Page 1 of 18 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 262

Thread: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,497

    Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    A preliminary revelation of Christ in history? Could the "Son of Man" have been "revealed" in 70 AD, well in advance of his 2nd Coming?

    In the following account, in Luke 17.22-37, Jesus talks about how we are to look for Jesus after he is gone. And he talks about how unbelieving Jews will look for the coming of Messiah after he is gone.


    Luke 17.22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 People will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
    26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
    28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
    30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
    37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.
    He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”


    Jesus states, quite frankly, that Jewish unbelievers will not only not see things properly, but they will be flat out deceptive and misleading. They are to be rejected. The revelation of Messiah they will get will be judgment in their generation--not an actual coming of Christ, but something very different--a revelation of what he is really like, and what he has judged is appropriate to their behavior.


    The irony here is that the Jewish People were looking for a visitation from God to bless the land, to increase the nation, to bring health and prosperity to the people. Instead, Jesus was telling them they would not see this. Instead, they would, in essence, see "vultures!"


    The revelation I believe Jesus was speaking of was the Abomination that causes Desolation (the AoD), which appears to be the Roman seige against Jerusalem 66-70 AD. This revelation of the Son of Man corresponds, I believe, to the kind of revelation spoken of by Amos.


    Amos 4.18 Woe to you who long
    for the day of the Lord!
    Why do you long for the day of the Lord?
    That day will be darkness, not light.


    This "revelation of the Son of Man" also corresponds to the kind of "revelation" that Ezekiel regularly referred to. Eze 6.7,10,13,14 shows Israel will come to know they are being justly punished, following the Babylonian judgment. Eze 7.4,9,27 9 shows that Israel will become aware that it is God who punishes them. Eze 11.10,12 conveys the revelation of God in the inability of corrupt leaders to avoid divine judgment. Eze 12.15,16,20 reveals the prescribed legal judgments for sin. Similarly, the predicted preservation of a remnant takes place. Eze 13.9.14,21,23 reveals, by the destruction of false prophets, that God's word prevails. And the failure of false prophecies upholds God as the God of judgment. And Eze 14.8; 15.7 shows by the providential destruction of misdirecting leaders in Jerusalem that God is true to His word, and will show objective evidence of His displeasure with them.


    Clearly, this revelation of the Lord was not necessarily a revelation with respect to national restoration, in these references. They were merely proof of the veracity of God's word, and proof that the warnings in the Law of Moses were not given in vain. It was a forced acknowledgement of God's judgments in history. By seeing how things have worked out, in conformity with God's predicted judgments, men were forced to acknowledge the truths of God's word.


    And that's what, I think, Jesus meant by speaking of the "day of the revelation of the Son of Man." It was a day in which Israel would be forced to acknowledge that Rabbinic Judaism had gone off course, misdirecting the Jewish People. And so the promised curses of the Law had come upon Israel for their national apostasy, and the people were to be driven out of Jerusalem and away from Israel, to reveal that God has spoken to them through Jesus. After all, this was Jesus' promised judgment. And so, the unveiling of this judgment in 70 AD would constitute a "day of the revelation of the Son of Man." It was Jesus' prophecy being fulfilled.


    This approach has been evolving, and is new for me. Your thoughts/objections are welcome...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,256

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    What happened in 70 AD to 135 AD, was the conquest and total subjection of the Jewish people.
    The few survivors, [other than the Christians, who had escaped as they were warned to do; before 70 AD] were sent into slavery. They didn't acknowledge the faults of Judaism and as is plain to see today, they continue in their rejection of Jesus.

    Your dissertation, Randyk, is faulty because you do not take into account the truth of the continued separation of the House of Judah and the House of Israel. The Lord WAS revealed to Judah and they rejected Him. So as Paul so plainly states: Salvation is now given to the Gentiles. Acts 13:47 By Gentiles, Paul means everyone who is not a Jew, as he was.
    Therefore, a gentile to Paul, was also a person of the House of Israel, and it was to them that the Apostles went. Their success is proved by how it is mainly the Western, Caucasian nations who have accepted Christianity. [Caucasians: peoples traced to the Caucasus region of Asia, exactly where the House of Israel was deported to by the Assyrians.]

