Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

[arc111]

I think it could, remember that the interpretation of Rev 20 is the focus of the amill/premill debate

But regarding the 'preterist' view, the 70 AD jewish war is a key. The form of amillennialism that I am familiar with stands firmly upon preterism (mostly partial, but some full, or consistent preterists). I am curious about other forms of the amil position, particularly those which do not rely upon preterism at all for support.

If preterism depends upon the 70 AD Jewish war, then it is also true that our knowledge of the 70 AD war depends upon the writings of one Flavius Josephus.

Daniel Whitby is an example of the "stock" placed upon the writings of Jospehus by those who view A.D.70 as of prophetic significance. A "footnote" in Whiston's translation of Josephus, states: "Dr. Whitby well observes, no small part of the evidence for the truth of the Christian religion does depend upon the 'completions' of the prophecies, and it is believed 'Josephus' history' furnishes a record of 'their exact completions' " (pg. 589)

In the "Introduction" to Josephus, the writer says, "But for the variations in Josephus, he might imperceptibly have been set up as equal to writers chosen by God to describe his ways and doings.

Wikipedia says "Partial Preterism relies heavily on the account of Flavius Josephus in describing the destruction of Jerusalem as a first hand account of the recorded fulfillment of the Book of Revelation."

I belive that it is very likely that Josepus was commissioned by the Romans to create an editoral in which Rome fulfills prophecies in the book of Daniel. Josephus was a pharisee, a priest, and his writings are not inspired.

[arc111]

The problem with pre--mil is the bloody sacrifices having to be re-instituted for Isa 46-48 to be fulfilled. The Daniel countdown being stopped can be explained. This cannot. The problem with a-mill is prophecy interpretation. For instance when we say that the sign of the Lord's coming and the end of the world is the destruction of the temple we have a problem. The Lord didn't return at that time.When we say he did we have crossed over into full preterism. The Jews have continued to suffer tribulation since 70AD. Six million Jewish bodies in mass graves in just a few years last century.That body count exceeds anything that happened in 70AD.
And once again,Israel is a nation.I think it was Napoleon that said the strongest evidence he has seen for God's existence is the survival of the Jews as a race. I wonder what he would have thought had he seen them become a nation again? This fact alone casts suspicion on the a-mil/preterist position. However,the a-mills have a good understanding of the Kingdom of God and it's reign in the Spirit. The pre-mils have real problem when it comes to bloody animal sacrifices. This is something that cannot be ignored.I have a pre-mil eschatology that has been refined and worked on for years but this little necessity of animal sacrifice to complete my interpretation is a real issue for me. Always has been.Nothing can atone for sin except the Savior's own blood.Therefore I have abandoned the position. I haven't adopted the amil position though,far too many instances of forcing an interpretation of prophecy into their viewpoint. I have resolved to not understand. Therefore you may call me a fool,maybe being a fool the Lord will make me wise.Perhaps we are in the same predicament that Israel was when the Lord first came,no one really saw it going down that way either.

The reinstitution of the animal sacrifices was once a difficulty for me also. The Jews never anticipated the cross, but they should have anticipated 'the Lamb of God'. From the (almost) sacrifice by Father Abraham of his only son Isaac to the Festivals and the Levitical sacrifices, the sacrifices were always 'precursors' which should have pointed to Christ. It was not the 'cross' that pointed to Christ, and it was not the 'cross' that was significant. It was that our Lord shed His blood for us. The Roman crucifixion was merely the implement that shed His blood.

BUT IT REMAINS THAT THE BLOOD IS WHAT SAVES US. The post-church-age sacrifices will merely be 'post-cursors' or memorials of the Blood that was shed by our Lord. To the Jews, this will be very significant, otherwise they could well say "Why did we shed the blood of animals that could never save us"? The sacrifices will make sense to the Jewish people, not for salvation, but for understanding.

Hypothetically, imagine Millennial King Jesus taking a group of Jewish priests along with Him to Bethlehem to select a lamb. After insuring the purity of the lamb, King Jesus brings the priests into His palace for a few days as they observe King Jesus treating the lamb with the utmost care and love. Imagine the lamb seeking out King Jesus and learning to depend on Him. And imagine the horror of having to sacrifice that little innocent lamb because of the sins of others.

This is a picture that will always work. The Jews have not acclimated to the cross, but they will readily accept the lamb. We gentiles are quick to blame the Jews for the cross, but we are not so quick to credit them for the Lamb.

[petepet]

[QUOTE=arc111;2717608]

Are you positive that all of the Gospel writers lived to witness the 70 AD war?

Actually yes, they probably all did. But it is irrelevant. SOME did.

The other conclusion is that they were questioning Him about His return. In fact, they were questioning Him about 'the Temple stones, His return, and the 'end of the age'.

All i need to say is read Mark 13.4; Luke 21.7. They both clearly thought that the MAIN idea that was in Jesus mind was the destruction of the then existent Temple. Jesus then went on from that to refer to His second coming.

No I don't believe that the destrucion of the existing Temple was the second coming. But I do think the destruction of the Temple featured prominently in what Jesus said.

I am not so sure that the amil idea would have evolved if not for Josephus. I believe that Jesus predictions have YET to be fulfilled. I still believe that they WILL be fulfilled, every jot and tittle.

Well it really doesn't matter what you are sure of or not. The amill idea is based on what the Bible clearly teaches. Neither Jesus nor Paul nor Peter mention a millennium. They were all amillennialists. You of course can believe what you like. But beware of manipulating the word of God. Like me you will one day be called to account.

The city was surrounded, and it will be surrounded again! The 70 AD tribulation was tragic, but a greater one is coming! The Jerusalem stones were partially thrown down, but they will be utterly thrown down in the future! If there were signs in the heavens in 70 AD, there will be more significant signs in the heavens preceding His return! Nothing was fulfilled completely and finally in 70 AD. There will be another temple and another (actual) antichrist. There will be a future abomination.

You have no evidence whatsoever for your view. The BIble nowhere suggests that a third Temple will be built. And don't bring Ezekiel into it. His temple existed in his day. It was a heavenly temple revealed to him on earth.

Go to Jerusalem today and show me these remains of Herod's temple still standing. Matthew 24 etc do not mention antichrist. So that is irrelevant. In fact only John mentions antichrist and he saw many antichrists in his day. There have been many antichrists through history. I suspect that few doubt that there will arise another one. But that has nothing to do with the olivet discourse. The abomination of desolation was the presence in the holy city of images that had sacrifices offered to them brought in by the Roman army.

I don't think that a couple of days is so nebulous, do you? 2 Peter 3:8–9 reads: ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Sorry I didn't realise that you were God. That is referring to God. To me two thousand years is not just a couple of days.

Perhaps He will return early on the 'third day'. You know....NOW...early in the 3 millenia after His ascension. (3 days)

Lol perhaps. But not a scriptural idea.

Are you saying that Peter and company were not familiar with Zecheriah 14 and Isaiah 29? They were standing upon the Mt of Olives with Jesus!

I am saying that they did not interpret it like you do. They clearly did not think it important enough to mention anywhere. If they saw it as referring to Jesus satnding with them on the mount of Olives then fine. But they never said so. I don't try to read my ideas into the Apostles minds and then pretend I have their authority.

Are you saying that these disciples did not associate Jesus with being the person that would return to the Mt of Olives according to Zech 14?

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. Unless they saw it as referring to His first coming.

What did they mean 'and of thy coming' when they questioned Him in Matt 24? ( 3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, th

e disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? )

Jesus had often spoken of His second coming. They believed HIM.

They clearly equated the throwing down of the temple with the end of the age AND the coming (again) of the messiah (Jesus). How could they have more clearly associated the stones being removed with the return of the Messiah?

Lol you have a fertile imagination. They asked two separate questions. But they were not aware of the times and the seasons. We are specifically told that.

Of course in those days they All believed that Jesus second coming would be within a short time span. They would thus associate it indirectly with anything that was going to happen. They would associate it with loacl wars. They would associate it with earthquakes that occurred. People have been doing it ever since. They never dreamed it would be 2000 years and more before He came. It was only John late in life who recognised that an indefinitely long period of time would precede His second coming which he spoke of in the usual way for such long periods as 'a 1000 years'. But they did know that Jesus was referring to Herod's temple.

Temple buildings, to be precise. How many buildings constituted the 'Temple'?

well actually quite a number. there were priest's houses, store houses etc. all in the temple area

One building was the temple, but The disciples here were clearly referring to the entire Herodian complex, royal stoa, Solomon's porch, temple gates etc...

funny i don't see any mantion of these in my Bible. Maybe Matthew hadn't consulted you?

And many stones from that same temple complex THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT remain standing till this day.

Nothing of what Jesus spoke remains standing today. Have you been there? I have.

Lol you construct your own Bible and then say, see its true! Stick to the sacred text. You will have to give accouint for adding to it.

Are you not reading your ideas into the Apostles?

No my friend where the Apostles are silent I am silent. I do not use my imagination to build up fantastic ideas. I did once, as a matter of interest, but then I learned to interpret scripture without adding to it.

The clearly associated the 'temple stones destruction', the return of the messiah, and the end of the age. What have I read into it except what they said?

They did not SAY anything about associating them. But of course this was prior to their reception of the special gifts that were to be theirs. Thus they were in no position to coment sensibly anyway. But Jesus made clear that the destruction of the Temple and the second coming were separated by a considerable period (Luke 21.20-24). Isn't it sttange how people like you glide over what Luke said?

They associated the temple destruction with the coming of Messiah and the end of the age. Why do you think they associated those things? A wild guess?

As I have just pointed out they were at this stage totally muddled in their thinking. We have no idea what they thought. But whatever it was they wwere probably wrong. But any intelligent person reading their words knows that they were referring to the present temple.

Regarding the prophecy, Jesus mentioned that EVERY STONE IN JERUSALEM would be thrown down.

Did He now? I'd like to know where lol. Have you never heard of hyperbole?

LUKE 19:41 “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

Lol you really must not treat such statements as indicating every single stone. It is hyperbole signalling severe destruction.

Do you truly believe that EVERY STONE in Jerusalem was thrown down?

No and I don't believe it ever would be either. That is exaggerated literalism. No wonder you misinterpret the word of God

I will erase the rest. You are just being ridiculous. I am sorry but there it is. It has to be said. If you really think that God is bothered about whether one single stone is left on another, or whether Jesus actually meant that, there is no point in talking to you. Your are literal gone crazy. You and Hal Lindsay should get on well together. I prefer the word of God sensibly interpreted.

[divaD]

Now, you tell me...has their ever since then been a more horrible time of such tribulation? Not that I can find. The Romans were DETERMINED to wipe out Christians and the Jews from the face of the earth and they almost succeeded.

You would have a good point except for one thing, time is not yet finished. Who knows, but perhaps a time even worse than what you just showed lies around the corner. All I know is, the great tribulation can be linked to Daniel 12:1. That seems to be saying the same thing as Matthew 24:21.

Compare the 2 passages.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

What else does Daniel 12 says happens during that time?

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

If we're to understand this literally, then how did this physical resurrection take place in 70 AD or there abouts?



Matthew 24 seems to imply that this great trib won't be trumped. The times surrounding 66 AD to 70 AD can still be trumped in the future..so we don't know yet, since that time hasn't come.

[arc111]

[QUOTE=petepet;2717631]

Actually yes, they probably all did. But it is irrelevant. SOME did.




All i need to say is read Mark 13.4; Luke 21.7. They both clearly thought that the MAIN idea that was in Jesus mind was the destruction of the then existent Temple. Jesus then went on from that to refer to His second coming.

No I don't believe that the destrucion of the existing Temple was the second coming. But I do think the destruction of the Temple featured prominently in what Jesus said.






Well it really doesn't matter what you are sure of or not. The amill idea is based on what the Bible clearly teaches. Neither Jesus nor Paul nor Peter mention a millennium. They were all amillennialists. You of course can believe what you like. But beware of manipulating the word of God. Like me you will one day be called to account.







You have no evidence whatsoever for your view. The BIble nowhere suggests that a third Temple will be built. And don't bring Ezekiel into it. His temple existed in his day. It was a heavenly temple revealed to him on earth.

Go to Jerusalem today and show me these remains of Herod's temple still standing. Matthew 24 etc do not mention antichrist. So that is irrelevant. In fact only John mentions antichrist and he saw many antichrists in his day. There have been many antichrists through history. I suspect that few doubt that there will arise another one. But that has nothing to do with the olivet discourse. The abomination of desolation was the presence in the holy city of images that had sacrifices offered to them brought in by the Roman army.



Sorry I didn't realise that you were God. That is referring to God. To me two thousand years is not just a couple of days.



Lol perhaps. But not a scriptural idea.




I am saying that they did not interpret it like you do. They clearly did not think it important enough to mention anywhere. If they saw it as referring to Jesus satnding with them on the mount of Olives then fine. But they never said so. I don't try to read my ideas into the Apostles minds and then pretend I have their authority.



Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. Unless they saw it as referring to His first coming.



Jesus had often spoken of His second coming. They believed HIM.



Lol you have a fertile imagination. They asked two separate questions. But they were not aware of the times and the seasons. We are specifically told that.

Of course in those days they All believed that Jesus second coming would be within a short time span. They would thus associate it indirectly with anything that was going to happen. They would associate it with loacl wars. They would associate it with earthquakes that occurred. People have been doing it ever since. They never dreamed it would be 2000 years and more before He came. It was only John late in life who recognised that an indefinitely long period of time would precede His second coming which he spoke of in the usual way for such long periods as 'a 1000 years'. But they did know that Jesus was referring to Herod's temple.




well actually quite a number. there were priest's houses, store houses etc. all in the temple area



funny i don't see any mantion of these in my Bible. Maybe Matthew hadn't consulted you?



Nothing of what Jesus spoke remains standing today. Have you been there? I have.

Lol you construct your own Bible and then say, see its true! Stick to the sacred text. You will have to give accouint for adding to it.




No my friend where the Apostles are silent I am silent. I do not use my imagination to build up fantastic ideas. I did once, as a matter of interest, but then I learned to interpret scripture without adding to it.

The clearly associated the 'temple stones destruction', the return of the messiah, and the end of the age. What have I read into it except what they said?

They did not SAY anything about associating them. But of course this was prior to their reception of the special gifts that were to be theirs. Thus they were in no position to coment sensibly anyway. But Jesus made clear that the destruction of the Temple and the second coming were separated by a considerable period (Luke 21.20-24). Isn't it sttange how people like you glide over what Luke said?



As I have just pointed out they were at this stage totally muddled in their thinking. We have no idea what they thought. But whatever it was they wwere probably wrong. But any intelligent person reading their words knows that they were referring to the present temple.



Did He now? I'd like to know where lol. Have you never heard of hyperbole?



Lol you really must not treat such statements as indicating every single stone. It is hyperbole signalling severe destruction.



No and I don't believe it ever would be either. That is exaggerated literalism. No wonder you misinterpret the word of God

I will erase the rest. You are just being ridiculous. I am sorry but there it is. It has to be said. If you really think that God is bothered about whether one single stone is left on another, or whether Jesus actually meant that, there is no point in talking to you. Your are literal gone crazy. You and Hal Lindsay should get on well together. I prefer the word of God sensibly interpreted.

Rarely have I encountered such twisted meandering. First you say that they knew what they spoke of regarding the 70 AD war, then you turn around and say that they were muddled in their thinking. Hmmmmm....

If you have been there, and if you have asked to see Herodian stones within Jerusalem, then you know full well there are stacked stones in abundance. Would you consider the stones in the Western Wall tunnel 'within Jerusalem'? Why is it that many say these stones make Jesus a false prophet? Why do some leading preterists try to relocate the temple mount altogether so as to eliminate the stones?

But especially for you, who are YOU to decide which of our Lord's words can be discounted? If you insist that every stone of the temple was cast down, then why do you balk at Jesus same words regarding Jerusalem? Did He speak the same words regarding the Jerusalem stones as the temple stones? I must point out these seemingly minor points to you because you cannot see your error otherwise. AND YOU WILL NOT SEE YOUR ERROR BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR PET THEORY.

And btw, I will focus on those stones because that is what the Lord provided IN SCRIPTURE as evidence that the end of the age has not yet come.

LUKE 19:41 “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

LUKE 19:5 “Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

At least you admit that every stone in Jerusalem was not thrown down. Will you also admit that Herodian stones that weigh over 500 tons remain stacked and standing INSIDE JERUSALEM? We are not talking about some 'little old stones here'. We are talking about some of the largest stones that were ever moved by man! You know, kind of hard to miss. Erase my words, but the words of the Lord regarding those stones will stand.

[petepet]

[QUOTE=arc111;2717636]

Rarely have I encountered such twisted meandering. First you say that they knew what they spoke of regarding the 70 AD war, then you turn around and say that they were muddled in their thinking. Hmmmmm....

If you have been there, and if you have asked to see Herodian stones within Jerusalem, then you know full well there are stacked stones in abundance. Would you consider the stones in the Western Wall tunnel 'within Jerusalem'? Why is it that many say these stones make Jesus a false prophet? Why do some leading preterists try to relocate the temple mount altogether so as to eliminate the stones?

But especially for you, who are YOU to decide which of our Lord's words can be discounted? If you insist that every stone of the temple was cast down, then why do you balk at Jesus same words regarding Jerusalem? Did He speak the same words regarding the Jerusalem stones as the temple stones? I must point out these seemingly minor points to you because you cannot see your error otherwise. AND YOU WILL NOT SEE YOUR ERROR BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR PET THEORY.

And btw, I will focus on those stones because that is what the Lord provided IN SCRIPTURE as evidence that the end of the age has not yet come.

LUKE 19:41 “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

LUKE 19:5 “Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

At least you admit that every stone in Jerusalem was not thrown down. Will you also admit that Herodian stones that weigh over 500 tons remain stacked and standing INSIDE JERUSALEM? We are not talking about some 'little old stones here'. We are talking about some of the largest stones that were ever moved by man! You know, kind of hard to miss. Erase my words, but the words of the Lord regarding those stones will stand.

All I will say is that I presume you have gouged out your right eye, have cut off your right hand and have cut off your right foot. Because if you have not you are on your terms disobeying the Lord.

[petepet]

You would have a good point except for one thing, time is not yet finished. Who knows, but perhaps a time even worse than what you just showed lies around the corner. All I know is, the great tribulation can be linked to Daniel 12:1. That seems to be saying the same thing as Matthew 24:21.

Not at all. Daniel 12.1 is referring to the final days of the age. Matthew 24 is not. Daniel does not speak of 'the great tribulation'. Of course Matthew doesn't either. His reference is anarthrous. He is referring to the great tribulation that the Jews would suffer from 66AD to 2011 AD and counting. There has been nothing like it before or since.

Compare the 2 passages.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

I am pleased that you made the comparison. But have you noticed one thing? Daniel says 'even to this time'. Nothing could follow it. Matthew on the other hand said, 'nor ever shall be again'. He clearly did see something as following it.

What else does Daniel 12 says happens during that time?

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

If we're to understand this literally, then how did this physical resurrection take place in 70 AD or there abouts?

Matthew 24 seems to imply that this great trib won't be trumped. The times surrounding 66 AD to 70 AD can still be trumped in the future..so we don't know yet, since that time hasn't come.[/QUOTE]

Lol the tribulation of the Jews from 66 AD to 2011 AD and counting cannot possibly be trumped (see Luke 21.20-24)

But Daniel is not referring to 70 AD at all. He is referring to troubles that will come on the people of God or the Jews in the final days of the age prior to the resurrection.

[arc111]

[QUOTE=petepet;2717638]

All I will say is that I presume you have gouged out your right eye, have cut off your right hand and have cut off your right foot. Because if you have not you are on your terms disobeying the Lord.

Why resort to hurtful speaking when I only ask that you answer simple questions? I assure you, I am not disobeying the Lord. I am informing you that God loves the Jewish people with a unique and special love...in spite of their wickedness. Preterism supposes a finality of God's dealing with Israel, and for this reason I will espouse the particular errors of it....Stone by Stone.

And, btw, does your preterist view substantiate replacement theology? If the 'Jewish age' ended at 70 AD, then is it permanently ended?

[petepet]

[QUOTE=arc111;2717623]
[/quote

The reinstitution of the animal sacrifices was once a difficulty for me also. The Jews never anticipated the cross, but they should have anticipated 'the Lamb of God'. From the (almost) sacrifice by Father Abraham of his only son Isaac to the Festivals and the Levitical sacrifices, the sacrifices were always 'precursors' which should have pointed to Christ. It was not the 'cross' that pointed to Christ, and it was not the 'cross' that was significant. It was that our Lord shed His blood for us. The Roman crucifixion was merely the implement that shed His blood.

Well strictly speaking what was significant was that he DIED for us. Had He shed His blood and not died it would have been in vain. That is why we do not take it literally. We recognise what is intended.. 'Shed His blood' is a descriptive picture signifying death, but taken literally it does not necessarily indicate death.

BUT IT REMAINS THAT THE BLOOD IS WHAT SAVES US.

No, the blood does not save us. It is Christ our Saviour Who saves us. Had He been judicially strangled He would still have saved us.

The post-church-age sacrifices will merely be 'post-cursors' or memorials of the Blood that was shed by our Lord.

But the Old Testament knows nothing of memorial sacrifices. Such sacrifices are NOT what the prophets spoke about. They spoke of atoning sacrifices. Strange how you can be literal when it suits you, and dismiss literalism when it doesn't.

To the Jews, this will be very significant, otherwise they could well say "Why did we shed the blood of animals that could never save us"? The sacrifices will make sense to the Jewish people, not for salvation, but for understanding.

Lol these poor, thick Jews. They will be unable to understand Hebrews. You really are good at building up fanciful pictures.

Hypothetically, imagine Millennial King Jesus taking a group of Jewish priests along with Him to Bethlehem to select a lamb. After insuring the purity of the lamb, King Jesus brings the priests into His palace for a few days as they observe King Jesus treating the lamb with the utmost care and love. Imagine the lamb seeking out King Jesus and learning to depend on Him. And imagine the horror of having to sacrifice that little innocent lamb because of the sins of others.

Especially as even the lions and the wolves refuse to kill lambs any more (Isaiah 11.5ff). That is left to humans. And why? Not because it is necessary but as a nice picture which fulfils nothing. Well at least it is amusing. But please don't bring Jesus into it. He will not be involved in sacrificing lambs. He has read Hebrews. He caused it to be written.

This is a picture that will always work. The Jews have not acclimated to the cross, but they will readily accept the lamb.

But what of 'all Israel will be saved'? (Romans 11.26). They have certainly acclimatised to the cross then. You are very seolective in your ideas.

We gentiles are quick to blame the Jews for the cross, but we are not so quick to credit them for the Lamb.

Well I am not a gentile (nor a Jew), I am a member of God's true Israel, 'the Israel of God' (Galatians 6.16). And I blame both Jews and Gentiles for the cross. And I certainly am grateful that they produced the Messiah, although I am not sure they deserve credit for it. I think it was God's working and God's idea. Who I am grateful to are the believing Israelites who suffered so as to preserve for us the word of God.

[divaD]

I am pleased that you made the comparison. But have you noticed one thing? Daniel says 'even to this time'. Nothing could follow it. Matthew on the other hand said, 'nor ever shall be again'. He clearly did see something as following it.

You lost me then. Here's what Matt 24 says occurs immediately after the great trib.


Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It looks like the Lord returns, and that the resurrection of the dead then occurs.

Lol the tribulation of the Jews from 66 AD to 2011 AD and counting cannot possibly be trumped (see Luke 21.20-24)

It's interesting that you would use this passage. If one continues reading, it seems like the general time frame is then established.


Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

When?

Luke 21:24...and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

It seems to me until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Don't think those times were quite fulfilled in 70 AD, since Jerusalem is once again the center of attention these days, and the fact that Gentiles aren't done warring with Jerusalem.

But Daniel is not referring to 70 AD at all.

Lol, well at least I agree with this.

[The Beginner]

[QUOTE=petepet;2717574]

In rev 20, from which the idea of the millennium comes, (a concept totally unknown to Jesus, Paul or Peter), the 1000 years simply indicates a long but unknown period of time.

Hey Petepet,

I would like to respond to this idea if you don't mind. You said " the 1000 years simply indicates a long but unknown period of time." And I understand your reasoning when other verses indicate 1000 as a large number. The problem I have with this interpretation in Revelation is this.

From what I understand, most amill's would believe that 1000 is a unknown period of time.
However they would also say the 144,000 represent a "unknown number" (Rev 7:4)
They would also say 200,000,000 represents a "unknown number" (Rev 9:16).

IMO, for there to be a hermeneutic that can be followed in Revelation as a "unknown number", it would need to follow a consistent pattern to be able to make a definite conclusion that a number is in fact "unknown". Using different numbers to symbolically represent the "same thing" is awkward IMO. With this lens of thought, it calls into question wether or not any number in the book of revelation can be trusted as actual.

John has already expressed the idea of an "unknown number" when he said "a number which no one could count" (Rev 7:9). This shows that he had the capability and language to say an "unknown number". So why then would you be so strong to conclude that the number 1,000 is the exact same as "a number which no one could count" when we already have a precedent that John could use language to describe an "unknown number" without actually using an "exact number" such as 1,000.

[petepet]

[QUOTE=arc111;2717646]

Why resort to hurtful speaking when I only ask that you answer simple questions? I assure you, I am not disobeying the Lord.

I am not resorting to hurtful speaking. I am helping you to be faithful. I am pointing out to you that Jesus said quite clearly and categorically that if your eye caused you to offend you should gouge it out. If you want to be literal you should have gouged it out long ago. So perhaps you should gouge it out now? And if you are not willing to take that literally why should I see your verses as intended literally. I am asking you to be honest.

I am informing you that God loves the Jewish people with a unique and special love...in spite of their wickedness.

No that is not so. He never loves anyone who is in wickedness unless atonement has been made (except of course with the general benevolence He has for the whole world).

Preterism supposes a finality of God's dealing with Israel, and for this reason I will espouse the particular errors of it....Stone by Stone.

You switch from Jews to Israel as though they were the same. They are far from the same. Jews who have rejected the Messiah are no longer part of Israel. They have been cut off (John 15.1-6; Romans 11.16-24).

I will deal with your final point in another post as it requires a detailed answer. And no I am not into American fads.

[arc111]

[QUOTE=petepet;2717651][QUOTE=arc111;2717623]
[/quote

Well strictly speaking what was significant was that he DIED for us. Had He shed His blood and not died it would have been in vain. That is why we do not take it literally. We recognise what is intended.. 'Shed His blood' is a descriptive picture signifying death, but taken literally it does not necessarily indicate death

.


No, the blood does not save us. It is Christ our Saviour Who saves us. Had He been judicially strangled He would still have saved us.

Perhaps, but is it not much safer to permit the scriptures to speak? Ephesians 1:7 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

Not everything is a picture, some things are real. If shedding of blood does not signify death, then is it also true that death does not signify the shedding of blood? It is very real that Jesus fit the sacrificial type - Without spot or blemish, not a bone broken etc....and SHED BLOOD. I would personally draw up before I would deny that "His shed blood saves us". I see no necessity in saying such a thing. My faith is in Him, His death, His burial, His resurrection. If He doesn't save me then I am lost. Judicially though, God may demand His blood to cleanse me and make me fit for the eternal kingdom. In matters such as this, why allogorize? If He went up into the eternal heavenly sanctuary and sprinkled His own literal blood on the Mercy Seat to satisfy God's requirements to redeem me, then I see no need to spiritualize it.

But the Old Testament knows nothing of memorial sacrifices. Such sacrifices are NOT what the prophets spoke about. They spoke of atoning sacrifices. Strange how you can be literal when it suits you, and dismiss literalism when it doesn't.

Strange that you are so selective about Hebrews, picking and choosing which texts to apply. Hebrews 10:4 - "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

Lol these poor, thick Jews. They will be unable to understand Hebrews. You really are good at building up fanciful pictures.

National Israel has been unable to understand thus far....

Especially as even the lions and the wolves refuse to kill lambs any more (Isaiah 11.5ff). That is left to humans. And why? Not because it is necessary but as a nice picture which fulfils nothing. Well at least it is amusing. But please don't bring Jesus into it. He will not be involved in sacrificing lambs. He has read Hebrews. He caused it to be written.

I believe that Jesus as our Great High Priest will oversee our demonstration at the Feast of Tabernacles. He will not be placed on a cross again, His blood will not be shed again. (but also remember, 'communion' is a memorial of His sacrifice in this present age).

But what of 'all Israel will be saved'? (Romans 11.26). They have certainly acclimatised to the cross then. You are very seolective in your ideas.

At the second coming the Jews will look upon Him who they pierced. They will realize their error and be saved. I take it to mean 'national Israel' at the time of the second coming, not every Jew of every age.

Well I am not a gentile (nor a Jew), I am a member of God's true Israel, 'the Israel of God' (Galatians 6.16). And I blame both Jews and Gentiles for the cross. And I certainly am grateful that they produced the Messiah, although I am not sure they deserve credit for it. I think it was God's working and God's idea. Who I am grateful to are the believing Israelites who suffered so as to preserve for us the word of God.

Yes, the believing Israelites brough foth the Savior of all mankind AND brought forth the word of God to us.

[petepet]

While I agree with you in spirit, labels are convenient. I am solidly premil but shy away from the 'pre/mid/pre-wrath/post trib' labels. Most of the amillennialists that I have known believe that we are in the millennium now; some call it the gospel millennium. I think that is the common understanding.

Thank you. Which only serves to indicate how misleading the labels are :-))

By the way, while we are on neutral ground, lol, please do not think that because I seek to expose what I see as your false interpretations with vigour that I have anything against you personally. I am quite happy for you to show the same vigour with my interpretations which you consider false. If I cannot defend them then they deserve to be torn to shreds. But I am ever conscious of the people who never comment but who read our ideas. I feel I owe a duty to them to pursue what I see as the truth vigorously. I do not, however, doubt for one moment both your sincerity and your Christian commitment.

God bless you,

[arc111]

I am not resorting to hurtful speaking. I am helping you to be faithful. I am pointing out to you that Jesus said quite clearly and categorically that if your eye caused you to offend you should gouge it out. If you want to be literal you should have gouged it out long ago. So perhaps you should gouge it out now? And if you are not willing to take that literally why should I see your verses as intended literally. I am asking you to be honest.

It is true that we would all be wise to heed our master's voice! If I cannot overcome, then it would be best for me to remove the offending member. I do believe this is a literal truth! Thus far I am maturing as an overcomer and have not been led by the spirit to dismember myself.

No that is not so. He never loves anyone who is in wickedness unless atonement has been made (except of course with the general benevolence He has for the whole world).

Romans 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." Having used physical Israel to establish His name, and to bring forth the scriptures, and to bring forth the Savior of all Mankind.......the serpent has developed a special hatred for genetic Israel (even though they are predominantly in unbelief). You earlier stated that you are reluctant to give credit to Israel....which means that their special enmity by Satan is also not their doing. Why would satan display a special hatred toward genetic Israel in WW2 and the holocaust, when these people were almost all in unbelief? It is because God has a special love for them. Even today, satan had used individual Israelites (if you prefer the term, but when I say Israel I always mean genetic Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). These people are hated today by the world, they are credited (often rightfully so) with forming the Illuminati (Rothschild was an Israelite), Hollywood and associated wickedness, and so on. BUT in spite of these, these people are beloved for the father's sakes (Abraham's sake).

And so you hold to replacement theology? You believe that the church replaces Israel regarding all of the promises? This is the true crux of the matter. Preterism / amillennialism are stepping stones toward replacement theology.

Is it not obvious to you that God is NOT finished with national Israel? Regathered in '48, Jerusalem taken in '67. All that remains is the Temple Mount to be under complete Israeli control- which could happen at any instant. Who do you believe worships at the so-called wailing wall over in Jerusalem?



You switch from Jews to Israel as though they were the same. They are far from the same. Jews who have rejected the Messiah are no longer part of Israel. They have been cut off (John 15.1-6; Romans 11.16-24).

I will deal with your final point in another post as it requires a detailed answer. And no I am not into American fads.[/QUOTE]