verse that pins down the date to first century:

2 Thess 2
6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

If I may speak for Cameron, this is not what we believe. We believe exactly what 2 Thess. 2:3 tells us.

2 Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

It doesn't suggest he appears, only that he is revealed. If you belive he has already been revealed, who do you think he was?

Sidenote:

But there is something in the 70 Sevens that aligns with 70 AD! It is an event that happens after the 69th Seven and before the 70th Seven begins. It is the destruction of Jerusalem.

This event is known as the Diaspora.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Vic and Cameron,

I think the man of lawlessness was Nero or someone in his command.

It doesn't suggest he appears, only that he is revealed. If you belive he has already been revealed, who do you think he was?

Something else that the verses suggest, actually state matter-of-factly is that the man of lawlessness is being held back at the time of writing. Once again it shows first century.

Dispora:

Lit., "Dispersion." -- applied collectively: (a) To those Jews who, after the Exile, were scattered through the Old World, and afterwards to Jewish Christians living among heathen. Cf. James i. 1. (b) By extension, to Christians isolated from their own communion, as among the Moravians to those living, usually as missionaries, outside of the parent congregation.

So what does this mean?

Let's get to some of my questions....

Luke includes all these things will happen in this generation.

32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Is the there any mention of the destruction of the temple in Lukes record of the conversation?
In that list of ALL these things, does Luke mention the coming of the son of man?

If there is mention of the destruction of the temple and ALL these things are in THIS generation it is cut and dried that the temple was destroyed and what generation does the coming of the son of man HAVE to be in?

noble6