    2 Thessalonians 1:10 is a very revealing prophecy. Jesus will reveal His glory among all the believers; that is: all who have already accepted the testimony of the Apostles and evangelist's of Salvation thru Jesus. This truth precludes anyone who has failed to accept this testimony now, including Jews.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,628

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    A preliminary revelation of Christ in history? Could the "Son of Man" have been "revealed" in 70 AD, well in advance of his 2nd Coming?

    In the following account, in Luke 17.22-37, Jesus talks about how we are to look for Jesus after he is gone. And he talks about how unbelieving Jews will look for the coming of Messiah after he is gone.


    Luke 17.22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 People will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
    26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
    28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
    30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
    37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.
    He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”


    Jesus states, quite frankly, that Jewish unbelievers will not only not see things properly, but they will be flat out deceptive and misleading. They are to be rejected. The revelation of Messiah they will get will be judgment in their generation--not an actual coming of Christ, but something very different--a revelation of what he is really like, and what he has judged is appropriate to their behavior.


    The irony here is that the Jewish People were looking for a visitation from God to bless the land, to increase the nation, to bring health and prosperity to the people. Instead, Jesus was telling them they would not see this. Instead, they would, in essence, see "vultures!"


    The revelation I believe Jesus was speaking of was the Abomination that causes Desolation (the AoD), which appears to be the Roman seige against Jerusalem 66-70 AD. This revelation of the Son of Man corresponds, I believe, to the kind of revelation spoken of by Amos.


    Amos 4.18 Woe to you who long
    for the day of the Lord!
    Why do you long for the day of the Lord?
    That day will be darkness, not light.


    This "revelation of the Son of Man" also corresponds to the kind of "revelation" that Ezekiel regularly referred to. Eze 6.7,10,13,14 shows Israel will come to know they are being justly punished, following the Babylonian judgment. Eze 7.4,9,27 9 shows that Israel will become aware that it is God who punishes them. Eze 11.10,12 conveys the revelation of God in the inability of corrupt leaders to avoid divine judgment. Eze 12.15,16,20 reveals the prescribed legal judgments for sin. Similarly, the predicted preservation of a remnant takes place. Eze 13.9.14,21,23 reveals, by the destruction of false prophets, that God's word prevails. And the failure of false prophecies upholds God as the God of judgment. And Eze 14.8; 15.7 shows by the providential destruction of misdirecting leaders in Jerusalem that God is true to His word, and will show objective evidence of His displeasure with them.


    Clearly, this revelation of the Lord was not necessarily a revelation with respect to national restoration, in these references. They were merely proof of the veracity of God's word, and proof that the warnings in the Law of Moses were not given in vain. It was a forced acknowledgement of God's judgments in history. By seeing how things have worked out, in conformity with God's predicted judgments, men were forced to acknowledge the truths of God's word.


    And that's what, I think, Jesus meant by speaking of the "day of the revelation of the Son of Man." It was a day in which Israel would be forced to acknowledge that Rabbinic Judaism had gone off course, misdirecting the Jewish People. And so the promised curses of the Law had come upon Israel for their national apostasy, and the people were to be driven out of Jerusalem and away from Israel, to reveal that God has spoken to them through Jesus. After all, this was Jesus' promised judgment. And so, the unveiling of this judgment in 70 AD would constitute a "day of the revelation of the Son of Man." It was Jesus' prophecy being fulfilled.


    This approach has been evolving, and is new for me. Your thoughts/objections are welcome...
    In 70 AD what happened? The Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed. How can the "Abomination of Desolation" occur in an effigy that does not exist? The events predicted by Daniel concerning the "Abomination of Desolation" are very different. Daniel 9:27 reveals an altogether different scenario;
    • A "prince" of the people who destroyed the Temple will seek conciliation with Israel - not war
    • "Strengthening the Covenant" is very different from destroying the Temple. It is NOT "a" Covenant, but "THE" Covenant - that is, one in existence. It is the Covenant of Law for it contains the "sacrifices and daily oblation". Without the Temple the Law cannot be fulfilled for the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy requires that all males of Israel bring their tithes to the Temple THRICE annually. The destruction of the Temple is the OPPOSITE of what the Beast does
    • The destruction of the Temple is OPPOSITE to what 2nd Thessalonians 2:4 predicts. There, the Beast sits in the Temple claiming supreme deity. How can he do that if the Temple is destroyed?
    • The Beast causes the "sacrifice and oblation to cease". If there was no Temple how could there be "sacrifice and oblation"?


    The events of 70 AD, in the contexts where they are mentioned, are NOT connected to the "revelation" of Christ. Although the word "revealed" ("apocalypsis" in the Greek) can mean a personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ like Peter in Matthew 16:17, the "REVEALING" we discuss is Christ's visible "unveiling" (literal Greek) from the clouds like "lightning". This is the context of Luke 17:22-37. This did not occur in 70 AD, nor has it occurred to date.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,497

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz View Post
    What happened in 70 AD to 135 AD, was the conquest and total subjection of the Jewish people.
    The few survivors, [other than the Christians, who had escaped as they were warned to do; before 70 AD] were sent into slavery. They didn't acknowledge the faults of Judaism and as is plain to see today, they continue in their rejection of Jesus.
    I agree. With the exception of the Christian contingent in Israel, Israel was lost. That's why the "revelation of the Son of Man," I believe. It was the most fatal prophecy Israel had ever received. And God does *nothing* without telling His servants, the prophets. Amos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz
    Your dissertation, Randyk, is faulty because you do not take into account the truth of the continued separation of the House of Judah and the House of Israel.
    The problem I have with that, Keraz, is that Ezekiel predicted the dissolution of the barrier separating them. They were to be united into one people, once again. Furthermore, the ten tribes of Israel disappeared as distinct entities in history. They became, I would assume, merged in with the "Jewish People?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz
    The Lord WAS revealed to Judah and they rejected Him. So as Paul so plainly states: Salvation is now given to the Gentiles. Acts 13:47 By Gentiles, Paul means everyone who is not a Jew, as he was.
    Therefore, a gentile to Paul, was also a person of the House of Israel, and it was to them that the Apostles went. Their success is proved by how it is mainly the Western, Caucasian nations who have accepted Christianity. [Caucasians: peoples traced to the Caucasus region of Asia, exactly where the House of Israel was deported to by the Assyrians.]

    2 Thessalonians 1:10 is a very revealing prophecy. Jesus will reveal His glory among all the believers; that is: all who have already accepted the testimony of the Apostles and evangelist's of Salvation thru Jesus. This truth precludes anyone who has failed to accept this testimony now, including Jews.
    Not all Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah. We can say, generally, that Israel has rejected the Jews. But we cannot say that Israel has become the Gentile Church, and has thus accepted Jesus. I do believe that since a remnant of Israel has indeed accepted Jesus, the nation will eventually become a Christian nation.

    Thanks for your views.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,497

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    In 70 AD what happened? The Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed. How can the "Abomination of Desolation" occur in an effigy that does not exist?
    AoD will *not* occur in a non-existent efficy. The AoD has already occured. It is a "desolation" of the temple, which could only have happened in 70 AD. It was a desolation of Jerusalem, which could only have happened 70-135 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    The events predicted by Daniel concerning the "Abomination of Desolation" are very different. Daniel 9:27 reveals an altogether different scenario;
    A "prince" of the people who destroyed the Temple will seek conciliation with Israel - not war
    I don't see that stated? What Roman conciliation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    "Strengthening the Covenant" is very different from destroying the Temple. It is NOT "a" Covenant, but "THE" Covenant - that is, one in existence. It is the Covenant of Law for it contains the "sacrifices and daily oblation". Without the Temple the Law cannot be fulfilled for the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy requires that all males of Israel bring their tithes to the Temple THRICE annually.
    I agree that the "confirmation of the Covenant" is likely a confirmation of the Law of Moses. But I think here in Dan 9 this refers to *Jesus' * confirmation of the Law of Moses. He came not to destroy the Law, but to "fulfill it."

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    The destruction of the Temple is the OPPOSITE of what the Beast does
    The destruction of the temple is indeed different from what the Beast does in Revelation. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD. And the Beast exercises his authority as the Antichrist for 3.5 years at the end of the present age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    The destruction of the Temple is OPPOSITE to what 2nd Thessalonians 2:4 predicts. There, the Beast sits in the Temple claiming supreme deity. How can he do that if the Temple is destroyed?
    Legitimate question. Either Paul is using the language of Daniel, as he applied it to Antiochus 4, or Paul is referring to a new temple to be built. That temple will either be a Jewish temple, or some other temple devoted to God. For example, he could situate himself in an Islamic Mosque in Jerusalem, proclaiming himself to be God?


    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    The Beast causes the "sacrifice and oblation to cease". If there was no Temple how could there be "sacrifice and oblation"?
    The prophecy you refer to, in Dan 9, was fulfilled in the midst of the 70th Week, following the edict to restore Jerusalem. Dating from the Persian King Artaxerxes we would see the 70th Week fulfilled in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. It may have been his death in the midst of this 7 year period that nullified the efficacy of sacrifices and offerings made under the Law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    The events of 70 AD, in the contexts where they are mentioned, are NOT connected to the "revelation" of Christ. Although the word "revealed" ("apocalypsis" in the Greek) can mean a personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ like Peter in Matthew 16:17, the "REVEALING" we discuss is Christ's visible "unveiling" (literal Greek) from the clouds like "lightning". This is the context of Luke 17:22-37. This did not occur in 70 AD, nor has it occurred to date.
    Well, I'm considering the possibility that this is what Jesus meant, to reveal himself in his own personal judgment upon Israel. It was a negative "day of the Lord," a day of judgment. Israel was looking for salvation, but rejected Jesus' reforms. So they were looking for a day of restoration, but would find a day of judgment instead. This would be the "revelation of the Son of Man." But thanks for your input. As you can see, there are several different ways to look at these passages.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,256

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The problem I have with that, Keraz, is that Ezekiel predicted the dissolution of the barrier separating them. They were to be united into one people, once again. Furthermore, the ten tribes of Israel disappeared as distinct entities in history. They became, I would assume, merged in with the "Jewish People?"
    Please read Ezekiel 37 again. Then tell me if it has all been completely fulfilled yet.
    Also explain how the Jews, who may number 20 million in total, fit the plainly stated prophecy of Israel being as many as the sands of the sea; uncountable populations, in multiple nations. Genesis 48:17-20

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    857

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    AoD will *not* occur in a non-existent efficy. The AoD has already occured. It is a "desolation" of the temple, which could only have happened in 70 AD. It was a desolation of Jerusalem, which could only have happened 70-135 AD.



    I don't see that stated? What Roman conciliation?



    I agree that the "confirmation of the Covenant" is likely a confirmation of the Law of Moses. But I think here in Dan 9 this refers to *Jesus' * confirmation of the Law of Moses. He came not to destroy the Law, but to "fulfill it."



    The destruction of the temple is indeed different from what the Beast does in Revelation. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD. And the Beast exercises his authority as the Antichrist for 3.5 years at the end of the present age.



    Legitimate question. Either Paul is using the language of Daniel, as he applied it to Antiochus 4, or Paul is referring to a new temple to be built. That temple will either be a Jewish temple, or some other temple devoted to God. For example, he could situate himself in an Islamic Mosque in Jerusalem, proclaiming himself to be God?




    The prophecy you refer to, in Dan 9, was fulfilled in the midst of the 70th Week, following the edict to restore Jerusalem. Dating from the Persian King Artaxerxes we would see the 70th Week fulfilled in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. It may have been his death in the midst of this 7 year period that nullified the efficacy of sacrifices and offerings made under the Law.



    Well, I'm considering the possibility that this is what Jesus meant, to reveal himself in his own personal judgment upon Israel. It was a negative "day of the Lord," a day of judgment. Israel was looking for salvation, but rejected Jesus' reforms. So they were looking for a day of restoration, but would find a day of judgment instead. This would be the "revelation of the Son of Man." But thanks for your input. As you can see, there are several different ways to look at these passages.
    How is that you can believe in prophecies about the 2nd coming of Christ, made before the 1st coming of Christ took place, yet you cannot do the same for the temple?
    I'll tell you how. Because somebody testified that to be so, even if most of that confirmation came from Jesus and the 12 apostles. Yet, not one apostle testified that the AoD "was going to happen soon" or even that it did happen, in the case of John, [he didn't], and yet that is what God demands of prophetic events..."at the mouth of two or three witness shall every word be established", or perhaps "no prophecy of scripture is of any private (standing alone without a witness) interpretation". So, without a confirmatory witness, you are making a private interpretation of scripture. Is there a holy witness of men?

    *[[2Pe 1:21]] KJV* For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
    Blessings to all who keeps the saying and the prophecy of his book!
    GB

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    3,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    A preliminary revelation of Christ in history? Could the "Son of Man" have been "revealed" in 70 AD, well in advance of his 2nd Coming?

    In the following account, in Luke 17.22-37, Jesus talks about how we are to look for Jesus after he is gone. And he talks about how unbelieving Jews will look for the coming of Messiah after he is gone.


    Luke 17.22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 People will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
    26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
    28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
    30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
    37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.
    He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”


    Jesus states, quite frankly, that Jewish unbelievers will not only not see things properly, but they will be flat out deceptive and misleading. They are to be rejected. The revelation of Messiah they will get will be judgment in their generation--not an actual coming of Christ, but something very different--a revelation of what he is really like, and what he has judged is appropriate to their behavior.


    The irony here is that the Jewish People were looking for a visitation from God to bless the land, to increase the nation, to bring health and prosperity to the people. Instead, Jesus was telling them they would not see this. Instead, they would, in essence, see "vultures!"


    The revelation I believe Jesus was speaking of was the Abomination that causes Desolation (the AoD), which appears to be the Roman seige against Jerusalem 66-70 AD. This revelation of the Son of Man corresponds, I believe, to the kind of revelation spoken of by Amos.


    Amos 4.18 Woe to you who long
    for the day of the Lord!
    Why do you long for the day of the Lord?
    That day will be darkness, not light.


    This "revelation of the Son of Man" also corresponds to the kind of "revelation" that Ezekiel regularly referred to. Eze 6.7,10,13,14 shows Israel will come to know they are being justly punished, following the Babylonian judgment. Eze 7.4,9,27 9 shows that Israel will become aware that it is God who punishes them. Eze 11.10,12 conveys the revelation of God in the inability of corrupt leaders to avoid divine judgment. Eze 12.15,16,20 reveals the prescribed legal judgments for sin. Similarly, the predicted preservation of a remnant takes place. Eze 13.9.14,21,23 reveals, by the destruction of false prophets, that God's word prevails. And the failure of false prophecies upholds God as the God of judgment. And Eze 14.8; 15.7 shows by the providential destruction of misdirecting leaders in Jerusalem that God is true to His word, and will show objective evidence of His displeasure with them.


    Clearly, this revelation of the Lord was not necessarily a revelation with respect to national restoration, in these references. They were merely proof of the veracity of God's word, and proof that the warnings in the Law of Moses were not given in vain. It was a forced acknowledgement of God's judgments in history. By seeing how things have worked out, in conformity with God's predicted judgments, men were forced to acknowledge the truths of God's word.


    And that's what, I think, Jesus meant by speaking of the "day of the revelation of the Son of Man." It was a day in which Israel would be forced to acknowledge that Rabbinic Judaism had gone off course, misdirecting the Jewish People. And so the promised curses of the Law had come upon Israel for their national apostasy, and the people were to be driven out of Jerusalem and away from Israel, to reveal that God has spoken to them through Jesus. After all, this was Jesus' promised judgment. And so, the unveiling of this judgment in 70 AD would constitute a "day of the revelation of the Son of Man." It was Jesus' prophecy being fulfilled.


    This approach has been evolving, and is new for me. Your thoughts/objections are welcome...
    Good post Randy but may I also add that Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled when He said that it would be fulfilled within that generation

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,497

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Keraz View Post
    Please read Ezekiel 37 again. Then tell me if it has all been completely fulfilled yet.
    Also explain how the Jews, who may number 20 million in total, fit the plainly stated prophecy of Israel being as many as the sands of the sea; uncountable populations, in multiple nations. Genesis 48:17-20
    Keraz, I believe I already answered the point about Israel being numberless like the stars, or like the sand on the seashore. It was an idiomatic phrase, suggesting that one would not want to actually count the items. It was an indication of exponential blessing in the matter of having a posterity. Nobody should ever suggest that people will ever become literally "beyond number." There will always be a literal number, even if we shouldn't want to count it!

    Regarding Eze 37 I agree it hasn't been fulfilled yet. But it pointed in a direction for the Hebrew people, leading them to homogenization--not separation. That part was clearly fulfilled when the 12 tribes became "the Jews."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,497

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Good post Randy but may I also add that Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled when He said that it would be fulfilled within that generation
    Marty, as helpful as Partial Preterists have been to me on this subject, I am not a Partial Preterist! I cannot see the prophecies of Jesus as exhausted with the 1st generation of the Church, with the then-current generation of Jesus. And that's because Jesus said the events of his generation would merely be the *beginning* of sorrows. What remained was the dispersion of the Jews, which would last until the end of the age. That could *not* have been fulfilled in Jesus' generation, correct?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,497

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by goldenboy View Post
    How is that you can believe in prophecies about the 2nd coming of Christ, made before the 1st coming of Christ took place, yet you cannot do the same for the temple?
    I'll tell you how. Because somebody testified that to be so, even if most of that confirmation came from Jesus and the 12 apostles. Yet, not one apostle testified that the AoD "was going to happen soon" or even that it did happen, in the case of John, [he didn't], and yet that is what God demands of prophetic events..."at the mouth of two or three witness shall every word be established", or perhaps "no prophecy of scripture is of any private (standing alone without a witness) interpretation". So, without a confirmatory witness, you are making a private interpretation of scripture. Is there a holy witness of men?

    *[[2Pe 1:21]] KJV* For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
    Blessings to all who keeps the saying and the prophecy of his book!
    GB
    On the contrary, the fact, Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote these things, and said that all that Jesus' said about the temple would be fulfilled "in this generation" is a clear testimony of the early Church leadership. It was a consensus opinion that this event would be "soon." Not only do I think they believed what they wrote, but I know that this is the real history of the temple, that it was destroyed in their generation. Why you would want to doubt that I don't know? The testimony is pretty clear to me.

    The "temple" part of the prophecy, eg Ezekiel's temple, cannot be fulfilled literally because it is contrary to biblical doctrine in the New Testament. NT Doctrine forbids any restoration of the Law of Moses as a means of worship. So any temple figures used in the NT Scriptures is purely symbolic of something better in the NT era. Out-dated forms of worship are still useful in teaching us valuable NT truths. Otherwise we would not have the OT Scriptures in our Bible!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,256

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Keraz, I believe I already answered the point about Israel being numberless like the stars, or like the sand on the seashore. It was an idiomatic phrase, suggesting that one would not want to actually count the items. It was an indication of exponential blessing in the matter of having a posterity. Nobody should ever suggest that people will ever become literally "beyond number." There will always be a literal number, even if we shouldn't want to count it!

    Regarding Eze 37 I agree it hasn't been fulfilled yet. But it pointed in a direction for the Hebrew people, leading them to homogenization--not separation. That part was clearly fulfilled when the 12 tribes became "the Jews."
    Well, I must admit that however many millions, or billions all the Israelites of God are today, they could be counted with the help of our modern computerized systems. But my point is that scripture shows they are far more than just the Jews. Who are mainly not the true Israelites of God anyway. Matthew 21:43 proves it.

    Your contention that the 10 northern tribes are assimilated into Jewry, is refuted by the Jews themselves. They know the great re-joining awaits fulfilment. They don't let this truth be touted about, as the deceived Christians who believe they are all of Israel, send them so much money and support.

  13. #13

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    The Day of the Lord is the eternal age of God the Son. In that age, the begotten Son of God, together with people, nations, tongues and kindred to whom He is God, are heard, revealed and inherited. Also, all twelve things as well as all works leading to eternal life are inherited.

    In the foursquare divine pattern, the Day is the third and great dispensation of the begotten Son of God.
    Grace and peace unto you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,628

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    AoD will *not* occur in a non-existent efficy. The AoD has already occured. It is a "desolation" of the temple, which could only have happened in 70 AD. It was a desolation of Jerusalem, which could only have happened 70-135 AD.
    No. The "desolation" of Jerusalem is one thing in Luke 21:20. But we speak of "The Abomination of Desolation SPOKEN OF BY DANIEL". In Daniel 9:26-27 the grammar shows a sequence of TWO events. It reads;

    26 "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and (1) 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.
    27 And (2) 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."


    verse 26 shows the Messiah cut off "after" the 69th week. As already shown in the thread "Daniel's Gap - ..." the word "AFTER" means "at the hind part". That is, this "cutting off" is not at some date future to the 69th week, but joining its end.
    verse 26 introduces "the people of the prince" who destroy the CITY and the SANCTUARY. IT IS HERE THAT 70 AD IS SHOWN, and the "desolations" remain "till the end". I judge this to be explained in Luke 21:24, the "desolations" being that the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be Gentiles, and the "end" being the time when Jerusalem is freed and returned to a Jewish King when the "times of the Gentiles are full". The word "desolation" is commonly used to show a place in ruins (e.g. Isa.61:4).
    verse 26 also introduces a FUTURE prince - one "that shall come". That is, the "people" who destroyed the city and sanctuary were Romans, and at a later date a Roman prince will come.
    verse 27 begins with "And he". According to grammar the "HE" is the last mentioned person or subject - the Roman prince.
    verse 27 shows the conciliatory move by this Roman prince. He "confirms (or strengthens) the Covenant". This can only mean ONE THING. It is an already existing Covenant for it is "the Covenant". And the only existing Covenant that needs strengthening is that of Law. All other Covenants are SURE since God promised them. And the great hindrance to the Covenant of Law being "strengthened" is that there is NO TEMPLE. The Temple is an integral component of the Law (Deut.12:5, 11, 21, 14:23-24, 16:2, etc.). Thus, the Roman prince allows a rebuilding of the Temple and the re-institution of the daily oblation.
    verse 27 shows that this Roman prince "strengthens" the Covenant for SEVEN years. Since God has not lifted or changed the Law, in God's eyes that Law was valid from about 1,500 BC when it was given to Moses, and is valid until "heaven and earth pass" at the end of the Millennium. God, or Christ would NEVER only introduce, or "strengthen" a Covenant for SEVEN years!
    verse 27 shows that it is THIS PRINCE "who is to come", and who allows Israel their Temple and daily oblations, who will stop the daily oblation after 3½ years. AND THEN ONLY DOES THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION OCCUR! It is not any "destruction" of the City and Sanctuary here. It is that this Roman prince will REPLACE God as the object of sacrifice and worship IN THE NEWLY BUILT TEMPLE - as described in 2nd Thessalonians 2:4!
    To summarize:
    • The "people of the prince WHO SHALL (future) COME "desolate the City and the Sanctuary in 70 AD
    • The "prince who shall come" causes the "abomination of desolation" by setting himself and his idol-effigy in the newly built Holy of Holies
    • The "desolation" of the City and Sanctuary were fulfilled in 70 AD. The "Abomination of Desolation" is still to come. For its fulfillment it needs (1) a Roman prince who has worldwide authority to order a new Temple to be built, and (2) the Temple to actually be built. This has not yet happened.


    To the rest of your posting, I will say this. You yourself are faced with multiple problems with your understanding. You need the last Week, the 70th of Daniel, to be in TWO places in time at once, for ...
    1. You make the daily oblation cease with Christ's death. Since the oblation is caused to cease in the middle of the Week, you place the 70th as beginning three and a half years before the 69th Week has ended - an absurdity as there is no overlapping
    2. You make the "Abomination of Desolation" 40 years later in 70 AD.

    These two points alone should drive you back to the "drawing board" and revise your view.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,090
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Two points which you seem to have missed.
    1) Jesus said the apostles would NOT see this Luke 17:22 - therefore as John was alive in 70 AD it seems that this Revelation was not then. The point being that "this generation" mentioned in Luke 17:25 is about rejecting Jesus, not seeing and so receiving. So "this generation" was NOT going to see THAT day, as explicitly stated by Jesus in this passage.
    2) This does tie into Amos, and as others might note, the Day of Jacobs trouble. The problem is if you assume that Day was 70 AD then you will come to a problem, as seen above, and also elsewhere that WHEN they see Him they will mourn for what they missed (not for what they are going through - as in persecution).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 140
    Last Post: May 5th 2018, 07:07 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: Aug 11th 2017, 12:37 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: Dec 8th 2012, 05:33 AM
  4. Replies: 20
    Last Post: Sep 16th 2009, 02:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •