When was Revelation written? [Archive] - BibleForums Christian Message Board

moonglow

Mar 24th 2007, 04:25 PM

My thing is this, Justin Martyr, an early church father wrote of the "end times" also. He sat at the feet of those who sat directly under the apostles. If I am not mistaken on the timing, that would mean that he may have even known the apostles. So if in his writings, after AD 70, around 120 AD if I am correct, he declares that we are still expecting the GT and the return of our Lord, then why do we still insist that Jesus has already return? I mean wouldn't the early church fathers know a little something about this better than we? I can't imagine that they were taught that Jesus hasn't returned yet, if Jesus returned in AD70. It would be kind of hard to mess that up if it was only one generation of direct teachings from the apostles in between him and the apostles. That would be like my Grandma telling my mom something, and my mom telling me something like that. My mom would have been witness to the return if it were my grandma that had been raptured or reserrected, so I don't suppose that would have been missed. But then again, I suppose if that were the case then my mom wouldn't have been just another human to teach me the things that she taught me. That is if my grandma were an apostle and my mom sat at her feet and I sat at my mom's feet.

No I think you misunderstand...John doesn't write it as if Jesus had returned already...that, of course is still future. From what I understand the man who dated Revelation, Irenaeus, dated the book of Revelation and since then everyone has just followed what he said:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:bGSW-o09S8oJ:www.christeternalchristianchurch.com/learningactivity39.htm+Irenaeus+dated+Revelation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The late dating (AD 95) of the book of Revelation has its roots hanging on a very slender and precarious thread. This dating is determined from a single source statement by the Bishop of Lyons by the name of Irenaeus (AD 120–202). The statement he makes is not an eyewitness testimony, but is his recollection of what was said (verbal transmission) by an earlier man, Polycarp, who is supposed to have known John (who wrote the book) personally (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 20, AD 324). The Irenaeus statement appears in his book "Against Heresies, 5:30:3" dated AD 175–180.Irenaeus spent his youth in Asia Minor, but his manhood and Christian work took place in Gaul, which is modern day France. It would not be a far fetched idea to think that for Irenaeus to remember a conversation from such a distant time in his life and at such an early age could have led to confusion of names and dates. This, however, is not the only basis for my personal doubts in this situation as you will see later in this material.

It appears that Irenaeus' statements, as they were understood, shaped the opinions of Eusebius and Jerome on this question, and this view was passed on to later authors and authorities. It is my belief that it is not good scholarship to accept a dubious statement from the Bishop of Lyons that was orally transmitted to him when he was a young man. This does not appear to be adequate and compelling evidence to cause a person to set aside the overwhelming weight of evidence, both external and internal to the book of Revelation itself, as proof that the Revelation was written during the AD 95 window.

It is important to examine not only where and how Irenaeus came by his opinion, but also what Irenaeus said because as you will shortly see it is possible that his testimony has been misunderstood. The statement that Irenaeus makes consists of a testimony about the number of the beast, 666, in Revelation 13:18. A translation from the original Greek is as follows:

"We therefore do not run the risk of pronouncing positively concerning the name of the Antichrist [hidden in the number 666 in Rev.13:18], for if it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it is not a great while ago that it [or he] was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign."

The reason the dating is important is because much of Revelation could actually be about the destruction of Jesulums AND the horrible prescrution Nero did on the first century Christians...in other words, Nero was the beast...the revial of the beast didn't mean when Nero died (he killed himself) that he would come back alive, but that Rome nearly collasped and went into civil war as Nero had no heirs...he had kicked to death his pregnant wife...was a prevert that 'married' a slave boy...had Paul in the bible beheaded and killed several other of Jesus' disciples. He is the one we get the stories from of Christians being fed to the lions! Of wrapping them in tar and lighting them on fire....on and on and on for refusing to worship him as god. They literally had to choose between Christ and him...and were risking their very lives. If people knew the history on these things and how the dates and length of time matches up prefectly with the bible, they would realize Revelation had to be written before 70 A.D.

God bless (sorry about the bad spelling...Nate wants on here and no time for me to correct it) :rolleyes:

Chris38

Mar 24th 2007, 05:12 PM

maybe it is more likely to be possible to work out from the bible whether Revelation is speaking of events circa AD70 to determine whether it was written before or after that time than try and date it from other sources.
I would love to, but since I have read all of Revelation and could not draw any conclusions as to its date of authorship, I have turned to searching by using both Revelation and history for an answer.

So far the only thing that hints to when it was written is the fact that John was told to measure the Temple along with other referances to the Temple, on which we can draw the conclusion that it was before 70AD.

That is unless you believe that what it is referring to is a future or third temple.

Im new to studying eschatology and preterism and have a list of questions I keep running up against. Ive been to preterist archives and done much reading. And one thing Ive found about that site is that they have to much information for my small brain to absorb :D . I think I literally blew a circuit digging for answers at that place.

I do however find moonglows response most helpful.

moonglow

Mar 24th 2007, 08:42 PM

I would love to, but since I have read all of Revelation and could not draw any conclusions as to its date of authorship, I have turned to searching by using both Revelation and history for an answer.

So far the only thing that hints to when it was written is the fact that John was told to measure the Temple along with other referances to the Temple, on which we can draw the conclusion that it was before 70AD.

That is unless you believe that what it is referring to is a future or third temple.

Im new to studying eschatology and preterism and have a list of questions I keep running up against. Ive been to preterist archives and done much reading. And one thing Ive found about that site is that they have to much information for my small brain to absorb :D . I think I literally blew a circuit digging for answers at that place.

I do however find moonglows response most helpful.

Yes it can be overwhelming and the questions start...like many believe Matthew 24 speaks of Christ return right after the tribulation...His statement of 'coming in the clouds' but if you look at the expression used in the OT, 'coming on the clouds' doesn't mean a literal coming in the clouds but of judgement.

http://in-his-name.net/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=119

Clouds are depicted as the"chariots of God" and indicative of his MAJESTY. In Job 22:12ff Job exalts Jehovah as the one who is in the height of heaven and covered with thick clouds. In Psalm 18 which is a highly apocalyptic description of David's deliverance from Saul the former shepherd tells how Jehovah "bowed the heavens...and came down with darkness under his feet, he rode upon a cherub, and flew; He flew upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His secret place; His canopy around Him was dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."

Now one can look but in vain to find a physical event matching these words. Jehovah had acted to deliver his servant and thus he had come. He had acted and his actions had vindicated his righteousness, thus he was depicted as coming in majesty in the clouds. Psalm 68:32-35 also speaks of God who "rides on the heaven of heavens" and "his strength is in the clouds." Again the concept is his majesty and sovereignty. Psalms 104:3 tells us God "makes the clouds his chariots" and "walks on the wings of the wind."

The idea of God's coming in the clouds is also associated with the exercise of his sovereignty in JUDGING his enemies. In Isaiah 19 Jehovah "rides on a swift cloud and will come into Egypt." We know from chapter 20 that it was the Assyrians who were God's instrument of wrath on Egypt, see Isaiah 20:1-4; yet it is said that Jehovah was coming on a cloud. In Zephaniah 1:14-16 we are told the "great day of the Lord is near;" and that it would be a day of "wrath," "distress," and a "day of clouds," when the Lord would come. We know this is a prediction of the impending judgment on Jerusalem, 1:4ff. This judgment came in 606-586 BC.

Similar language is found in Nahum in the prediction of Nineveh's fall. Jehovah "has his way in the whirlwind...and the clouds are the dust of his feet." El Shaddai would come, the mountains would melt, the earth would be destroyed at his presence when he came on the clouds. We know that Nineveh was destroyed, not by a literal coming of Jehovah out of heaven on the clouds, but by the invading armies of the Chaldeans and Medes in approximately 612 BC.

Yet another though related concept of the coming with the clouds is the Messianic motif of Daniel. In Daniel 7 one like the Son of man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven. This concept of Messiah on the clouds was certainly one well known in the first century. For John to say in Revelation 1:7 that Jesus would come with the clouds was nothing less than an assertion of his Messianic role as the ruler of the kingdom of God. In his coming in the clouds he was exercising the sovereignty and demonstrating the majesty of deity so well known in the Old Covenant.

The idea is not a literal coming with the clouds so much as an identifying factor of the one under consideration. He is to be viewed not just as man but the One, who, like Jehovah, rides on the clouds. The association of Jesus coming in the clouds then was a way for the Biblical writers to IDENTIFY Jesus, in a manner well known to those conversant with Old Testament symbolism, as God's Messiah, as the Judge, worthy of majesty and honor.

This is precisely the thought Jesus was conveying to Caiaphas when he told him he would see him coming in the clouds. When Jesus said he was going to come in the clouds this was a claim to the Messianic office and divine nature; Caiaphas responded, "He has spoken blasphemy!" Caiaphas was not responding to a claim that Jesus would literally return on a physical cloud. He was responding to the IDENTITY which Jesus was claiming by associating himself as the one to come in the clouds of heaven!

One final thought. We would note the New Testament TIME FRAME for the coming of Jesus in the clouds. Patently Jesus told Caiaphas he would see Jesus' return in the clouds. He did not say he would die and millenia later be resurrected to view the parousia. He was living and was told he would witness Jesus' return, which we hope is now understood to be the exercise of his Messianic sovereignty by an act of judgment.

In Matthew 24:30-34 we are told emphatically that the disciples' generation would see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven. Reader, how can the honest student of the word ignore such emphatic chronological parameters? How can we divorce Revelation 1:7 and the promise of the coming in the clouds, from Revelation 1:1-3 and the prediction it "must shortly come to pass" and was "at hand"?

All these things are profound but easily understood as long as we take the time to study them in their original (language, culture, politics and historical setting in which the Bible was originally written.

People get angry at this sort of stuff saying we are spiritualizing the bible but we aren't...while the lanuage may not be meant to be taken literally, especially in prophesy, something literal does happen! Such as judgement on Jesuslem for the rejection of the Messiah. People say, well God didn't make it so the bible is that hard to understand....well no He didn't, and for those living at that time it was easy to understand. Such as Caiaphas understanding excatly what Jesus meant when Jesus said that Caiaphas would see Him return on a cloud.

Matthew 26

57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 58 But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.

59 Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, 60 but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses[i] came forward 61 and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’”

62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

Now I was taught in church that the reason Caiaphas acussed Jesus of blashemy was because of this part of the exchange: And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said.

This part wasn't really addressed much..especially not the cloud part:

Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Actually in a closer look at Jesus' answer, He confirmed in three different ways, who He was. Pretty interesting...I never noticed that before. :hmm: (makes sense though...trinity..;))

Anyway Caiaphas was a Jew and knew the OT well...Jesus of course new His own Words well (scriptures) so he didn't have to directly say to Caiaphas, yes I am the Son of God...He knew Caiaphas would understand excatly what He meant...that not only would He sit at the right hand of God but return IN judgment and judgement would happen during Caiaphas lifetime. Now this doesn't mean a literal returning...not the Second Coming...only that judgement would be coming...read Matthew 23 sometime...everyone overly focuses on Matthew 24 and totally misses the judgement Jesus placed on Caiaphas and all the religious leaders. He really, really chewed them out and foretold their future. No one would ever, ever, EVER want the Lord speaking this way to them. If they had a clue, they would have dropped dead in fear!

And like the example given from that article I quoted...the Lord used a nation, Rome, to pour out His wrath on Jerusalem. The 'world' Jesus was speaking of, wasn't the whole phyiscal earth, but only Jerusalem....that whole area was very affected by this judgement actually. Back then the 'world' was much smaller then it is today...the bible has only ever focused on the middle east and the other countries mentioned in it.

I think the biggest reason we miss so much is first, we just don't know the bible well enough..it has it own lanuage...it was written thousands of years ago in a different time, a different culture and since none of us were raised in that time or culture we don't know the lanuage. Its like us trying to read German and figure it out. While its been translated to our lanuage that doesn't mean its the same. Kind of like trying to read Shakespeare when you are in first grade..while it appears to be english its a very different kind of english...lol. We also try to apply things to how we understand our world now instead of back then. Or we try to apply things written to ONE group of people and apply it to everyone.

When Jesus said to 'flee Judea' He never meant to 'flee' the whole world! Where we go? mars? When He gives a specific name, place or person, that is excatly what He means. So here I am 2000 plus years later living in KS ...I am suppose to flee Judea and apply that to myself? Just doesn't work.

Anyway I have ramble enough..I hope this helps! :)

God bless

Chris38

Mar 24th 2007, 10:21 PM

moonglow

Mar 24th 2007, 11:15 PM

It helps me a great deal. THIS IS AWESOME STUFF.
Wile I was reading the last part of your post, I remembered a scripture in John when Jesus was before Pilate and he asked Jesus if he was the Christ. Here is Christs response.

John 18:20
I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Now we know that Christs ministry was limited to Israel and the surounding areas. So how could Christ say he spoke to the world. In this passage of scripture Christ was certainly speaking in regard to Jerusalem where the temple was at.

Yea very true! Excatly!

When you get a chance read this bible commentary, he matches up scriptures from Matthew 24 with history...the War of the Jews:

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024
The Adam Clarke Commentary
Its a long read, if you have too just read a bit at a time..its also difficult if you have been taught to view things one way and this is totally different from that...it can make your head spin. But history cannot be ingored either.

God bless

OneStep

Mar 24th 2007, 11:21 PM

I'm still looking for His return........did I miss it?
Surely not. All the people that told me they are going up in a pre-trib rapture are still here.

moonglow

Mar 24th 2007, 11:25 PM

I'm still looking for His return........did I miss it?
Surely not. All the people that told me they are going up in a pre-trib rapture are still here.

The pre-trib rapture isn't the same as the Second Coming actually.....though those scriptures they use for the rapture are actually about the Second Coming...they are about the resurrection and His return.

God bless

OneStep

Mar 24th 2007, 11:32 PM

Moonglow...I was just spoofin'

Jollyrogers

Mar 25th 2007, 02:26 AM

We did a thread on this awhile back. I was reading a book at the time compiled by Thomas Ice, "End Time Contraversy". If anyone would like to read it here it is.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=58118&highlight=date+of+revelations

matthew94

Mar 25th 2007, 03:27 AM

John146

Mar 25th 2007, 03:55 AM

Yes it can be overwhelming and the questions start...like many believe Matthew 24 speaks of Christ return right after the tribulation...His statement of 'coming in the clouds' but if you look at the expression used in the OT, 'coming on the clouds' doesn't mean a literal coming in the clouds but of judgement.

http://in-his-name.net/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=119

Clouds are depicted as the"chariots of God" and indicative of his MAJESTY. In Job 22:12ff Job exalts Jehovah as the one who is in the height of heaven and covered with thick clouds. In Psalm 18 which is a highly apocalyptic description of David's deliverance from Saul the former shepherd tells how Jehovah "bowed the heavens...and came down with darkness under his feet, he rode upon a cherub, and flew; He flew upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His secret place; His canopy around Him was dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."

Now one can look but in vain to find a physical event matching these words. Jehovah had acted to deliver his servant and thus he had come. He had acted and his actions had vindicated his righteousness, thus he was depicted as coming in majesty in the clouds. Psalm 68:32-35 also speaks of God who "rides on the heaven of heavens" and "his strength is in the clouds." Again the concept is his majesty and sovereignty. Psalms 104:3 tells us God "makes the clouds his chariots" and "walks on the wings of the wind."

The idea of God's coming in the clouds is also associated with the exercise of his sovereignty in JUDGING his enemies. In Isaiah 19 Jehovah "rides on a swift cloud and will come into Egypt." We know from chapter 20 that it was the Assyrians who were God's instrument of wrath on Egypt, see Isaiah 20:1-4; yet it is said that Jehovah was coming on a cloud. In Zephaniah 1:14-16 we are told the "great day of the Lord is near;" and that it would be a day of "wrath," "distress," and a "day of clouds," when the Lord would come. We know this is a prediction of the impending judgment on Jerusalem, 1:4ff. This judgment came in 606-586 BC.

Similar language is found in Nahum in the prediction of Nineveh's fall. Jehovah "has his way in the whirlwind...and the clouds are the dust of his feet." El Shaddai would come, the mountains would melt, the earth would be destroyed at his presence when he came on the clouds. We know that Nineveh was destroyed, not by a literal coming of Jehovah out of heaven on the clouds, but by the invading armies of the Chaldeans and Medes in approximately 612 BC.

Yet another though related concept of the coming with the clouds is the Messianic motif of Daniel. In Daniel 7 one like the Son of man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven. This concept of Messiah on the clouds was certainly one well known in the first century. For John to say in Revelation 1:7 that Jesus would come with the clouds was nothing less than an assertion of his Messianic role as the ruler of the kingdom of God. In his coming in the clouds he was exercising the sovereignty and demonstrating the majesty of deity so well known in the Old Covenant.

The idea is not a literal coming with the clouds so much as an identifying factor of the one under consideration. He is to be viewed not just as man but the One, who, like Jehovah, rides on the clouds. The association of Jesus coming in the clouds then was a way for the Biblical writers to IDENTIFY Jesus, in a manner well known to those conversant with Old Testament symbolism, as God's Messiah, as the Judge, worthy of majesty and honor.

This is precisely the thought Jesus was conveying to Caiaphas when he told him he would see him coming in the clouds. When Jesus said he was going to come in the clouds this was a claim to the Messianic office and divine nature; Caiaphas responded, "He has spoken blasphemy!" Caiaphas was not responding to a claim that Jesus would literally return on a physical cloud. He was responding to the IDENTITY which Jesus was claiming by associating himself as the one to come in the clouds of heaven!

One final thought. We would note the New Testament TIME FRAME for the coming of Jesus in the clouds. Patently Jesus told Caiaphas he would see Jesus' return in the clouds. He did not say he would die and millenia later be resurrected to view the parousia. He was living and was told he would witness Jesus' return, which we hope is now understood to be the exercise of his Messianic sovereignty by an act of judgment.

In Matthew 24:30-34 we are told emphatically that the disciples' generation would see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven. Reader, how can the honest student of the word ignore such emphatic chronological parameters? How can we divorce Revelation 1:7 and the promise of the coming in the clouds, from Revelation 1:1-3 and the prediction it "must shortly come to pass" and was "at hand"?

All these things are profound but easily understood as long as we take the time to study them in their original (language, culture, politics and historical setting in which the Bible was originally written.

People get angry at this sort of stuff saying we are spiritualizing the bible but we aren't...while the lanuage may not be meant to be taken literally, especially in prophesy, something literal does happen! Such as judgement on Jesuslem for the rejection of the Messiah. People say, well God didn't make it so the bible is that hard to understand....well no He didn't, and for those living at that time it was easy to understand. Such as Caiaphas understanding excatly what Jesus meant when Jesus said that Caiaphas would see Him return on a cloud.

Matthew 26

57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. 58 But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.

59 Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, 60 but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward 61 and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’”

62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

Now I was taught in church that the reason Caiaphas acussed Jesus of blashemy was because of this part of the exchange: And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said.

This part wasn't really addressed much..especially not the cloud part:

Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Actually in a closer look at Jesus' answer, He confirmed in three different ways, who He was. Pretty interesting...I never noticed that before. :hmm: (makes sense though...trinity..;))

Anyway Caiaphas was a Jew and knew the OT well...Jesus of course new His own Words well (scriptures) so he didn't have to directly say to Caiaphas, yes I am the Son of God...He knew Caiaphas would understand excatly what He meant...that not only would He sit at the right hand of God but return IN judgment and judgement would happen during Caiaphas lifetime. Now this doesn't mean a literal returning...not the Second Coming...only that judgement would be coming...read Matthew 23 sometime...everyone overly focuses on Matthew 24 and totally misses the judgement Jesus placed on Caiaphas and all the religious leaders. He really, really chewed them out and foretold their future. No one would ever, ever, [I]EVER want the Lord speaking this way to them. If they had a clue, they would have dropped dead in fear!

And like the example given from that article I quoted...the Lord used a nation, Rome, to pour out His wrath on Jerusalem. The 'world' Jesus was speaking of, wasn't the whole phyiscal earth, but only Jerusalem....that whole area was very affected by this judgement actually. Back then the 'world' was much smaller then it is today...the bible has only ever focused on the middle east and the other countries mentioned in it.

I think the biggest reason we miss so much is first, we just don't know the bible well enough..it has it own lanuage...it was written thousands of years ago in a different time, a different culture and since none of us were raised in that time or culture we don't know the lanuage. Its like us trying to read German and figure it out. While its been translated to our lanuage that doesn't mean its the same. Kind of like trying to read Shakespeare when you are in first grade..while it appears to be english its a very different kind of english...lol. We also try to apply things to how we understand our world now instead of back then. Or we try to apply things written to ONE group of people and apply it to everyone.

When Jesus said to 'flee Judea' He never meant to 'flee' the whole world! Where we go? mars? When He gives a specific name, place or person, that is excatly what He means. So here I am 2000 plus years later living in KS ...I am suppose to flee Judea and apply that to myself? Just doesn't work.

Anyway I have ramble enough..I hope this helps! :)

God bless

I do believe that what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 happened in 70 AD. However, the problem I have with this view you are presenting is that it means that you must believe that all of Matthew 24 and 25 have to do with the events that occurred in 70 AD. I say that because immediately after Jesus speaks of everyone seeing Him coming in the clouds of heaven He says that no one knows the day or hour that it happens except the Father. After saying that no one knew the day or hour, in the remainder of Matthew 24, Jesus went on to explain that it would be like the days of Noah and that they should be watching for that day to come.

He continues His speech into Matthew 25 by speaking of the parables of the ten virgins and the talents as well as the description of what happens when He comes in all His glory with His angels and then sits on His throne for Judgment. At the end of the parable of the ten virgins, He reiterates what He had said in Matthew 24:36 by saying, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.". Moonglow, do you believe the parable of the ten virgins has to do with 70 AD or the second coming of Christ? If the second coming, then how can you not believe the same about Matthew 24:29-31? While referring back to what He had just said in the verses prior, Jesus says that no one knows the day or hour of His coming in Matthew 24:36. In Matthew 25:13, He says no one knows the day or hour wherein the Son of man cometh. Matthew 24:29-31 speaks of the Son of man coming. Therefore, Matthew 24:36 is referring back to Matthew 24:29-31.

Chris38

Mar 25th 2007, 04:05 AM

So can someone tell me how Luke 21:28 fits into the preterist view?

AND WHEN THESE THINGS BEGIN TO COME TO PASS, THEN LOOK UP, AND LIFT UP YOUR HEADS; FOR YOUR REDEMPTION DRAWETH NIGH.

One way Ive heard it said is that Christ is telling his desciples to stand erect, for they had been purchased and set free there captivity to the Jewish practices of there day.
But then Ive also heard it said that this is speaking in regard to the rapture.

shootingdead

Mar 25th 2007, 01:15 PM

I do believe that what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 happened in 70 AD. However, the problem I have with this view you are presenting is that it means that you must believe that all of Matthew 24 and 25 have to do with the events that occurred in 70 AD. I say that because immediately after Jesus speaks of everyone seeing Him coming in the clouds of heaven He says that no one knows the day or hour that it happens except the Father. After saying that no one knew the day or hour, in the remainder of Matthew 24, Jesus went on to explain that it would be like the days of Noah and that they should be watching for that day to come.i have read that there is a division between v35 and v36 of Matthew 24 with the verses up to v35 beging about AD70 events and the verses from v36 being about the second coming and that this is because Jesus is answering two different questions asked in v3.

Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

He continues His speech into Matthew 25 by speaking of the parables of the ten virgins and the talents as well as the description of what happens when He comes in all His glory with His angels and then sits on His throne for Judgment. At the end of the parable of the ten virgins, He reiterates what He had said in Matthew 24:36 by saying, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.". Moonglow, do you believe the parable of the ten virgins has to do with 70 AD or the second coming of Christ? If the second coming, then how can you not believe the same about Matthew 24:29-31? While referring back to what He had just said in the verses prior, Jesus says that no one knows the day or hour of His coming in Matthew 24:36. In Matthew 25:13, He says no one knows the day or hour wherein the Son of man cometh. Matthew 24:29-31 speaks of the Son of man coming. Therefore, Matthew 24:36 is referring back to Matthew 24:29-31.

i read that Matthew 24:29-31 speaks figuratively of AD70 events, i will try and find where i read this unless moonglow beats me to it or corrects me!

Matthew 24:29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

shootingdead

Mar 25th 2007, 01:31 PM

i read that Matthew 24:29-31 speaks figuratively of AD70 events, i will try and find where i read this unless moonglow beats me to it or corrects me!

copied from Adam Clarke comentary
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024

Verse 28. For wheresoever the carcass is
πτωμα, the dead carcass. The Jewish nation, which was morally and judicially dead.
There will the eagles
The Roman armies, called so partly from their strength and fierceness, and partly from the figure of these animals which was always wrought on their ensigns, or even in brass, placed on the tops of their ensign-staves. It is remarkable that the Roman fury pursued these wretched men wheresoever they were found. They were a dead carcass doomed to be devoured; and the Roman eagles were the commissioned devourers. See the pitiful account in Josephus, WAR, b. vii. c. 2,3, 6,9, 10, and 11.
Verse 29. Immediately after the tribulation, generally understand this, and what follows, of the end of the world and Christ's coming to judgment: but the word immediately shows that our Lord is not speaking of any distant event, but of something immediately consequent on calamities already predicted: and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem. "The Jewish heaven shall perish, and the sun and moon of its glory and happiness shall be darkened-brought to nothing. The sun is the religion of the Church; the moon is the government of the state; and the stars are the judges and doctors of both. Compare Isaiah 13:10 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=isa+13:10); ; Ezekiel 32:7,8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+32:7,8), Lightfoot.
In the prophetic language, great commotions upon earth are often represented under the notion of commotions and changes in the heavens:-
The fall of Babylon is represented by the stars and constellations of heaven withdrawing their light, and the sun and moon being darkened. See Isaiah 13:9,10 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=isa+13:9,10).
The destruction of Egypt, by the heaven being covered, the sun enveloped with a cloud, and the moon withholding her light. Ezekiel 32:7,8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+32:7,8).
The destruction of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes is represented by casting down some of the host of heaven, and the stars to the ground. See Daniel 8:10 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=da+8:10).
And this very destruction of Jerusalem is represented by the Prophet Joel, Joel 2:30,31 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joe+2:30,31), by showing wonders in heaven and in earth-darkening the sun, and turning the moon into blood. This general mode of describing these judgments leaves no room to doubt the propriety of its application in the present case.
The falling of stars, i.e. those meteors which are called falling stars by the common people, was deemed an omen of evil times. The heathens have marked this:-
Saepe etiam stellas, vento impendente videbis Praecipites coelo labi, noctisque per umbram Flammarum longos a tergo albescere tractus. VIRG. Geor. i. ver. 365.
And oft before tempestuous winds arise The seeming stars fall headlong from the skies, And, shooting through the darkness, gild the night With sweeping glories, and long trails of light. Dryden. Again the same poet thus sings:-
SOL tibi signa dabit: solem quis dicere falsum Audeat? Ille etiam coecos instare tumultus Saepe monet: fraudemque et operta tumescere bella Ille etiam extincto miseratus Caesare Romam, Cum caput obscura nitidum ferrugine texit, Impiaque aeternam timuerunt saecula noctem. Ibid. ver. 462.
The sun reveals the secrets of the sky, And who dares give the source of light the lie? The change of empires often he declares, Fierce tumults, hidden treasons, open wars. He first the fate of Caesar did foretell, And pitied Rome, when Rome in Caesar fell: In iron clouds concealed the public light, And impious mortals found eternal night. Dryden.

Verse 30. Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man
The plain meaning of this is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ's power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will, in consequence of this manifestation of God, be led to acknowledge Christ and his religion. By τηςγης, of the land, in the text, is evidently meant here, as in several other places, the land of Judea and its tribes, either its then inhabitants, or the Jewish people wherever found.
Verse 31. He shall send his angels
τουςαγγελους, his messengers, the apostles, and their successors in the Christian ministry.
With a great sound of a trumpet
Or, a loud-sounding trumpet-the earnest affectionate call of the Gospel of peace, life, and salvation.
Shall gather together his elect
The Gentiles, who were now chosen or elected, in place of the rebellious, obstinate Jews, according to Our Lord's prediction, Matthew 8:11,12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+8:11,12), and ; Luke 13:28,29 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+13:28,29). For the children of the kingdom, (the Jews who were born with a legal right to it, but had now finally forfeited that right by their iniquities) should be thrust out. It is worth serious observation, that the Christian religion spread and prevailed mightily after this period: and nothing contributed more to the success of the Gospel than the destruction of Jerusalem happening in the very time and manner, and with the very circumstances, so particularly foretold by our Lord. It was after this period that the kingdom of Christ began, and his reign was established in almost every part of the world. To St. Matthew's account, St. Luke adds, Luke 21:24 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+21:24), They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shalt be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

moonglow

Mar 25th 2007, 06:52 PM

Moonglow...I was just spoofin'

you look like a spoof....:lol: :lol:

http://cookingforbrevitt.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ipod_spoof_01.jpg

:lol:

moonglow

Mar 25th 2007, 07:17 PM

I do believe that what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 happened in 70 AD. However, the problem I have with this view you are presenting is that it means that you must believe that all of Matthew 24 and 25 have to do with the events that occurred in 70 AD. I say that because immediately after Jesus speaks of everyone seeing Him coming in the clouds of heaven He says that no one knows the day or hour that it happens except the Father. After saying that no one knew the day or hour, in the remainder of Matthew 24, Jesus went on to explain that it would be like the days of Noah and that they should be watching for that day to come.

He continues His speech into Matthew 25 by speaking of the parables of the ten virgins and the talents as well as the description of what happens when He comes in all His glory with His angels and then sits on His throne for Judgment. At the end of the parable of the ten virgins, He reiterates what He had said in Matthew 24:36 by saying, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.". Moonglow, do you believe the parable of the ten virgins has to do with 70 AD or the second coming of Christ? If the second coming, then how can you not believe the same about Matthew 24:29-31? While referring back to what He had just said in the verses prior, Jesus says that no one knows the day or hour of His coming in Matthew 24:36. In Matthew 25:13, He says no one knows the day or hour wherein the Son of man cometh. Matthew 24:29-31 speaks of the Son of man coming. Therefore, Matthew 24:36 is referring back to Matthew 24:29-31.

First I never said all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled and I didn't refer to Matthew 25 at all but Mattew 23...

I can't get into your questions right now I am after, I have three boys over here rough housing (my son and two of his friends) and its a tad bit distracting as I need to keep checking on them...I'll post when/if I get any quiet time around here...:rolleyes: which might not be until tomorrow when they are in school! :lol:

sorry Chris38...I wish I could answer right now but I can't...sounds like the house is coming down right now...:cool:

God bless

Chris38

Mar 25th 2007, 07:26 PM

i have read that there is a division between v35 and v36 of Matthew 24 with the verses up to v35 beging about AD70 events and the verses from v36 being about the second coming and that this is because Jesus is answering two different questions asked in v3.

Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

i read that Matthew 24:29-31 speaks figuratively of AD70 events, i will try and find where i read this unless moonglow beats me to it or corrects me!

Matthew 24:29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
I think it could be that Mathew 24: 29 could be a referance to Revelation 12:4.
And his tail drew down a third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Revelation 7-8 And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angel,
and prevailed not; neither was there place any more found in heaven.

And even Christ spoke in referance to this in John 12:31
Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
So the stars falling from the sky could be talking about when satan and his angels are cast down from heaven.
In revelation 12 the dragons goal is to devour the child. The child being Christ. If you read it we see thast the woman was giving birth to a son who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. Then it goes on to say that the child was caught up to heaven; which I believe is speaking in regards to the reserection of Christ.

I believe this to have happened when Christ rose again.

Also notice in Mathew 24 where it says that the sun and moon will not give there light. I find it interesting that Revelation 12:1 uses both the sun and moon in its description of the woman who is believed to be Israel. Could this be in Mathew 24 about the fading Glory of Israel?

Chris38

Mar 25th 2007, 07:39 PM

First I never said all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled and I didn't refer to Matthew 25 at all but Mattew 23...

I can't get into your questions right now I am after, I have three boys over here rough housing (my son and two of his friends) and its a tad bit distracting as I need to keep checking on them...I'll post when/if I get any quiet time around here...:rolleyes: which might not be until tomorrow when they are in school! :lol:

sorry Chris38...I wish I could answer right now but I can't...sounds like the house is coming down right now...:cool:

God bless
Good luck with that task.:lol:

third hero

Mar 25th 2007, 08:06 PM

Ok.

I was going to use the riddle reference in Revelation 17, but that only goes to prove that the Book could have been written in Nero's time, pre 70AD. However, I still contend to the idea that the book was written in about 96AD. Here's why.

Polycarp, a Bishop at Samyrna, a disciple of John, proclaimed that he was exiled to Patmos by Domitian after the Romans attempted to kill him by placing him in boiling oil, only to have no effect on him. Frustrated, they cast him to the island prison, where he wrote Revelation. Iraneus, a person who believed Polycarp's testimony, proclaimed the same thing. In fact, many traditions place John in Asia MInor since before the destruction of Rome. Also, many say that he died at 100 AD, in Ephesus. If what they are saying is true, then John, the apostle, tended to use three names to describe himself. John the Presbetor, John the Elder, and John the Apostle. These names would all be given to the same person, especially if he survived the oil ordeal.

It seems like te debate first started when some examined the account of the boiling oil, and they did not believe that story, and the dating conspiracy started then. It looks like that may have happened starting at the reformation period, when people decided to believe nothing that the RCC traditions had in place. However, these traditions were shared by the Orthodox and RCC long before they had the names, and even lkonger before they fragmented. So, I tend to believe Polycarp and Iraneus, because these are the oldest accounts of the whereabouts of John, and I have given much weight to the thought that Polycarp was indeed a disciple of John.

Anyway, here are my sources for all to look at and make up their own minds over.

The riddle in Revelation 17 that would mark the writing of this book at pre 70AD.
http://www.roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm

INformation on John the Apostle.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9043818/Saint-John-the-Apostle

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-the-apostle

http://www.bookrags.com/John_the_Apostle

I even managed to stumble into a Mormon account of John, which I just plain ignored. So, these are the sources that I have currently found, but the original sources that I used are in books that I do not remember their titles. Hopefully, when I have some time, I will go to the State Library and find those books again.

matthew94

Mar 26th 2007, 01:27 AM

I do lean towards a subject change b/w Matthew 24:35 & 36

Actually to call it a 'subject change' isn't quite accurate since I am not convinced Jesus even spoke the two sentances back to back. They could have been separated by years for all we know. Matthew, as an author, seems to arrange things topically, not chronologically. It groups 7 parables together in Matthew 13 and places a lot of miracles together before that. It seems rather likely, to me, that he places 'judgment' sounding speeches from Jesus in Matthew 24-25. I see evidence of at least 2 separate specific topics under the judgment heading.

In addition to that, I think there is plenty of internal evidence for taking 24:1-35 as a separate entity. Here are some of the reasons for taking 36 onward as a different subtopic:

1. The word BUT in verse 36 is a common indicator of a subject change
2. Jesus switches from using the word 'THIS' (this generation) to using the word 'THAT' (that day and hour)
3. Prior to 36 the period of time described is 'days' but afterword it is more often given as a singular 'day'
4. Up to 35 there are all sorts of signs indicating the end, but from 36 onward the DAY comes as a complete surprise.
5. Up to 35 is said to be coming upon 'this generation' but after 36 is descred as happening after a long time (24:38)

As a whole, the language used to describe AD70 and worldwide judgement day can be very similar since judgement language tends to sound just like itself! In other words, I can understand people taking various positions on whether there is a subject change in Matthew 24-25

Chris38

Mar 26th 2007, 03:18 AM

matthew94

Mar 26th 2007, 03:40 AM

Does anyone know how this fits into the preterist beliefs? Does this scripture speak of the Rapture of the Saints?

The simplest approach would be to take it as saying "when you see that Jeruselem is about to be destroyed, pay close spiritual attention, your vindication from Jewish persecution is at hand"

JordanW

Mar 26th 2007, 04:27 AM

In my particular Bible (Ryrie study Bible, best Bible out there!) it says that it was written from or in 90 AD - 95 AD.

matthew94

Mar 26th 2007, 04:58 AM

Well that is not surprising since Ryrie is a dispensationalist

Chris38

Mar 26th 2007, 05:38 AM

Thanks Matthew.

UltraVR

Mar 26th 2007, 05:48 AM

Revelation was written in the first century AD.

JordanW

Mar 26th 2007, 09:15 PM

Well that is not surprising since Ryrie is a dispensationalistIs that good????

Jollyrogers

Mar 26th 2007, 09:23 PM

It is just a name for someone who believes in a 7 year tribulation. It also means that this person believes that Revelations is yet Future along with certain other parts of the Bible. Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsey, Thomas Ice, Mark Hitchcock, John Ankerburg, John MacArthur, and Zola Levitt are some other examples of Dispensationalist.

moonglow

Mar 26th 2007, 09:31 PM

I do believe that what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 happened in 70 AD. However, the problem I have with this view you are presenting is that it means that you must believe that all of Matthew 24 and 25 have to do with the events that occurred in 70 AD. I say that because immediately after Jesus speaks of everyone seeing Him coming in the clouds of heaven He says that no one knows the day or hour that it happens except the Father. After saying that no one knew the day or hour, in the remainder of Matthew 24, Jesus went on to explain that it would be like the days of Noah and that they should be watching for that day to come.

He continues His speech into Matthew 25 by speaking of the parables of the ten virgins and the talents as well as the description of what happens when He comes in all His glory with His angels and then sits on His throne for Judgment. At the end of the parable of the ten virgins, He reiterates what He had said in Matthew 24:36 by saying, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.". Moonglow, do you believe the parable of the ten virgins has to do with 70 AD or the second coming of Christ? If the second coming, then how can you not believe the same about Matthew 24:29-31? While referring back to what He had just said in the verses prior, Jesus says that no one knows the day or hour of His coming in Matthew 24:36. In Matthew 25:13, He says no one knows the day or hour wherein the Son of man cometh. Matthew 24:29-31 speaks of the Son of man coming. Therefore, Matthew 24:36 is referring back to Matthew 24:29-31.

I agree with you on what you and third hero were discussing here: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1205117#post1205117

I also think three seperate things were being address as third hero put it:

The olivet discourse does deal with three questions.

1. When will the temple be destroyed?
2. What are the signs of your coming?
3. What are the signs of the end of the age?

On his post #62 I thought he put it very well...better then my tired mind could explain it right now. I disgree with the bible commentaries that only two questions were being addressed in Matthew 24 and that Matthew 25 IS about His second coming...

anyway from what I read on the discussion you two were having I think I agree...of course I can always change my mind...after I get some sleep...:lol: Us overly tired people agree with anything...;)

just kidding!

God bless

matthew94

Mar 26th 2007, 09:52 PM

Is that good????

Dispensationalism is just 1 of many interpretations of Revelation. I don't agree with it and seemingly nobody prior to 1830 agreed with it, but that doesn't, out of necessity, imply that it is incorrect. Ryrie believes it and I'm sure he's a solid disciple of Jesus Christ. But being a futurist goes hand in hand with believing the later date for Revelation, so that's why I'm not surprised.

KnightwithDignity

Mar 26th 2007, 11:16 PM

moonglow

Mar 27th 2007, 12:27 AM

one of the strongest evidences that the letters of John and the gospel of John and the Revelations were written before AD 70 is the absence in any of these books of the bible to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

None of the books of the new testament make any reference to this significant event. Jesus warned that it was coming as is clear in the references in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Paul doesnt mention it. Neither does Peter.

None of the writers refer to the death of Paul or John or Peter.

These are clues to look at to show that all of the books of the new testament were written prior to even AD 66 at the time of the death of Paul.

Very good and I agree. Paul was beheaded under Nero, who was ruling right up until the siege of Jerusalem...in fact if I am understanding history right, Titus who was about to invade Jerusalem was called back to Rome because of the death of Nero and the civil war that broke out over that as Nero left no heirs (having kicked his pregnant wife to death). This in turn gave the believers in Judea time to flee just as Jesus had told them to do in Matthew 16: “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. and in Luke 21: 20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.

Paul and Peter would had to have died before 70 A.D. before the destruction of Jerusalem and at least one other disciple died under Nero also. It would seem odd their deaths and the horrible siege of Jerusalem where such ghastly things took place, plus the destruction of the temple were not mentioned in the bible as having happened yet. These are pretty major events and I cannot image not one word would have been written about them if they had happened already...if Revelation was written after them.

Even in the OT when propheties were written, even if it was hundreds of years later, they would be recorded as having happened when they did. How else would we know those propheties had been fulfilled? Because the bible tells us they were fulfilled. So Jesus made the propheties that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed and they were...that would have been recorded if Revelation had been written after their fulfillment...the fact it wasn't recorded makes a strong case for it being written before 70 A.D.

God bless

Jollyrogers

Mar 27th 2007, 03:01 AM

Jollyrogers

Mar 27th 2007, 03:34 AM

Here is something of interest, I know it is several months away however it should be good to watch\listen too

December 10-12, 2007,
DFW Airport Sheraton Grand Hotel
Irving, TX

Special Debate (Dec. 10, 7:00 PM)

Mark Hitchcock
vs.
Hank Hanegraaff on
The Date of the Book of Revelation

matthew94

Mar 27th 2007, 03:51 AM

Yeah, that should be interestng. Hank is coming out with a book sometime in the next 30 days about his views on eschatology. He doesn't like labels, but I'm pretty sure he'd be classified as an amillennial partial-preterist on these boards, as he, in the past years, has been adjusting his eschatology, joining a growing number of well known evangelicals.

In fact, I may be wrong, but I believe Hank is discussing his new book on his radio show tomorrow (Tuesday) during the Bible Answer Man broadcast.

Tru_Knyte

Mar 27th 2007, 04:16 AM

John146

Mar 27th 2007, 05:05 AM

i have read that there is a division between v35 and v36 of Matthew 24 with the verses up to v35 beging about AD70 events and the verses from v36 being about the second coming and that this is because Jesus is answering two different questions asked in v3.

Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

I agree that He is being asked two different questions, but I don't buy that there is a division between verses 35 and 36 at all. And I explained that. He said "and of that day and hour knoweth no man...". We can get added insight of what day and hour He was speaking about because in Matthew 25:13 He says, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.". So, it's safe to conclude that He was saying that no one knows the day or hour of His coming. Therefore, in Matthew 24:36, He was referring back to Matthew 24:29-31.

i read that Matthew 24:29-31 speaks figuratively of AD70 events, i will try and find where i read this unless moonglow beats me to it or corrects me!

Matthew 24:29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

I don't buy that. It says "they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds". Did they see Him coming on the clouds in 70 AD? I don't believe so. It also says He will send His angels to gather the elect from one end of the heavens to the other and as it says in Mark 13:27, "from the uttermost part of the earth" as well. Did that happen in 70 AD? I don't believe so. I believe that is speaking about what occurs at the second coming of Christ. As we can see in 1 Thess 4:13-17, the dead in Christ are resurrected and are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. Then those who are alive and remain are caught up together with the dead in Christ to meet the Lord in the air. I believe that is the gathering of the elect that Matthew 24:31 is speaking about.

John146

Mar 27th 2007, 05:21 AM

First I never said all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled and I didn't refer to Matthew 25 at all but Mattew 23...

I didn't say that you did. My point is that in Matthew 24:36, Jesus was saying of that day and that hour no one knows. What day and hour? The day and hour of His coming. We can confirm that is what He was referring to by reading Matthew 25:13. Therefore, we can conclude that the day and hour He was speaking of in Matthew 24:36 was the day and hour of His coming as He spoke about in Matthew 24:29-31. So, what I'm saying then is that if you believe that Matthew 24:29-31 is speaking of what occurred in 70 AD then it seems that you must believe that the rest of Matthew 24 as well as Matthew 25:1-13 also refer to 70 AD. Hopefully you see my point. So, with all that said, I'm curious as to the time period you place Matthew 24:36-51 and Matthew 25:1-13. And the rest of Matthew 25, for that matter.

I can't get into your questions right now I am after, I have three boys over here rough housing (my son and two of his friends) and its a tad bit distracting as I need to keep checking on them...I'll post when/if I get any quiet time around here...:rolleyes: which might not be until tomorrow when they are in school! :lol:

No hurry at all. I don't expect immediate responses as I know we all have busy lives apart from this forum. :)

Eric

third hero

Mar 27th 2007, 06:47 AM

Very good and I agree. Paul was beheaded under Nero, who was ruling right up until the siege of Jerusalem...in fact if I am understanding history right, Titus who was about to invade Jerusalem was called back to Rome because of the death of Nero and the civil war that broke out over that as Nero left no heirs (having kicked his pregnant wife to death). This in turn gave the believers in Judea time to flee just as Jesus had told them to do in Matthew 16: “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. and in Luke 21: 20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.

Paul and Peter would had to have died before 70 A.D. before the destruction of Jerusalem and at least one other disciple died under Nero also. It would seem odd their deaths and the horrible siege of Jerusalem where such ghastly things took place, plus the destruction of the temple were not mentioned in the bible as having happened yet. These are pretty major events and I cannot image not one word would have been written about them if they had happened already...if Revelation was written after them.

Even in the OT when propheties were written, even if it was hundreds of years later, they would be recorded as having happened when they did. How else would we know those propheties had been fulfilled? Because the bible tells us they were fulfilled. So Jesus made the propheties that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed and they were...that would have been recorded if Revelation had been written after their fulfillment...the fact it wasn't recorded makes a strong case for it being written before 70 A.D.

God bless

The argument is a good one, and many can make a solid case for it. However, like someone has put it, the absence of evidence is not evidence. In Ezekiel, it only mentions that Ezekiel had visions during the time of the Babylonian captivity. It does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem the first time, and on top of that, like in Revelation 11, Ezekiel was told to measure the temple, a temple not present during the Babylonian captivity. One could make this comparison, the exact same thing that happened to John, when he was told to measure a temple that is not there on earth, if the book was written in 94-96AD, is exactly the same thing that God has Ezekiel do during the Babylonian captivity. (Ezekiel 40-44).

IN that light, the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem was not prophecies about by neither Paul or Peter is irrelevant, becaus Christ prophesied about it in all three gospels, and Luke emphasized the magnitude of the destruction of the city and the temple in his account. So the destruction of the city and the temple was prophesied about in the NT, and in the OT as well, (Daniel 9:26). So we are left with the thought that we are still unsure that John wrote this before 70AD.

The best evidence I have that ays that John wrote this in the latter end of the 1st century is the fact that a man by the name of Polycarp was one of His direct disciples, who some claim to have written the last part of the gospel according to John in the second century. Polycarp testifies to John being in Patmos during the reign of Domitian, who ruled from 81-96AD. Again, since I believe his testimony, I have to stand on the date of the writing of Revelation being sometime between 94-96AD.

moonglow

Mar 27th 2007, 10:42 PM

The argument is a good one, and many can make a solid case for it. However, like someone has put it, the absence of evidence is not evidence. In Ezekiel, it only mentions that Ezekiel had visions during the time of the Babylonian captivity. It does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem the first time, and on top of that, like in Revelation 11, Ezekiel was told to measure the temple, a temple not present during the Babylonian captivity. One could make this comparison, the exact same thing that happened to John, when he was told to measure a temple that is not there on earth, if the book was written in 94-96AD, is exactly the same thing that God has Ezekiel do during the Babylonian captivity. (Ezekiel 40-44).

IN that light, the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem was not prophecies about by neither Paul or Peter is irrelevant, becaus Christ prophesied about it in all three gospels, and Luke emphasized the magnitude of the destruction of the city and the temple in his account. So the destruction of the city and the temple was prophesied about in the NT, and in the OT as well, (Daniel 9:26). So we are left with the thought that we are still unsure that John wrote this before 70AD.

The best evidence I have that ays that John wrote this in the latter end of the 1st century is the fact that a man by the name of Polycarp was one of His direct disciples, who some claim to have written the last part of the gospel according to John in the second century. Polycarp testifies to John being in Patmos during the reign of Domitian, who ruled from 81-96AD. Again, since I believe his testimony, I have to stand on the date of the writing of Revelation being sometime between 94-96AD.

The bible does too record the destruction of Jerusalem the first time...here is a link with all the bible verses on it: http://www.templemount.org/destruct1.html

2 Chronicles 36:11-21
Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD his God. He did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the LORD. He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God; he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel. All the leading priests and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful, following all the abominations of the nations; and they polluted the house of the LORD which he had hallowed in Jerusalem.

The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place; but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, till the wrath of the LORD rose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or aged; he gave them all into his hand.

And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his princes, all these he brought to Babylon. And they burned the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burned all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its precious vessels. He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfil seventy years.

I don't know why Peter or Paul would have to give a propheties about the destruction of Jerusalem when Jesus already had. I didn't understand your thinking on that.

God bless

third hero

Mar 28th 2007, 09:40 AM

Moonglow,
read Ezekiel 1. In fact, read the entire book. You will find that in that book, the destruction of the temple was not mentioned even once, although it is clear that Ezekiel was having the visions during the Babylonian captivity period, when the temple was already destroyed. This is exactly what john had to do in Revelation 11, when he had to measure the temple, even though, if he wrote it after 70Ad, was not there at all.

Therefore, what I am saying is this. prophetic books do not necessarily have to write down the entire situation in which a person is told to do something. The circumstances were not revealed in either Ezekiel, or Revelation. In the case of Ezekiel, the temple was destroyed. The same case can be made for John's account, in chapter 11. In Revelation, there is no mentioning of the destruction of the temple, because it was not a future event, it was a past one.

UltraVR

Mar 28th 2007, 10:12 AM

If I remember correctly, Ezekiel was a part of the first exile to Babylon, and was writing before the temple was destroyed -- however, he does prophesy it's destruction.

Although, it's been a while since I've read Ezekiel so I could be mixing up my facts.

third hero

Mar 28th 2007, 10:25 AM

moonglow

Mar 28th 2007, 03:29 PM

Ezekiel 1:1

Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, as I [was] among the captives by the river of Chebar, [that] the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

At his first vision, the temple was already destroyed, and he was in Babylon, when his first vision overtook him. Again, he makes no mentioning of the first temple being destroyed, although by that time, it had already happened. (Ezekiel 40-44)

My point was that the destruction of the first temple was in the bible, I had taken it from your post that you were saying it wasn't in the bible at all...not recorded that is, when it clearly is.

I understand what you are saying now...that first post I responded to, was rather confusing to me. Yet still in other parts of the bible its recorded about the temple being destroyed the first time...yet nothing at all is mentioned in the NT of it being destroyed the second time. Its fine to try to compare John's vision with Ezekiel's and it might work if any of the other books actually recorded the destruction of the temple as they did in the OT....but they don't. So it seems logically that it hadn't happened yet...such a huge event and not mentioned at all in any of the apostles writings? I simply cannot image that would be neglected...even if it was common knowlege...it was also common knowlege in the OT yet it was still recorded. All propheties fulfilled during the writing of the books that make up the bible were recorded at some point in time. Even if they didn't happen in that prophets lifetime were still recorded by another author of another book when they were fulfilled. The only explaination for this not being recorded would be the last book was writen before the event actually happened.

God bless

third hero

Mar 28th 2007, 03:32 PM

Moonglow,
you misunderstood me. I was comparing prophetic scripture to prophetic scripture. IN the Bible, there were books that I would call Historical books, which chronicled the history of Israel, which included the destruction of the first temple.

moonglow

Mar 28th 2007, 11:47 PM

third hero

Mar 30th 2007, 02:27 PM

David Taylor

Mar 30th 2007, 03:45 PM

Yes, I am implying that someone should write down books about the acts of the churches since before 70AD, since Acts, which is the only book chrionicling the early church, stopped at the point when Paul started to write the Pauline letters, (well, his last ones anyway).

I & II Corinthians were written in the early-mid 50s.
I & II Thessalonians were writen in the mid-late 50s.

The mere fact that all of the NT books omit any description or mention of the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70 AD point to internal evidence that they were all written in just over 4 decades after Christ's Ascension.

We do know the acts of the churches before 70AD.
The NT epistles and Gospels and Acts tell us exactly what their 'acts' were prior to 70 AD.

the rookie

Mar 30th 2007, 04:00 PM

I & II Corinthians were written in the early-mid 50s.
I & II Thessalonians were writen in the mid-late 50s.

The mere fact that all of the NT books omit any description or mention of the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70 AD point to internal evidence that they were all written in just over 4 decades after Christ's Ascension.

We do know the acts of the churches before 70AD.
The NT epistles and Gospels and Acts tell us exactly what their 'acts' were prior to 70 AD.

I think that's a bit backwards.

Galatians was the first letter Paul wrote - most likely prior to the Acts 15 council of Jerusalem.

1 & 2 Thessalonians were written a short time later, around 51 AD, from Corinth after Paul was driven out of Berea and the Macedonian region by the enraged Jews of Acts 17;

1 & 2 Corinthians was written a short time later, during the Ephesian revival of Acts 19, which took place between 52 & 55 AD - and they were 2 of what could have been as many as 4 letters sent to that church during that time.

That's a quibbling point, but I'm a stickler for accuracy in regards to those kinds of things.

I agree with your point, that the vast majority of the New Testament was written prior to 70 AD; there is good cause and solid evidence to date John's writings (and Jude's letter) after that date, however, though Preterist scholarship has labored to prove otherwise.

David Taylor

Mar 30th 2007, 04:27 PM

I think that's a bit backwards.

Galatians was the first letter Paul wrote - most likely prior to the Acts 15 council of Jerusalem.

1 & 2 Thessalonians were written a short time later, around 51 AD, from Corinth after Paul was driven out of Berea and the Macedonian region by the enraged Jews of Acts 17;

1 & 2 Corinthians was written a short time later, during the Ephesian revival of Acts 19, which took place between 52 & 55 AD - and they were 2 of what could have been as many as 4 letters sent to that church during that time.

That's a quibbling point, but I'm a stickler for accuracy in regards to those kinds of things.

That's fine....I don't have a problem with Thessalonians being written a couple years before Corinthians....I just remembered Corinthians was written first, like in 53. As for Galatians being the very first epistle, that's not something I remembered. I probably need to do so re-remembering and studying of the mission trips in regards to the historical venues given in them, and the dating of the epistles.

My point, however, was that there was significant early record outside of the book of Acts.

Using your dates alone, you cite 6 NT books, besides Acts, that were written within 20-25 years of Calvary.

I agree with your point, that the vast majority of the New Testament was written prior to 70 AD; there is good cause and solid evidence to date John's writings (and Jude's letter) after that date, however, though Preterist scholarship has labored to prove otherwise.

I don't like this preterist scholarship label thingy.
I have always thought it unfair and unwarranted.

I will stand up against Full-Preterism tooth and nail along side you, so that isn't germane.

I spent quite a bit of time a few years ago, researching the ECF and the Revelation references.

Can you say snowball?

They all snowballed off of the one comment that Irenaeus made, that even itself could be interpretted either early or late.

Sure because of that comment, the church tradition (RCC and later Protestant via RCC) held to the late date under Domitian.

But the availability of ancient sources is more readily now, in this modern techno-age, and it is more apparent to people living today, of how tradition at times, can overbear reality.

If John really wrote his epistles, and the Revelation; and if Jude really wrote his epistle all after 70 AD....it astounds me that none of them mention its destruction. Especially in light of the prophetic fulfillment it would have been in verifying and corrobarating Jesus' own Prediction given in the gospels accounts which were pre-70 AD.

I find that internal evidence, alongside Revelation's own pronouncement that the temple is still standing, the greatest reason to accept the early dating (pre 70) instead of the traditional RCC late dating.

How about this...I find this topic interesting, and it seems you and others do as well.

What about we start a research thread. I'll start it, and I'll make the first entry in it. Then others can add follow-up posts, and I'll copy those sources into my original post, so that it is a growing resource post on this topic.

I would like to see within it, two sections.

1) The Historical References for-against both the early and late date.

2) Internal Biblical References for-against both the early and late date.

Let's stop throwing around charges, and just do some sound research.
Then when we have gathered about all we can gather, we can post a followup discussion on the results.

I don't care if the thread itself turns into a rabbit chase or not; my concern will be with the intial post that I keep updated with the resource info.

I'll get it started in a few minutes.

third hero

Mar 30th 2007, 05:40 PM

Everyone,
my point is that since then, we have not had one book that can be canonized that chronicle the perils and triumphs of the saints after 70AD. It's as though literarywise, Christianity dropped off of the face of the earth. Did God stop talking, or was there so many divisions back then that no one could agree, even back then? The only thing I have known of that could be canonized is Polycarp's writings, which some suggest that the last part of the Gospel of John was actually written by him, John's disciple. Where are all of the other disciples who learned under Peter and james and Phillip? I am sure they probably written something, and their disciples probably written something about what happened between 96AD and 2007 AD.

moonglow

Mar 30th 2007, 07:11 PM

Moonglow,
If the New Testament was complete, then we could say, "sure, nothing historical was ever mantioned about the destruction of the second temple". However, it seemed as though people have cut off what they wanted to have in the Bible. The OT is a compilation of authors and scrolls that were written for about 1000 years. The NT only covers 40 years, and it seems to be cut short, since the historical books that are found in the OT are no where to be found in th NT. Maybe they were not written, or maybe they were, but the church councils felt that they were not needed. I have to look this up somewhere and get back with you.

Yes, I am implying that someone should write down books about the acts of the churches since before 70AD, since Acts, which is the only book chrionicling the early church, stopped at the point when Paul started to write the Pauline letters, (well, his last ones anyway). almost 2000 years of history is lost in legend because someone did not do that. And if they did, then eitrher the RCC or some other organization is hiding them from us, and that is totally not fair. If we could get a hold of these books, if they exist, then we would have a great shot at ending all of these debates.

I really don't think there is any scripture missing from the bible...we hear of the 'lost books' of the bible but there is a reason they weren't included in the canon to start with. Here is an article on them and if you want links where you can read them: http://www.carm.org/questions/lost_books.htm

Do the lost books of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered?

There is much talk these days about lost books of the Bible. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature, anything that disagreed with what the people in power didn't like. But, none of this is true. The "lost books" were never lost. These so called lost books were already known by the Jews and the Christians and were not considered inspired. They weren't lost nor were they removed from the Bible because they were never in the Bible to begin with. (read the rest on the link)

God bless

lordzboy

Apr 1st 2007, 02:19 AM

end times...............:B

Chris38

Apr 1st 2007, 03:20 AM

end times...............:B
I know what you mean. We have a lot of different opinions on here. It can get confusing I know.

I hold to the partial preterist view myself which states that many prophecies people are waiting to see have come to pass already, many in the war on Jerusalem in 70 ad.

David Taylor

Apr 1st 2007, 12:05 PM

Polycarp testifies to John being in Patmos during the reign of Domitian, who ruled from 81-96AD. Again, since I believe his testimony, I have to stand on the date of the writing of Revelation being sometime between 94-96AD.

Can you give me a link to ccel or one of the historical antiquity writings library websites that shows Polycarp saying this?

I haven't been able to find this in any of Polycarp's writings, and I visited all of the writings of the 1st century writers yesterday.(Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, JM, Didache, Barnabas, etc....)

Thanks

Chris38

Apr 2nd 2007, 09:52 AM

I actually wanted to post this in Davids thread, but it will possibly stir up more debate which he doent want. But I have spent hours and days looking for evidence showing when Revelation was written, and here are my conclusions.

Revelation 11:2
But the court that is without the temple leave out and measure it not; for it is given unto the gentiles and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Two things come to me in this passage. First the fact that there is never any mention of the temple ever being destroyed, which leads me to believe that this is the same temple spoken of in mathew 24 and still standing at the time John receaved the vision.

2nd is the fact that it is mentioned that they shall tread the holy city forty and two months, which is how long it took for the Romans to capture and destroy the city and the temple.

Rev. 17:10
And there are 7 kings, five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come;and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Julius Caeser- Fallen
Augustus- Fallen
Tiberius- Fallen
Caligula- Fallen
Claudius- Fallen
Nero- The sixth and present king that rules at the present time that John receaves his vision; ruled from 54-68 ad. Which would put the date between those two.

Now for the evidence against the early date.
Iranaeus hears an account of polycarp saying otherwise.
This coming from a man who claimed that Christ lived to be over fifty. Kind of makes me question Iranaeus's accuracy.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/001/0010752.htm

RogerW

Apr 2nd 2007, 04:15 PM

Have any of you considered that the destruction of Jerusalem is mentioned in the book of the Revelation? There are many verses that link Babylon, the great whore to Jerusalem. If this is true, and Babylon is descriptive of Jerusalem then a case could be made for a late dating by how John responded to seeing the vision of Jerusalem (the mystery woman, Babylon) in all her glory, majesty and splendor.

Re 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Re 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

It would make sense that John would show great admiration and wonder at seeing Jerusalem and the Temple as she had been before destruction, even as she had been in the days of Old. Since John had witnessed the complete destruction, this vision of the woman in all her royal apparel would have come as surprising, and he may have thought that God would raise Jerusalem and the Temple once again.

Re 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

CHRIST SAYS THE JEWS AS REPRESENTATIVES OF JERUSALEM ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MURDERING ALL THE RIGHTEOUS OF THE EARTH.

Mt 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mt 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Lu 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
Lu 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
Lu 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

CHRIST TELLS US THAT BABYLON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDER OF ALL THE RIGHTEOUS UPON THE EARTH.

Re 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

Re 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Re 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Re 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

JERUSALEM IS CALLED A GREAT CITY.

Re 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Jer 22:8 And many nations shall pass by this city, and they shall say every man to his neighbour, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this great city?

La 1:1 How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! how is she become as a widow! she that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!

BABYLON IS CALLED A GREAT CITY.

Re 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Re 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

Re 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Re 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Re 18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
Re 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate
Re 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

JERUSALEM IS MADE DESOLATE.

Mt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Lu 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Lu 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Lu 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Lu 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Lu 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Isa 64:10 Thy holy cities are a wilderness, Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation.

La 5:18 Because of the mountain of Zion, which is desolate, the foxes walk upon it.

Eze 12:19 And say unto the people of the land, Thus saith the Lord GOD of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the land of Israel; They shall eat their bread with carefulness, and drink their water with astonishment, that her land may be desolate from all that is therein, because of the violence of all them that dwell therein.

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Da 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Da 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Da 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

BABYLON IS MADE DESOLATE.

Re 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Re 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

We can’t look at Rev 17 & 18 in chronological order. If we do that then we would have to wonder how Babylon can even exist in 17 & 18 since there is no more history after chapter 16. In chapter 16 all the vials have been poured out, there has been the battle of antichrist with Gog and Magog in Armageddon, and great Babylon has been in the winepress of the wrath of God. Shall we also look at the wrath of God toward Babylon in Rev 16 as the end of time? Babylon is no more? Very obviously we cannot view chapters 17 & 18 chronologically. Both of these chapters are simply giving more detail for something that has already happened. Much like we find in Genesis 1 & 2.

We find Jerusalem described as Babylonian in character (Sodom and Egypt) in Rev 11 where she persecutes the witnesses of Jesus. Again, we read of her fall in Rev 14:8 “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

The vision of the fall of Babylon in Rev 17 & 18 is much like the prophesy Christ spoke to His disciples. Just as His prophesy includes events that take place in the near future of the disciples, also much of His prophetic words will be fulfilled throughout the NT church era, and the end of time. I believe what we see in Rev 17 & 18 is a description of the literal destruction of Jerusalem, but also sure promise that every abominable harlot in the world, everyone who is owned by Satan will meet with the same wrath. The literal destruction of Jerusalem symbolizes the destruction that will come upon all the unsaved of the earth whether they be in an apostate church, a faithful church, or in the world.

Babylon falls in one hour, much like Jerusalem when she falls. This is symbolic, describing the literal fall of Jerusalem as coming very quickly. So too at the end of time the wrath of God will be poured out quickly upon the earth.

RW

BeOfGoodCourage

Apr 2nd 2007, 05:18 PM

Romulus

Apr 3rd 2007, 06:44 PM

My view as well, Roger. The Bible backs this up in many Old and New Testament passages.

I agree as well. It would seem most unlikely that if Revelation was written after A.D. 70 that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple would be omitted. There is enough internal evidence that Revelation was written during the reign of Nero and was looking for a future fulfillment only several years later. Soon and near is used too many times (even in the the first verse) to assume anything else.

RogerW

Apr 3rd 2007, 11:35 PM

I agree as well. It would seem most unlikely that if Revelation was written after A.D. 70 that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple would be omitted. There is enough internal evidence that Revelation was written during the reign of Nero and was looking for a future fulfillment only several years later. Soon and near is used too many times (even in the the first verse) to assume anything else.

According to the following verses something is at hand. Are you suggesting that it is His Second Coming that is at hand? Or could the context of these passages be telling us that what is at hand is the Kingdom era that Christ ushered in at His death and resurrection?

Re 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.

Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

RW

Romulus

Apr 4th 2007, 04:49 PM

According to the following verses something is at hand. Are you suggesting that it is His Second Coming that is at hand? Or could the context of these passages be telling us that what is at hand is the Kingdom era that Christ ushered in at His death and resurrection?

Re 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.

Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

RW

I won't comment on Second Coming but I do believe that the Judgement against Israel was at hand and the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant order was about to occur. The Kingdom was ushered in at Christ's work on the cross but the sign that it had been completed was shown to the world in the removal of the temple in Jerusalem. Revelation is about our Lord's reign and kingship. No other Kingdom exists now since Jesus is reigning in heaven and earth at His Father's right hand. The Gospel is not hindered and will change the world. Every nation will bow before Him. The Beast, Great Tribulation, jugment of Babylon(Israel) all occurred in the holocaust of 70 A.D. which what is talked about in Revelation.

RogerW

Apr 5th 2007, 02:07 AM

I won't comment on Second Coming but I do believe that the Judgement against Israel was at hand and the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant order was about to occur. The Kingdom was ushered in at Christ's work on the cross but the sign that it had been completed was shown to the world in the removal of the temple in Jerusalem. Revelation is about our Lord's reign and kingship. No other Kingdom exists now since Jesus is reigning in heaven and earth at His Father's right hand. The Gospel is not hindered and will change the world. Every nation will bow before Him. The Beast, Great Tribulation, jugment of Babylon(Israel) all occurred in the holocaust of 70 A.D. which what is talked about in Revelation.

I understand that the way into the holy of holies through Christ was not made manifest as long as the first Temple remained (Heb 9:8-10). However I don’t see the removal of the temple in Jerusalem as the sign to the world that the Kingdom of God had indeed come.

That they could not understand the significance of the cross and resurrection is fulfillment of prophesy, which says, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner” (Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lu 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1Pe 2:7). The sign was Christ going to the cross, and being resurrected from the dead just as He has told us the only sign would be (Mt. 12:39,40). Christ is the greater and more perfect tabernacle obtaining eternal redemption through His own blood, His body as the Holy Temple is the sign that the Kingdom has come (Mk 8:31; Jo 2:19,20).

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

It’s hard to imagine that Christ spoke of the literal destruction of the temple as being “near” or “at hand” when the literal destruction of the temple was about 40 years away. Will the usage of this word throughout Scripture permit something to be "near" or "at hand" and still be almost 40 years away?

I would agree that the abolishment of the Old Covenant through the Law was “near” or “at hand“, and that the New Covenant in Christ ushering in the Kingdom of God was/is “near” or “at hand” but is Christ telling us the Kingdom of God is at hand/near, or is He telling us that the abolishment of the Old through the sacrificial/ceremonial law is at hand/near? Or could He perhaps be telling us both? I believe Scripture shows us it is the spiritual destruction of the temple, and Christ ushering in the Kingdom age that Christ spoke of as being “near” or “at hand.” Remember the Olivet discourse was spoken to the disciples of Christ. Christ was not speaking to the Jewish Nation. Some of the things Christ told His disciples had to do with the wrath of God coming against Jerusalem and the Temple, but this was to warn His disciples not to remain in the city when they saw the Judgment coming.

You say the beast, great tribulation, and judgment of Babylon (Israel) all occurred in A.D. 70. How do you explain Rev 12?

Here we find the man child (Jesus Christ) being delivered through the Jewish Nation depicted as a woman having on her head a crown of twelve stars. As soon as Christ is born we see a great red dragon ready to devour Christ as soon as the woman delivers Him. But Christ is caught up to the throne of God, and the woman flees into the wilderness where she is nourished by God. This is the birth of the universal church in time through the Jewish Nation (to the Jew first, then the Gentile (Ro 1:16; 2:9,10). As soon as the woman flees into the wilderness we hear of a war in heaven between Michael (Christ) and the dragon. Christ prevails and the dragon, that old serpent called the Devil, and Satan is cast out unto the earth. Then in vs. 10 we read, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” Once the dragon is cast out he immediately persecutes the woman (Church) in the wilderness, but she is helped, “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

According to this passage the beast bringing the woman (universal church) into great tribulation happens at the beginning of the Kingdom age, not some 40 years later. Great tribulation may have begun with the first century Jewish disciples of Christ, but great tribulation has never been limited to only the first century elect of God. Scripture shows us that spiritual Judgment came against Israel at the cross and resurrection of Christ, and it also shows us that literal Judgment would come (AD 70) just as Christ prophesied it would. That the Jews did not understand that Christ had ushered in the Kingdom age, and had done away with the OT sacrificial system does not negate the fact that He did exactly that.

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Mr 15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
Mr 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

RW

Romulus

Apr 5th 2007, 02:06 PM

I understand that the way into the holy of holies through Christ was not made manifest as long as the first Temple remained (Heb 9:8-10). However I don’t see the removal of the temple in Jerusalem as the sign to the world that the Kingdom of God had indeed come.

I am glad you mentioned Hebrews. The way into the holy of holies could only have come through Christ's atonement. He is mimicking the Old Covenant priesthood. Jesus at his resurrection ascended to heaven itself and the heavenly tabernacle to make atonement for us. The removal of the temple in Jerusalem was simply the last sign of a Covenant that was confirmed through the atonement in heaven. We now had access to heaven itself and in reality the holy of holies......with God our Father. Since the Kingdom was within us and will spread through the entire world the Kingdom had come.....the sign was the destruction of the temple that the atonement was accomplished. Ultimately the cross began our redemption and it was proven with the earthly tabernacle (temple) being removed and man being the dwelling of God.

That they could not understand the significance of the cross and resurrection is fulfillment of prophesy, which says, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner” (Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lu 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1Pe 2:7). The sign was Christ going to the cross, and being resurrected from the dead just as He has told us the only sign would be (Mt. 12:39,40). Christ is the greater and more perfect tabernacle obtaining eternal redemption through His own blood, His body as the Holy Temple is the sign that the Kingdom has come (Mk 8:31; Jo 2:19,20).

True, but we must remember the Old Covenant priesthood with which Christ was in order of forever (melchizedek). The cross did accomplish our redemption bu Hebrews confirms that an atonement had to be made for us which did not occur on earth. Jesus had to ascend to the heavenly tabernacle to complete atonement for us. Leviticus showing the Old Covenant priesthood shows this as well. The sign that it was accepted was the removal of the temple since Christ now dwells with His people.....all who have accepted Him as Lord.

It’s hard to imagine that Christ spoke of the literal destruction of the temple as being “near” or “at hand” when the literal destruction of the temple was about 40 years away. Will the usage of this word throughout Scripture permit something to be "near" or "at hand" and still be almost 40 years away?

Well, Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened" and He was correct. A biblical generation was 40 years and it did occur until 40 years later. The "near" and "soon" statements given to John in Revelation was during the reign of Nero about 4-6 years before the destruction of the temple making those statements correct as well.

I would agree that the abolishment of the Old Covenant through the Law was “near” or “at hand“, and that the New Covenant in Christ ushering in the Kingdom of God was/is “near” or “at hand” but is Christ telling us the Kingdom of God is at hand/near, or is He telling us that the abolishment of the Old through the sacrificial/ceremonial law is at hand/near? Or could He perhaps be telling us both?

I believe both.

I believe Scripture shows us it is the spiritual destruction of the temple, and Christ ushering in the Kingdom age that Christ spoke of as being “near” or “at hand.” Remember the Olivet discourse was spoken to the disciples of Christ. Christ was not speaking to the Jewish Nation. Some of the things Christ told His disciples had to do with the wrath of God coming against Jerusalem and the Temple, but this was to warn His disciples not to remain in the city when they saw the Judgment coming.

I agree

You say the beast, great tribulation, and judgment of Babylon (Israel) all occurred in A.D. 70. How do you explain Rev 12?

Here we find the man child (Jesus Christ) being delivered through the Jewish Nation depicted as a woman having on her head a crown of twelve stars. As soon as Christ is born we see a great red dragon ready to devour Christ as soon as the woman delivers Him. But Christ is caught up to the throne of God, and the woman flees into the wilderness where she is nourished by God. This is the birth of the universal church in time through the Jewish Nation (to the Jew first, then the Gentile (Ro 1:16; 2:9,10). As soon as the woman flees into the wilderness we hear of a war in heaven between Michael (Christ) and the dragon. Christ prevails and the dragon, that old serpent called the Devil, and Satan is cast out unto the earth. Then in vs. 10 we read, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” Once the dragon is cast out he immediately persecutes the woman (Church) in the wilderness, but she is helped, “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

According to this passage the beast bringing the woman (universal church) into great tribulation happens at the beginning of the Kingdom age, not some 40 years later. Great tribulation may have begun with the first century Jewish disciples of Christ, but great tribulation has never been limited to only the first century elect of God. Scripture shows us that spiritual Judgment came against Israel at the cross and resurrection of Christ, and it also shows us that literal Judgment would come (AD 70) just as Christ prophesied it would. That the Jews did not understand that Christ had ushered in the Kingdom age, and had done away with the OT sacrificial system does not negate the fact that He did exactly that.

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Mr 15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
Mr 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Please show your question a little more detailed. Which scripture do you believe conflicts with the Beast, Tribulation etc. happening in 70 A.D.? Revelation 12 is just showing a history of events until the Kingdom.

RogerW

Apr 5th 2007, 08:50 PM

Romulus,

You said: <<<“We now had access to heaven itself and in reality the holy of holies......with God our Father. Since the Kingdom was within us and will spread through the entire world the Kingdom had come.....the sign was the destruction of the temple that the atonement was accomplished. Ultimately the cross began our redemption and it was proven with the earthly tabernacle (temple) being removed and man being the dwelling of God.”>>>

Jesus’ ascension to heaven was not to make atonement for us. It was His literal death on the cross that makes atonement for the elect. Christ died for the ungodly, that His elect may be justified by His blood, and saved from wrath. We become reconciled to God by the DEATH of His Son, by whom we have NOW received the atonement.

Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Ro 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Ro 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Ro 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Ro 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

The resurrection proves that death could not hold Him. The one who had power over death and the grave became the defeated foe because the grave could not hold our Lord. This gives the elect assurance that since Christ defeated death, we too through Him will also have victory of death and Satan.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Php 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Php 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

<<<“The removal of the temple in Jerusalem was simply the last sign of a Covenant that was confirmed through the atonement in heaven.”>>>

I don’t follow your reasoning here. What does the literal temple in Jerusalem have to do with atonement of the elect? Where do you find a covenant confirmed through atonement in heaven? The atonement for the elect was on earth at the cross. It was the Covenant of Redemption that was made in heaven between the triune Godhead which Christ promised, through death on the cross would make atonement (give His life for the lives of the elect) for all who would be saved. This eternal Covenant has nothing to do with the literal temple in Jerusalem, except that it pointed to the True Temple, Christ. The literal destruction of the temple was never a sign of a Covenant of atonement in heaven. The literal temple was simply that which pointed to the True Temple, which is Christ, and now all who are in Christ have become the Temple of God. It is the destruction of the body of Christ on the cross which confirmed the Covenant of Redemption made in heaven before the world began.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Joh 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

<<<“.....the sign was the destruction of the temple that the atonement was accomplished. Ultimately the cross began our redemption and it was proven with the earthly tabernacle (temple) being removed and man being the dwelling of God.”>>>

The sign was the destruction of the True Temple, which is the body of Christ, and with this, atonement was accomplished for His elect. The cross confirms our redemption because the True Temple (Christ) fulfilled the promise made through the Covenant of Redemption. Christ ushered in the Kingdom at the first advent, and His death on the cross confirmed the Covenant (Dan 9:27), while His resurrection from the death proves that Christ had defeated death and Satan.

<<<“True, but we must remember the Old Covenant priesthood with which Christ was in order of forever (melchizedek). The cross did accomplish our redemption bu Hebrews confirms that an atonement had to be made for us which did not occur on earth. Jesus had to ascend to the heavenly tabernacle to complete atonement for us. Leviticus showing the Old Covenant priesthood shows this as well. The sign that it was accepted was the removal of the temple since Christ now dwells with His people.....all who have accepted Him as Lord.”>>>

That Christ was a High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec shows that His Priesthood has nothing to do with the Temple Priesthood. The Temple Priesthood stands in stark contrast to the line of descent after the order of Melchisedec. The Temple Priesthood came from the Levitical line preceding from the lineage of Aaron. Christ, like Melchisedec is NOT of this line but from the tribe of Judah, and chosen by God. If the cross accomplished the redemption of the elect of God, where can you show that Christ had to ascend to a heavenly tabernacle to complete atonement for us? The sign that atonement had been made was the removal of the True Temple, that is Christ.

<<<“Well, Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened" and He was correct. A biblical generation was 40 years and it did occur until 40 years later. The "near" and "soon" statements given to John in Revelation was during the reign of Nero about 4-6 years before the destruction of the temple making those statements correct as well.”>>>

I don’t believe John wrote the Revelation during the reign of Nero, but rather the reign of Domitian. But even if you are correct and it is the earlier writing how does 4-6 years for destruction of the temple equate to “near” or “at hand”? Even a short span of 4-6 years does not fit the definition used consistently throughout the New Testament.

What generation is Christ referring to?

Ac 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. What generation is in view here? I believe it is the generation of the upright we find in Ps 112.

Ps 112:2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed.

Compare this generation to the generation of the unrighteous.

Pr 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Pr 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
Pr 30:13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
Pr 30:14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

What is Christ the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and first and last of?

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

There are only three times in Scripture where generation has been translated from the Greek word Genesis, which means beginning, first. Here in Mt 1:1 speaking of the Lord’s birth, and then twice in James where it is translated natural, of nature. The Greek word Genesis comes from the Greek word Genea, but Genesis defines Christ’s birth (nativity), and nature or natural generation. I believe that all who are in Christ become grafted into the nature of Christ, the natural or true.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (Mt 1:1). 1078. Genesis; nativity; figuratively, nature:--generation, nature(-ral).

Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his [natural] face in a glass:

Jas 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course [of nature]; and it is set on fire of hell.

"Unto all generations for ever and ever" (Eph 3:21) (Greek "all the generations of the age of the ages"). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here it is said that there will be glory in the church throughout all generations, world without end.

"Hid for (Greek "from the") ages and (from the) generations" (Col 1:26). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here something (a mystery) had been hidden from past generations. The mystery we now know is that salvation has come unto the elect Gentiles, the chosen, or natural generation, of which every believer becomes after the cross.

Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse [nation 1074], among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Here we find sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.

When the passage speaks specifically to the Jewish Nation the word “this” is always translated from the Greek word taute followed by generation. In the Olivet discourse the word “this” has been translated from the Greek word houtos followed by generation. This is easily verified by searching the Concordance for “this generation.” Why, if in every reference to that particular people (the Jews) “this” has been translated from taute, would a different Greek word (houtos) be used to translate “this” generation in the Olivet discourse? If the passage “this generation” is speaking specifically to those first century Jews it makes no sense to suddenly find the translation comes from a different Greek word when every other instance where “this generation” is specifically to them it has been translated from another Greek word. To say “this generation” implies those Jews living at that time in the discourse, causes confusion, and inconsistency. If Christ was speaking only to the Jewish Nation then the same Greek word which has consistently been used throughout Scripture would have been used here as well.

5026 Taute; dative case, accusative case and genitive case respectively of the feminine singular of 3778; (towards or of) this:--her, + hereof, it, that, + thereby, the (same), this (same).

3778 Houtos; from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):--he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

Lu 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of [(this) 5026 taute] generation. (speaks of a singular generation, specifically the Jewish nation)

Lu 21:32 Verily I say unto you, [(This) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Not the singular because many generations will come into the Kingdom age.

Houtos including nominative masculine plural houtoi. Nominative feminine singular haute how'-tay, and nominative feminine plural hautai how'-tahee.

Mr 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth [(this) 3778 houtos] generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto [(this) 5026 taute] generation. Christ is asking why doth this houtos (the same as the generation that will not pass away until Christ comes again). Then Christ says this taute (the same generation that reject Him, and kill Him) will be given no sign.

Mr 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that [(this) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, [(This) houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Since it makes no sense to say Christ is speaking only to the Jewish Nation, what generation Christ is speaking to? Since the Jewish Nation is the generation of vipers (Lu 3:7), we are left with the generation of Christ, or the generation of the Kingdom age. Christ, speaking to His disciples, who are Jews, is first and foremost speaking to His elect generation, which will consist of every generation throughout the Kingdom age, and telling them that this elect generation, or the elect people of God will not pass away until His literal Second Coming, or all things have been fulfilled. The Olivet discourse speaks of not only things that will literally come to pass for the Jewish Nation, but Christ is also speaking to His first century disciples whom He has hand picked to build His Kingdom through the universal church in time.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

There are two aspects of the Kingdom. The first is that Christ ushered in the Kingdom when He came preaching the Kingdom, the second is the fulfillment of the Kingdom that comes in the fullness of time with the Second Coming. Christ clearly cast out demons by the Spirit of God, therefore the Kingdom of God had come before Christ went to the cross. But it had not come in its fullness, and it would not become fully understood until Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, when it would be confirmed. Once the Kingdom is complete then Christ will come again, signifying the end of time. It seems there is some confusion with verses that speak of the coming of the Kingdom, and verses that speak of His Second Coming in power and glory.

Mt 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

<<<“Please show your question a little more detailed. Which scripture do you believe conflicts with the Beast, Tribulation etc. happening in 70 A.D.? Revelation 12 is just showing a history of events until the Kingdom.”>>>

Revelation 12 shows us that the beast and great tribulation began persecution against Christ and His Church with the first coming of Christ and the birth of the universal church in time. You seem to be saying that these things do not occur until almost 40 years after Christ ushered in the Kingdom of God and confirmed His Covenant at the cross, or A.D. 70. Revelation 12 is very clearly showing us the birth of Christ through the Jews, and the birth of the NT church, as well as Satan being cast from heaven and IMMEDIATELY persecuting the church in the world. The Kingdom came when Christ ushered it in when He began to preach, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It is the fact that Christ had already come in His Kingdom that Satan tries so hard to prevent Christ’s Kingdom from being completed. Since the universal church has been commissioned to preach the Kingdom of God, making disciples of all nations, Satan immediately begins his work trying to overcome Christ and His elect people, the Church.

RW

Romulus

Apr 9th 2007, 04:07 PM

Romulus,

You said: <<<“We now had access to heaven itself and in reality the holy of holies......with God our Father. Since the Kingdom was within us and will spread through the entire world the Kingdom had come.....the sign was the destruction of the temple that the atonement was accomplished. Ultimately the cross began our redemption and it was proven with the earthly tabernacle (temple) being removed and man being the dwelling of God.”>>>

Jesus’ ascension to heaven was not to make atonement for us. It was His literal death on the cross that makes atonement for the elect. Christ died for the ungodly, that His elect may be justified by His blood, and saved from wrath. We become reconciled to God by the DEATH of His Son, by whom we have NOW received the atonement.

Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Ro 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Ro 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Ro 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Ro 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

The resurrection proves that death could not hold Him. The one who had power over death and the grave became the defeated foe because the grave could not hold our Lord. This gives the elect assurance that since Christ defeated death, we too through Him will also have victory of death and Satan.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Php 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Php 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

Great scripture, but then how do you interpret:

Hebrews 9

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

I believe this is a picture of the atonement for us in heaven itself. What do you think?

<<<“The removal of the temple in Jerusalem was simply the last sign of a Covenant that was confirmed through the atonement in heaven.”>>>

I don’t follow your reasoning here. What does the literal temple in Jerusalem have to do with atonement of the elect? Where do you find a covenant confirmed through atonement in heaven? The atonement for the elect was on earth at the cross. It was the Covenant of Redemption that was made in heaven between the triune Godhead which Christ promised, through death on the cross would make atonement (give His life for the lives of the elect) for all who would be saved. This eternal Covenant has nothing to do with the literal temple in Jerusalem, except that it pointed to the True Temple, Christ. The literal destruction of the temple was never a sign of a Covenant of atonement in heaven. The literal temple was simply that which pointed to the True Temple, which is Christ, and now all who are in Christ have become the Temple of God. It is the destruction of the body of Christ on the cross which confirmed the Covenant of Redemption made in heaven before the world began.

Well I do agree that atonement was made and accepted before the destruction of the temple, but I believe that the sign that it had been accepted was the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant which goes along with the scripture we saw earlier......

Hebrews 9

8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.

That Christ was a High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec shows that His Priesthood has nothing to do with the Temple Priesthood. The Temple Priesthood stands in stark contrast to the line of descent after the order of Melchisedec. The Temple Priesthood came from the Levitical line preceding from the lineage of Aaron. Christ, like Melchisedec is NOT of this line but from the tribe of Judah, and chosen by God. If the cross accomplished the redemption of the elect of God, where can you show that Christ had to ascend to a heavenly tabernacle to complete atonement for us? The sign that atonement had been made was the removal of the True Temple, that is Christ.

Hebrews 9:24 as I quoted above.

I don’t believe John wrote the Revelation during the reign of Nero, but rather the reign of Domitian. But even if you are correct and it is the earlier writing how does 4-6 years for destruction of the temple equate to “near” or “at hand”? Even a short span of 4-6 years does not fit the definition used consistently throughout the New Testament.

The prophecy does not just look at the fulfillment as near and at hand but the beginning of it. That was soon......probably anywhere from a few months to 1-2 years when the Neronic persecution began in 64 A.D. and lasted for 42 months until Nero's death. The Jewish War began at this time as well and that lasted for 3 1/2 years as well. Even so, 4-6 years is soon. Much sooner then 2000+ years and counting. We should look at the beginning of the fulfillment, not just the fulfillment since Revelation describes all that would happen.

What generation is Christ referring to?

Ac 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. What generation is in view here? I believe it is the generation of the upright we find in Ps 112.

Ps 112:2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed.

Compare this generation to the generation of the unrighteous.

Pr 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Pr 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
Pr 30:13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
Pr 30:14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

What is Christ the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and first and last of?

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

No argument here.

There are only three times in Scripture where generation has been translated from the Greek word Genesis, which means beginning, first. Here in Mt 1:1 speaking of the Lord’s birth, and then twice in James where it is translated natural, of nature. The Greek word Genesis comes from the Greek word Genea, but Genesis defines Christ’s birth (nativity), and nature or natural generation. I believe that all who are in Christ become grafted into the nature of Christ, the natural or true.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (Mt 1:1). 1078. Genesis; nativity; figuratively, nature:--generation, nature(-ral).

Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his [natural] face in a glass:

Jas 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course [of nature]; and it is set on fire of hell.

"Unto all generations for ever and ever" (Eph 3:21) (Greek "all the generations of the age of the ages"). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here it is said that there will be glory in the church throughout all generations, world without end.

"Hid for (Greek "from the") ages and (from the) generations" (Col 1:26). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here something (a mystery) had been hidden from past generations. The mystery we now know is that salvation has come unto the elect Gentiles, the chosen, or natural generation, of which every believer becomes after the cross.

Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse [nation 1074], among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Here we find sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.

When the passage speaks specifically to the Jewish Nation the word “this” is always translated from the Greek word taute followed by generation. In the Olivet discourse the word “this” has been translated from the Greek word houtos followed by generation. This is easily verified by searching the Concordance for “this generation.” Why, if in every reference to that particular people (the Jews) “this” has been translated from taute, would a different Greek word (houtos) be used to translate “this” generation in the Olivet discourse? If the passage “this generation” is speaking specifically to those first century Jews it makes no sense to suddenly find the translation comes from a different Greek word when every other instance where “this generation” is specifically to them it has been translated from another Greek word. To say “this generation” implies those Jews living at that time in the discourse, causes confusion, and inconsistency. If Christ was speaking only to the Jewish Nation then the same Greek word which has consistently been used throughout Scripture would have been used here as well.

5026 Taute; dative case, accusative case and genitive case respectively of the feminine singular of 3778; (towards or of) this:--her, + hereof, it, that, + thereby, the (same), this (same).

3778 Houtos; from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):--he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

Lu 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of [(this) 5026 taute] generation. (speaks of a singular generation, specifically the Jewish nation)

Lu 21:32 Verily I say unto you, [(This) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Not the singular because many generations will come into the Kingdom age.

Houtos including nominative masculine plural houtoi. Nominative feminine singular haute how'-tay, and nominative feminine plural hautai how'-tahee.

Mr 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth [(this) 3778 houtos] generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto [(this) 5026 taute] generation. Christ is asking why doth this houtos (the same as the generation that will not pass away until Christ comes again). Then Christ says this taute (the same generation that reject Him, and kill Him) will be given no sign.

Mr 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that [(this) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, [(This) houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Since it makes no sense to say Christ is speaking only to the Jewish Nation, what generation Christ is speaking to? Since the Jewish Nation is the generation of vipers (Lu 3:7), we are left with the generation of Christ, or the generation of the Kingdom age. Christ, speaking to His disciples, who are Jews, is first and foremost speaking to His elect generation, which will consist of every generation throughout the Kingdom age, and telling them that this elect generation, or the elect people of God will not pass away until His literal Second Coming, or all things have been fulfilled. The Olivet discourse speaks of not only things that will literally come to pass for the Jewish Nation, but Christ is also speaking to His first century disciples whom He has hand picked to build His Kingdom through the universal church in time.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

There are two aspects of the Kingdom. The first is that Christ ushered in the Kingdom when He came preaching the Kingdom, the second is the fulfillment of the Kingdom that comes in the fullness of time with the Second Coming. Christ clearly cast out demons by the Spirit of God, therefore the Kingdom of God had come before Christ went to the cross. But it had not come in its fullness, and it would not become fully understood until Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, when it would be confirmed. Once the Kingdom is complete then Christ will come again, signifying the end of time. It seems there is some confusion with verses that speak of the coming of the Kingdom, and verses that speak of His Second Coming in power and glory.

Mt 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

I must disagree, as far as the word usage of "houtos" Strongs does state "this" or "these" but these words still note a present statement and not one centuries later.

Example

1) This hat is brand new.
2) These hats are brand new

Both state a present reality and not a future one. Even so Thayers Lexicon notes in conjunction the word houtos means This one, visibly present here. Added to that we have Genea. This solidifies a 1st century people. Even so if a future generation was being referenced why not use the word "that" or Ekeinos which references something future. Jesus didn't.

<<<“Please show your question a little more detailed. Which scripture do you believe conflicts with the Beast, Tribulation etc. happening in 70 A.D.? Revelation 12 is just showing a history of events until the Kingdom.”>>>

Revelation 12 shows us that the beast and great tribulation began persecution against Christ and His Church with the first coming of Christ and the birth of the universal church in time. You seem to be saying that these things do not occur until almost 40 years after Christ ushered in the Kingdom of God and confirmed His Covenant at the cross, or A.D. 70. Revelation 12 is very clearly showing us the birth of Christ through the Jews, and the birth of the NT church, as well as Satan being cast from heaven and IMMEDIATELY persecuting the church in the world. The Kingdom came when Christ ushered it in when He began to preach, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It is the fact that Christ had already come in His Kingdom that Satan tries so hard to prevent Christ’s Kingdom from being completed. Since the universal church has been commissioned to preach the Kingdom of God, making disciples of all nations, Satan immediately begins his work trying to overcome Christ and His elect people, the Church.

RW

I am not saying that this began in A.D. 70. This had a long time span as you have said and mentiones the birth of the Church.

RogerW

Apr 9th 2007, 08:19 PM

<<<“I believe this is a picture of the atonement for us in heaven itself. What do you think?”>>>

Atonement for the elect was accomplished at the cross. Verse 28 tells us that Christ entered into heaven after He offered Himself to bear our sins.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Christ’ resurrection, and ascension into heaven was not to make atonement, but to make intercession for us, through the Holy Spirit He sent us. The atonement was accomplished at the cross.

Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Christ ascended into heaven to show that He is Head of His Church, and that the Father rules all things through Him. Peace with God was made through the blood of His cross, whereby He reconciled all things unto Himself. He did not enter into heaven to make atonement for His elect, He entered into heaven because He had made atonement for His elect through the cross.

Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

<<<“Well I do agree that atonement was made and accepted before the destruction of the temple, but I believe that the sign that it had been accepted was the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant which goes along with the scripture we saw earlier...…”>>>

A sign to whom? Accepted by whom? The destruction of the literal temple is fulfillment of the promise God had made to bring the temple and Jerusalem to total ruin. There is no Spiritual fulfillment in the literal destruction. When we look for Spiritual fulfillment we look to the cross. The wrath of God came against the Jewish Nation in AD 70, it was a literal destruction whereby God used the Roman Army to carry out the wrath He had promised would finally come against His favored Nation. Christ did not return in Glory and Judgment in AD 70, God simply came, as He promised He would, and poured out His great wrath against a people who thought that God would never utterly cast them away.

<<<“The prophecy does not just look at the fulfillment as near and at hand but the beginning of it. That was soon......probably anywhere from a few months to 1-2 years when the Neronic persecution began in 64 A.D. and lasted for 42 months until Nero's death. The Jewish War began at this time as well and that lasted for 3 1/2 years as well. Even so, 4-6 years is soon. Much sooner then 2000+ years and counting. We should look at the beginning of the fulfillment, not just the fulfillment since Revelation describes all that would happen.”>>>

Have you ever considered that Christ was not speaking of the beginning of fulfillment being near or at hand? But, that He was speaking of the Kingdom, corporately, or universally, through the universal church in time being near or at hand? One to two years, 42 months, 3 ½ years, not 4 to 6 years, most definitely not 2000 plus years is “near” or “at hand” according to how Scripture defines being “near” or “at hand.” Again, and again when we read Christ telling us of His nearness or being at hand, He is referring to the Kingdom of God which He ushered in at the first advent, and confirmed or strengthened at the cross. The nearness of Christ in His Kingdom is found in the proclamation of the Gospel of salvation, the Word of Truth. For it is through faith that one enters the Kingdom of God, and “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

<<<“I must disagree, as far as the word usage of "houtos" Strongs does state "this" or "these" but these words still note a present statement and not one centuries later.
Example
1) This hat is brand new.
2) These hats are brand new
Both state a present reality and not a future one. Even so Thayers Lexicon notes in conjunction the word houtos means This one, visibly present here. Added to that we have Genea. This solidifies a 1st century people. Even so if a future generation was being referenced why not use the word "that" or Ekeinos which references something future. Jesus didn't.”>>>

“This” generation (the elect generation) WAS visible. The elect generation had been established with Christ. The generation was not yet complete, and will not be until the last chosen, elect person in “this” generation becomes saved, but the chosen generation in Christ had come. That is why Peter says, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Surely you don’t believe that this chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, and peculiar people is limited to only those elect living in that generation? That would limit the elect to that one generation, what about the multitudes that come into “this generation” through the Gospel of Christ? Can you see how it is used to define a present reality, but also future? Christ said “this generation” rather then “that” generation because “this” generation (the elect generation through Him) was already visible, though, as I have said, not yet complete.

RW

Saved7

Apr 9th 2007, 11:37 PM

No I think you misunderstand...John doesn't write it as if Jesus had returned already...that, of course is still future. From what I understand the man who dated Revelation, Irenaeus, dated the book of Revelation and since then everyone has just followed what he said:

Oh, I didn't misunderstand, I am referring not to the book of Rev itself, but to those who believe that Christ has returned already. I'm referring to preterist or amills, which of those holds to the belief that Christ has already returned I am unsure. But they know.

On a seperate note, how can one (not speaking to anyone in particular here) believe that the resurrection took place and it is just a "spiritual" resurrection? If we consider that Jesus made a point of showing that He was risen in the flesh, wouldn't that be a prime example of what the resurrection will be? Not to mention there are several books in the NT that address this same false teaching, that the resurrection won't be physical because they didn't believe that the resurrection of Christ was physical. But in one of Johns' writings he addresses this by saying things like, "that which we have seen, and heard and TOUCHED." Isn't proof enough that since Jesus' resurrection was a real physical resurrection, then so too will ours be? Why must we deny what we can't understand, or find difficult to beleive?
And what happened to beating our swords into plow shares? Certainly don't think that there are swords and plow shares that we need to have in heaven. The angels might, but we aren't the angels now are we? This is the description of when Christ is supposed to have His day reigning on earth?
Just some stuff that I beleive that preterists or amills or partial preterists should consider. Not too sure on ya'll's beliefs, but from what I gather, some of you already think all of this has happened.

RogerW

Apr 10th 2007, 02:32 AM

Oh, I didn't misunderstand, I am referring not to the book of Rev itself, but to those who believe that Christ has returned already. I'm referring to preterist or amills, which of those holds to the belief that Christ has already returned I am unsure. But they know.

On a seperate note, how can one (not speaking to anyone in particular here) believe that the resurrection took place and it is just a "spiritual" resurrection? If we consider that Jesus made a point of showing that He was risen in the flesh, wouldn't that be a prime example of what the resurrection will be? Not to mention there are several books in the NT that address this same false teaching, that the resurrection won't be physical because they didn't believe that the resurrection of Christ was physical. But in one of Johns' writings he addresses this by saying things like, "that which we have seen, and heard and TOUCHED." Isn't proof enough that since Jesus' resurrection was a real physical resurrection, then so too will ours be? Why must we deny what we can't understand, or find difficult to beleive?
And what happened to beating our swords into plow shares? Certainly don't think that there are swords and plow shares that we need to have in heaven. The angels might, but we aren't the angels now are we? This is the description of when Christ is supposed to have His day reigning on earth?
Just some stuff that I beleive that preterists or amills or partial preterists should consider. Not too sure on ya'll's beliefs, but from what I gather, some of you already think all of this has happened.

I, as amil, with the understanding that in the Olivet discourse Christ prophesied some things that would happen to the Jewish Nation as a whole, do not believe that Christ returned spiritually in AD 70. Some would say that makes me partial preterist. But if I understand the partial preterist position, they, like the full preterist believe that AD 70 was a time for much Spiritual fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy. I don’t view AD 70 as having fulfilled Spiritually those things pertaining to the Second Coming of Christ or those things that were Spiritually fulfilled at the cross.

This has been my reason for posting on this topic. The preterist, full or partial rely heavily upon the opinion that the book of Rev was written prior to AD 70 else their doctrine is not biblically supported. There most definitely is a Spiritual resurrection of believers in Scripture, however the resurrection of Christ was NOT Spiritual, but literal, and at the end of time every believer will also be literally, bodily resurrected as Christ was. As you have said it is a false doctrine that says the final resurrection is spiritual.

Although you make a valid point regarding swords and plow shares, would you also have us believe that beating our swords into plowshares points to a time when Christ will reign on this sin cursed earth for one thousand years?

Although I do not agree with a doctrine that views all end time prophecy as having been spiritually fulfilled already, or will be only spiritually fulfilled in the future, I also cannot agree with a doctrine that supposes Christ literally reigning “on” this sinful earth in time. No doubt in my mind He is presently reigning in heaven. But, so as not to detract from the op I go back to the original argument that the burden is on the preterist to prove without any doubt that Revelation was written before AD 70. It is also their burden to show how “at hand” or “near” is likened to anytime but an immediate time. Too, they must show how “this generation” does NOT refer to the generation of the elect in Christ. As for their theory of what clouds symbolize in Scripture they would have to show that Christ coming in clouds consistently points to the wrath of God coming in judgment spiritually. Which is not accommodated throughout Scripture. Sometimes God coming in clouds, or God using the symbolism of clouds shows God’s favor. Consider the pillar of cloud by day as God led the Nation in the wilderness, or the rainbow in the clouds symbolizing God’s covenant with man.

The burden of proof is on the preterist, and the only explanation they have so far come up with is everything is spiritual. I find no valid Biblical reason for doubting the literal fulfillment of end time prophecy of Christ, and when you understand there is both literal fulfillment for the Jewish Nation in AD 70, as well as spiritual fulfillment at the cross for the elect generation, then it matters not whether the book of Revelation was written in AD 70 or sometime around AD 95, even though in my personal opinion I lean toward the later date.

RW

Romulus

Apr 10th 2007, 03:36 PM

“I believe this is a picture of the atonement for us in heaven itself. What do you think?”>>>

Atonement for the elect was accomplished at the cross. Verse 28 tells us that Christ entered into heaven after He offered Himself to bear our sins.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Christ’ resurrection, and ascension into heaven was not to make atonement, but to make intercession for us, through the Holy Spirit He sent us. The atonement was accomplished at the cross.

Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Christ ascended into heaven to show that He is Head of His Church, and that the Father rules all things through Him. Peace with God was made through the blood of His cross, whereby He reconciled all things unto Himself. He did not enter into heaven to make atonement for His elect, He entered into heaven because He had made atonement for His elect through the cross.

Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

All the scriptures you quoted necessary and of course true but Hebrews is specific that atonement had to be made in heaven.......

Hebrews 9

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices,

Referencing Old Covenant

but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

New Covenant

24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Entering the sanctuary by Jesus was the final priesthood. The Old Covenant stipulations were that the priest had to enter the sanctuary for the intercession yes, but more specifically for atonement through the shed blood of the sacrificial lamb. Christ is fulfilling the Old Covenant by the sacrifice of himself in the heavenly sanctuary.

<<<“Well I do agree that atonement was made and accepted before the destruction of the temple, but I believe that the sign that it had been accepted was the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant which goes along with the scripture we saw earlier...…”>>>

A sign to whom? Accepted by whom? The destruction of the literal temple is fulfillment of the promise God had made to bring the temple and Jerusalem to total ruin. There is no Spiritual fulfillment in the literal destruction. When we look for Spiritual fulfillment we look to the cross. The wrath of God came against the Jewish Nation in AD 70, it was a literal destruction whereby God used the Roman Army to carry out the wrath He had promised would finally come against His favored Nation. Christ did not return in Glory and Judgment in AD 70, God simply came, as He promised He would, and poured out His great wrath against a people who thought that God would never utterly cast them away.

Again, I did not say that the fulfillment came at the destruction but only the sign that it was fulfilled. The sign was for all to see that Jesus was enthroned in His kingdom. I believe He did return in Judgment on Israel as Israel witnessed that Jesus was now King and that the New Covenant age had begun. The destruction of the temple was proof that it was no longer valid. The pharisees did indeed witness Jesus coming in His Kingdom......

Matthew 26

63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&verse=63&end_verse=65&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-24115a)] the Son of God."
64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

<<<“The prophecy does not just look at the fulfillment as near and at hand but the beginning of it. That was soon......probably anywhere from a few months to 1-2 years when the Neronic persecution began in 64 A.D. and lasted for 42 months until Nero's death. The Jewish War began at this time as well and that lasted for 3 1/2 years as well. Even so, 4-6 years is soon. Much sooner then 2000+ years and counting. We should look at the beginning of the fulfillment, not just the fulfillment since Revelation describes all that would happen.”>>>

Have you ever considered that Christ was not speaking of the beginning of fulfillment being near or at hand? But, that He was speaking of the Kingdom, corporately, or universally, through the universal church in time being near or at hand? One to two years, 42 months, 3 ½ years, not 4 to 6 years, most definitely not 2000 plus years is “near” or “at hand” according to how Scripture defines being “near” or “at hand.” Again, and again when we read Christ telling us of His nearness or being at hand, He is referring to the Kingdom of God which He ushered in at the first advent, and confirmed or strengthened at the cross. The nearness of Christ in His Kingdom is found in the proclamation of the Gospel of salvation, the Word of Truth. For it is through faith that one enters the Kingdom of God, and “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

If the Kingdom that was about to be inaugarated it was "near" and "at hand" so we do agree on that but the "end of the age" or "the last days" did not start then and extend further. It occurred back then along with the Great Tribulation, Beast and etc. They went hand in hand.

“This” generation (the elect generation) WAS visible. The elect generation had been established with Christ. The generation was not yet complete, and will not be until the last chosen, elect person in “this” generation becomes saved, but the chosen generation in Christ had come.

The generation was the judged generation of Israel. Including all future elect extends this prophecy 2000+ years and counting and therefore would not have been healing to a persecuted Church. I believe it would be ignoring the audience that heard it because it references an audience at the end. It destroys the meaning of generation by making it race......It is the generation THEN living. We cannot ignore the meaning of "this generation" and the audience who heard it. Jesus was specific on who would witness the coming judgment.

"This generation" with what is presented by Strong and Thayer both show an audience THEN living. It was for them and not the 21st century who would witness the events. Shall we read Matthew 23?

33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

The generation that would not pass away was the one guilty of the blood of the saints. Throwing this or anything further into the future makes an Israel of the 21st Century guilty. They are not the audience.

That is why Peter says, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Surely you don’t believe that this chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, and peculiar people is limited to only those elect living in that generation? That would limit the elect to that one generation, what about the multitudes that come into “this generation” through the Gospel of Christ?

Of course not, but again, who is the audience? The audience were the believers of pre 70 A.D. not the 21st century. That chosen generation did pass away.......it didn't limit salvation to only them but the scripture is to the 1st century. If this is the usage we must use everywhere then a specific time can never be referenced by scripture.

Can you see how it is used to define a present reality, but also future? Christ said “this generation” rather then “that” generation because “this” generation (the elect generation through Him) was already visible, though, as I have said, not yet complete.

RW

The generation referenced in the scripture does not extend thousands of years later. Does it exclude us?.......NO but the audience was the generation then living. We can't change the meaning of the word.

Romulus

Apr 10th 2007, 03:58 PM

I, as amil, with the understanding that in the Olivet discourse Christ prophesied some things that would happen to the Jewish Nation as a whole, do not believe that Christ returned spiritually in AD 70. Some would say that makes me partial preterist. But if I understand the partial preterist position, they, like the full preterist believe that AD 70 was a time for much Spiritual fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy. I don’t view AD 70 as having fulfilled Spiritually those things pertaining to the Second Coming of Christ or those things that were Spiritually fulfilled at the cross.

You are entitled to disagree, but remember in defense of our Partial-Preterist brothers and sisters they do NOT believe the second coming happened in 70 A.D. Only Full Preterist's such as myself do (no debate).

This has been my reason for posting on this topic. The preterist, full or partial rely heavily upon the opinion that the book of Rev was written prior to AD 70 else their doctrine is not biblically supported. There most definitely is a Spiritual resurrection of believers in Scripture, however the resurrection of Christ was NOT Spiritual, but literal, and at the end of time every believer will also be literally, bodily resurrected as Christ was. As you have said it is a false doctrine that says the final resurrection is spiritual.

To help you understand the preterist position a little more, ALL preterists whether Full or Partial do not believe that Jesus rose only spiritually. That would be questioning the incarnation which Preterists do not do. We will defend that position as other believers. Jesus rose again physically and spiritually.

RogerW

Apr 10th 2007, 09:42 PM

<<<“Entering the sanctuary by Jesus was the final priesthood. The Old Covenant stipulations were that the priest had to enter the sanctuary for the intercession yes, but more specifically for atonement through the shed blood of the sacrificial lamb. Christ is fulfilling the Old Covenant by the sacrifice of himself in the heavenly Sanctuary.”>>>

Christ is the True Temple. Romulus, I suspect that I will not be able to convince you that Christ’s atoning work was finished at the cross, but perhaps the words of Christ will convince you that there was no atoning work to be finished in heaven after His finished work on the cross. The work of atonement Christ was given of the Father was accomplished at the cross. That’s why Christ could pray to the Father saying, “I have finished the work thou gavest me to do.” Christ could not say He had finished the work if there was still atoning work to be finished in heaven.

Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Jesus, as He hang dying on the cross, knowing all things were now accomplished (His work of atonement for the elect), says, “it is finished.” This was the work given Him in the Covenant of Redemption from the foundation of the world. In essence the work was finished before time began, but Christ must fulfill the obligations of the Covenant in time, and literally atone (go to the cross) for the sins of the elect.

Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Joh 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

<<<“Again, I did not say that the fulfillment came at the destruction but only the sign that it was fulfilled. The sign was for all to see that Jesus was enthroned in His kingdom. I believe He did return in Judgment on Israel as Israel witnessed that Jesus was now King and that the New Covenant age had begun. The destruction of the temple was proof that it was no longer valid. The pharisees did indeed witness Jesus coming in His Kingdom...…”>>>

How can unbelievers, Pharisee’s see that Jesus is enthroned in His Kingdom of Heaven through the destruction of the Temple? The destruction of the Temple was proof that the Old Covenant had been done away. This is what was not made manifest as long as the first tabernacle still stood. The OT Jew, as long as the first stood continued to make sacrificial offerings, not realizing that Christ had fulfilled the Old Covenant Law through the sacrifice of Himself.

Mt 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 verse in Matthew says, “Hereafter shall ye see”. The word “hereafter” is defined as now, this moment, now at this time, at this very time, this moment. Christ is speaking to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled, and telling them “now at this time” they will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. How can this “hereafter” be almost 40 years away, or AD 70? That destroys the immediacy of “hereafter.”

Hereafter
737 arti {ar'-tee}
1) just now, this moment
2) now at this time, at this very time, this moment
575 apo {apo'}
1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time
2) of origin
a) of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
b) of origin of a cause

<<<“If the Kingdom that was about to be inaugarated it was "near" and "at hand" so we do agree on that but the "end of the age" or "the last days" did not start then and extend further. It occurred back then along with the Great Tribulation, Beast and etc. They went hand in hand.”>>>

There are verses that tell us the “last days” began with Christ ushering in the Kingdom from the cross, or Pentecost. The “last days” covers the whole Kingdom era. It is during this Kingdom era that the beast is cast out of heaven to persecute the church as she builds the Kingdom through the Gospel of salvation. This is a time of great tribulation against the church as Satan is permitted to try to keep the Kingdom from being completed.

Ac 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The building of the Kingdom of God through the universal church in time will continue until the fullness of time. When all of the elect of God have come into the Kingdom it will mark the end of the era for building the Kingdom because the Kingdom of God/heaven will be complete. This is when Christ will appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

<<<“The generation was the judged generation of Israel. Including all future elect extends this prophecy 2000+ years and counting and therefore would not have been healing to a persecuted Church. I believe it would be ignoring the audience that heard it because it references an audience at the end. It destroys the meaning of generation by making it race......It is the generation THEN living. We cannot ignore the meaning of "this generation" and the audience who heard it. Jesus was specific on who would witness the coming judgment.
"This generation" with what is presented by Strong and Thayer both show an audience THEN living. It was for them and not the 21st century who would witness the events. Shall we read Matthew 23?
33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
The generation that would not pass away was the one guilty of the blood of the saints. Throwing this or anything further into the future makes an Israel of the 21st Century guilty. They are not the audience.”>>>

There are passages of Scripture where Christ is addressing the Jews as a Nation, and there are passages where Christ addresses His elect people from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue. Yes, the generation that was judged, to whom the wrath of God was poured out through the Roman Army in AD 70 was Israel, or the Jewish Nation. “This generation” living then is the audience Christ spoke of as being left desolate, (lonesome, a waste, wilderness; Mt. 23:38). How could “this generation” of vipers be extended 2000 plus years into the future when Christ specifically promised they would be made desolate? They were indeed made desolate, and cease to exist today as God’s favored people (generation). These most assuredly witnessed the wrath of God coming upon them through Titus and the Roman Army. This generation did witness the cross, as well as witness the wrath of God in AD 70. But “this generation” of vipers will not witness the Second Coming of Christ until He comes again in the fullness of time, or at the end of the Kingdom era.

Mt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

What about “this generation” Christ spoke to from the Mount of Olives? Should we also view His chosen disciples as snakes, brood of vipers, responsible for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth? Just because the original disciples were mostly Jews does that make them also guilty before God along with that generation of Scribes and Pharisee’s? Was Christ telling the elect generation that their house would be left unto them desolate?

<<<“Of course not, but again, who is the audience? The audience were the believers of pre 70 A.D. not the 21st century. That chosen generation did pass away.......it didn't limit salvation to only them but the scripture is to the 1st century. If this is the usage we must use everywhere then a specific time can never be referenced by scripture.”>>>

You are still looking at the chosen, elect generation in Christ through a limited scope. The chosen generation Peter spoke of began with the first century disciples, and yes these physically died. If the Scripture is only to the first century then why does Christ say of the Olivet discourse, “whoso readeth, let him understand”? And to His church, “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” ? How can the audience (chosen generation) be believers pre AD 70, and not include elect in every age? Limiting the Scripture to only the first century, and then saying the Scripture is also for us causes confusion. It seems you see the problem with limiting the Scripture to a single audience, so you say it didn’t limit salvation. But you offer no proof that Peter’s chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, peculiar people is limited to only that generation except to say they passed away. How does their passing away limit the chosen generation to only them?

Of course we can reference specific writings to specific audiences at specific times. For instance we know that when Christ addressed the Scribes and Pharisee’s He was addressing a specific people in a specific time because the Scribes and Pharisee’s no longer exist today. The context tells us what time, and shows us the target audience.

<<<“The generation referenced in the scripture does not extend thousands of years later. Does it exclude us?.......NO but the audience was the generation then living. We can't change the meaning of the word.”>>>

It seems you are saying the chosen generation does not exclude the elect years later, but you also insist the audience was the generation then living. If the audience was that generation living then, who are the elect coming into the Kingdom years later? Where do you find this audience (chosen generation) as the only elect audience Christ was speaking to? Either the audience is broad, and includes all the elect or the audience is narrow, and includes only a specific people living in a specific time. But how can you limit the elect audience to a specific time in redemptive history? I believe I have shown how Christ is addressing both a generation He calls brood of vipers, as well as a chosen generation elect in Him, and it does not change the meaning of the word.

RW