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

[Dorothy Mae]

And then the end will come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been thinking about this verse. It says the gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached to all groups of people or ethnic groups or gentiles. It cannot have meant political nations because that wasn’t a reality then.

Second, it was preached as a testimony, not to “get them saved” as I’ve commonly heard. What would have it been a testimony of?

If one accepts the preterism view, it’s easy to see that this was part of the gospel as given in Acts 2 whereby the days Joel predicted included judgement upon Jerusalem. If this was the testimony given to the peoples living around the mediterranean basin, the known world containing most of not all of the major ethnic groups, of the truth of the gospel of Jesus, then the destruction, which certainly became known, would have been a very powerful testimony indeed. Before the event, it would have predicted and after 70 AD, fulfilled. That’s a powerful testimony. Seems to make sense and fits what Jesus said.

 

[for_his_glory]

The problem with you refusing to quote some verses that supposedly back up your claim is you make the exchange a closed lecture from you. Your presentation is a lecture with a bit of why you see a verse or verses as saying what you personally believe they say. That is not an open discussing scripture. Siting the references and ASSUMING by reading them we will come to see the matter as you do is NOT a discussion. Let’s try to be open to discussing our views, not merely give a reference with the assumption that explains all. Just use the verses you show say what you say they say.

I'm only going to address this part of your post as I am wasting my time telling you I do not believe in a pretrib Rapture as I have already explained and given the scriptures for that so we need to move past that.

Only you see it as a closed lecture, but yet you see others only giving book chapter and verse and you only seem to have an issue with me doing this. Forums are a place to discuss the scriptures as we give our understanding of them whether another agrees or not just like you and everyone else in here. I never ask anyone to agree with my understanding, but to take the scriptures I give and study them for themselves drawing their own conclusions.

You are a Preterist and I have no problem with that even though I do not agree with what they teach, but I do respect your views as I would ask that you respect the views of others.

2Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

I do not rely on man/woman to teach me as I have been steered away from truth way to many times, but only study that which has already been written as only the Holy Spirit teaches us all truths. Am I always right, no, but the Holy Spirit does work through others that have more Spiritual knowledge than I have to correct me when I miss what the Holy Spirit is trying to teach me. We are to rightly divide the word which means to take all the scriptures we can find on a certain subject which is called cross referencing from Genesis to Revelation in order to find truth.

If I were to write out all those scriptures I gave in that post it would probably fill up two pages and no one including myself is going to sit and read everyone of them, but can copy and paste the ones I/they do give in order to take their time to study them.

I say this to you and everyone else, including myself, truth can be found in disagreements if we are opened to listen to what each other has to say without any preconceived ideas. Our common ground is our love for the Lord and wanting to please Him in all we do and say. If we disagree with each other it's no big deal as we all have to come into our own understandings by how we study the scriptures.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I'm only going to address this part of your post as I am wasting my time telling you I do not believe in a pretrib Rapture as I have already explained and given the scriptures for that so we need to move past that.

Only you see it as a closed lecture, but yet you see others only giving book chapter and verse and you only seem to have an issue with me doing this. Forums are a place to discuss the scriptures as we give our understanding of them whether another agrees or not just like you and everyone else in here. I never ask anyone to agree with my understanding, but to take the scriptures I give and study them for themselves drawing their own conclusions.

You are a Preterist and I have no problem with that even though I do not agree with what they teach, but I do respect your views as I would ask that you respect the views of others.

2Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

I do not rely on man/woman to teach me as I have been steered away from truth way to many times, but only study that which has already been written as only the Holy Spirit teaches us all truths. Am I always right, no, but the Holy Spirit does work through others that have more Spiritual knowledge than I have to correct me when I miss what the Holy Spirit is trying to teach me. We are to rightly divide the word which means to take all the scriptures we can find on a certain subject which is called cross referencing from Genesis to Revelation in order to find truth.

If I were to write out all those scriptures I gave in that post it would probably fill up two pages and no one including myself is going to sit and read everyone of them, but can copy and paste the ones I/they do give in order to take their time to study them.

I say this to you and everyone else, including myself, truth can be found in disagreements if we are opened to listen to what each other has to say without any preconceived ideas. Our common ground is our love for the Lord and wanting to please Him in all we do and say. If we disagree with each other it's no big deal as we all have to come into our own understandings by how we study the scriptures.

I never ever said you believed in a pretrib rapture. I wish you would stop saying I did.

The problem with your theology is the verse you use in Matthew to state it refers to Jesus’ coming does not match the verse in Revelation that starts the events after the 7th trumpet. Your theology doesn’t appear to match those scriptures. That is my point.

I have studied the scriptures extensively and do not see your theology there as I pointed out in detail. To these discrepancies you seem to have no answer. But That’s what a discussion is supposed to be and how we learn.

You are a Millennialist and I respect your view and ask that you please respect the view of others. Deciding your view is Jesus’ view is not respecting other’s different view so please refrain from wondering audibly why others don’t see your view, i.e., “Jesus’” view as though they’re one and the same. These are words that divide believers one from another on the level of, “I am of Paul, I am of Peter, and well I am of Christ.” Which group looks more proud?

Probably discussion will be fruitless as I would like to discuss the scriptures but it seems difficult for you to do. Or am I in error?

 

[for_his_glory]

I never ever said you believed in a pretrib rapture. I wish you would stop saying I did.

The problem with your theology is the verse you use in Matthew to state it refers to Jesus’ coming does not match the verse in Revelation that starts the events after the 7th trumpet. Your theology doesn’t appear to match those scriptures. That is my point.

I have studied the scriptures extensively and do not see your theology there as I pointed out in detail. To these discrepancies you seem to have no answer. But That’s what a discussion is supposed to be and how we learn.

You are a Millennialist and I respect your view and ask that you please respect the view of others. Deciding your view is Jesus’ view is not respecting other’s different view so please refrain from wondering audibly why others don’t see your view, i.e., “Jesus’” view as though they’re one and the same. These are words that divide believers one from another on the level of, “I am of Paul, I am of Peter, and well I am of Christ.” Which group looks more proud?

Probably discussion will be fruitless as I would like to discuss the scriptures but it seems difficult for you to do. Or am I in error?

I have explained my understanding in full detail, but naturally with you being taught preterist doctrines you will disagree with me and everyone else that has been trying to discuss this with you. Trying to convert one to become a preterist in post #721 and believe in their views is no different then all the 5000 different religions in the world with their views, theologies and doctrines. It's no wonder God hates man's religions other than what He taught us about what the pure religion is in James 1:27. I already told you several times I respect your views even though I do not agree with them.

Everyone brings different things to the plate, but it doesn't mean we will digest everything on that plate. And no, this is not a derogatory remark towards you, but general for all of us.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have explained my understanding in full detail, but naturally with you being taught preterist doctrines you will disagree with me and everyone else that has been trying to discuss this with you. Trying to convert one to become a preterist in post #721 and believe in their views is no different then all the 5000 different religions in the world with their views, theologies and doctrines. It's no wonder God hates man's religions other than what He taught us about what the pure religion is in James 1:27. I already told you several times I respect your views even though I do not agree with them.

My dear sister, You actually fail to respect my view and I will try to demonstrate this. This is your view mirrored somewhat. (I cannot bring myself to do it exactly as it would not reflect my thought.)

I have explained my understanding from scripture, but naturally with you being taught millennialist doctrines you will disagree with me and everyone else that has been trying to discuss this with you. Trying to convert one to become a millennialist in your various posts and believe in their views could be viewed, if I were of such capabilities, as no different then all the 5000 different religions in the world with their views, theologies and doctrines. It's no wonder God hates man's religions other than what He taught us about what the pure religion is in James 1:27. I already told you several times I respect your views even though I do not agree with them.

The truth is, I read the real history of the time and saw that the events described in Matthew, the terrible ones, match completely the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. What is more, I read that this is exactly what the church believed at the time and for millennial afterwards, the history being fresh. Many scriptures fell into place, many. It was awesome how accurate Jesus was and I saw it. No one taught this to me as you wished it were. That you categorize my view as among the 5000 different religions shows a lack of respect. You totter on the brink of violating this ToS: "Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith." I feel you stated a very negative opinion of my faith there.

Everyone brings different things to the plate, but it doesn't mean we will digest everything on that plate. And no, this is not a derogatory remark towards you, but general for all of us.

I do not take it as derogatory. It is a general remark as you say. But Numbering me among the 5000 false religions is derogatory. I can deal with it though. You know, if you looked at what you say to others and see how you would take it if the same were said to you, that would be a good measure as to whether or not you were treating others with respect. Saying "I respect you" does not count.

And by the way, can you please also stop thinking I am trying to convert anyone at all. I am simply sharing my view not the scriptures.

 

[for_his_glory]

My dear sister, You actually fail to respect my view and I will try to demonstrate this. This is your view mirrored somewhat. (I cannot bring myself to do it exactly as it would not reflect my thought.)

I have explained my understanding from scripture, but naturally with you being taught millennialist doctrines you will disagree with me and everyone else that has been trying to discuss this with you. Trying to convert one to become a millennialist in your various posts and believe in their views could be viewed, if I were of such capabilities, as no different then all the 5000 different religions in the world with their views, theologies and doctrines. It's no wonder God hates man's religions other than what He taught us about what the pure religion is in James 1:27. I already told you several times I respect your views even though I do not agree with them.

The truth is, I read the real history of the time and saw that the events described in Matthew, the terrible ones, match completely the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. What is more, I read that this is exactly what the church believed at the time and for millennial afterwards, the history being fresh. Many scriptures fell into place, many. It was awesome how accurate Jesus was and I saw it. No one taught this to me as you wished it were. That you categorize my view as among the 5000 different religions shows a lack of respect. You totter on the brink of violating this ToS: "Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith." I feel you stated a very negative opinion of my faith there.

I do not take it as derogatory. It is a general remark as you say. But Numbering me among the 5000 false religions is derogatory. I can deal with it though. You know, if you looked at what you say to others and see how you would take it if the same were said to you, that would be a good measure as to whether or not you were treating others with respect. Saying "I respect you" does not count.

And by the way, can you please also stop thinking I am trying to convert anyone at all. I am simply sharing my view not the scriptures.

Never said nor did I imply I am a Millennialist, but only see the 1000 years as symbolic, not literal in the numbering of years as I explained that within the scriptures I used.

This bitterness you have towards me is something you need to deal with as I have nothing against how or what you want to believe. If you can not discuss our indifferences in how we believe without feeling I am attacking you all the time then I am only wasting my time and done talking to you.

I wish you well and God bless you.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Never said nor did I imply I am a Millennialist, but only see the 1000 years as symbolic, not literal in the numbering of years as I explained that within the scriptures I used.

Fair enough. What handle can I give your eschatology? Fair is fair. You keep calling me a name or handle, I would like your name or handle so the ground is level.

This bitterness you have towards me is something you need to deal with as I have nothing against how or what you want to believe. If you can not discuss our indifferences in how we believe without feeling I am attacking you all the time then I am only wasting my time and done talking to you.

I wish you well and God bless you.

Woah!! I have no bitterness towards you. None at all. Where are you getting this stuff from? My dear sister, you could not be more off and I am sorry you seem to take the part of accusing a brethren of non-christian attitudes when confronted with scripture you cannot give an answer to in discussion. I could give you a list of non-christlike attitudes or character you have hurled at me. It is a fact, not my feelings but it would not be pleasant dredging them up so I resist.

But I agree that discussion will likely be fruitless so let us move on. I might give in to temptation though and defend others to whom you give the same response when they do not agree with you. Surely this is a pattern, but we will see.

But be aware, if you say someone who does not agree with you and to whom you can give no logical answer, that they are bitter towards you, I will speak up. I will not defend myself more than that but I am prepared to defend others whether I agree with them or not, even atheists.

 

[Hopeful]

No argument there but I’m not sure how this pertains to the discussion. The believing Jews knew the warning of Jesus was to be applied when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies and left town as he had advised.

I can't recall the gist of it either, as it has been a few days gone by.
I agree with the "warnings" part of your post today, but Jesus was speaking of two different times in Matt 24.
One was the end of the city and the other was the end of the world.

Yes, but this doesn’t change the fact that there was a physical temple and it was so destroyed that not one stone was left upon another as Jesus predicted. Seeing the fulfillment of prophesy is very encouraging.

Agreed.
The fulfillment of the rest of that prophesy will also be very fulfilling.

Thanks. I’m a Yank but just live in Europe, for better or worse.

OK then...keep up the praying.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I can't recall the gist of it either, as it has been a few days gone by.
I agree with the "warnings" part of your post today, but Jesus was speaking of two different times in Matt 24.
One was the end of the city and the other was the end of the world.

I agree except it wasn't the end of the city but the end of the Mosaic law age. It was the end of that age. The warnings in the first part of Matthew were experienced in Judea, not just the city alone. The rest of our discussion is also foggy to me.

Agreed.
The fulfillment of the rest of that prophesy will also be very fulfilling.

OK then...keep up the praying.

Sounds good!

 

[Hopeful]

I agree except it wasn't the end of the city but the end of the Mosaic law age. It was the end of that age. The warnings in the first part of Matthew were experienced in Judea, not just the city alone. The rest of our discussion is also foggy to me.

If the unbelieving Jews were still trying to be justified through Law keeping, the Mosaic covenant was still in force...for them.
It may still be in force...for them.
But the Christians, both Gentile and Jew, know the OC/OT ended at the cross.
That is where the final perfect sacrifice was offered.
That is where the Law is nailed.

Sounds good!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If the unbelieving Jews were still trying to be justified through Law keeping, the Mosaic covenant was still in force...for them.
It may still be in force...for them.

No, they cannot fulfill the Mosaic law even if they wanted to do so. There is no temple where they could bring the required sacrifices, if they were allowed in Israel. Those not living in Israel have no chance in any case.

But the Christians, both Gentile and Jew, know the OC/OT ended at the cross.
That is where the final perfect sacrifice was offered.
That is where the Law is nailed.

Yes, the believing Jew and Gentile. That is our salvation.

 

[for_his_glory]

Fair enough. What handle can I give your eschatology? Fair is fair. You keep calling me a name or handle, I would like your name or handle so the ground is level.

I don't believe in handles as I am nothing more than a blood bought child of God redeemed by God's grace through the blood of the Lamb and baptized in His Holy Spirit. If anyone wants to give it a handle then it would be "A child of God".

 

[for_his_glory]

Fair enough. What handle can I give your eschatology? Fair is fair. You keep calling me a name or handle, I would like your name or handle so the ground is level.

Woah!! I have no bitterness towards you. None at all. Where are you getting this stuff from? My dear sister, you could not be more off and I am sorry you seem to take the part of accusing a brethren of non-christian attitudes when confronted with scripture you cannot give an answer to in discussion. I could give you a list of non-christlike attitudes or character you have hurled at me. It is a fact, not my feelings but it would not be pleasant dredging them up so I resist.

But I agree that discussion will likely be fruitless so let us move on. I might give in to temptation though and defend others to whom you give the same response when they do not agree with you. Surely this is a pattern, but we will see.

But be aware, if you say someone who does not agree with you and to whom you can give no logical answer, that they are bitter towards you, I will speak up. I will not defend myself more than that but I am prepared to defend others whether I agree with them or not, even atheists.

I'm sorry you feel I evaded any of your questions, but I did answer them as many times I let scripture answer for me. That is just how I am. Sometimes, including myself, it might not be the answer we wanted to hear.

I pray we can put all of this behind us and start out on a new foot with each other. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can not get along with each other.

 

[Hopeful]

No, they cannot fulfill the Mosaic law even if they wanted to do so. There is no temple where they could bring the required sacrifices, if they were allowed in Israel. Those not living in Israel have no chance in any case.

I wonder what they call the times they have been living under for the past 2050 years?
They won't recognize the New Covenant and the Old Covenant is undoable, so where do they consider they are now?.

Yes, the believing Jew and Gentile. That is our salvation.

Amen to that.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I'm sorry you feel I evaded any of your questions, but I did answer them as many times I let scripture answer for me. That is just how I am. Sometimes, including myself, it might not be the answer we wanted to hear.

I pray we can put all of this behind us and start out on a new foot with each other. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can not get along with each other.

I am sorry you feel you answered the questions that challenge your position scripturally. I am sorry you feel that your answers alone are scriptural and you are restrained from answering anything but scripture. It makes it difficult to have a discussion but we can move on.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I wonder what they call the times they have been living under for the past 2050 years?
They won't recognize the New Covenant and the Old Covenant is undoable, so where do they consider they are now?.

Amen to that.

This is an excellent question and I have no idea. I can tell you that the move to change the recognized term "AD" which means year of our Lord into CE Common Era came from the Jews. They did not like the reference to the Lord. Ce makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Hopeful]

This is an excellent question and I have no idea. I can tell you that the move to change the recognized term "AD" which means year of our Lord into CE Common Era came from the Jews. They did not like the reference to the Lord. Ce makes no sense whatsoever.

I wasn't aware it came from the minds of the unbelieving Jews.
I always though it came form the atheists.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I wasn't aware it came from the minds of the unbelieving Jews.
I always though it came form the atheists.

That was what I had heard. Now maybe I am wrong although one group is not mutually exclusive from the other.

 

[Hopeful]

That was what I had heard. Now maybe I am wrong although one group is not mutually exclusive from the other.

You are right on that point.
Maybe I will study the "AD/CE" thing a bit further.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You are right on that point.
Maybe I will study the "AD/CE" thing a bit further.

Let me know what you find. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected.