MeetChristians.com Tour

Private
Mailbox

Quick
Search

Detailed
Search

Member
Forums

Live
Chat

Polls
space

User
Tools

Help
space

Log Off
space
MeetChristians.com / Forums / Biblical & Theological Issues

No. 0     Original Topic:  Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 9, 2017 at 9:37 AM   Viewed 1873 times     
Literally Literal?

In reading the scriptures or any literature, we tend to read it literally. What does it mean to read something literally? Does it mean that every word and phrase must be exactly what it says? We play around with words, we say that we love a certain thing, in which a reply often is, "if you love it so much why don't you marry it?" We literally meant that we figuratively love something, not that we literally have such a depth of affection for that thing that we wanted to be with it for the rest of our lives.


Some read the scriptures this way. Well not every word of scripture, only some, and then base whole fields of doctrines upon their literal meaning of certain verses of scriptures. In doing this we can tend to apply our own ideas to the writings of scriptures.

To take a writing literally means that we understand the record of literal historic facts to be such, poetic language to be such, and symbolic language to be such literally, or as written in the literature.

One of the best biblical hermeneutic is the Historical Contextual Hermeneutic, in which we try to understand the writings that comprise the bible from the view of those to whom they were written. None of the bible was written to us in our day, not one word. The bible as a whole was agreed upon as valid and set into a canon to be passed down for future generations to learn from, which includes us. For us to understand it fully requires some study in the contemporary history of the time of the writings.

Consider the term "new heavens and new earth". Some take an extreme literal meaning of this phrase thinking it to mean that at the end of human history there will be a total recreation of the earth after the complete destruction of it. But is this term about an actual recreation of the planet earth or does it have another meaning?

This term was written in first century documents, using a historical contextual hermeneutic, we need to consider what the original audience would have understood it to mean.

Quote from: Literal New Heaven and New Earth
http://reigninglife.blogspot.com/2016/07/literal-new-heaven-and-new-earth-by.html

Jesus mentions heaven and earth in Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”

As you know, Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the temple in the first century. Yet Jesus throws this comment in there. Why? Because the first century people referred to the temple system as “heaven and earth.”
Sources as early as Josephus extrapolate that the very design was after the design of heaven and earth:
...for if any one do but consider the fabric of the tabernacle, and take a view of the garments of the high priest, and of those vessels which we make use of in our sacred ministration, he will find that our legislator was a divine man, and that we are unjustly reproached by others; for if any one do without prejudice, and with judgment, look upon these things, he will find they were everyone made in way of imitation and representation of the universe. When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the seas, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. And when he ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts, he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets; and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number. The veils, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the seas, because that color is dyed by the blood of a seas shell-fish; the blue is fit to signify the air; and the scarlet will naturally be an indication of fire. Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder. And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four elements; and as for the gold interwoven, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are enlightened. He also appointed the breastplate to be placed in the middle of the ephod, to resemble the earth, for that has the very middle place of the world. And the girdle which encompassed the high priest round, signified the ocean, for that goes round about and includes the universe. Each of the sardonyxes declares to us the sun and moon; those, I mean, that were in the nature of buttons on the high priest’s shoulders. And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning. And for the mitre, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it? That it was also illustrated with a crown, and that of gold also, is because of that splendor with which God is pleased. Let this explication suffice at present, since the course of my narration will often, and on many occasions, afford me the opportunity of enlarging upon the virtue of our legislator.
– Josephus

John Lightfoot (1602-1675), the highly respected author of the four volume series, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, observed how heaven and earth is used in the New Testament: the “passing away of heaven and earth” is the “destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state...as if the whole frame of this world were to be dissolved.”



As we see the idea of heaven and earth in first century Judaism is about the temple and the institution of the priesthood. So for there to be a change in heaven and earth, with a new heaven and earth has to do with the end of the existing and start of a new order.

The destruction of the temple, the burning of the scrolls of the priesthood, the lost furniture and implements of the temple, all making an complete end of the sacrificial and religious system of Judaism under the Mosaic covenant law in 70AD is the end of the old heaven and earth as understood by the first century Jewish reader.

The beginning of the new heaven and new earth is found with in the new covenant in Messiah's blood. Where each believer is a priest and king. The final sacrifice is that of Messiah's own blood, which was offered up on the heavenly altar before the throne of God. The temple of God is found in the people of God, where Messiah has his throne.

So yes, it is literally a figurative new heaven and new earth that is mentioned and was understood by the original readers.
No. 1     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Verbatim   Gender: F   Age: 64   on  Jul 9, 2017 at 10:51 AM     
You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.
No. 2     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 10, 2017 at 4:32 AM     
Verbatim wrote:

You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.


Thank you for your kind encouragement. I have known our Lord for most of my life, been committed to him for 45 years, and have grown in his love and grace during that time, as I am confident that you have as well.

By his faithful work in me, I have learned and continue to learn to will and do his good pleasure. And within his truth, there is true peace.

I try to lay out the way of the narrow road. Sad to me, to see so many follow popular fiction, instead of scriptural truth. So I try my little bit to shine the light in the darkness of men's ignorance, pulling down the strongholds of false teaching as I can.
No. 3     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 10, 2017 at 7:05 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Verbatim wrote:

You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.


Thank you for your kind encouragement. I have known our Lord for most of my life, been committed to him for 45 years, and have grown in his love and grace during that time, as I am confident that you have as well.

By his faithful work in me, I have learned and continue to learn to will and do his good pleasure. And within his truth, there is true peace.

I try to lay out the way of the narrow road. Sad to me, to see so many follow popular fiction, instead of scriptural truth. So I try my little bit to shine the light in the darkness of men's ignorance, pulling down the strongholds of false teaching as I can.


Kent,

With all your knowledge, do you think you can alter Lord's prayer now?
No. 4     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 15, 2017 at 7:29 AM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Verbatim wrote:

You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.


Thank you for your kind encouragement. I have known our Lord for most of my life, been committed to him for 45 years, and have grown in his love and grace during that time, as I am confident that you have as well.

By his faithful work in me, I have learned and continue to learn to will and do his good pleasure. And within his truth, there is true peace.

I try to lay out the way of the narrow road. Sad to me, to see so many follow popular fiction, instead of scriptural truth. So I try my little bit to shine the light in the darkness of men's ignorance, pulling down the strongholds of false teaching as I can.


Kent,

With all your knowledge, do you think you can alter Lord's prayer now?


I don't understand what you mean.
No. 5     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 15, 2017 at 11:02 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Verbatim wrote:

You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.


Thank you for your kind encouragement. I have known our Lord for most of my life, been committed to him for 45 years, and have grown in his love and grace during that time, as I am confident that you have as well.

By his faithful work in me, I have learned and continue to learn to will and do his good pleasure. And within his truth, there is true peace.

I try to lay out the way of the narrow road. Sad to me, to see so many follow popular fiction, instead of scriptural truth. So I try my little bit to shine the light in the darkness of men's ignorance, pulling down the strongholds of false teaching as I can.


Kent,

With all your knowledge, do you think you can alter Lord's prayer now?


I don't understand what you mean.


Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.


Do you pray like this even now?
No. 6     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 17, 2017 at 7:35 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Verbatim wrote:

You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.


Thank you for your kind encouragement. I have known our Lord for most of my life, been committed to him for 45 years, and have grown in his love and grace during that time, as I am confident that you have as well.

By his faithful work in me, I have learned and continue to learn to will and do his good pleasure. And within his truth, there is true peace.

I try to lay out the way of the narrow road. Sad to me, to see so many follow popular fiction, instead of scriptural truth. So I try my little bit to shine the light in the darkness of men's ignorance, pulling down the strongholds of false teaching as I can.


Kent,

With all your knowledge, do you think you can alter Lord's prayer now?


I don't understand what you mean.


Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.


Do you pray like this even now?


Why? You do understand that this a Jesus teaching how to pray, and it was not given as a prayer to be repeated rote over and over, like some holy mantra.

So, no, in general I do not repeat these words as a prayer.
No. 7     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 17, 2017 at 10:39 PM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Verbatim wrote:

You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.


Thank you for your kind encouragement. I have known our Lord for most of my life, been committed to him for 45 years, and have grown in his love and grace during that time, as I am confident that you have as well.

By his faithful work in me, I have learned and continue to learn to will and do his good pleasure. And within his truth, there is true peace.

I try to lay out the way of the narrow road. Sad to me, to see so many follow popular fiction, instead of scriptural truth. So I try my little bit to shine the light in the darkness of men's ignorance, pulling down the strongholds of false teaching as I can.


Kent,

With all your knowledge, do you think you can alter Lord's prayer now?


I don't understand what you mean.


Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.


Do you pray like this even now?


Why? You do understand that this a Jesus teaching how to pray, and it was not given as a prayer to be repeated rote over and over, like some holy mantra.

So, no, in general I do not repeat these words as a prayer.


But do you agree to what all that has been indicated in that in essence? Or do you think it has been become redundant now with your new found belief?
No. 8     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Verbatim   Gender: F   Age: 64   on  Jul 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM     
Kent has believed preterism for a long while.

Him and Belshazzar debated endlessly days, weeks, months on this subject.
Belshazzar proved Kent wrong in the end and throughout the debate.
No. 9     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 21, 2017 at 8:50 PM     
Verbatim wrote:

Kent has believed preterism for a long while.

Him and Belshazzar debated endlessly days, weeks, months on this subject.
Belshazzar proved Kent wrong in the end and throughout the debate.


Sorry but he never proved a single thing, in the end he refused to try any more. All he did was keep quoting scriptures with no supporting reasoning or argument as though that settled things. But I showed how I could explain every scripture he quoted in a preterist view, which he just would not even discuss.

In the end he judged me a heretic so I took the name Michael Servitus who John Calvin judged a heretic and had put to death.

I have no problem with others judging me as a heretic. I feel I stand in good company for down through church history great men of God have been judged as heretics by the establishment and those who are ignorant of the truth.

Stephen was one of the first, who those of the Jews ignorant of the truth that Messiah has come. judged him a heretic and stoned him to death.

I find in these discussions when someone gets to the point of name calling, or ad homnem statements they no longer have any intelligent arguments to bring. The discussion is basically ended.

Bathy got to that point.
No. 10     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 21, 2017 at 8:51 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Verbatim wrote:

You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.


Thank you for your kind encouragement. I have known our Lord for most of my life, been committed to him for 45 years, and have grown in his love and grace during that time, as I am confident that you have as well.

By his faithful work in me, I have learned and continue to learn to will and do his good pleasure. And within his truth, there is true peace.

I try to lay out the way of the narrow road. Sad to me, to see so many follow popular fiction, instead of scriptural truth. So I try my little bit to shine the light in the darkness of men's ignorance, pulling down the strongholds of false teaching as I can.


Kent,

With all your knowledge, do you think you can alter Lord's prayer now?


I don't understand what you mean.


Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.


Do you pray like this even now?


Why? You do understand that this a Jesus teaching how to pray, and it was not given as a prayer to be repeated rote over and over, like some holy mantra.

So, no, in general I do not repeat these words as a prayer.


But do you agree to what all that has been indicated in that in essence? Or do you think it has been become redundant now with your new found belief?


You will need to be more clear in what you are asking I'm afraid I just don't understand you.

Jesus teaching is still sound, and I accept it as a good teaching on how to pray.
No. 11     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 22, 2017 at 1:43 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Verbatim wrote:

You know Kent...

Maybe you should just learn who Lord Jesus is and do what is pleasing to Him...and pray for peace.

It is a narrow road, few will find it.


Thank you for your kind encouragement. I have known our Lord for most of my life, been committed to him for 45 years, and have grown in his love and grace during that time, as I am confident that you have as well.

By his faithful work in me, I have learned and continue to learn to will and do his good pleasure. And within his truth, there is true peace.

I try to lay out the way of the narrow road. Sad to me, to see so many follow popular fiction, instead of scriptural truth. So I try my little bit to shine the light in the darkness of men's ignorance, pulling down the strongholds of false teaching as I can.


Kent,

With all your knowledge, do you think you can alter Lord's prayer now?


I don't understand what you mean.


Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.


Do you pray like this even now?


Why? You do understand that this a Jesus teaching how to pray, and it was not given as a prayer to be repeated rote over and over, like some holy mantra.

So, no, in general I do not repeat these words as a prayer.


But do you agree to what all that has been indicated in that in essence? Or do you think it has been become redundant now with your new found belief?


You will need to be more clear in what you are asking I'm afraid I just don't understand you.

Jesus teaching is still sound, and I accept it as a good teaching on how to pray.


To be more specific, do you think that His kingdom has already come? Should we continue pray for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Should we seek for our daily bread? Would there be no temptation and have we been delivered from evil?
No. 12     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 22, 2017 at 7:09 AM     
To be more specific, do you think that His kingdom has already come? Should we continue pray for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Should we seek for our daily bread? Would there be no temptation and have we been delivered from evil?

In short, Yes.

In long, has His Kingdom come? Yes, and it is increasing to fill the whole earth as both Daniel and Isaiah foresaw. The Kingdom of Messiah is in the state of coming and has been since his birth.

Reading in Daniel 2 we find the reference to the vision of Nebuchadnezzar of the statue and Daniels interpretation of it, with the stone broken from the mountain.

Dan 2:34.35
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

This is the Messianic kingdom. Everyone who holds to any eschatological view accepts this truth. Daniel tells us when this kingdom is set up by God, during the times of the kings that the statue represents.

The Jews understood that this time frame was during what we call the first century and were waiting for the Messiah to destroy and supplant the Roman Empire, the kingdom represented by the ten toes of iron mixed with clay.

Isaiah tells us more about the Messianic kingdom and the birth of the Messiah King.

Isa 9:6.7
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.


Here we find that the child born, the son that is given has the government of the Messianic kingdom upon his shoulders. It continues to increase with no end.

Taking both Daniel and Isaiah together we see that the Messianic kingdom starts during the end of the Roman Empire and keeps increasing until it fills the whole earth.

I see that we are in this period of the increasing kingdom. We continue the work of Messiah by taking the kingdom gospel to all peoples of the earth, working for it to fill the whole earth, as part of our work of reconciling all men to God through Christ Jesus.

As to your other questions, yes of course. It should be our firm desire that God's will is done here as it is done in Heaven. We should always look to Him as our source and supplier of our daily food, giving him thanks and praise for his many blessings.


And yes we still need to be delivered from temptation.

I know that some think that in the Messianic Kingdom age there will be no sinning taking place, no sinners, no evil. But that is not what the Revelation declares.

The last parts of the Revelation describes the kingdom as a great city, the New Jerusalem. We know this is not an actual physical city of 1500 miles square and high, because it is written that this is the bride of Christ, so it is representative of the kingdom people. After the description of the city we find this statement.

Rev 22:14.15
14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

The city of the New Jerusalem as the kingdom has those who are in Messiah, have washed their robes entering the city, while outside are sinners. Saints and sinners alive in the same age.

So yes, we need to be saved from the temptation of evil of the world.

No. 13     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 23, 2017 at 1:54 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva wrote: To be more specific, do you think that His kingdom has already come? Should we continue pray for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Should we seek for our daily bread? Would there be no temptation and have we been delivered from evil?


In short, Yes.

In long, has His Kingdom come? Yes, and it is increasing to fill the whole earth as both Daniel and Isaiah foresaw. The Kingdom of Messiah is in the state of coming and has been since his birth.


You are contradicting by saying that it has come and also is in the state of coming.

Reading in Daniel 2 we find the reference to the vision of Nebuchadnezzar of the statue and Daniels interpretation of it, with the stone broken from the mountain.

Dan 2:34.35
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

This is the Messianic kingdom. Everyone who holds to any eschatological view accepts this truth. Daniel tells us when this kingdom is set up by God, during the times of the kings that the statue represents.

The Jews understood that this time frame was during what we call the first century and were waiting for the Messiah to destroy and supplant the Roman Empire, the kingdom represented by the ten toes of iron mixed with clay.

Isaiah tells us more about the Messianic kingdom and the birth of the Messiah King.

Isa 9:6.7
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Here we find that the child born, the son that is given has the government of the Messianic kingdom upon his shoulders. It continues to increase with no end. Taking both Daniel and Isaiah together we see that the Messianic kingdom starts during the end of the Roman Empire and keeps increasing until it fills the whole earth.


With the birth of Jesus, His death, resurrection and ascension, one may consider a new dawn has begun in the world. But that did not completely put an end to our work with regard to the Great Commission and bearing of fruit of the Spirit till His return.

I see that we are in this period of the increasing kingdom. We continue the work of Messiah by taking the kingdom gospel to all peoples of the earth, working for it to fill the whole earth, as part of our work of reconciling all men to God through Christ Jesus.


Yes, as I have indicated above. But what we are looking for is eternal life that is possible only after His return. Has He returned? No. So the theory of beginning of His kingdom at some point in time doesn’t help much in our hope of His eventual rule and our dwellings in His abode.





No. 14     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 23, 2017 at 6:20 AM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva wrote: To be more specific, do you think that His kingdom has already come? Should we continue pray for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Should we seek for our daily bread? Would there be no temptation and have we been delivered from evil?


In short, Yes.

In long, has His Kingdom come? Yes, and it is increasing to fill the whole earth as both Daniel and Isaiah foresaw. The Kingdom of Messiah is in the state of coming and has been since his birth.


You are contradicting by saying that it has come and also is in the state of coming.


No, I'm not really contradicting myself, it is a weakness of the English language, or my weakness in choosing the correct terms. The Kingdom of Messiah is in the state of being that is coming in the present, as it extends to every tribe of man in the whole world. So that it has already come to many and is coming to others. There is within the present generation of men those who have not yet heard of the gospel of the Kingdom, to them the kingdom is yet to come.



Reading in Daniel 2 we find the reference to the vision of Nebuchadnezzar of the statue and Daniels interpretation of it, with the stone broken from the mountain.

Dan 2:34.35
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

This is the Messianic kingdom. Everyone who holds to any eschatological view accepts this truth. Daniel tells us when this kingdom is set up by God, during the times of the kings that the statue represents.

The Jews understood that this time frame was during what we call the first century and were waiting for the Messiah to destroy and supplant the Roman Empire, the kingdom represented by the ten toes of iron mixed with clay.

Isaiah tells us more about the Messianic kingdom and the birth of the Messiah King.

Isa 9:6.7
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Here we find that the child born, the son that is given has the government of the Messianic kingdom upon his shoulders. It continues to increase with no end. Taking both Daniel and Isaiah together we see that the Messianic kingdom starts during the end of the Roman Empire and keeps increasing until it fills the whole earth.


With the birth of Jesus, His death, resurrection and ascension, one may consider a new dawn has begun in the world. But that did not completely put an end to our work with regard to the Great Commission and bearing of fruit of the Spirit till His return.


Yes a new dawn, the dawn of the Messianic New Covenant Age.

And as I said above we continue the work that Jesus begun, who formed the basis of the kingdom in his Twelve apostles (first emissaries of the Kingdom) and the 500 disciples. We are continuing to proclaim and spread the gospel of the Kingdom to all tribes and people groups, to all nations and to each generation.



I see that we are in this period of the increasing kingdom. We continue the work of Messiah by taking the kingdom gospel to all peoples of the earth, working for it to fill the whole earth, as part of our work of reconciling all men to God through Christ Jesus.


Yes, as I have indicated above. But what we are looking for is eternal life that is possible only after His return. Has He returned? No. So the theory of beginning of His kingdom at some point in time doesn’t help much in our hope of His eventual rule and our dwellings in His abode.





Do we not already have eternal life? John wrote that we do have eternal life, so it was a present reality to John, before Messiah's return in 70AD in judgment upon rebellious Israel.

1John 5:11-20

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

According to John those who have the Son have the life of the Son, or eternal life as a present reality.


As to his present rule, does he not rule and reign in us, his people? Or are we left to our own decisions completely in life? Does not the Lord, our Messiah and King rule by the indwelling Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, guides us in the way that we should go, and empowers us to be the sons of God?

In the imagery of the New Jerusalem, Messiah reigns within the city itself, which is the people of Messiah. Jesus stated that the kingdom of God was within us, that it was near when those who worship God would not worship on any particular hill but instead would worship in spirit and in truth. And the scriptures are clear that God does not dwell in houses made by human hands.

When Jesus was asked by Pilate if he was a king, Jesus said, "yes, but my kingdom is not of this world." Why? It is a spiritual kingdom, actual, real and found within His rule, in his people. Heaven's rule, within His people on the Earth. "May your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." So it is in his people.

No. 15     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 23, 2017 at 7:55 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

No, I'm not really contradicting myself, it is a weakness of the English language, or my weakness in choosing the correct terms. The Kingdom of Messiah is in the state of being that is coming in the present, as it extends to every tribe of man in the whole world. So that it has already come to many and is coming to others. There is within the present generation of men those who have not yet heard of the gospel of the Kingdom, to them the kingdom is yet to come.


Do you think that all those who have heard the Gospel would belong to His kingdom? Certainly not.

Do we not already have eternal life? John wrote that we do have eternal life, so it was a present reality to John, before Messiah's return in 70AD in judgment upon rebellious Israel.

1John 5:11-20

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


Yes, but belief should bear fruit of the Spirit; otherwise, salvation is lost.

18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.


Do you think all believers are leading a sinless life?

20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.


Yes, Jesus has given this understanding: One has to endure till the end in order to be saved.

According to John those who have the Son have the life of the Son, or eternal life as a present reality.


Mere belief will not help.

As to his present rule, does he not rule and reign in us, his people? Or are we left to our own decisions completely in life? Does not the Lord, our Messiah and King rule by the indwelling Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, guides us in the way that we should go, and empowers us to be the sons of God?


There can be only one absolute truth. Why then so many sects, divisions and denominations?

In the imagery of the New Jerusalem, Messiah reigns within the city itself, which is the people of Messiah. Jesus stated that the kingdom of God was within us, that it was near when those who worship God would not worship on any particular hill but instead would worship in spirit and in truth. And the scriptures are clear that God does not dwell in houses made by human hands.

When Jesus was asked by Pilate if he was a king, Jesus said, "yes, but my kingdom is not of this world." Why? It is a spiritual kingdom, actual, real and found within His rule, in his people. Heaven's rule, within His people on the Earth. "May your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." So it is in his people.


No way this has been realized at present.



No. 16     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 23, 2017 at 8:56 AM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

No, I'm not really contradicting myself, it is a weakness of the English language, or my weakness in choosing the correct terms. The Kingdom of Messiah is in the state of being that is coming in the present, as it extends to every tribe of man in the whole world. So that it has already come to many and is coming to others. There is within the present generation of men those who have not yet heard of the gospel of the Kingdom, to them the kingdom is yet to come.


Do you think that all those who have heard the Gospel would belong to His kingdom? Certainly not.


No, do you think me ignorant of the full of scripture? Your question seems to assume that. Hearing is just part of the process, but how can they respond if the truth is not communicated to them in some way? I do not hold to the present teaching of universalism that says that since Christ died for all men, therefor all men are saved and righteous before God. That makes no sense to me at all.

One must hear the gospel of the Kingdom, to learn of the grace of God, and have a chance to enter into the kingdom, receiving God's grace unto salvation.



Do we not already have eternal life? John wrote that we do have eternal life, so it was a present reality to John, before Messiah's return in 70AD in judgment upon rebellious Israel.

1John 5:11-20

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


Yes, but belief should bear fruit of the Spirit; otherwise, salvation is lost.

18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.


Do you think all believers are leading a sinless life?


Again do you think me ignorant of the whole of scripture? You do understand the KJV here, yes? One who is born of God does not continue in the way of sinning, instead they walk in the way of righteousness. Need I quote the whole of the NT to support that we have a change of life when we enter into Christ? "And when we sin, we have an advocate with the Father..."

You claimed we do not have eternal life in the present age. John says that they in the first century had eternal life. That is the point I am trying to make by quoting this passage.




20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.


Yes, Jesus has given this understanding: One has to endure till the end in order to be saved.

According to John those who have the Son have the life of the Son, or eternal life as a present reality.


Mere belief will not help.


Who said belief? Have the Son and having the life of the Son is more than belief in an idea. It is a way of life. I do agree that if one only has a belief in an idea, it will not help them at all. But holding the firm belief in the Son, is foundational to the way of life in the Son.



As to his present rule, does he not rule and reign in us, his people? Or are we left to our own decisions completely in life? Does not the Lord, our Messiah and King rule by the indwelling Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, guides us in the way that we should go, and empowers us to be the sons of God?


There can be only one absolute truth. Why then so many sects, divisions and denominations?


Multiple reasons. One is different administrations. Different cultures, different localities will develop different administrations and ways of living out life in Christ. No issues do I see there.

Historically developed church systems and institutions that have become more important than simple relationships in Christ. This saddens me greatly.

Politics in the church. Political allegiances with national governments. This too saddens me.

Even in the Messianic age, we have tares within the church. These seeds of the wicked one, are trying to subvert the work of Messiah by embroiling the church in the ways of the world.

Should we be one big church under the Messiah? Why? We have one Lord, one King, one Messiah/Christ who rules and leads us all. My preference is small intimate groups, that function more as an extended family, than an organized institution of religion. I think we have too few different administrations, instead of too many.



In the imagery of the New Jerusalem, Messiah reigns within the city itself, which is the people of Messiah. Jesus stated that the kingdom of God was within us, that it was near when those who worship God would not worship on any particular hill but instead would worship in spirit and in truth. And the scriptures are clear that God does not dwell in houses made by human hands.

When Jesus was asked by Pilate if he was a king, Jesus said, "yes, but my kingdom is not of this world." Why? It is a spiritual kingdom, actual, real and found within His rule, in his people. Heaven's rule, within His people on the Earth. "May your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." So it is in his people.


No way this has been realized at present.





In the end, I take John's writings as truth and judge both my own and others' ideas by it.

John says they and therefor we have eternal life, that this life is in the Son and that all who have the Son have eternal life. That is what I plainly read in the context of the passage I quoted.

Is John now also a NT author who you call a heretic as you do Paul?
No. 17     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 23, 2017 at 11:15 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

One must hear the gospel of the Kingdom, to learn of the grace of God, and have a chance to enter into the kingdom, receiving God's grace unto salvation.


Who will give them a chance to enter the kingdom? Is it taken for granted by memorizing a few verses?

One who is born of God does not continue in the way of sinning, instead they walk in the way of righteousness.


Do you think one would become perfect and remain sinless?

Need I quote the whole of the NT to support that we have a change of life when we enter into Christ? "And when we sin, we have an advocate with the Father..."


Yes, change of life depending on how much your spirit yields to the Holy Spirit. You know advocates always don't win everything in their favor. Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of His killers. I don’t think God heeded to His prayer!

You claimed we do not have eternal life in the present age. John says that they in the first century had eternal life. That is the point I am trying to make by quoting this passage.


Yes, under certain conditions.

Who said belief? Have the Son and having the life of the Son is more than belief in an idea. It is a way of life. I do agree that if one only has a belief in an idea, it will not help them at all. But holding the firm belief in the Son, is foundational to the way of life in the Son.


Have you answered His call? Are you His disciple or just a believer?

Multiple reasons. One is different administrations. Different cultures, different localities will develop different administrations and ways of living out life in Christ. No issues do I see there.


Is Christianity culturally based?

Historically developed church systems and institutions that have become more important than simple relationships in Christ. This saddens me greatly.

Politics in the church. Political allegiances with national governments. This too saddens me.

Even in the Messianic age, we have tares within the church. These seeds of the wicked one, are trying to subvert the work of Messiah by embroiling the church in the ways of the world.


So, I don’t see the presence of Christ in these worldly kingdoms.

In the end, I take John's writings as truth and judge both my own and others' ideas by it.

John says they and therefor we have eternal life, that this life is in the Son and that all who have the Son have eternal life. That is what I plainly read in the context of the passage I quoted.

Is John now also a NT author who you call a heretic as you do Paul?


Whether John, Peter or Paul, we have only one Teacher in Jesus, so He cannot be superseded. All writings should complement the words of Jesus because He is the truth. In this respect Paul presents a poor picture!

No. 18     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 23, 2017 at 6:14 PM     
Yes, Jesus is the truth and taught the truth and he taught his four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew that he would return in their lifetime. Either he did, and you still will not accept it, or he lied, which I will never accept.

Jesus said the end of the age, the destruction of the temple and his return would take place in the four disciple's lifetime, their generation. He is the truth, therefor it happened.

The temple was destroyed in 70AD. The scrolls of the priesthood geneology were destroyed, ending the legal priesthood. The temple was gone, the altars destroyed, ending the legal sacrifices. Bringing to a final end that age of the Mosaic covenant kingdom, and bringing in the dawn of the Messianic New Covenant Age. Jesus, the Messiah returned in the clouds of judgment upon those who pierced him and continued in rebellion to God, after almost 40 years were given them to repent and accept the Messiah of God.

Jesus is the Truth, and taught the truth and did not lie, therefor it all happened exactly as he said it would, in the first century, in the lifetimes of the four disciples that he gave it to. Heaven and earth changed from the old covenant age to the new covenant age. The truth, as Jesus taught it and the disciples understood it and also taught it.
No. 19     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 24, 2017 at 2:06 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Yes, Jesus is the truth and taught the truth and he taught his four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew that he would return in their lifetime. Either he did, and you still will not accept it, or he lied, which I will never accept.

Jesus said the end of the age, the destruction of the temple and his return would take place in the four disciple's lifetime, their generation. He is the truth, therefor it happened.

The temple was destroyed in 70AD. The scrolls of the priesthood geneology were destroyed, ending the legal priesthood. The temple was gone, the altars destroyed, ending the legal sacrifices. Bringing to a final end that age of the Mosaic covenant kingdom, and bringing in the dawn of the Messianic New Covenant Age.


Of course, Jesus,apostles and Paul indicated that His return is very imminent. Nevertheless, Jesus also indicated that only God decides the day of His return. Of late, evangelists have only one agenda most of the time: to remind of His return very soon.

Jesus, the Messiah returned in the clouds of judgment upon those who pierced him and continued in rebellion to God, after almost 40 years were given them to repent and accept the Messiah of God.


No, He has not returned. Things are only getting worse.

Jesus is the Truth, and taught the truth and did not lie, therefor it all happened exactly as he said it would, in the first century, in the lifetimes of the four disciples that he gave it to. Heaven and earth changed from the old covenant age to the new covenant age. The truth, as Jesus taught it and the disciples understood it and also taught it.


Sure, heaven and earth have changed from the Old to the New covenant age. The drastic change after His return has never been noticed and felt. The last words of prayer of John in Revelation still holds good: "Come, Lord Jesus"
No. 20     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 25, 2017 at 4:52 AM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Yes, Jesus is the truth and taught the truth and he taught his four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew that he would return in their lifetime. Either he did, and you still will not accept it, or he lied, which I will never accept.

Jesus said the end of the age, the destruction of the temple and his return would take place in the four disciple's lifetime, their generation. He is the truth, therefor it happened.

The temple was destroyed in 70AD. The scrolls of the priesthood geneology were destroyed, ending the legal priesthood. The temple was gone, the altars destroyed, ending the legal sacrifices. Bringing to a final end that age of the Mosaic covenant kingdom, and bringing in the dawn of the Messianic New Covenant Age.


Of course, Jesus,apostles and Paul indicated that His return is very imminent. Nevertheless, Jesus also indicated that only God decides the day of His return. Of late, evangelists have only one agenda most of the time: to remind of His return very soon.


Jesus told his disciples that his return was to be with in their lifetime, their generation. The Apostles understood it that way and taught it that way. All the writers of the NT expressed the imminent return of Christ.

Yes, Jesus said that the exact time, the exact day and hour, only the Father knew. We need to keep that statement within the whole of the context about the season and timing of the events of the Olivet Discourse.

Matt 24:32-36
32 But learn the parable of the fig tree: When its branch becomes tender and it puts out leaves, you know that the summer is near; 33 so also you, when you see all these things, know that it is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to you, In no way will this generation pass away until all these things have occurred. 35 The heaven and the earth will pass away, but My Words will not pass away, never! 36 But as to that day and that hour, no one knows, neither the angels of Heaven, except My Father only.


Three time indicators here.

First is a seasonal or general time frame indicator. In the illustration of the fig tree, Jesus tells his four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew that when you see these events taking place it is the general time, the season for when his return is.

It is known by all that the fig tree comes into leaf in late spring, therefor it is an indicator of coming summer.So too when these events started to happen the disciples knew that the time was coming to both get ready to leave Judea and Jerusalem for safety and that Jesus return was to happen.

Second, was that these events would happen within their lifetime, their generation. Jesus even makes that very emphatic by saying that his words would never pass away.

Third time indicator is that the exact hour or day is not yet revealed that it remains with the Father's knowledge.

So they would not know the exact day or hour for Jesus return, but would know when it was the right general time.

Within the context of the literary narrative, there is no way that there is a two thousand year gap in the fulfillment of the events of the Olivet Discourse. Therefor Christ's return must have occurred in the disciple's lifetime, their generation, within the season that included the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

Reading the whole narrative, there are no statements that allow for a "gap" of time in fulfillment. They all took place in the disciple's lifetime, or the record is a lie.

To say that Christ must not have return because this present reality does not fit my idea of what the Messianic age should be, must mean that ones understanding is incorrect, flawed in some way.

Jesus told his disciples that the end of that age, his return and the destruction of the temple would happen in their lifetime. He never gave any kind of "gap" of time in the fulfillment of his prophecy, therefor he did return during that time. And I must understand what that means in the present, not try to read my own views of an idealized golden Messianic age back into the scriptures.


Jesus, the Messiah returned in the clouds of judgment upon those who pierced him and continued in rebellion to God, after almost 40 years were given them to repent and accept the Messiah of God.


No, He has not returned. Things are only getting worse.

Jesus is the Truth, and taught the truth and did not lie, therefor it all happened exactly as he said it would, in the first century, in the lifetimes of the four disciples that he gave it to. Heaven and earth changed from the old covenant age to the new covenant age. The truth, as Jesus taught it and the disciples understood it and also taught it.


Sure, heaven and earth have changed from the Old to the New covenant age. The drastic change after His return has never been noticed and felt. The last words of prayer of John in Revelation still holds good: "Come, Lord Jesus"


Drastic change? You mean like the complete end of the sacrificial and priestly system that comprised God's will and commands upon the earth? Is that not drastic enough for you? It was to first century Judaism, and still is to the faithful of the Jews, so much that many want to have the temple rebuilt so that they can keep the law.

Or that about 3 million Israelis were killed during the War of the Jews, which was God's wrath poured out on those who pierced the Son? The roads coming out of Jerusalem were shadowed with the crucifixes of the executed rebels, so that they could not find any more trees to hang another. Was this not drastic enough.

Or that another 2-3 million were dispersed among the nations of the Roman Empire into slavery? Only a small remnant was left in the land of Israel, Jerusalem was destroyed.

Yes, it seems like it was a very drastic change to me.
No. 21     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 25, 2017 at 8:33 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Matt 24:32-36
32 But learn the parable of the fig tree: When its branch becomes tender and it puts out leaves, you know that the summer is near; 33 so also you, when you see all these things, know that it is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to you, In no way will this generation pass away until all these things have occurred. 35 The heaven and the earth will pass away, but My Words will not pass away, never! 36 But as to that day and that hour, no one knows, neither the angels of Heaven, except My Father only.


The destruction of the temple and scattering of Jews happened within the generation of the apostles.

However, Jesus never said His return occurs immediately afterwards. He was emphatic in saying that no one knows the date of His return excepting God the Father.

Many things have happened in tune with Jesus' words, yet His return cannot be immediately after an incident since many things are yet to happen before He returns.
No. 22     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 26, 2017 at 5:55 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Matt 24:32-36
32 But learn the parable of the fig tree: When its branch becomes tender and it puts out leaves, you know that the summer is near; 33 so also you, when you see all these things, know that it is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to you, In no way will this generation pass away until all these things have occurred. 35 The heaven and the earth will pass away, but My Words will not pass away, never! 36 But as to that day and that hour, no one knows, neither the angels of Heaven, except My Father only.


The destruction of the temple and scattering of Jews happened within the generation of the apostles.

However, Jesus never said His return occurs immediately afterwards. He was emphatic in saying that no one knows the date of His return excepting God the Father.

Many things have happened in tune with Jesus' words, yet His return cannot be immediately after an incident since many things are yet to happen before He returns.


What Jesus told his disciples on the Mount of Olives that day, has no disconnect, no gap. He begins answering their question, when will these things happen (earlier that day Jesus told them the temple would be completely destroyed) and what is the sign of your coming and the end of the age.

Three parts to their question, and Jesus answers them with a list of events, ending with telling them that it all would take place within their lifetime.

So either Jesus spoke the full truth that day and Mark, Matthew and Luke gave a true account of what Jesus told his disciples, and he returned, the temple was destroyed and that age ended, or its all a lie.

Read the whole of the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and see if there is any gap suggested between the three parts of the disciples question and Jesus' answer. I can't find any.

I will admit at one time I accepted that there had to be a gap, but then I was never told that the temple of Jesus day was destroyed in 70AD, with in the lifetime of the disciples either. I just accepted what my teachers told me, thinking they actually knew and understood the scriptures.

Learning the historic fact of the destruction of the temple in 70AD was a major turning point for me. Considering the Olivet discourse over the last 17 years, in light of the destruction of the temple, has brought more clarity to what had a difficult passage to me.


His return and the Messianic age of grace is not what so many seem to think it is.
No. 23     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 28, 2017 at 1:34 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Matt 24:32-36
32 But learn the parable of the fig tree: When its branch becomes tender and it puts out leaves, you know that the summer is near; 33 so also you, when you see all these things, know that it is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to you, In no way will this generation pass away until all these things have occurred. 35 The heaven and the earth will pass away, but My Words will not pass away, never! 36 But as to that day and that hour, no one knows, neither the angels of Heaven, except My Father only.


The destruction of the temple and scattering of Jews happened within the generation of the apostles.

However, Jesus never said His return occurs immediately afterwards. He was emphatic in saying that no one knows the date of His return excepting God the Father.

Many things have happened in tune with Jesus' words, yet His return cannot be immediately after an incident since many things are yet to happen before He returns.


BS wrote: What Jesus told his disciples on the Mount of Olives that day, has no disconnect, no gap. He begins answering their question, when will these things happen (earlier that day Jesus told them the temple would be completely destroyed) and what is the sign of your coming and the end of the age.

Three parts to their question, and Jesus answers them with a list of events, ending with telling them that it all would take place within their lifetime.

So either Jesus spoke the full truth that day and Mark, Matthew and Luke gave a true account of what Jesus told his disciples, and he returned, the temple was destroyed and that age ended, or its all a lie.

Read the whole of the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and see if there is any gap suggested between the three parts of the disciples question and Jesus' answer. I can't find any.

I will admit at one time I accepted that there had to be a gap, but then I was never told that the temple of Jesus day was destroyed in 70AD, with in the lifetime of the disciples either. I just accepted what my teachers told me, thinking they actually knew and understood the scriptures.

Learning the historic fact of the destruction of the temple in 70AD was a major turning point for me. Considering the Olivet discourse over the last 17 years, in light of the destruction of the temple, has brought more clarity to what had a difficult passage to me.


His return and the Messianic age of grace is not what so many seem to think it is.


You are basically making a fundamental mistake in interpreting heavenly signs using worldly perspective. I can give an example for this. When you look up at the night sky, you see thousands of stars just inches away from each other! You know they are not. They are millions of miles away from each other. So also in the case of period. Even though Jesus words indicated immediate future, but incidents may have unknown years of gap between them.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

We need to believe this instead of unauthorised private interpretations.


No. 24     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 28, 2017 at 6:41 AM     
You are basically making a fundamental mistake in interpreting heavenly signs using worldly perspective. I can give an example for this. When you look up at the night sky, you see thousands of stars just inches away from each other! You know they are not. They are millions of miles away from each other. So also in the case of period. Even though Jesus words indicated immediate future, but incidents may have unknown years of gap between them.


I agree with you that we do make fundamental mistakes by using our own understanding, often formed from wrong influences, to interpret scripture. Our personal world view, or paradigm directly influences how we understand events in our lives and the society around us and how we understand scripture.

Many interpret scripture based on their own experiences. Many interpret scripture based on the many sermons they have heard, rather than on their own study of scripture.

You suggest that Jesus words of a near time fulfillment of the events he told his disciples about are lies. I can not accept that at all. If Jesus told his disciples that they would live through certain events, and what to do to find safety during them, I must accept that he told the truth to them and did not lie about it. As I have already pointed out, he was very clear that they would know the general time frame, but not the specific, exact day or hour, therefor they had to be diligent and watch, be ready to move when the time was ripe.

These are Jesus' words, as recorded by all three gospel writers who wrote about the Olivet Discourse. I must accept this record as true, first and formost. Even if my idea of the outcome doesn't fit the truth. I must then reconsider my own paradigm and try to moderate it fit the truth.

Truth, Jesus said it all would happen in the lifetime of the disciples, therefor I must understand Jesus return, the end of the age and the destruction of the temple within the time constraints of the disciples' lifetime.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


Peter wrote before 70AD, before the War of the Jews began in 63AD.
What is Peter addressing here? The disciples taught what Jesus told them, that his return would occur in their lifetime. Peter was there, he was one of the four who asked Jesus about the destruction of the temple, the end of the age and His return. Peter taught what Jesus told him directly, that they had to be prepared, waiting and ready to act when they saw the armies that make desolate approach Jerusalem.

Some, as Paul referenced, were already waiting, idly upon mountain tops. Others were saying the day had already happened. Peter is addressing the truth, at the time of his letter, the day had not yet occurred, it was still in their future, so continue to wait, God will act in the fullness of time.

The Day of the Lord, the Day of God are terms about the judgment of God.

As to a day to the Lord being a thousand years, this is not an exact formula. It is a poetic way of saying that God's timing is his timing. The whole point here is that Peter is encouraging his audience to be patient, continue to wait, and keep faith in God and his purposes. It is not to say that there is a long time gap between what Jesus told us and when it will all happen, otherwise Jesus lied to begin with when he told Peter and the others that it would happen in their lifetime. And Jesus did not lie but told the truth therefor there is some error in your understanding, not in Jesus words or Peter's understanding.

We need to believe this instead of unauthorised private interpretations.


I do believe the scriptures over my own understanding and personal interpretations.

Do you think that because some pastor or teacher teaches their own private interpretation it is relevant? Are they like the Pope who claims to have a private and personal prophetic position in God that can communicate the truth directly from God to us?

Whose interpretation can you or I accept, since we all have our own private interpretations and can not trust them?

Unauthorized? Whose interpretation is authorized? Who is the final authority that establishes the one true interpretation in this matter? From my reading and study, there are many different interpretations all authorized by one theological authority or another. Every eschatological view has its theological authority behind it, which one is the true authority that settles all discussion once and for all? The Pope? The President of Dallas Theological Seminary or TEDS?


No. 25     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 28, 2017 at 10:31 PM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva wrote:
You are basically making a fundamental mistake in interpreting heavenly signs using worldly perspective. I can give an example for this. When you look up at the night sky, you see thousands of stars just inches away from each other! You know they are not. They are millions of miles away from each other. So also in the case of period. Even though Jesus words indicated immediate future, but incidents may have unknown years of gap between them.



BS wrote:
You suggest that Jesus words of a near time fulfillment of the events he told his disciples about are lies.


I am not saying Jesus told lies. I am clearly indicating that your understanding is wrong because you are trying to understand fifth dimensional aspect with three dimensional worldly perspective.

If Jesus told his disciples that they would live through certain events, and what to do to find safety during them, I must accept that he told the truth to them and did not lie about it.


Yes, but, you see, he did not give them a calendar indicating the chronological order of events with dates.

Truth, Jesus said it all would happen in the lifetime of the disciples, therefor I must understand Jesus return, the end of the age and the destruction of the temple within the time constraints of the disciples' lifetime.


Destruction of the temple, yes. Not His return.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.



Peter wrote before 70AD, before the War of the Jews began in 63AD.
What is Peter addressing here? The disciples taught what Jesus told them, that his return would occur in their lifetime. Peter was there, he was one of the four who asked Jesus about the destruction of the temple, the end of the age and His return. Peter taught what Jesus told him directly, that they had to be prepared, waiting and ready to act when they saw the armies that make desolate approach Jerusalem.


You are only concentrating on the destruction of the temple. Nobody did see Vs. 10 to 13 of Peter happening. So, where is the question of His returning?

Some, as Paul referenced, were already waiting, idly upon mountain tops. Others were saying the day had already happened. Peter is addressing the truth, at the time of his letter, the day had not yet occurred, it was still in their future, so continue to wait, God will act in the fullness of time.


Just the destruction of the temple will not amount to fullness of time.


As to a day to the Lord being a thousand years, this is not an exact formula. It is a poetic way of saying that God's timing is his timing. The whole point here is that Peter is encouraging his audience to be patient, continue to wait, and keep faith in God and his purposes. It is not to say that there is a long time gap between what Jesus told us and when it will all happen, otherwise Jesus lied to begin with when he told Peter and the others that it would happen in their lifetime. And Jesus did not lie but told the truth therefor there is some error in your understanding, not in Jesus words or Peter's understanding.


You are tagging all events to the destruction of temple which is incorrect understanding.

I do believe the scriptures over my own understanding and personal interpretations.

Do you think that because some pastor or teacher teaches their own private interpretation it is relevant? Are they like the Pope who claims to have a private and personal prophetic position in God that can communicate the truth directly from God to us?

Whose interpretation can you or I accept, since we all have our own private interpretations and can not trust them?


I consider all interpretations including Catholics’

Unauthorized? Whose interpretation is authorized? Who is the final authority that establishes the one true interpretation in this matter? From my reading and study, there are many different interpretations all authorized by one theological authority or another. Every eschatological view has its theological authority behind it, which one is the true authority that settles all discussion once and for all? The Pope? The President of Dallas Theological Seminary or TEDS?


Only who have become disciples of Christ have the qualifications to interpret the Bible. That way all Protestant interpretations, in general, are just private interpretations.

No. 26     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 29, 2017 at 12:13 PM     
Deva, it is not I who has linked the destruction of the temple with Jesus return and the end of the age. The disciples asked the question that contained all three parts, and Jesus answered their question telling them that it would all happen in their lifetime. Jesus does not suggest any kind of gap of any length of time that would allow for the three parts to be separated. All three happen in the same time frame, and all with in the disciples life time, their generation.

Here is the question the disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked Jesus.

Matt. 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What things? The destruction of the temple,
Matt. 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

This did happen within the disciples life time, less than 40 years after Jesus the day that he told the disciples it would happen.

No where in the whole of the Olivet Discourse is there any suggestion of a gap of any amount of time in the fulfillment of the whole. None. Jesus told them what to expect in their lifetime, in their generation.

The whole question Jesus answered, therefor all three parts of the question are contained in Jesus answer, otherwise he just ignored part of it and failed to answer them.

Three parts,
1. The destruction of the Temple
2. Jesus return
3. The end of that age.

All three Jesus addressed, ending telling them that all of it would be fulfilled in their lifetime.

So, I must understand the return of Jesus within the context of what actually happened, instead of what some teacher, theologian, or authority tells me it must be.

Within the time frame of the destruction of the temple we see the wrath of God/Messiah poured out upon rebellious, unbelieving, unrepentant Israel, the very generation who turned the Messiah over to be put to death on the cross, the very generation of Jews who pierced Him.

Jesus did return, exactly as he said he would, within the life time of the disciples, to enact God's wrath upon those who pierced Him.


No. 27     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  YoBro-MOTBOC   Gender: M   Age: 63   on  Jul 29, 2017 at 2:31 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:



Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.


Do you pray like this even now?


This prayer of Jesus to Father is not Him asking for God will to be done, HE IS MAKING STAEMENTS OF TRUTH.

SO>>>>>>>>

1. The Godhead of our Lord IS in heaven, and He is also in the Kingdom of God

2. His very name(s) is/are holy, this is to remind yourself to WHOME you are talking to. Call it prayer if you will.

3. The Fathers Kingdom has come, it should be obvious that His kingdom grows just as creation is growing; even beyond our galaxy.

4. He is not asking for the Father will to be done, He is continuing to speak of the Glory/Holiness of God. GOD'S will is being done, period which also means amen or so be it.

5. His will is being done not only in earth but also in heaven.

6. He gives us our daily bread (needs), may not be what you want but it what He sees that you need. This is a thank You statement

7. He forgives us of our trespasses and also the POWER TO Forgive those who do us wrong.

8. He does not lead us into temptation(s)BUT He delivers us of evil, another thank You

9. Jesus is saying that the Father's kingdom, along with His power, and His Glory has been for ever (the past) and ever (future)

10. Amen

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/amen

amen (interjection)

amen /Aˈmɛn/ /eɪˈmɛn/

1....used at the end of a prayer

2....used to express agreement or approval

a....People in the crowd shouted ¡°Amen! when the speaker said that change was needed.
b....I'll be glad when this winter is over.¡ "Amen to that" "I agree very much with that"



No. 28     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 30, 2017 at 9:30 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva, it is not I who has linked the destruction of the temple with Jesus return and the end of the age. The disciples asked the question that contained all three parts, and Jesus answered their question telling them that it would all happen in their lifetime. Jesus does not suggest any kind of gap of any length of time that would allow for the three parts to be separated. All three happen in the same time frame, and all with in the disciples life time, their generation.

Here is the question the disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked Jesus.

Matt. 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What things? The destruction of the temple,
Matt. 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

This did happen within the disciples life time, less than 40 years after Jesus the day that he told the disciples it would happen.

No where in the whole of the Olivet Discourse is there any suggestion of a gap of any amount of time in the fulfillment of the whole. None. Jesus told them what to expect in their lifetime, in their generation.

The whole question Jesus answered, therefor all three parts of the question are contained in Jesus answer, otherwise he just ignored part of it and failed to answer them.

Three parts,
1. The destruction of the Temple
2. Jesus return
3. The end of that age.

All three Jesus addressed, ending telling them that all of it would be fulfilled in their lifetime.

So, I must understand the return of Jesus within the context of what actually happened, instead of what some teacher, theologian, or authority tells me it must be.

Within the time frame of the destruction of the temple we see the wrath of God/Messiah poured out upon rebellious, unbelieving, unrepentant Israel, the very generation who turned the Messiah over to be put to death on the cross, the very generation of Jews who pierced Him.

Jesus did return, exactly as he said he would, within the life time of the disciples, to enact God's wrath upon those who pierced Him.


Basing the entire understanding on this two words 'this generation' without support from other signs would be wrong. As a matter of fact your inference can be compared to the warning of Jesus:

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


We have enough signs to indicate that He has not returned.
No. 29     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 30, 2017 at 9:55 AM     
Deva,

Reading the historic report of Josephus and others contemporary historians of that day, adding to it the comfirmations of what writings of early Christians we have, there is amble proof that all of the events Jesus told his disciples about did in fact happen in their life times, their generation during the War of the Jews (Josephus) from 63-70AD.

Interesting that the time frame is about 7 years long, from the start of the war of the Jews to the destruction of the temple. Fits the prophetic week of years that so many talk about.

And I yet stand on what Jesus told his disciples, rather than what I used to think would yet happen, that the fulfillment of it all, did in fact take place within a 40 year biblical generation period, during the historically recorded events that included destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70AD.

Though it can be a trite statement, I stand on, Jesus said it, that settles it! And because I am convinced of the truthfulness of Jesus, and his teaching, I have had to change my own ideas regarding the return of Christ and the Messianic kingdom.

My prayer is that by sharing what I have learned of the truth of fulfilled eschatology others too will learn the truth and be further set free.
No. 30     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 30, 2017 at 11:27 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva,

Reading the historic report of Josephus and others contemporary historians of that day, adding to it the comfirmations of what writings of early Christians we have, there is amble proof that all of the events Jesus told his disciples about did in fact happen in their life times, their generation during the War of the Jews (Josephus) from 63-70AD.

Interesting that the time frame is about 7 years long, from the start of the war of the Jews to the destruction of the temple. Fits the prophetic week of years that so many talk about.

And I yet stand on what Jesus told his disciples, rather than what I used to think would yet happen, that the fulfillment of it all, did in fact take place within a 40 year biblical generation period, during the historically recorded events that included destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70AD.

Though it can be a trite statement, I stand on, Jesus said it, that settles it! And because I am convinced of the truthfulness of Jesus, and his teaching, I have had to change my own ideas regarding the return of Christ and the Messianic kingdom.

My prayer is that by sharing what I have learned of the truth of fulfilled eschatology others too will learn the truth and be further set free.


It is difficult to understand His ways and thoughts. So any conclusion based on two words could be misleading to a great extent to say the least!
No. 31     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Jul 30, 2017 at 12:27 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva,

Reading the historic report of Josephus and others contemporary historians of that day, adding to it the comfirmations of what writings of early Christians we have, there is amble proof that all of the events Jesus told his disciples about did in fact happen in their life times, their generation during the War of the Jews (Josephus) from 63-70AD.

Interesting that the time frame is about 7 years long, from the start of the war of the Jews to the destruction of the temple. Fits the prophetic week of years that so many talk about.

And I yet stand on what Jesus told his disciples, rather than what I used to think would yet happen, that the fulfillment of it all, did in fact take place within a 40 year biblical generation period, during the historically recorded events that included destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70AD.

Though it can be a trite statement, I stand on, Jesus said it, that settles it! And because I am convinced of the truthfulness of Jesus, and his teaching, I have had to change my own ideas regarding the return of Christ and the Messianic kingdom.

My prayer is that by sharing what I have learned of the truth of fulfilled eschatology others too will learn the truth and be further set free.


It is difficult to understand His ways and thoughts. So any conclusion based on two words could be misleading to a great extent to say the least!


Why would Jesus tells his disciples about events that they would experience, if they were too difficult for them to understand them? And my thinking is based on WAY more than two words. You keep misrepresenting my whole discussion by your little snippets. You make an argument, poorly supported for the most part I must add, normally just a dogmatic statement, and when I address it, you claim I am not properly supporting my argument, "two words"...

I used three posts in my thread on the Olivet Discourse, using the full context of Matthew 24,25; Mark 13; and Luke 21, showing how the context was addressed and only addressed to the four disciples in a direct answer to their question and therefor can only have been fulfilled in their life times, and that my brother and friend is way more than "two words".

No. 32     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Jul 30, 2017 at 10:32 PM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva,

Reading the historic report of Josephus and others contemporary historians of that day, adding to it the comfirmations of what writings of early Christians we have, there is amble proof that all of the events Jesus told his disciples about did in fact happen in their life times, their generation during the War of the Jews (Josephus) from 63-70AD.

Interesting that the time frame is about 7 years long, from the start of the war of the Jews to the destruction of the temple. Fits the prophetic week of years that so many talk about.

And I yet stand on what Jesus told his disciples, rather than what I used to think would yet happen, that the fulfillment of it all, did in fact take place within a 40 year biblical generation period, during the historically recorded events that included destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70AD.

Though it can be a trite statement, I stand on, Jesus said it, that settles it! And because I am convinced of the truthfulness of Jesus, and his teaching, I have had to change my own ideas regarding the return of Christ and the Messianic kingdom.

My prayer is that by sharing what I have learned of the truth of fulfilled eschatology others too will learn the truth and be further set free.


It is difficult to understand His ways and thoughts. So any conclusion based on two words could be misleading to a great extent to say the least!


Why would Jesus tells his disciples about events that they would experience, if they were too difficult for them to understand them? And my thinking is based on WAY more than two words. You keep misrepresenting my whole discussion by your little snippets. You make an argument, poorly supported for the most part I must add, normally just a dogmatic statement, and when I address it, you claim I am not properly supporting my argument, "two words"...

I used three posts in my thread on the Olivet Discourse, using the full context of Matthew 24,25; Mark 13; and Luke 21, showing how the context was addressed and only addressed to the four disciples in a direct answer to their question and therefor can only have been fulfilled in their life times, and that my brother and friend is way more than "two words".



Don't you remember that the apostles did not understand many things Jesus told and He would explain to them in private?
No. 33     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 1, 2017 at 6:13 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva,

Reading the historic report of Josephus and others contemporary historians of that day, adding to it the comfirmations of what writings of early Christians we have, there is amble proof that all of the events Jesus told his disciples about did in fact happen in their life times, their generation during the War of the Jews (Josephus) from 63-70AD.

Interesting that the time frame is about 7 years long, from the start of the war of the Jews to the destruction of the temple. Fits the prophetic week of years that so many talk about.

And I yet stand on what Jesus told his disciples, rather than what I used to think would yet happen, that the fulfillment of it all, did in fact take place within a 40 year biblical generation period, during the historically recorded events that included destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70AD.

Though it can be a trite statement, I stand on, Jesus said it, that settles it! And because I am convinced of the truthfulness of Jesus, and his teaching, I have had to change my own ideas regarding the return of Christ and the Messianic kingdom.

My prayer is that by sharing what I have learned of the truth of fulfilled eschatology others too will learn the truth and be further set free.


It is difficult to understand His ways and thoughts. So any conclusion based on two words could be misleading to a great extent to say the least!


Why would Jesus tells his disciples about events that they would experience, if they were too difficult for them to understand them? And my thinking is based on WAY more than two words. You keep misrepresenting my whole discussion by your little snippets. You make an argument, poorly supported for the most part I must add, normally just a dogmatic statement, and when I address it, you claim I am not properly supporting my argument, "two words"...

I used three posts in my thread on the Olivet Discourse, using the full context of Matthew 24,25; Mark 13; and Luke 21, showing how the context was addressed and only addressed to the four disciples in a direct answer to their question and therefor can only have been fulfilled in their life times, and that my brother and friend is way more than "two words".



Don't you remember that the apostles did not understand many things Jesus told and He would explain to them in private?


Yes, indeed, and the Olivet Discourse was not a public address. It was given in private, directly to four disciples who came to Jesus in the garden to ask about what Jesus had said earlier in public about the destruction of the temple.

This discourse is Jesus explaining to the disciples what he had said earlier. Nothing in this passage is hidden in a parable, even the parables Jesus used had a simple meaning to the disciples, which Jesus also explained to them.

Reading the context of this discourse I can only conclude that the generation Jesus referred to what the generation, a biblical 40 year generation, that of the four disciples he was talking in private to, giving an explanation of what would occur before the destruction of the temple, His return in judgment upon those who pierced him and the end of the age.
No. 34     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  another84   Gender: M   Age: 50   on  Aug 1, 2017 at 6:49 PM     
This discourse is Jesus explaining to the disciples what he had said earlier. Nothing in this passage is hidden in a parable, even the parables Jesus used had a simple meaning to the disciples, which Jesus also explained to them.


Where do you get Jesus explained to them that parable?


No. 35     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 1, 2017 at 7:46 PM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Deva,

Reading the historic report of Josephus and others contemporary historians of that day, adding to it the comfirmations of what writings of early Christians we have, there is amble proof that all of the events Jesus told his disciples about did in fact happen in their life times, their generation during the War of the Jews (Josephus) from 63-70AD.

Interesting that the time frame is about 7 years long, from the start of the war of the Jews to the destruction of the temple. Fits the prophetic week of years that so many talk about.

And I yet stand on what Jesus told his disciples, rather than what I used to think would yet happen, that the fulfillment of it all, did in fact take place within a 40 year biblical generation period, during the historically recorded events that included destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70AD.

Though it can be a trite statement, I stand on, Jesus said it, that settles it! And because I am convinced of the truthfulness of Jesus, and his teaching, I have had to change my own ideas regarding the return of Christ and the Messianic kingdom.

My prayer is that by sharing what I have learned of the truth of fulfilled eschatology others too will learn the truth and be further set free.


It is difficult to understand His ways and thoughts. So any conclusion based on two words could be misleading to a great extent to say the least!


Why would Jesus tells his disciples about events that they would experience, if they were too difficult for them to understand them? And my thinking is based on WAY more than two words. You keep misrepresenting my whole discussion by your little snippets. You make an argument, poorly supported for the most part I must add, normally just a dogmatic statement, and when I address it, you claim I am not properly supporting my argument, "two words"...

I used three posts in my thread on the Olivet Discourse, using the full context of Matthew 24,25; Mark 13; and Luke 21, showing how the context was addressed and only addressed to the four disciples in a direct answer to their question and therefor can only have been fulfilled in their life times, and that my brother and friend is way more than "two words".



Don't you remember that the apostles did not understand many things Jesus told and He would explain to them in private?


Yes, indeed, and the Olivet Discourse was not a public address. It was given in private, directly to four disciples who came to Jesus in the garden to ask about what Jesus had said earlier in public about the destruction of the temple.

This discourse is Jesus explaining to the disciples what he had said earlier. Nothing in this passage is hidden in a parable, even the parables Jesus used had a simple meaning to the disciples, which Jesus also explained to them.

Reading the context of this discourse I can only conclude that the generation Jesus referred to what the generation, a biblical 40 year generation, that of the four disciples he was talking in private to, giving an explanation of what would occur before the destruction of the temple, His return in judgment upon those who pierced him and the end of the age.


But you see there are many signs Jesus also indicated that would precede before His return. They have not occurred. Therefore, His sayings remain a mystery. God is a mystery too. So to assume that Jesus has returned to the world that is worsening( indicating a sign of His return )based on two words would be a folly.
No. 36     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 2, 2017 at 6:22 PM     
Again I do not base it on two words. The whole context of the Olivet discourse is the private discussion Jesus had with four of his disciples. In this discourse he tells them what to expect in the near future. Lots of words there all addressed to the disciples, all of it.

Nothing is addressed to some future group of people, none of it.

Tell me anywhere in the Olivet Discourse where Jesus changed from telling his disciples what they will experience to some other group of people?

If the whole of the Olivet Discourse is addressed to the disciples, and nothing addressed to any future group, then "this generation" was their generation. This is a plain and basic reading of the text here.
No. 37     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  another84   Gender: M   Age: 50   on  Aug 2, 2017 at 11:14 PM     
Hi Kent

Matt 24:32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

I have been looking for wars, and rumours of wars between 33-70 AD.
I have been looking for earthquakes between the same 33-70 AD.
With your searches what have you come up with this?

The abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place.

You believe that is the Roman army standing there. It would not seem to fit what Jesus said to do when they would see the abomination of desolation.

What is missing?

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

The way you make it sound with the Roman army standing there it like the people would stop and say "Wow they really are going to kill us" All this after several years of war.

What is missing?

I don't know much about fig trees, but I have often seen trees start getting leaves in late December. I would believe the parable would be talking of the return of Jesus. Not the leading up to the great tribulation. I can not find where history makes this sound like the great tribulation.

The more I read on Josephus, and the video you put on here put me against Josephus. I could see him writing just to save his head. So to know if it is true or not how can we know for sure?

Thanks






No. 38     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 2, 2017 at 11:15 PM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Again I do not base it on two words. The whole context of the Olivet discourse is the private discussion Jesus had with four of his disciples. In this discourse he tells them what to expect in the near future. Lots of words there all addressed to the disciples, all of it.

Nothing is addressed to some future group of people, none of it.

Tell me anywhere in the Olivet Discourse where Jesus changed from telling his disciples what they will experience to some other group of people?

If the whole of the Olivet Discourse is addressed to the disciples, and nothing addressed to any future group, then "this generation" was their generation. This is a plain and basic reading of the text here.


What language Jesus used for this discourse?
No. 39     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 3, 2017 at 7:04 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Again I do not base it on two words. The whole context of the Olivet discourse is the private discussion Jesus had with four of his disciples. In this discourse he tells them what to expect in the near future. Lots of words there all addressed to the disciples, all of it.

Nothing is addressed to some future group of people, none of it.

Tell me anywhere in the Olivet Discourse where Jesus changed from telling his disciples what they will experience to some other group of people?

If the whole of the Olivet Discourse is addressed to the disciples, and nothing addressed to any future group, then "this generation" was their generation. This is a plain and basic reading of the text here.


What language Jesus used for this discourse?


I am sure that Jesus spoke the same language the disciples used, I doubt he spoke Swahili to them.
No. 40     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 3, 2017 at 8:43 PM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Again I do not base it on two words. The whole context of the Olivet discourse is the private discussion Jesus had with four of his disciples. In this discourse he tells them what to expect in the near future. Lots of words there all addressed to the disciples, all of it.

Nothing is addressed to some future group of people, none of it.

Tell me anywhere in the Olivet Discourse where Jesus changed from telling his disciples what they will experience to some other group of people?

If the whole of the Olivet Discourse is addressed to the disciples, and nothing addressed to any future group, then "this generation" was their generation. This is a plain and basic reading of the text here.


What language Jesus used for this discourse?


I am sure that Jesus spoke the same language the disciples used, I doubt he spoke Swahili to them.


Are you reading in the language He spoke to understand better?
No. 41     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 4, 2017 at 6:58 AM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Again I do not base it on two words. The whole context of the Olivet discourse is the private discussion Jesus had with four of his disciples. In this discourse he tells them what to expect in the near future. Lots of words there all addressed to the disciples, all of it.

Nothing is addressed to some future group of people, none of it.

Tell me anywhere in the Olivet Discourse where Jesus changed from telling his disciples what they will experience to some other group of people?

If the whole of the Olivet Discourse is addressed to the disciples, and nothing addressed to any future group, then "this generation" was their generation. This is a plain and basic reading of the text here.


What language Jesus used for this discourse?


I am sure that Jesus spoke the same language the disciples used, I doubt he spoke Swahili to them.


Are you reading in the language He spoke to understand better?


Do you think that all of the Godly brethren who worked long years to translate the original languages into English and other languages failed to communicate the truth of the originals?

All I know is that all of the English translations I study, communicate the same thing to me.

That Jesus in the Olivet Discourse was talking to four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew. Answering their question about when the temple would be destroyed, when his coming would be and when the end of the age would happen.

That certain events would immediately precede the fulfillment of these three things. That they should wait, continue to have faith in the salvation of God, and be prepared to leave Jerusalem and Judea, before the very end of this time period.

That they, their generation would experience all of these events and the fulfillment of their question. He emphatically said this would happen, that creation would cease before his words would fail.

This is what I read, it is plain in the context who is being addressed, what they would experience and need to be prepared for, and when in general it would all be fulfilled.

That the fulfillment of it all doesn't agree with your, mine or anyone else's ideas of what it should be, doesn't change the fact of how contextual narrative reads. If anyone's ideas doesn't fit the plain reading of this passage, then one needs to reconsider their ideas, finding ones that actually fits the narrative given to us, rather then finding clever ways to redefine words and create "gaps" in time where none are indicated.
No. 42     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  another84   Gender: M   Age: 50   on  Aug 4, 2017 at 8:14 AM     
That the fulfillment of it all doesn't agree with your, mine or anyone else's ideas of what it should be, doesn't change the fact of how contextual narrative reads. If anyone's ideas doesn't fit the plain reading of this passage, then one needs to reconsider their ideas, finding ones that actually fits the narrative given to us, rather then finding clever ways to redefine words and create "gaps" in time where none are indicated.

The point is. I do not see the narrative as you do. There are big big parts not there that I have asked about. What your saying does not seem to work. It is like those that give a date to Jesus return. We should all know we can not do that. People still do that.

There are all kinds of ideas. I am not trying to prove you right or wrong, just see if it fits the narrative. As of right now there are more questions than answers.

thanks

No. 43     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 4, 2017 at 11:50 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Again I do not base it on two words. The whole context of the Olivet discourse is the private discussion Jesus had with four of his disciples. In this discourse he tells them what to expect in the near future. Lots of words there all addressed to the disciples, all of it.

Nothing is addressed to some future group of people, none of it.

Tell me anywhere in the Olivet Discourse where Jesus changed from telling his disciples what they will experience to some other group of people?

If the whole of the Olivet Discourse is addressed to the disciples, and nothing addressed to any future group, then "this generation" was their generation. This is a plain and basic reading of the text here.


What language Jesus used for this discourse?


I am sure that Jesus spoke the same language the disciples used, I doubt he spoke Swahili to them.


Are you reading in the language He spoke to understand better?


Do you think that all of the Godly brethren who worked long years to translate the original languages into English and other languages failed to communicate the truth of the originals?

All I know is that all of the English translations I study, communicate the same thing to me.

That Jesus in the Olivet Discourse was talking to four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew. Answering their question about when the temple would be destroyed, when his coming would be and when the end of the age would happen.

That certain events would immediately precede the fulfillment of these three things. That they should wait, continue to have faith in the salvation of God, and be prepared to leave Jerusalem and Judea, before the very end of this time period.

That they, their generation would experience all of these events and the fulfillment of their question. He emphatically said this would happen, that creation would cease before his words would fail.

This is what I read, it is plain in the context who is being addressed, what they would experience and need to be prepared for, and when in general it would all be fulfilled.

That the fulfillment of it all doesn't agree with your, mine or anyone else's ideas of what it should be, doesn't change the fact of how contextual narrative reads. If anyone's ideas doesn't fit the plain reading of this passage, then one needs to reconsider their ideas, finding ones that actually fits the narrative given to us, rather then finding clever ways to redefine words and create "gaps" in time where none are indicated.


Truth is not than simple, plain and direct. His ways and thoughts are different from ours. You don't have a strong base to assume that He has already returned.

Where are the originals? Do we have any manuscript in Aramaic that quotes this discourse? Why this important aspect was left out in later John's Gospel?
No. 44     Reply: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 4, 2017 at 4:12 PM     
Deva wrote:
Truth is not than simple, plain and direct. His ways and thoughts are different from ours. You don't have a strong base to assume that He has already returned.

Where are the originals? Do we have any manuscript in Aramaic that quotes this discourse? Why this important aspect was left out in later John's Gospel?


Of course truth is simple. It may be difficult for us to accept, but that does not change the truth. It just means we need to learn more, perhaps foundational ideas or repent of our own ideas so that we can comprehend the truth. Paul said that the battle was in pulling down strongholds of false ideas, specially those of the Judaizers of his day.

Why would Jesus tell his disciples a lie? Why would the apostles, teach a lie? Why would the gospel writers write a lie?

There is a massive stronghold of falsehood that has been built up in the church since John Darby developed his dispensational dogma, and established the futurist doctrine that has taken over the Evangelical movement. It is this stronghold I stand against, holding to the clear and simple truth of God's Word.

You think that three records of the Olivet Discourse are not enough to validate it?

We only have one record of John 3:16, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that the world through him might be saved. Does that mean that since there is only one record of this, only in John's gospel record, that it too is invalid?

Seems like a very weak argument to me. Three different writers, write about the Olivet Discourse with differences in detail, but all agreeing on what they do report. Mark 13 has the least detail, Luke 21 has more and Matthew 24,25 has the most. One gives us the name of the four disciples who asked Jesus the question that Jesus answered with the Discourse.

I thought you placed the greatest weight on Jesus words and teaching? Now you seem to want to invalidate the Olivet Discourse. Why? Is the plain and simple truth of it getting to you so that you want to throw out this passage, ignore it because it counters your own ideas of what Christ's return is.

Jesus warned Israel repeatedly of the judgment to come on them. As he continues to do in the Olivet Discourse, linking the judgment of Israel firmly with his return.

The originals? Have you read on textual criticism of the ancient manuscripts we have? There are no originals, period. What we have are thousands of copies, a few whole books, mostly pieces of parchment, that when all are put together give us the whole books. Textual criticism is the science of determining which pieces hold the closest to the originals.

Our Bibles are the best translations of the originals that we have to date. If there is another find of hidden documents, we might get better originals to work with.

Do we have the originals, yes, in a form. This in no way invalidates the Olivet Discourse as an answer Jesus gave his four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew to their question of "When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" As Mark, Luke and the apostle Matthew recorded.

You can either accept the plain and simple truth of these records or reject them. But the record of Jesus' words stands.
No. 45     Reply: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 4, 2017 at 10:36 PM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Of course truth is simple. It may be difficult for us to accept, but that does not change the truth. It just means we need to learn more, perhaps foundational ideas or repent of our own ideas so that we can comprehend the truth.


Yes, truth is simple but gets complicated when other things are found in conflict.


Paul said that the battle was in pulling down strongholds of false ideas, specially those of the Judaizers of his day.


With that kind of a zeal, he side tracked from the sublime teachings of Jesus to push his agenda with self-proclaimed authority!

Why would Jesus tell his disciples a lie? Why would the apostles, teach a lie? Why would the gospel writers write a lie?


Remember Jesus is not God so also the apostles. Where is the need of four gospel books for one truth? We have four books with variations. It is like seeing one thing from four different directions to comprehend the truth (unlike four blind men at four different locations). Therefore, any discourse need to be understood considering all aspects, not just one pair of words. Jesus also gave other signs with His return. No way have they happened. Are you going to disregard them? Just as many are choosing pieces of verses to put forth their doctrines, assumption of His return is based on just two words ignoring other verses. The best clarification would be that it was Jesus’ wish that He should return immediately after the destruction of the temple. That was His wish and will, but, you see, it was not God’s as things have developed. So you are ignoring the final authority with this unacceptable idea of His return.

There is a massive stronghold of falsehood that has been built up in the church since John Darby developed his dispensational dogma, and established the futurist doctrine that has taken over the Evangelical movement. It is this stronghold I stand against, holding to the clear and simple truth of God's Word.


I am also against Dispensational dogma. In fact, I suspect all doctrines evolved with Protestant movement. All kinds of believers believing all kinds of beliefs that tickle their ears with no iota of sacrifice and ignoring the call of Jesus for discipleship! Power has corrupted the dogmas of Catholic and other sects. So in many cases, they are either private interpretations or power mongering diktats.

You think that three records of the Olivet Discourse are not enough to validate it?


It cannot be considered in isolation.

We only have one record of John 3:16, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that the world through him might be saved. Does that mean that since there is only one record of this, only in John's gospel record, that it too is invalid?


It does not contradict the will and preaching of Jesus in its essence.

I thought you placed the greatest weight on Jesus words and teaching? Now you seem to want to invalidate the Olivet Discourse. Why? Is the plain and simple truth of it getting to you so that you want to throw out this passage, ignore it because it counters your own ideas of what Christ's return is.


Yes, Jesus words are the basis for our understanding. But, you see, you are ignoring His other words to support your understanding.

Jesus warned Israel repeatedly of the judgment to come on them. As he continues to do in the Olivet Discourse, linking the judgment of Israel firmly with his return.


The very fact that anti-Christ and political Zionists have grabbed Jerusalem and its surroundings is a clear indication that Jesus has not returned. They are trying to build a third temple ably supported by deluded Christians with their own private interpretations!

The originals? Have you read on textual criticism of the ancient manuscripts we have? There are no originals, period. What we have are thousands of copies, a few whole books, mostly pieces of parchment, that when all are put together give us the whole books. Textual criticism is the science of determining which pieces hold the closest to the originals. Our Bibles are the best translations of the originals that we have to date. If there is another find of hidden documents, we might get better originals to work with.


What do we understand by this? We learn from the Holy Spirit through all the writings that are available in many cases. It is not appropriate to use a microscope to learn about the words. Nor it is wise to limit the number of books for understanding limitless God.

Do we have the originals, yes, in a form. This in no way invalidates the Olivet Discourse as an answer Jesus gave his four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew to their question of "When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" As Mark, Luke and the apostle Matthew recorded.

You can either accept the plain and simple truth of these records or reject them. But the record of Jesus' words stands.


I accept them and also the other signs and warnings issued by Jesus.

No. 46     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 5, 2017 at 7:13 AM     
I will address one point here that you keep repeating.

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Of course truth is simple. It may be difficult for us to accept, but that does not change the truth. It just means we need to learn more, perhaps foundational ideas or repent of our own ideas so that we can comprehend the truth.


Yes, truth is simple but gets complicated when other things are found in conflict.


Paul said that the battle was in pulling down strongholds of false ideas, specially those of the Judaizers of his day.


With that kind of a zeal, he side tracked from the sublime teachings of Jesus to push his agenda with self-proclaimed authority!

Why would Jesus tell his disciples a lie? Why would the apostles, teach a lie? Why would the gospel writers write a lie?


Remember Jesus is not God so also the apostles. Where is the need of four gospel books for one truth? We have four books with variations. It is like seeing one thing from four different directions to comprehend the truth (unlike four blind men at four different locations). Therefore, any discourse need to be understood considering all aspects, not just one pair of words. Jesus also gave other signs with His return. No way have they happened. Are you going to disregard them? Just as many are choosing pieces of verses to put forth their doctrines, assumption of His return is based on just two words ignoring other verses. The best clarification would be that it was Jesus’ wish that He should return immediately after the destruction of the temple. That was His wish and will, but, you see, it was not God’s as things have developed. So you are ignoring the final authority with this unacceptable idea of His return.


As I have stated before and shown in my thread on the Context of the Olivet Discourse, this is not based on just "two words", it is based on the full context of this passage being addressed to the disciples and only the disciples. There is absolutely no where in the whole of this passage that even suggests that some future group of people would live through these events.

As to the truthfulness of Jesus words, he spoke the truth. Jesus spoke the words given him by the Father to speak.

John 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM; and from Myself I do nothing; but as My Father taught Me, these things I speak.

John 8:38 I speak what I have seen with My Father. And you therefore do what you have seen with your father.

John 12:49,50 For I did not speak from Myself, but He who sent Me, the Father, He has given Me command, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Then what things I speak, as the Father has said to Me, so I speak.

John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The Words which I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me, He does the works.

According to what you posted above, Jesus spoke on his own. Do you reject the testimony of Jesus that he spoke and taught from what he received from the Father?

Jesus told his disciples what to expect and prepare for in their lifetimes. Jesus told them certain events would happen before the temple was destroyed, he returned in judgment upon rebellious Israel and the end of that present age. Jesus spoke the words given him by the Father. Jesus words are truth from the Father, therefor the end of the age, his return and the destruction of the temple took place in 70AD, within the disciples life time, within their generation, just as he said it would.



There is a massive stronghold of falsehood that has been built up in the church since John Darby developed his dispensational dogma, and established the futurist doctrine that has taken over the Evangelical movement. It is this stronghold I stand against, holding to the clear and simple truth of God's Word.


I am also against Dispensational dogma. In fact, I suspect all doctrines evolved with Protestant movement. All kinds of believers believing all kinds of beliefs that tickle their ears with no iota of sacrifice and ignoring the call of Jesus for discipleship! Power has corrupted the dogmas of Catholic and other sects. So in many cases, they are either private interpretations or power mongering diktats.

You think that three records of the Olivet Discourse are not enough to validate it?


It cannot be considered in isolation.


I see support throughout the NT writings. The Revelation of Jesus given to John is about the same events, adding more detail. It is the full context I am dealing with, not just the Olivet Discourse. But I think the foundational ideas are found in the Discourse and this is a good place to start.



We only have one record of John 3:16, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that the world through him might be saved. Does that mean that since there is only one record of this, only in John's gospel record, that it too is invalid?


It does not contradict the will and preaching of Jesus in its essence.

I thought you placed the greatest weight on Jesus words and teaching? Now you seem to want to invalidate the Olivet Discourse. Why? Is the plain and simple truth of it getting to you so that you want to throw out this passage, ignore it because it counters your own ideas of what Christ's return is.


Yes, Jesus words are the basis for our understanding. But, you see, you are ignoring His other words to support your understanding.


No, I'm not. At present I am dealing with the truth of the Olivet Discourse and its fulfillment as shown in the historic record of the Wars of the Jews.

I find that this understanding is perfectly supported through out Jesus teaching and the teaching of the NT writers. As I stated in the quote below.


Jesus warned Israel repeatedly of the judgment to come on them. As he continues to do in the Olivet Discourse, linking the judgment of Israel firmly with his return.


The very fact that anti-Christ and political Zionists have grabbed Jerusalem and its surroundings is a clear indication that Jesus has not returned. They are trying to build a third temple ably supported by deluded Christians with their own private interpretations!


I do not accept that the present state of Israel has anything to do with eschatology. It may have something to do with the promise of God to Abraham that his descendants would live in the land.

Again because the present world does not fit your ideal view, therefor the record of scripture must be wrong?



The originals? Have you read on textual criticism of the ancient manuscripts we have? There are no originals, period. What we have are thousands of copies, a few whole books, mostly pieces of parchment, that when all are put together give us the whole books. Textual criticism is the science of determining which pieces hold the closest to the originals. Our Bibles are the best translations of the originals that we have to date. If there is another find of hidden documents, we might get better originals to work with.


What do we understand by this? We learn from the Holy Spirit through all the writings that are available in many cases. It is not appropriate to use a microscope to learn about the words. Nor it is wise to limit the number of books for understanding limitless God.


So you refute that the Bible is the word of God? That the testimony of the writings in the Bible are true?





Do we have the originals, yes, in a form. This in no way invalidates the Olivet Discourse as an answer Jesus gave his four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew to their question of "When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" As Mark, Luke and the apostle Matthew recorded.

You can either accept the plain and simple truth of these records or reject them. But the record of Jesus' words stands.


I accept them and also the other signs and warnings issued by Jesus.



Which all agree with his words in the Olivet Discourse, which in due time I want to address as well. The gospel of the kingdom as recorded in the gospel writings repeatedly states about the coming judgment of God upon rebellious Israel. The warnings get stronger the closer to Jesus crucifixion.
No. 47     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 5, 2017 at 11:21 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Which all agree with his words in the Olivet Discourse, which in due time I want to address as well. The gospel of the kingdom as recorded in the gospel writings repeatedly states about the coming judgment of God upon rebellious Israel. The warnings get stronger the closer to Jesus crucifixion.


You mean that Israel has recovered from the judgement now?

Instead of dealing with the words 'this generation', could you analysis other signs that Jesus spoke before His return? Have they been accomplished?

You don't want to pray like this:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
No. 49     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 5, 2017 at 6:12 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

Which all agree with his words in the Olivet Discourse, which in due time I want to address as well. The gospel of the kingdom as recorded in the gospel writings repeatedly states about the coming judgment of God upon rebellious Israel. The warnings get stronger the closer to Jesus crucifixion.


You mean that Israel has recovered from the judgement now?

Instead of dealing with the words 'this generation', could you analysis other signs that Jesus spoke before His return? Have they been accomplished?


I am working on this at present, showing the record of Josephus that records the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse sign events.



You don't want to pray like this:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.


Sure I do, the Messianic kingdom is expanding to fill the whole earth, people by people, nation by nation, generation by generation. At present there is not a single nation that does not have a kingdom representation in it. Messiah's kingdom has come, and is coming.
No. 50     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 6, 2017 at 5:32 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

I am working on this at present, showing the record of Josephus that records the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse sign events.


What makes you think that the record of Josephus is the climax of the terrible things that Jesus said would happen before His return?

Deva wrote:

You don't want to pray like this:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.


Sure I do, the Messianic kingdom is expanding to fill the whole earth, people by people, nation by nation, generation by generation. At present there is not a single nation that does not have a kingdom representation in it. Messiah's kingdom has come, and is coming.


Sorry, you are mixing up Messiah's kingdom's progression to the return of the Messiah. They are totally different.
No. 51     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 6, 2017 at 6:51 AM     
Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

I am working on this at present, showing the record of Josephus that records the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse sign events.


What makes you think that the record of Josephus is the climax of the terrible things that Jesus said would happen before His return?

Deva wrote:

You don't want to pray like this:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.


Sure I do, the Messianic kingdom is expanding to fill the whole earth, people by people, nation by nation, generation by generation. At present there is not a single nation that does not have a kingdom representation in it. Messiah's kingdom has come, and is coming.


Sorry, you are mixing up Messiah's kingdom's progression to the return of the Messiah. They are totally different.


I firmly base this on Isaiah, who stated that the Messianic kingdom would increase forever.

The Messiah did come, he was born within the time frame that Daniel recorded, 400 years after the decree for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem.(Daniel 9:24,25) Jesus did fulfill the first phase of his mission to establish his kingdom, then 40 years later completed it. Giving us the age of grace, and his ever increasing kingdom.

Isaiah 9:6,7
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.


The Messianic kingdom started with the birth of the King, the child who is born, the son who is given. The government of the Kingdom is upon his shoulders, its increase has no end.

It started small,with a few disciples, twelve emissaries (apostles) of the kingdom, and by the end of Jesus earthly ministry, about 500 citizens (disciples). On the day of Pentecost, (Act 2:41) Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. And the numbers of those who entered the Messianic kingdom continued to increase and continues till this day.

One of the errors of dispenstational doctrine that much of the Evangelical movement has adopted is that Jesus came to be the suffering servant and later would come again to be the triumphal king. That is a false idea. The son was born as king, it was the Messiah/King who gave his life for to establish the new covenant of grace and love that his kingdom is based on. Just as the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant was the foundation of the kingdom of God in Israel, so the new covenant in Messiah's blood is the foundation for the Messianic kingdom.

And according to God through the prophet Isaiah this kingdom has no end to its increase. It is an advancing kingdom, not a poof its here kingdom.
No. 52     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Literally Literal?   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 6, 2017 at 11:57 AM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

bodyservant56 wrote:

I am working on this at present, showing the record of Josephus that records the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse sign events.


What makes you think that the record of Josephus is the climax of the terrible things that Jesus said would happen before His return?

Deva wrote:

You don't want to pray like this:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.


Sure I do, the Messianic kingdom is expanding to fill the whole earth, people by people, nation by nation, generation by generation. At present there is not a single nation that does not have a kingdom representation in it. Messiah's kingdom has come, and is coming.


Sorry, you are mixing up Messiah's kingdom's progression to the return of the Messiah. They are totally different.


I firmly base this on Isaiah, who stated that the Messianic kingdom would increase forever.

The Messiah did come, he was born within the time frame that Daniel recorded, 400 years after the decree for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem.(Daniel 9:24,25) Jesus did fulfill the first phase of his mission to establish his kingdom, then 40 years later completed it. Giving us the age of grace, and his ever increasing kingdom.

Isaiah 9:6,7
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.


The Messianic kingdom started with the birth of the King, the child who is born, the son who is given. The government of the Kingdom is upon his shoulders, its increase has no end.

It started small,with a few disciples, twelve emissaries (apostles) of the kingdom, and by the end of Jesus earthly ministry, about 500 citizens (disciples). On the day of Pentecost, (Act 2:41) Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. And the numbers of those who entered the Messianic kingdom continued to increase and continues till this day.

One of the errors of dispenstational doctrine that much of the Evangelical movement has adopted is that Jesus came to be the suffering servant and later would come again to be the triumphal king. That is a false idea. The son was born as king, it was the Messiah/King who gave his life for to establish the new covenant of grace and love that his kingdom is based on. Just as the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant was the foundation of the kingdom of God in Israel, so the new covenant in Messiah's blood is the foundation for the Messianic kingdom.

And according to God through the prophet Isaiah this kingdom has no end to its increase. It is an advancing kingdom, not a poof its here kingdom.


You appear to have missed my point. We are talking of His return after ascension.