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: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 6, 2017 at 6:30 AM   Viewed 1571 times     
Some good questions regarding eschatology for you who hold to a futurist view to consider.





Prophecy Questions Futurists Cannot Really Answer
Posted on January 21, 2014
by Charles Meek


A dramatic upheaval is beginning to boil in the church on eschatology, that is, Bible prophecy.

There is astounding disagreement among Christians on Bible prophecy. I love the church. But about a dozen years ago I decided that I could no longer blindly listen to Christians radio or TV, or even to my pastoral staff on this subject, because what most of them are teaching did not match up with the Bible. I became determined to get to the bottom of this subject. There were too many questions I had that the church just could not answer adequately.

After years of study, I became convinced that Jesus was telling the truth when He said that ALL prophesied last-things events would be fulfilled in his generation (Luke 21:22; etc). I became a preterist. Preterism is the view that most, if not all prophetic events happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It appears to be the fastest growing view of eschatology as other systems are being discredited.

Over one-fourth of the New Testament is concerned with eschatology. If you are willing to consider a different viewpoint from the one you may now hold, below are some of the questions I could not honestly answer as a futurist:

* Why have Christians made failed predictions about the end of the world for 2000 years now?

* If time means nothing to God, why does God constantly use time-restricted statements about the fulfillment of prophecy—such as: shortly, at hand, near, quickly, soon, last times, last hour, last days, this generation, etc.?

* Why did Jesus frequently insist that his PAROUSIA (Second Coming) and indeed the fulfillment of all prophecy would be fulfilled while some of his disciples were still alive (Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:27-28; Mathew 26:64; Luke 21:22, 28, 32; Revelation 1:1-3; Revelation 22:6, 12, 20 )? Was Jesus simply wrong? If so, can we trust Him on other things He said?

* If the teaching that one day is a 1000 yrs and a 1000 years a day to the Lord. . . . DOES THAT MEAN?—1000 yrs in Revelation are a single 24 hour day (2 Peter 3; Revelation 20 )?

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?

* If the Great Tribulation is still future to us, why did Jesus tell the first century Christians that they could avoid it by fleeing to the mountains (Luke 21:21; ref. Matthew 24:21)? And why did the Apostle John tell his readers a few years later that THEY were in the tribulation (Revelation 1:9)?

* If the book of Revelation is for us today, why would John write to the 7 churches if it had nothing to do with them? Why would John torture these first-century Christians with impossible and intricate symbolic labyrinths that applied only to people 2,000 years later? Why does Revelation say some 30 times that the events MUST be fulfilled SOON? (Examples: Revelation 1:1-3; 22:6, 12, 20 )

* Why does Hebrews 10:37 say that in a VERY VERY (“very” is there twice in the Greek) LITTLE WHILE Jesus would return and not delay? Were the writer of Hebrews and the other biblical writers that expressed the same thing FALSE PROPHETS?

* If the biblical “last days” are in the 21st century, why does Peter and Paul both say the last days were in their time (Acts 2:16-17; Hebrews 1:1-2)?

* If the biblical “last days” started in the first century, but continue to this day, why did Peter say the end of all things was at hand, and the judgment was about to begin when he was writing (1 Peter 4:7, 17)?

* John said it was the “last hour” (1 John 2:18 ). Does that mean that its fulfillment is now 17 million hours late?

* If the GREAT COMMISSION is not yet fulfilled, why did Paul say it had been fulfilled when he was writing (Roman 1:8; 10:18; Colossians 1:5-6, 23)?

* If “heaven and earth” have not yet passed away, does that mean that not one jot or tittle has passed from the law and Jesus has not fulfilled it yet (Matthew 5:17-18 )?

* If the NEW JERUSALEM is a future physical location, how is it possible that the Hebrews in the first century were already there (Hebrews 12:22)?

* If Jesus was going to return literally and physically (Acts 1:11), why do we read that his ascension was hidden from view by a cloud? If Jesus is going to return LITERALLY “in like manner” (Acts 1:11), does that also mean that He will return riding a white horse (Revelation 19:11)?

* If Jesus was to return in a physical, visible appearance to the whole world, why did He tell his first-century disciples (John 14:19 ) that the world would never see him again?

* If the King James Version of the Bible really speaks of an end to the physical universe, why is “end of the world” found in the King James Version consistently translated as “end of the AGE” in modern translations and literal translations (like Young’s Literal Translation)?

* If the last-days events are still future to us, why are there over 100 passages in the New Testament that declare that these events would happen soon?

* If “soon” means “2000 years later,” does that mean it was going to take Timothy 2000 years to be sent to the Philippians by Paul?

* How many more ways could the writers of the New Testament have stated the imminent fulfillment of the last-days events (soon, near, this generation, while some of you are still alive, must shortly take place, the end is at hand, etc.)?

* If the prophetic passages were fulfilled once in the first century, and then again thousands of years later, why is there no hint of this by Jesus and the biblical writers?

There is a biblical way to resolve all of these questions. It is called the preterist view of eschatology. You are invited to explore it further here:

https://prophecyquestions.com/2014/02/01/articles-by-charles-meek

Charles Meek is the author of a new book CHRISTIAN HOPE THROUGH FULFILLED PROPHECY: IS YOUR CHURCH TEACHING ERROR ABOUT THE LAST DAYS AND SECOND COMING?
No. 1     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 10:15 AM     
* Why have Christians made failed predictions about the end of the world for 2000 years now?


Various reasons.

Not only Christians, but non-Christians as well. The “end of the world” is just a drop in the bucket when we consider all predictions by people throughout all history. People normally focus on the sensational, the sensational is also a money maker, and so people will sell the sensational. People are people – dishonest and covetous. They believe the lies of politicians and faith healers alike. So we could also talk about predictions by psychics for the year ahead, year after year.

On a more serious note, Christians long to see the return of their Lord. At times, certain events take place that make His coming seem imminent. Hitler and World War II might qualify in this instance. He was certainly an antichrist, Jewish people were marked, It was indeed a “time of Jacob’s trouble”. So there are times we might call “close calls.” Others, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Millerites (later known as the Seventh Day Adventists), get caught up in numbers and make wrong assessments. There are a variety of reasons – but although people fail in their predictions, or faithful walking with the Lord, or other ways – we are still called to watch.
No. 2     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 10:29 AM     
* If time means nothing to God, why does God constantly use time-restricted statements about the fulfillment of prophecy—such as: shortly, at hand, near, quickly, soon, last times, last hour, last days, this generation, etc.?


The question here assumes that time means nothing to God. But God does use time restricted statements (although the use of the word, “generation” is debatable, and has been debated). He uses time frames for His reasons. One is that after the event prophesied occurs, and happens when God said it would happen, and how God said it would happen, nobody but God can receive the glory.
No. 3     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM     
* Why did Jesus frequently insist that his PAROUSIA (Second Coming) and indeed the fulfillment of all prophecy would be fulfilled while some of his disciples were still alive (Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:27-28; Mathew 26:64; Luke 21:22, 28, 32; Revelation 1:1-3; Revelation 22:6, 12, 20)? Was Jesus simply wrong? If so, can we trust Him on other things He said?


So this person, Meek, asks the question, assuming all these verses (taken from their proper contexts) are relevant to the question. Let’s look at those verses:

Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.


Kent insists verses be taken in context, yet this is a contradiction to the rule he imposes on others. But since it is some guy named Meek, and not Kent asking the questions, I suppose he feels he has the monopoly on the context as well. So to answer, I ask, How many towns are in Israel? Do we know that they went through all of them or not? Personally I see no relevance between this verse and Meek’s question.

Next passage:

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.
16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."


This passage is certainly one that can be a stumbling block. We know that Christ has not yet come, as this is self-evident. Yet He says that some who were standing there at that time (27 AD?) would not taste of death (die) until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Several answers come to mind. When I first heard this passage, I immediately thought of the spiritual realm, and those unseen persons who are still with us to this very day. Satan would qualify. The demons would qualify. For those who discount the existence or reality of these entities, this answer does not suffice. Personally, I don't care what these people think.

Since that time I learned of the transfiguration, the stoning of Steven and his vision of heaven opened with Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Of course, John really did see the coming of the Son of Man with His kingdom in the Revelation. So this has been fulfilled.

Peter also testifies this:

2nd Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.


The answers provided are all true and sufficient to the question.

Next passage:

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


This passage is only relevant to the question if we believe that this life is all that there is. Jesus made this statement to the high priest. Of course, Meek (the asker of the questions) wants us to think that it would be necessary for the high priest to still be alive and in the flesh in order to restrict Christ’s coming to his lifetime. But when the Scripture says that “every eye shall see Him,” that is an open-ended statement. Those in hell have eyes. Meek places his own humanly limited restrictions on the words of Christ. When this physical life ends, it is not over. Eternity begins. Where it begins depends on your position- inside or outside of Christ. Every eye shall see Him.


Next passage:

Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


We need more context to understand the question here, and how these verses qualify. A whole lot happened since the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Jews have suffered many things throughout history. The word, generation, may refer to Israel.

Next passage:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


By the time this was written, most of the disciples had been killed, or died of natural causes (Meek wants an earlier date for Revelation so he has to believe more recent scholars rather than those who lived at or near the time it was written). But the passage here is addressing those who read it, calling them blessed - which includes all those disciples who have read the prophecy for the past 1900+ years. We need more than this intro to qualify the passage for the question. Further on, we will read of things that are, and things that shall be hereafter. The time is always at hand, and now is the time of salvation.

Next passage:

Revelation 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.


Well, a thousand years are as a day with the Lord. We are like children. Have you ever asked your mom or dad for something, and they would say, “In a minute.” Do you remember how long that minute was? Do you remember having to remind them? These things will shortly be done, but that obviously does not mean they will be done in our reckoning of time. A lot of time has passed.

Here is another example of God’s time reckoning that is different from ours:

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.


A little season? Their fellowservants have been killed for nearly two thousand years and are still being killed to this day. How long is a little season?

Peter already answered this:

2nd 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.

Next passage:

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.


He is coming. And it will be quickly. But this in no way necessitates that He meant it would happen during the lifetimes of those first disciples so long ago. This is only assumed by those who read their own understanding into words that are not their own.
No. 4     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 12:07 PM     
Christians identify themselves as followers of Christ Whom teaches us, not by time categories. There is no such thing as a futurist, except for this in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist

What Christ does teach us and early followers about time is this:

Matthew 24:36 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. 36No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man.

* If “soon” means “2000 years later,


2 Peter 3:7 And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Faith is in what is not 'seen,' and in 'belief' in the Lord's Promises that those who follow Christ wait patiently for.

Psalm 37:6 He will bring forth your righteousness as the light And your judgment as the noonday. 7Rest in the LORD and wait patiently for Him; Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way, Because of the man who carries out wicked schemes. 8Cease from anger and forsake wrath; Do not fret; it leads only to evildoing.

One can not 'restore' what has not been 'destroyed' yet (as in the earth and all evil and death that creeps upon it).

No. 5     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 12:18 PM     
* If the teaching that one day is a 1000 yrs and a 1000 years a day to the Lord. . . . DOES THAT MEAN?—1000 yrs in Revelation are a single 24 hour day (2 Peter 3; Revelation 20)?


Meek seems to have no clue. There are MANY references to a time called, the day of the LORD. Meek’s confusion is not surprising, seeing that he only sees one definition for “generation.” He also only knows of 24 hours defining a day. The word, “day” can mean, and has been used to mean any time period in general. The Bible is full of general time references using the term, “day.”
Just skipping around on my e-sword, copying and pasting here and there. This is a small sample of “in that day” meaning a larger period of time.

Isaiah 2:20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;
Isaiah 3:7 In that day shall he swear, saying, I will not be an healer; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people.
Isaiah 3:18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
Isaiah 4:2 In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.
Hosea 2:18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.
Hosea 2:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;

Joel 3:18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim.

Zechariah 2:11 And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.
Zec_3:10 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

The day of the Lord may certainly last a thousand years. It really does make sense. After all, if the earth is really young, say about 6000 years old (as argued by young earth creationists), it’s due for a Sabbath rest, and the DAY of the LORD might certainly fit the bill, IF His coming is within the next thousand years!
No. 6     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 12:22 PM     
CAsandie wrote:

Christians identify themselves as followers of Christ Whom teaches us, not by time categories. There is no such thing as a futurist, except for this in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist


So true! Thanks for point that out!

No. 7     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 12:55 PM     
There are MANY references to a time called, the day of the LORD.


The day of the Lord may certainly last a thousand years. It really does make sense. After all, if the earth is really young, say about 6000 years old (as argued by young earth creationists), it’s due for a Sabbath rest, and the DAY of the LORD might certainly fit the bill, IF His coming is within the next thousand years!


And this to is so very true!

If preterists want to be literal with a generation 'always' meaning 40 years (which it does not; see Strong's concordance for the accurate definition of generation which most often means 'people of the same family or likeness'), then do preterists suggest the earth is billions of years old as do atheists with proven incorrect carbon dating who attempt to prove there is no God? Certainly something for them to consider, since Preterists go against Christian beliefs.

Christian Scientists are every day proving scientifically through specimens that the earth is younger than presented to us in schools/colleges by those with a bone to pick against Christianity.

Great posts Jeff.



No. 8     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 5:44 PM     
CAsandie wrote:

There are MANY references to a time called, the day of the LORD.


The day of the Lord may certainly last a thousand years. It really does make sense. After all, if the earth is really young, say about 6000 years old (as argued by young earth creationists), it’s due for a Sabbath rest, and the DAY of the LORD might certainly fit the bill, IF His coming is within the next thousand years!


And this to is so very true!

If preterists want to be literal with a generation 'always' meaning 40 years


That is a strawman argument, that is foolish at best. No preterist has ever stated that every use of genea, Gk, in the bible means a 40 year period. None. Please, the context of the narrative gives the meaning of a word used in it.

Nor have I. My statement, as the reference you quoted yourself in the Restoration thread, is that in Matthew 24:34 "this generation" means those living at that time or the disciple's life time.

(which it does not; see Strong's concordance for the accurate definition of generation which most often means 'people of the same family or likeness'),

Strong's is one of the weakest Greek dictionaries available to us, which I am sure with all of your education you can confirm. It is good, like wikipedia, to get a general idea of the definition of a Greek word, but there are many better Greek dictionaries and lexicons available to us. Like the one you quoted in the Restoration thread that is spot on. Thanks for proving my point there, really appreciate it and hope we can move on now to other topics.

then do preterists suggest the earth is billions of years old as do atheists with proven incorrect carbon dating who attempt to prove there is no God? Certainly something for them to consider, since Preterists go against Christian beliefs.

Christian Scientists are every day proving scientifically through specimens that the earth is younger than presented to us in schools/colleges by those with a bone to pick against Christianity.

Great posts Jeff.



No. 9     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 7:29 PM     
BodyServant wrote: That is a strawman argument, that is foolish at best.


I understand that we all have emotions, but if a desire for discussion is to be had with me, myself ... then please let's jump to the next level here (I find no weaker argument than to call people's posts dumb. It's sort of like saying someone stinks, because we don't like what they said). Yet, we all have moments of weakness, so no offense taken.

Kent wrote: No preterist has ever stated that every use of genea, Gk, in the bible means a 40 year period.


Kent, but that was your argument to me when introducing me to preterism (you stated 40 years).

which I am sure with all of your education you can confirm.


Not about me or my years of education, but Strong's is a decent concordance, imho. There are errors caught and noted.

As far as concordances, the one you quoted elsewhere said a generation is only 30-33 years. I disagree and again repeat the point that a generation has varied meanings in Scripture. (use the dancing emoticon or not...no, that point is not finished).

To make a whole religious sect called preterism from a word and a single verse is truly not in context with the teachings of Christ...

Which has less to do with 'time' or 'the date 70AD' and more to do with salvation, sacrifice, fruit, love and greater points.

God Bless.
No. 10     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 14, 2017 at 9:22 PM     
* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.
No. 11     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 15, 2017 at 12:37 AM     
Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


The Holy Spirit cannot inspire to record what was not there(destroyed temple), meaning, temple was still in existence during John's writings.
No. 12     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 15, 2017 at 5:46 PM     
Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


I agree with Deva here, the Revelation definitely mentions the temple being there as it is to be desecrated. Nothing in the whole of the Revelation gives any indication of the temple needing to be built, because it had not existed, before it could then be desecrated.
No. 13     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Aug 15, 2017 at 10:29 PM     
Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


Hi Jeff, Yes, Christian Scholars would agree with you that the teachings provided by John held importance above the focus of Preterists. This article answers the question posed by Kent above and also provides evidence countering the claim of writings all completed prior to 70AD (both internal/Scriptural and External).

No Mention of Jerusalem’s Destruction

It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.

In response we note the following points.

First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.

However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in 11:8, where “the great city,” in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodom—not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).

Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:

difficult to understand how anyone could have imagined that the vision represents the temple as still standing. For the whole scene is laid in heaven, and the temple that is measured is the heavenly temple (11:19; 15:5). We have only to compare this vision with the parallel vision of a measuring-reed seen by Ezekiel (ch. 40), in which the prophet is commanded to measure—surely not the city which it is stated had been demolished fourteen years previously, but the city of the future seen by the prophet in vision (1904, 238 ).


Further evidence that Revelation particularly was written later than 70AD:

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 ), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23 ).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome

Jerome (A.D. 340-420 ) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18 ). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).


Nero Associated with 666

Some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatic 666 (13:18 ) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis.

To come up with such an interpretation one must:

add the title “Caesar” to Nero’s name;
compute the letter-number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; and
alter the spelling of “Caesar” by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew.

All of this reveals a truly desperate attempt to find a reference to Nero in the text.

Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38 ). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).

In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it.


https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written

No. 14     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 17, 2017 at 8:57 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


The Holy Spirit cannot inspire to record what was not there(destroyed temple), meaning, temple was still in existence during John's writings.


Who are you to tell the Holy Spirit what He can not inspire to record? This is mere ASS-U-mption. When we assume, we often make an ass of ourselves. Hee-haw!
No. 15     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 17, 2017 at 9:03 PM     
* If the Great Tribulation is still future to us, why did Jesus tell the first century Christians that they could avoid it by fleeing to the mountains (Luke 21:21; ref. Matthew 24:21)? And why did the Apostle John tell his readers a few years later that THEY were in the tribulation (Revelation 1:9)?

First question:
Again. When Jesus gave instructions, He knew full well that His words would not pass away (Matthew 24:35), and that they would be read even to this day (Matthew 24:15). He spoke to His disciples, and today we are His disciples. He also spoke to the Jews (“them which be in Judea”). Jews live in Judea today. When God speaks, He often speaks well beyond His immediate listening audience. There are many Scriptures that substantiate this. Meek (the writer of the original article) does not seem to know this. Nor does he differentiate the Great Tribulation (Matthew 24:21) from the siege of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20).

Second question:

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

There is a difference between general tribulation which can be expected for God’s people in this life, and the Great Tribulation, the likes of which the world has never seen since there was a nation. Revelation 1:9 is obviously speaking of the common tribulation which Christians will endure in this world. John says he is our “companion in tribulation” not in THE tribulation. Some of these questions are just knitpicking, and I don’t think Meek is that stupid.


* If the book of Revelation is for us today, why would John write to the 7 churches if it had nothing to do with them? Why would John torture these first-century Christians with impossible and intricate symbolic labyrinths that applied only to people 2,000 years later? Why does Revelation say some 30 times that the events MUST be fulfilled SOON? (Examples: Revelation 1:1-3; 22:6, 12, 20)

FIRST QUESTION:
It is getting to the point that the questions are looking more and more like they are from someone who has either never read the Bible, or is just reading it now for the first time These are not the questions a biblically literate should be asking. Focus on “things thou hast seen, things which are, and things which shall be hereafter” (Revelation 1:19) Then meditate on that for a while. What does that mean? How long are the things which ARE? When are the things which shall be hereafter? How long after?

SECOND QUESTION
Why use the word, “torture”? Really? And then we have the word, “applied.” First, torture does not apply. Second, there is a difference between application (“applied”) and interpretation. Scripture normally applies in some way in every age regardless of time. Meek (the less enlightened writer and asker of questions) apparently doesn’t know there is a difference. The seven letters to the seven churches are just as applicable today as in the day they were written. There are dying churches, dead churches, faithful churches, etc. But rightly interpreted they were meant for the churches to which they were addressed. And they may have prophetic implications as well.

THIRD QUESTION
I didn’t count the times, but I suppose that if a thousand years are as a day with the LORD, then soon means soon. But He can come for you right at any time in your life. And that would be VERY soon.
No. 16     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 17, 2017 at 10:27 PM     
Jeff74996 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


The Holy Spirit cannot inspire to record what was not there(destroyed temple), meaning, temple was still in existence during John's writings.


Who are you to tell the Holy Spirit what He can not inspire to record? This is mere ASS-U-mption. When we assume, we often make an ass of ourselves. Hee-haw!


Don't you think much of doctrines are assumptions made by spiritually unqualified persons leading to personal interpretations though Peter discouraged such kind of attempts?

The latest business endeavor of Zionists of Israel of building the third temple--ably supported by Protestant hypocrites who think return of Jesus is solely based on that--is based on the presumption that book of Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple!

I don't think John would have missed the mentioning the total destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. in any of his three letters. In fact, that would have established and endorsed the prophecy of Jesus on that. Therefore, it is an indication that the temple still existed when John wrote all.
No. 17     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 17, 2017 at 10:31 PM     
bodyservant56 wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


I agree with Deva here, the Revelation definitely mentions the temple being there as it is to be desecrated. Nothing in the whole of the Revelation gives any indication of the temple needing to be built, because it had not existed, before it could then be desecrated.


A pertinent point to ponder about. :thumb_up:
No. 18     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 19, 2017 at 6:11 AM     
CAsandie wrote:

BodyServant wrote: That is a strawman argument, that is foolish at best.


I understand that we all have emotions, but if a desire for discussion is to be had with me, myself ... then please let's jump to the next level here (I find no weaker argument than to call people's posts dumb. It's sort of like saying someone stinks, because we don't like what they said). Yet, we all have moments of weakness, so no offense taken.

Kent wrote: No preterist has ever stated that every use of genea, Gk, in the bible means a 40 year period.


Kent, but that was your argument to me when introducing me to preterism (you stated 40 years).

which I am sure with all of your education you can confirm.


Not about me or my years of education, but Strong's is a decent concordance, imho. There are errors caught and noted.

As far as concordances, the one you quoted elsewhere said a generation is only 30-33 years. I disagree and again repeat the point that a generation has varied meanings in Scripture. (use the dancing emoticon or not...no, that point is not finished).

To make a whole religious sect called preterism from a word and a single verse is truly not in context with the teachings of Christ...

Which has less to do with 'time' or 'the date 70AD' and more to do with salvation, sacrifice, fruit, love and greater points.

God Bless.


Yes genea, GK. and generation has different meanings in scripture. Yes I did say that a biblical generation is 40 years, with in the context of where a generation is used as a time period it is generally considered to be a 40 year period. Are all uses of generation a 40 year period, no that would be foolish.

The context of the narrative determines the actual definition of generation in that use. We can not pick and chose which definition we want to use to fit our own ideas, doctrines and theology. Good scholarship demands we determine what definition of a given word best fits the context of the narrative.

God told Israel that he would keep them in the desert until that rebellious generation had died, he kept them in the desert for 40 years. Simple math, a generation of Israel in the Sinai desert was over in 40 years.

All the teachers I read in my early years in Christ said that a biblical generation was 40 years. So I still think that way. 40, 30, 33...all about the same.

Quoting your reference from another thread, genea can be defined as,

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήν δέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage).


Note again that the NAS Exhaustive Concordance states that the use of genea in the Olivet Discourse means those living in that one period of time.

No where in the discourse is there any kind of indication that anyone besides the generation of the disciples themselves will experience these events.
No. 19     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 19, 2017 at 7:24 AM     
CAsandie wrote:

Christians identify themselves as followers of Christ Whom teaches us, not by time categories. There is no such thing as a futurist, except for this in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist

Again you are wrong in your judgment, being ignorant of eschatological literature, I can forgive this, but if you do a simple search you can repair your ignorance.

A quote from one in your theological camp.

As a futurist, and a dispensationalist, ...

And he presents a good discussion on the writings of the early church fathers, though decidedly slanted to supporting his own futurist views. Still I would recommend it for its scholarly attempt.

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/understanding-of-church-fathers-regarding-olivet-discourse-and-fall-jerusalem



What Christ does teach us and early followers about time is this:

Matthew 24:36 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. 36No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man.

* If “soon” means “2000 years later,


2 Peter 3:7 And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Faith is in what is not 'seen,' and in 'belief' in the Lord's Promises that those who follow Christ wait patiently for.

Psalm 37:6 He will bring forth your righteousness as the light And your judgment as the noonday. 7Rest in the LORD and wait patiently for Him; Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way, Because of the man who carries out wicked schemes. 8Cease from anger and forsake wrath; Do not fret; it leads only to evildoing.

One can not 'restore' what has not been 'destroyed' yet (as in the earth and all evil and death that creeps upon it).

No. 20     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Aug 19, 2017 at 12:47 PM     
Kent -- you are taking things from other threads and discussing them in the varying threads you have created. I guess I can understand the multitude of threads might be confusing or otherwise difficult to follow.

BodyServant wrote: Note again that the NAS Exhaustive Concordance states that the use of genea in the Olivet Discourse means those living in that one period of time.


1. What you quote is actually resourcing Thayer's Greek Lexicon. The NAS exhaustive search was on the definitions.

2. It doesn't provide the 'context' of the word generation given above (i.e. is it then speaking of the 4 Apostles alone, since the scripture you use was a 'private' discussion with only 4 (and you reject the term as 'kindred.' If you want to be literal ... it could go 'further' to only the 4 men then, but neither of us believe that). As you say, 'context' is vital to understanding scriptures (we both agree on that much).

My own conclusion of the single sentence 'pounded' to death by preterists after extensive research in "Scriptures solely" is that Christ used 'generation of vipers' (in the infinity definition) given and that generation has not passed yet, yet further than any assumption is the context of Matt 24:34 given in Matthew 24:30-31 (those existing at the time the events given will occur, but have not occurred yet).

To address what you deem the 'scholarly' stuff further though...

(You now disagree with your own assertion that Strong's is not credible as you wrote above in which to suggest 'you win' what you deem a debate here that I do not).

BodyServant wrote: Strong's is one of the weakest Greek dictionaries available to us, which I am sure with all of your education you can confirm. It is good, like wikipedia, to get a general idea of the definition of a Greek word, but there are many better Greek dictionaries and lexicons available to us. Like the one you quoted in the Restoration thread that is spot on.


Kent -- I quoted the 'same' Concordance both places (Strong's). Here you love it if you can read it as supportive and discredit it if it is not supportive.

As I responded, Strong's is decent. I find errors in it. I thought twice about posting Strong's due to the NAS search on definitions. I consider KJV authority, but the point of my post was to deliver a fair starting place of 'definitions' of the word (not debate Biblical versions that Strong's uses nor to debate concordances and 'how they work.' The only time span provided in the definitions is: if repeated twice an infinity of time. For the concordance entry to be cohesive, the Thayers suggestions that follow must hold in the definitions first given (no time span was given except infinity).

The actual exhaustive search by Strong's states this (as far as a time element):

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
age, generation

From (a presumed derivative of) genos; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) -- age, generation, nation, time.

see GREEK genos
Forms and Transliterations
Γενεα γενεά Γενεὰ γενεᾷ γενεαι γενεαί γενεαὶ γενεαις γενεαίς γενεαῖς γενεαν γενεάν γενεὰν γενεας γενεάς γενεὰς γενεᾶς γενεων γενεών γενεῶν Genea Geneà geneai geneaí geneaì geneā̂i geneais geneaîs genean geneàn geneas geneás geneàs geneâs geneon geneôn geneōn geneō̂n


But when we go to genos, we find this:

race, kind, nation, offspring.

From ginomai; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective) -- born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

see GREEK ginomai
Forms and Transliterations
γενει γένει γενη γένη γενος γένος γενους γένους γενών γέρας gene genē géne génē genei génei genos génos genous génous


race, kind, nation, offspring.

From ginomai; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective) -- born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

see GREEK ginomai


If knowing Greek as well, you will see the difference above between the "feminine' form of the word and "neuter" [meaning "masculine" and non-masculine forms are given]. The feminine word is this case holds feminine characteristics while the masculine holds masculine. You can read a beginning understanding of masculine or feminine (a starting place), here: (as one can find 'context' in understanding Greek)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender
http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/noun2dcl.html

But even more scholarly there are wonderful Books written on the Gospel of John that actually helps to understand the masculine and feminine use of words better. I will find the book I have/author if interested (years since I read it though).

So I am using the 'full' concordance here in scholarly effort, although I didn't feel it was needed, beyond understanding the varied definitions, since Scripture defines the word usage of generation. "Scriptural" definition is already given in Mathew 24:30-31 (those seeing the Lord returning and hearing the angel's trumpet).

Scripture is Precedent. Understanding context requires reading 'all' of Chapter 24 and also understanding basic definitions (it does not require a quagmire of commentaries by the minds that be on the earth.

====================================================================

Answering your second post with a link from a pre-trib site, before leaving the discussion (lack of time):

I have found many sites on preterism to contain incorrect information about early Christianity and Christian figures...

But "Again" -- if it were correct (which I'd have to research beyond a single link you have provided), I do not follow man, but the Lord. The Lord's Word is Divine "solely" to my belief. The Word of Christ that is Christ, that is truth ... is all that is required.


1 Cor 1:19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?...

23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.




No. 21     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 19, 2017 at 1:20 PM     
Sandi,

I am confused now. First you claim a university degree and some kind of superiority. When I hold that up comparing your ignorance of theology you respond in defense that you are not schooled in theology, now you claim training in Greek. Ok that is possible, that one of the seminary courses you took is Greek a very handy tool to have in the study of the original scriptures.

But that does not change the fact that your quote stated that the use of genea, translated as "this generation" means the generation of people then living, or within the life times of the disciples.

By association in the narrative the generation of vipers was that generation of false teachers who were heaping upon the shoulders of the people laws, rules and regulations from the teachings of their elders that were too hard for the people to bear. Vipers who claimed to be testing him as the Messiah, found he was the Messiah according to the teaching of their elders and still rejected him. Later this very same viper generation would accuse Jesus before Pilate and demand his death. The Scribes (Rabbis), and priests were that viper generation, by the context of the narrative of the gospel of the kingdom.

That is my reading of that.
No. 22     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Aug 19, 2017 at 7:56 PM     
Kent -- Avoidance again? I have never suggested superiority (you addressed my education/I responded). To be sure, I think Verbatim and jeff have superior knowledge over myself. You seem to think attacking people's intelligence and suggesting they have a lot to learn is appropriate discussion. I do not.




I keep trying to discuss Scriptures with you to no avail. I am still waiting for an answer to this:

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.

It's the parallel Ovilet discourse in Matthew 23 in Mark 13.


I do not believe Josephus is incorrect. I'm sure it was the greatest disaster he seen in his time, but clearly not equivalent to the Great Flood in Noah's time or even WW2 when nuclear weapons were discharged.

You have no answer to this. You fail in your understanding that I quoted the same concordance and deter to avoidance rather than admitting error (as I have admitted error myself to you in regards to Josephus).

You only assert me and others lack knowledge in your responses which seems to be your main theme in your teachings (highly ineffective, imo). That is truly what is sad, Kent. I'm through here as for my desire to not waste time if you are not interested in the discussions you create (over that of detours/distractions from topics brought forth).

As stated before, I have apologized if anything I said was too harsh at anytime (for which I'm not sure I have been in comparison, but still not my aim here to take digs that accomplish nothing good). May the Lord bless and lead you to the truth. I've witnessed others here try. It is my observation that often your responses are off topic, potentially rude and seem to avoid the discussion on scripture and other areas that show incongruity with preterism and the truth.

Not a winning teaching strategy ... it could create contention (but not with me...I haven't the time for that in my life -- I'm not a futurist. I'm just a Christian who desires to focus upon the Lord's Gospel and teachings and I see some who believe they are scholars and theologians create divisive ideologies and introduce these to the Brethren that they can't defend Scripturally. I can't afford to waste time on such when emotional responses is all that are evoked in which to assert you are correct (it reminds me of liberal politics).



No. 23     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 20, 2017 at 5:58 AM     
CAsandie wrote:

Kent -- Avoidance again? I have never suggested superiority (you addressed my education/I responded). To be sure, I think Verbatim and jeff have superior knowledge over myself. You seem to think attacking people's intelligence and suggesting they have a lot to learn is appropriate discussion. I do not.




I keep trying to discuss Scriptures with you to no avail. I am still waiting for an answer to this:

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.

It's the parallel Ovilet discourse in Matthew 23 in Mark 13.


I do not believe Josephus is incorrect. I'm sure it was the greatest disaster he seen in his time, but clearly not equivalent to the Great Flood in Noah's time or even WW2 when nuclear weapons were discharged.


Maybe I haven't answered this clearly. In the Noahic flood there was no temple or great city of the Kingdom of God destroyed.The wicked were destroyed, not God's kingdom people. And there was no great war leading up to the destruction. So no, this time period in no way compares to the tribulation of the first century in Israel.


In WW2 there was no temple destroyed. Yes the Nazis did kill millions of Jews, along with many other peoples that they considered inferior to them. There was no Jewish temple destroyed, and no great city of God destroyed. And though Jews were one of the targeted people groups this time period had nothing to do with Israel. None of these atrocious acts were carried out in the land of Israel. No temple was destroyed, the city of Jerusalem was not destroyed.

Neither time period had a thing to do with eschatology in the least. Neither time period included the change of covenants or heaven and earth.




You have no answer to this. You fail in your understanding that I quoted the same concordance and deter to avoidance rather than admitting error (as I have admitted error myself to you in regards to Josephus).

You only assert me and others lack knowledge in your responses which seems to be your main theme in your teachings (highly ineffective, imo). That is truly what is sad, Kent. I'm through here as for my desire to not waste time if you are not interested in the discussions you create (over that of detours/distractions from topics brought forth).

As stated before, I have apologized if anything I said was too harsh at anytime (for which I'm not sure I have been in comparison, but still not my aim here to take digs that accomplish nothing good). May the Lord bless and lead you to the truth. I've witnessed others here try. It is my observation that often your responses are off topic, potentially rude and seem to avoid the discussion on scripture and other areas that show incongruity with preterism and the truth.

Not a winning teaching strategy ... it could create contention (but not with me...I haven't the time for that in my life -- I'm not a futurist. I'm just a Christian who desires to focus upon the Lord's Gospel and teachings and I see some who believe they are scholars and theologians create divisive ideologies and introduce these to the Brethren that they can't defend Scripturally. I can't afford to waste time on such when emotional responses is all that are evoked in which to assert you are correct (it reminds me of liberal politics).





Like judging preterists as forming a new Christian religion, or as being heretics or a cult...Sandi you do judge out of your ignorance of eschatology and then claim to be all innocent. Ok, what ever...bye. :goodbye:
No. 24     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Aug 20, 2017 at 1:48 PM     
Of course I do not deny judging preterism as one that counters Christianity and it does appear to have a cult following/be cultish. We are to judge beliefs, Kent against scripture/the Bible.

I feel all doctrines against Christ ought to be judged and avoided.

It's not a matter of innocence or guilt. People need not hold guilt or innocence just because they discern a matter differently, do they? I feel Preterism is destructive against Christianity not only in the divisions preterists attempt to create, but their teachings.

And Kent ... You still have not answered this scripture sufficiently:

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.

Tribulation as never seen before upon the earth from its inception until that point is 'tribulation' (the flood was tribulation).

trib·u·la·tion
ˌtribyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

a state of great trouble or suffering.
"his time of tribulation was just beginning"
synonyms: trouble, difficulty, problem, worry, anxiety, burden, cross to bear, ordeal, trial, adversity, hardship, tragedy, sorrow, trauma, affliction;


Take care!

No. 25     Reply: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  bodyservant56   Gender: M   Age: 60   on  Aug 20, 2017 at 2:59 PM     
CAsandie wrote:

Of course I do not deny judging preterism as one that counters Christianity and it does appear to have a cult following/be cultish. We are to judge beliefs, Kent against scripture/the Bible.



It is scripture that records what Jesus told his disciples. The scriptures record Jesus telling his four disciples what will happen to them, so that they would not grow faint and would endure to the end of the great tribulation coming to all of Israel, within their generation.

Scripture states this, preterists take it exactly as it is recorded. We do no use a "gap theory" to add thousands of years in the fulfillment. No, we fully accept what the scriptures says, that the end of the age, Jesus return in judgment upon Israel and the destruction of the temple would occur in their lifetime. That is what the scriptures state, we just read it and accept it for exactly what it says.


I feel all doctrines against Christ ought to be judged and avoided.


I agree, which is why I fully reject futurist teaching, as it makes Jesus out to be a liar.

Also it makes all the NT scriptures a lie, for all of the NT authors record the truth that they were living the last days, the end times, that the old covenant is passing away. Preterists fully accept the truth of all of the immediacy statements of the NT as being exactly what they say.


It's not a matter of innocence or guilt. People need not hold guilt or innocence just because they discern a matter differently, do they?


And I do not divide the body of Christ over their eschatology. I accept all who claim the name of Christ. It is only in forums like this, where we are trying to discuss the truth we understand, that I will stand against false teaching, like that of futurism.

I feel Preterism is destructive against Christianity not only in the divisions preterists attempt to create, but their teachings.


It is not I who are judging the Presbyterians and Lutherans as false religions. You have done that very thing.



And Kent ... You still have not answered this scripture sufficiently:

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.


I answered this, you just don't want to accept my answer. I will not continue to go over and over the same points again and again.

Israel was decimated by the Roman armies. Jerusalem was laid waste so that people did not live in it for centuries. The temple was destroyed with no stone left upon another, and has never been rebuilt in 2000 years. And with the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock, it will not be rebuilt in our day, no matter who wants it rebuilt.

All who took refuge in Jerusalem from the Roman armies, were attacked by factions of thieves and freedom fighters, who stole their food and killed them so that the streets of Jerusalem ran red with rivers of blood. This increased as the Roman army siege prevented food stores in Jerusalem from being replenished. So that mothers ended up eating their own babies to survive, even hiding them from the Jewish thieves looking to steal food so that they could eat their own baby later.

The Roman army put the city of Jerusalem to fire with fiery stones catapulted into the city over the walls. When they finally breached the walls, they killed all who withstood them, adding to the rivers of blood in the streets. Putting buildings to fire to not allow any Jewish fighters a place to hide and ambush them. The tore down walls, gates and buildings to allow the army to advance to the king's palace and the temple.

They finally breached all walls, entered the palace and temple, killing all who stood before them. Finally they entered the temple and made sacrifice to the Emperor and the Roman gods upon the altar of God. Even though the Emperor commanded the temple to not be destroyed, the army in its blood lust and in hunting for the gold of the temple took it down, stone by stone, looking for hidden rooms.

After the city was taken and the temple destroyed, all Jewish captives were either crucified along the roads leading out of Jerusalem, until there were no more trees left to hang them on. Many more were put to the sword. Older captives were sent to Egypt to work the mines. Younger captives were sent to either the fights or to be slaves dispersed around the Roman nations.

Jerusalem was left desolate, a place where goats wondered and no man lived.

This is but a basic outline of the history of the Wars of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and decimation of the Jews.

The remnant of those from Israel, who were followers of the Messiah, the Nazarene were saved from this tribulation. In the city in the rock, Pella in Jordan where the Lord led them to go to for refuge.

This was a tribulation that was not seen from the founding of the earth until that time, and since it involved the destruction of the kingdom of God nation, Israel, and the destruction of the place of his choosing to meet his people, the temple in Jerusalem, there has never been such a tribulation since.



Tribulation as never seen before upon the earth from its inception until that point is 'tribulation' (the flood was tribulation).

trib·u·la·tion
ˌtribyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

a state of great trouble or suffering.
"his time of tribulation was just beginning"
synonyms: trouble, difficulty, problem, worry, anxiety, burden, cross to bear, ordeal, trial, adversity, hardship, tragedy, sorrow, trauma, affliction;


Take care!



Peace, out. :spot1:
No. 26     Reply: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  CAsandie   Gender: F   Age: 103   on  Aug 20, 2017 at 4:31 PM     
Kent, you write:

I do not divide the body of Christ over their eschatology.


Yet use names such as futurists and preterists. I am not a futurist or preterist, but a Daughter the High Most (His).

As far as you finally addressing Mark 13:19 at some length, you write:

The remnant of those from Israel, who were followers of the Messiah, the Nazarene were saved from this tribulation. In the city in the rock, Pella in Jordan where the Lord led them to go to for refuge.

This was a tribulation that was not seen from the founding of the earth until that time, and since it involved the destruction of the kingdom of God nation, Israel, and the destruction of the place of his choosing to meet his people, the temple in Jerusalem, there has never been such a tribulation since.


I again give you the scripture next to your summation above:

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.

So you believe the destruction of the temple/Jerusalem worse than the Great Flood where only Noah and his family survived and greater than the Holocaust/Atomic bomb dispensed?

Scripture state this about the end time:

2 Peter 3:10But 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.

Note the word: 'earth.'

BodyServant wrote: I fully reject futurist teaching, as it makes Jesus out to be a liar.


I continue with Scripture to state what Christians belief:

11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12Looking 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? 13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Christ cannot lie.

Again, take care.
No. 27     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 23, 2017 at 8:36 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


The Holy Spirit cannot inspire to record what was not there(destroyed temple), meaning, temple was still in existence during John's writings.


Who are you to tell the Holy Spirit what He can not inspire to record? This is mere ASS-U-mption. When we assume, we often make an ass of ourselves. Hee-haw!


Don't you think much of doctrines are assumptions made by spiritually unqualified persons leading to personal interpretations though Peter discouraged such kind of attempts?


It is true that there are many doctrines made by men that are based on assumptions or implications rather than straight biblical text. Many denominations owe their beginnings to such. The Roman Catholic Church is filled with canon laws based on the same.

The latest business endeavor of Zionists of Israel of building the third temple--ably supported by Protestant hypocrites who think return of Jesus is solely based on that--is based on the presumption that book of Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple!


I do not have an opinion one way or another regarding Zionism or those who support it. What I read in the Bible and what I see taking place in these times is very interesting. Very interesting. I don't predict anything, but I do understand that certain events must take place before Christ returns. The trends of our times, the embracing of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender and pushing Christianity into the closet, alongside recent technological advances, increased knowledge, globalism, mass travel, rise of radical Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration and global violence, and so much more, appear to be heading in a direction. A great tribulation such as the world has never seen may not be in the too distant future. And there happens to be a movement toward rebuilding the temple. Very interesting.

I don't think John would have missed the mentioning the total destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. in any of his three letters. In fact, that would have established and endorsed the prophecy of Jesus on that. Therefore, it is an indication that the temple still existed when John wrote all.


That is your opinion. You don't have to think John would have missed mentioning it. But that does not mean either John or the Holy Spirit had to mention it either. The fact that John does mention that we are in the last time may be an indicator that some things may have already happened by the time of writing. Some things well known by that time may not have needed mentioning.
No. 28     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Devaprakash   Gender: M   Age: 73   on  Aug 24, 2017 at 2:15 AM     
Jeff74996 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


The Holy Spirit cannot inspire to record what was not there(destroyed temple), meaning, temple was still in existence during John's writings.


Who are you to tell the Holy Spirit what He can not inspire to record? This is mere ASS-U-mption. When we assume, we often make an ass of ourselves. Hee-haw!


Don't you think much of doctrines are assumptions made by spiritually unqualified persons leading to personal interpretations though Peter discouraged such kind of attempts?


It is true that there are many doctrines made by men that are based on assumptions or implications rather than straight biblical text. Many denominations owe their beginnings to such. The Roman Catholic Church is filled with canon laws based on the same.

The latest business endeavor of Zionists of Israel of building the third temple--ably supported by Protestant hypocrites who think return of Jesus is solely based on that--is based on the presumption that book of Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple!


I do not have an opinion one way or another regarding Zionism or those who support it. What I read in the Bible and what I see taking place in these times is very interesting. Very interesting. I don't predict anything, but I do understand that certain events must take place before Christ returns. The trends of our times, the embracing of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender and pushing Christianity into the closet, alongside recent technological advances, increased knowledge, globalism, mass travel, rise of radical Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration and global violence, and so much more, appear to be heading in a direction. A great tribulation such as the world has never seen may not be in the too distant future. And there happens to be a movement toward rebuilding the temple. Very interesting.

I don't think John would have missed the mentioning the total destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. in any of his three letters. In fact, that would have established and endorsed the prophecy of Jesus on that. Therefore, it is an indication that the temple still existed when John wrote all.


That is your opinion. You don't have to think John would have missed mentioning it. But that does not mean either John or the Holy Spirit had to mention it either. The fact that John does mention that we are in the last time may be an indicator that some things may have already happened by the time of writing. Some things well known by that time may not have needed mentioning.


All understandable in a way. But what makes me mad is that of the support of the building of the third temple by anti-Christ Jews by so called quacks of Christianity!
No. 29     Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some questions about end times prophecy to consider.   
By:  Jeff74996   Gender: M   Age: 56   on  Aug 24, 2017 at 8:40 PM     
Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

Devaprakash wrote:

Jeff74996 wrote:

* If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?


This is actually a good question. I wonder that myself. Most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, which would include 3 of the gospels (Matthew Mark and Luke), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, James and both of Peter’s epistles. Jude may or may not have been written before AD 70. All of John’s writings are normally dated later than AD 70, based on some internal and external evidence (internally his works seem to address Gnosticism, a late first century heresy, externally a few early writers attest to later dates for John’s writings). That narrows the field so that the question can now be more focused. Why did John not make any mention of the fall of Jerusalem? The answer is simple. We may not like it, but it is what it is. The Holy Spirit did not inspire John to write about it.


The Holy Spirit cannot inspire to record what was not there(destroyed temple), meaning, temple was still in existence during John's writings.


Who are you to tell the Holy Spirit what He can not inspire to record? This is mere ASS-U-mption. When we assume, we often make an ass of ourselves. Hee-haw!


Don't you think much of doctrines are assumptions made by spiritually unqualified persons leading to personal interpretations though Peter discouraged such kind of attempts?


It is true that there are many doctrines made by men that are based on assumptions or implications rather than straight biblical text. Many denominations owe their beginnings to such. The Roman Catholic Church is filled with canon laws based on the same.

The latest business endeavor of Zionists of Israel of building the third temple--ably supported by Protestant hypocrites who think return of Jesus is solely based on that--is based on the presumption that book of Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple!


I do not have an opinion one way or another regarding Zionism or those who support it. What I read in the Bible and what I see taking place in these times is very interesting. Very interesting. I don't predict anything, but I do understand that certain events must take place before Christ returns. The trends of our times, the embracing of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender and pushing Christianity into the closet, alongside recent technological advances, increased knowledge, globalism, mass travel, rise of radical Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration and global violence, and so much more, appear to be heading in a direction. A great tribulation such as the world has never seen may not be in the too distant future. And there happens to be a movement toward rebuilding the temple. Very interesting.

I don't think John would have missed the mentioning the total destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. in any of his three letters. In fact, that would have established and endorsed the prophecy of Jesus on that. Therefore, it is an indication that the temple still existed when John wrote all.


That is your opinion. You don't have to think John would have missed mentioning it. But that does not mean either John or the Holy Spirit had to mention it either. The fact that John does mention that we are in the last time may be an indicator that some things may have already happened by the time of writing. Some things well known by that time may not have needed mentioning.


All understandable in a way. But what makes me mad is that of the support of the building of the third temple by anti-Christ Jews by so called quacks of Christianity!


I understand your anger, because I get very frustrated watching what was once a nation with a more biblical worldview become a nation of fools and morons. It is merely a result of turning their backs on God. The world will do what the world will do, but our focus should be on things above.