Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 262

Thread: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

  1. #226
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,093
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    What translation are you using? I seem to recall asking you this in a different thread and you never provided one.
    Daniel 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” (ESV)

    I think you must be using the NIV, which is fine for reading, but not so good for studying. however even if that is your translation it really doesn't help you without a judicious ignoring of what is ACTUALLY stated in Dan 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’i he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

    Notice that this statement occurs DURING the final 7. Further notice that this statement has the place of the AoD IN the temple NOT outside the city. Selective choice of words is really bad for you. It highlights the weakness of your position. So IF the NIV translation is the closest, then that means we should look for the AoD INSIDE the temple.
    So no matter which translation you use, they ALL show that an army OUTSIDE the city is NOT an AoD.
    To some of us, once an assumption has been nurtured into a comfortable idea, it becomes impossible to let go even when better interpretations of the text are presented. The subject and discussion of the AoD have been exhaustive. It is neither the soldiers surrounding the city nor rummaging inside the temple.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,465
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You have a number of truths/partial truths that lack a true summary of what the Law was. And that's because you define the Law as a universal value system, completely ignoring the fact the elements of the Law would then have to change over time, thus changing its meaning.
    You can't state the entirety of the truth every time. However there is no falsehood in what I put.
    The Law IS how God defines the value He requires of Man, and it is expressed in a specific way through Moses.
    The Law itself NEVER changes, though the way it is expressed may do. This is why the ENTIRE Law may be summed up through Love God and love your neighbour. This IS true BOTH for the Mosaic Law and what you call Christ's Law. There is NO change in the substance, the principle nor the requirement to be holy.

    For example, the 613 requirements of the Law as applied to exclusive Israel would have to change, as a universal Law, into a non-exclusive legal system without the 613 requirements. I don't think the Scriptures refer to a universal Law in this way without distinguishing between covenants in the OT and NT. God's "Law" can indeed be referred to in a perpetual, universal sense. But any reference to a particular covenant, in either OT or NT, effectively reduces God's universal Law into sub-categories, or covenants.
    Sorry, but don't confuse HOW the Law is expressed through Moses for the people of Israel, with the Law itself.
    Paul clarifies this quite clearly in Romans.
    It is also correct to say that God makes Covenants, which in their very nature ARE sub-categories.
    This is what scripture shows. Some confuse this sub-category as being a Dispensation, but my point is that the Law is NEVER contrary to itself and the Dispensation is ALWAYS that of faith and NOT Law.

    Jesus did come to confirm the Law as a covenant to Israel. He indicated this in Matthew 5, when he insisted that all 613 laws were binding, and that nobody should diminish any of the requirements. He also confirmed the promises made to Abraham, that Israel would inherit her land forever, despite the apparent failure taking place under the Law of Moses.
    You are indeed confused. Jesus did NOT come to confirm the Law. He acknowledge that it IS, and further that the Law is NEVER abolished - though you claim it is annulled and thus abolished, contrary to the passage you are claiming to base your stance upon.
    He did NOT come to confirm the promises made to Abraham. Instead He came to make such promises possible.
    How can anyone live by faith? How were Abraham's sins paid for? By Abraham? Certainly not! It is Jesus atoning sacrifice which was for all men of all time. BOTH before the cross as well as after.

    We agree that eternal justification could never take place under the Law, and that true righteousness could be demonstrated through obedience to the Law. But saying the "Law was 100% successful" can only refer to God's purpose for the Law, and not to Israel's performance under the Law. We have to define what our scope is before making far-ranging statements like this. Jesus confirmed the Law *as a covenant* that could only be fulfilled on an eternal basis by a change in covenant systems. That is, Jesus confirmed a covenant that would positively have to change, not just to save Israel but also to include the Gentiles.
    Indeed the Law can ONLY be 100% successful when referring to God's purpose.
    Jesus NEVER said to anyone, by keeping the Law you will be saved. He came to make a Covenant in His blood.
    Further the covenant confirmed in Dan 9 was for 1 week ONLY.
    So IF it speaks of the Mosaic Law, then you have Jesus confirming throughout His ministry, only for it then to be of no value afterwards. Your own explanation makes no sense - hence I called it nonsense.

    Yes, God does put in place judgments. I don't think anybody can question that. He's the Judge of the whole earth. As I said, the pronouns are not very clear to me. You have an old Chaldean language, and you have the Septuagint version. And then you have specialists who nevertheless come up with different phrasing.

    This is one possible view, as I said. In this particular view, Jesus would consistently be the "Ruler to come." And the "abomination" would remain undefined, but would, in fact, be a personal entity.
    I haven't said God doesn't put in place judgements. However you are saying that God puts in Abominations. How can God do something abominable? So are you arguing that A4E was actually God at work? That God was making an Abomination?
    It is reasoning like this and then switching from what is said to trying to make it about judgements which shows the paucity of your argument.
    Daniel 9 wasn't written in Chaldean but Hebrew. It also wasn't written in Greek. However whichever version you chose to use, you then need to stick with that version and not ignore what it states.
    So if you want to quote a "specialist" then please do, but highlight why that specialist is better than every other translation. Again you need to stick with how that specialist translates the whole passage and not try cherry-picking part of one verse and then ignoring the rest.

    You have presented a particular view which doesn't work. So if you are rejecting that view, then it means your whole Roman army view needs to be rejected, which then means your whole OD thesis is in doubt, and of course the question of the Revelation of Jesus in Luke 17.

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,465
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    To some of us, once an assumption has been nurtured into a comfortable idea, it becomes impossible to let go even when better interpretations of the text are presented. The subject and discussion of the AoD have been exhaustive. It is neither the soldiers surrounding the city nor rummaging inside the temple.
    It is always hard to reexamine our assumptions.
    My assumption is always CONTEXT, and if anyone shows me I have the CONTEXT wrong, based on the actual passage in question, and not some other passage, then I am open to change.
    Now if you wish to challenge that this assumption about CONTEXT is wrong, then I would like to know what is the foundational assumption you should make in interpreting scripture. I can find none better.

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,929

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually it isn't an Abomination but a Desolation. Further you claimed military parlance about the weird idea that surrounding a place somehow means you are in it.
    It is completely within the norm to define the *region* as being the "Holy Place. The description did not say the abomination was *inside the temple.* The AoD of Antiochus 4 was *within the temple.* The Roman Army was simply *in the Holy Place,* ie at Jerusalem. The Roman Army did not *belong* at, near, or around Jerusalem. It was *in the Holy Place.* Makes sense to me.

    You continue to see the "Holy Place" as a technical description of the *temple itself.* I see the "Holy Place" as Jerusalem and its environs. That is how an Army would be "in the Holy Place.* An Army would *not* be inside the temple. Rather, it would be stationed in a place prepared to invade the city and prepared to destroy the sanctuary. That would be how an Army is "in the Holy Place."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    IF that were true then the Caliphate would have been IN Constantinople almost 700 years earlier than when they actually were.
    IF you surround a place you have a possibility of entering, but it is NOT EVER the SAME.
    This is easily disproved! You can say you are *in the city,* and you can say you are *in that region.* Consider yourself completed rebutted.

    Your whole argument insists on being about being *within the temple itself.* My argument rests on the fact this is an Army stationed in the *region.* You have no proof that the "Holy Place" as a *temple* has to be inhabited by this abomination. And I would argue that in context the "Holy Place" has to be a *region,* inasmuch as this is a military assault upon the Holy Place, Jerusalem. Therefore this "abomination" must be an Army. As such, it *cannot* have been within the temple! It can only have been stationed in the region.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Again noting what occurred in 66 AD, Cestius Gallus NEVER entered into the Holy Place even though he surrounded it.
    His armies were defeated and fresh armies under fresh generals had to come to do the job.
    Both armies, in 66 AD and in 70 AD, were *in the region* of the Holy Place. As an uninvited pagan Army they constituted a sacrilege in the sacred region of Jerusalem, though not initially *inside* the city gates, nor certainly not *inside* the temple itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually, the question is NOT whether you think this is the correct basis or not. The question is whether it is a VALID basis. IOW does such an example make sense. Is it logical and is it a possible interpretation. The SIMPLE answer is yes it is possible and is logical and for anyone involved in any kind of project it is the kind of thing that happens.


    Yes it does. Every single one of them. Can you give a coherent reason why the angel broke it into 3 blocks and what based on what the angel said are the reasons for those 3 blocks?
    Nope you can't. So saying you have no problem, yet having no answer shows your view falls short.
    I've answered this before. The 1st period of time has to do with the restoration of the city and the temple. There is nothing from history to determine a distinct period of 49 years, but it seems likely this period would cover the initial period from Artaxerxes" decree.

    The remaining period, leading up to the 70th Week, it simply the time between the restoration period and the events that lead to the destruction event. The 70th Week is, as I'm suggesting, the things that lead up to the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple. The "abomination" set up in the temple area, ie the city *region,* would be the Roman Army. This happened 66-70 AD. There is no other desolation of the city and the sanctuary other than the 66-135 AD time period, identifying the Roman Army as the "abomination" set in the "Holy Place."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Fair enough. The question again though is whether it holds to what is stated within the prophecy? If it does then it means it is a valid way of looking at things. If it doesn't then please highlight why not?

    Your view is that "this generation" applies to most of the OD and therefore what ever was stated - excluding statements explicitly to do with Jesus return are primarily about that generation. It is also your general approach to prophecy, that it is primarily for the people alive at that moment.
    There is always an element of that, but what I highlighted is the MAIN pointy of the OD is NOT about Jerusalem's destruction. The main point is equipping His disciples, (and those who would follow after) for the time of tribulation they would experience BEFORE He returns, with as much emphasis (or even more) on the time just before He returns as to what happens shortly after He leaves.

    This is of major importance, because we should be preaching and teaching and discipling Christians to expect tribulation and to understand that this is what Jesus promised, and not say this was something that happened a long time ago.
    My argument does recognize many of your concerns. I've asked myself the same exact things. So I've had to base my position on the overwhelming facts, and not on the littler issues. The big facts are that this 70 Weeks period is undoubtedly an unbroken sequence of time and events, from the Persian Restoration to the Roman desolation of Jerusalem.

    The Olivet Discourse perfectly accords with this notion. There is no contradiction whatsoever. You are hung up on the littler details, and reject the Big Picture in favor of your attempt to resolve all of the stray facts.

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,465
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It is completely within the norm to define the *region* as being the "Holy Place. The description did not say the abomination was *inside the temple.* The AoD of Antiochus 4 was *within the temple.* The Roman Army was simply *in the Holy Place,* ie at Jerusalem. The Roman Army did not *belong* at, near, or around Jerusalem. It was *in the Holy Place.* Makes sense to me.
    No it is NOT completely within the norm. I wonder where you get such strange notions from.
    Actually the description SPECIFICALLY states the Abomination is IN the temple (according to the NIV).
    According to Jesus it is standing the Holy Place - which also is direct idiomatic speech for in the temple.
    The Roman army was NOT in the Holy Place UNTIL the very end of the siege. It is a complete debasing of language to try to claim otherwise. Ask anyone you like whether IN is the same as OUT and everybody will think you are weird.

    The Roman army had a fort at the gate to the temple when they occupied the country. Jesus saw Romans every time He visited the temple.
    I have no idea HOW it can make sense to you.

    You continue to see the "Holy Place" as a technical description of the *temple itself.* I see the "Holy Place" as Jerusalem and its environs. That is how an Army would be "in the Holy Place.* An Army would *not* be inside the temple. Rather, it would be stationed in a place prepared to invade the city and prepared to destroy the sanctuary. That would be how an Army is "in the Holy Place."
    I know what you claim, but I showed in every passage you quoted where you were wrong.
    The Holy Place refers to the place where the altar was, where sacrifices were made and is right outside th Holy of Holies.
    Even when you stretch the Holy Place to mean Jerusalem, then the Roman army of 66 AD were NOT inside the Holy Place.
    Remember though that Jesus is referring to how Daniel used that phrase. Every time that phrase is used it is INSIDE the temple and NOT outside.
    Please show a single example from Daniel where the holy Place is NOT the temple.

    This is easily disproved! You can say you are *in the city,* and you can say you are *in that region.* Consider yourself completed rebutted.
    What rebuttal?!?
    To say you are in a region is NOT to say you are in the city.
    Therefore IF the statement refers to a city, then being in the region does NOT make you in the city. Your rebuttal is void!

    Your whole argument insists on being about being *within the temple itself.* My argument rests on the fact this is an Army stationed in the *region.* You have no proof that the "Holy Place" has to be inhabited by this abomination. And I would argue that in context this "abomination" is an Army. As such, it *cannot* have been within the temple! It can only have been stationed in the region.
    This is a single argument, and yet you are unable to deal with it. As an army in a region is NOT an army IN the city, never mind NOT in the temple, and not in the Holy Place
    An army is NOT an abomination. Could you provide a single scripture verse where an army is called such?
    An army causes desolation, and in order for someone like A4E to set up an abomination they have an army, but the army itself is NOT the abomination.
    Please try to understand what words mean and how scripture uses them.

    Both armies, in 66 AD and in 70 AD, were *in the region* of the Holy Place. As an uninvited pagan Army they constituted a sacrilege in the sacred region of Jerusalem, though not initially *inside* the city gates, nor certainly not *inside* the temple itself.
    Was the Roman army invited in 30 AD when Jesus was in Jerusalem?
    Do you NOT know they had a fort INSIDE the city, right next to the temple. This was NEVER called an abomination in scripture.
    You claim things often enough you may start to believe them, yet they were not sacrilege UNLESS they went into the temple itself.
    Not inside the temple NOR the city.

    I've answered this before. The 1st period of time has to do with the restoration of the city and the temple. There is nothing from history to determine a distinct period of 49 years, but it seems likely this period would cover the initial period from Artaxerxes" decree.
    Actually we have scripture and it shows how ling before the city was rebuilt. It was ALL completed whilst Nehemiah was governor within 12 years.
    You claim something as likely, yet have ZERO scripture for your claim, nor anything specific in the prophecy to which you say, this is what the angel meant here. The 7 weeks is SPECIFIC. The 62 weeks are SPECIFIC. The 1 week is SPECIFIC.
    So though you have said something you have never actually provided something which meets the criteria.

    The remaining period, leading up to the 70th Week, it simply the time between the restoration period and the events that lead to the destruction event. The 70th Week is, as I'm suggesting, the things that lead up to the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple. The "abomination" set up in the temple area, ie the city *region,* would be the Roman Army. This happened 66-70 AD. There is no other desolation of the city and the sanctuary other than the 66-135 AD time period, identifying the Roman Army as the "abomination" set in the "Holy Place."
    Again this doesn't work, because IF you have the 7 weeks from the time of the restoration of the city in 445 BC, then the 483rd year is 39 AD.
    This doesn't work.
    Some try to claim it is NOT Nehemiah, but Ezra's earlier decree, which is then 457 BC, which then puts it as 27 AD, except Jesus would then have been born around 5 or 4 BC, which doesn't fit with Luke nor John.

    My argument does recognize many of your concerns. I've asked myself the same exact things. So I've had to base my position on the overwhelming facts, and not on the littler issues. The big facts are that this 70 Weeks period is undoubtedly an unbroken sequence of time and events, from the Persian Restoration to the Roman desolation of Jerusalem.
    I wish you had some facts to base your claims upon. You provide NONE which meet the words of any of the prophesies.
    there is NOTHING overwhelming, in fact it is entirely underwhelming.
    It is NOT a FACT that the 70 weeks is unbroken. It is a possibility, but without support from the prophecy itself, nor from scripture nor from history.

    The Olivet Discourse perfectly accords with this notion. There is no contradiction whatsoever. You are hung up on the littler details, and reject the Big Picture in favor of your attempt to resolve all of the stray facts.
    I don't reject a Big Picture. However the Big Picture is FORMED of ALL the little pictures being correct. I am not "hung up" ont hem, beyond demanding that we follow what scripture says, and not some Big picture which fits someones idea of what scripture is meant to say.
    You actually miss the real Picture Jesus is painting and follow some idea of the OD being about the past, when it is far more about the present and the future.
    As ALL the FACTS fit and make a Big Picture which is a cohesive whole there is no reason to accept a distorted picture which doesn't fit ALL the FACTS of scripture.

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,929

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    You can't state the entirety of the truth every time. However there is no falsehood in what I put.
    The Law IS how God defines the value He requires of Man, and it is expressed in a specific way through Moses.
    The Law itself NEVER changes, though the way it is expressed may do. This is why the ENTIRE Law may be summed up through Love God and love your neighbour. This IS true BOTH for the Mosaic Law and what you call Christ's Law. There is NO change in the substance, the principle nor the requirement to be holy.
    Clearly, this is false! Although it's true that the "Law of God" is sometimes referred to as the general moral values inherent in God eternally, it is *not true* that the Law of Moses is not distinguished from this universal Law of God. The entirety of NT theology is based on the assumption that the Law of Moses can be distinguished from NT Theology.

    Gal 3.2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

    It is so obviously true that an exclusive Hebrew Law with 613 requirements is not the universal Law of God that I feel foolish even discussing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry, but don't confuse HOW the Law is expressed through Moses for the people of Israel, with the Law itself.
    Paul clarifies this quite clearly in Romans.
    It is also correct to say that God makes Covenants, which in their very nature ARE sub-categories.
    This is what scripture shows. Some confuse this sub-category as being a Dispensation, but my point is that the Law is NEVER contrary to itself and the Dispensation is ALWAYS that of faith and NOT Law.
    Read the quotation from Gal 3 above. Paul is not arguing just covenants. He is actually calling one of the covenants "the Law!" So you are just confusing the language of Scriptures to safeguard your strange preoccupation with claiming the Law never changes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You are indeed confused. Jesus did NOT come to confirm the Law. He acknowledge that it IS, and further that the Law is NEVER abolished - though you claim it is annulled and thus abolished, contrary to the passage you are claiming to base your stance upon.
    He did NOT come to confirm the promises made to Abraham. Instead He came to make such promises possible.
    How can anyone live by faith? How were Abraham's sins paid for? By Abraham? Certainly not! It is Jesus atoning sacrifice which was for all men of all time. BOTH before the cross as well as after.
    Nobody here is arguing that Jesus didn't pay for sins. But as to the confirmation of the Covenant of Law, I see that in Matthew 5.

    Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    Rom 15.8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed.

    As to the requirements of the Law they were nailed, in the form of Jewish disobedience, to the cross. So yes, the Law as a covenant was annulled. It was clearly a "divorce." It's just that God provided a secondary, back-up plan for those who chose to obey God.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Indeed the Law can ONLY be 100% successful when referring to God's purpose.
    Jesus NEVER said to anyone, by keeping the Law you will be saved. He came to make a Covenant in His blood.
    As you well know, my point was that *from Israel's pov* the Law *failed.* The majority in Israel *failed* under the Law, just as Israel before the Babylonian Captivity had failed. My point is that the Law was not intended to *make people fail.* Rather, it was to point out that it is *human independence* that causes men to fail. And the Law shows that all men are infected with human independence, and must fail.

    This does not stop men from obeying God. The Law does not prevent that. It only separates the obedient from the disobedient, and directs the obedient to rely on Jesus' works for eternal redemption.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Further the covenant confirmed in Dan 9 was for 1 week ONLY.
    So IF it speaks of the Mosaic Law, then you have Jesus confirming throughout His ministry, only for it then to be of no value afterwards. Your own explanation makes no sense - hence I called it nonsense.
    This is pretty simple stuff! Jesus anticipated the failure of Israel, while at the same time affirming the Law as a proper standard for Israel. Jesus recognized that only a small group would adhere to these laws, and that the majority would continue in apostasy. The covenant of Law therefore would end in divorce for the nation, while a remnant could continue on with a new covenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I haven't said God doesn't put in place judgements. However you are saying that God puts in Abominations. How can God do something abominable? So are you arguing that A4E was actually God at work? That God was making an Abomination?
    Please think! If God used Babylon in the OT, who was an "abomination," why is it that you think God can't use Rome as an "abomination?" Don't you realize that any kind of contamination of God's legal order was considered an "abomination?" That would certainly include pagans who contaminate God's holy place in the region of Jerusalem!

    All Israel was supposed to remain "clean." A pagan Roman Army not only desecrated God's holy country, but approaching Jerusalem would be an affront to the Holy Place of Jerusalem! God's religious order emanated out of Jerusalem from the temple! A pagan Army approaching Jerusalem would therefore be the worst form of "abomination!"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is reasoning like this and then switching from what is said to trying to make it about judgements which shows the paucity of your argument.
    Daniel 9 wasn't written in Chaldean but Hebrew. It also wasn't written in Greek. However whichever version you chose to use, you then need to stick with that version and not ignore what it states.
    So if you want to quote a "specialist" then please do, but highlight why that specialist is better than every other translation. Again you need to stick with how that specialist translates the whole passage and not try cherry-picking part of one verse and then ignoring the rest.
    Yes, Dan 9 is outside the scope of the Aramaic part. I've just found following Daniel particularly difficult in terms of language and interpretation. I don't think some of these problems will be resolveable to everyone's satisfaction. I'm not satisfied myself. Again, I have to look to the Big Picture. But I do appreciate the difficulties. I just *cannot* make an absolute determination based on the unsolvable issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You have presented a particular view which doesn't work. So if you are rejecting that view, then it means your whole Roman army view needs to be rejected, which then means your whole OD thesis is in doubt, and of course the question of the Revelation of Jesus in Luke 17.
    I'm happy with it. I don't expect you to change views based on my arguments. You have to base your own beliefs on both the Bible and divine conviction.

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,465
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Clearly, this is false! Although it's true that the "Law of God" is sometimes referred to as the general moral values inherent in God eternally, it is *not true* that the Law of Moses is not distinguished from this universal Law of God. The entirety of NT theology is based on the assumption that the Law of Moses can be distinguished from NT Theology.

    Gal 3.2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

    It is so obviously true that an exclusive Hebrew Law with 613 requirements is not the universal Law of God that I feel foolish even discussing it.
    Actually this is NOT about the exclusive Hebrew Law. Paul's argument is that trying to receive the Spirit by keeping the Law is foolish.
    The Law of Moses is on occasion separately mentioned. This is because this is an expression of the Law.
    Do you keep the 10 commandments? Yet this IS the exclusive Hebrew law given to Moses. Do you try to Love God and love your neighbour? Well this IS the exclusive Hebrew Law given to Moses. Your claims about exclusivity show the moulding of your teachers.
    The Law and its TRUTH is for everyone, but not everyone knows it.
    The Hebrews were given a codified form for living by it as a Society WITHIN which we find the principles on which that Mosaic Law is based and which is NOT exclusively theirs.

    Read the quotation from Gal 3 above. Paul is not arguing just covenants. He is actually calling one of the covenants "the Law!" So you are just confusing the language of Scriptures to safeguard your strange preoccupation with claiming the Law never changes?
    Where does Paul call either of them a Covenant? Perhaps it would help if you read on to Galatians 3:6 where Abraham has righteousness credited to him by faith.

    Nobody here is arguing that Jesus didn't pay for sins. But as to the confirmation of the Covenant of Law, I see that in Matthew 5.
    Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
    Rom 15.8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed.
    As to the requirements of the Law they were nailed, in the form of Jewish disobedience, to the cross. So yes, the Law as a covenant was annulled. It was clearly a "divorce." It's just that God provided a secondary, back-up plan for those who chose to obey God.
    Matt 5 does NOT speak of a confirmation of the Covenant of Mosaic Law, but of a fulfillment of the requirements of the Law.
    Romans 15 does NOT speaks of confirmation of the Covenant of Mosaic Law but of confirmation of the PROMISES made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    This is pretty simple stuff! Jesus anticipated the failure of Israel, while at the same time affirming the Law as a proper standard for Israel. Jesus recognized that only a small group would adhere to these laws, and that the majority would continue in apostasy. The covenant of Law therefore would end in divorce for the nation, while a remnant could continue on with a new covenant.
    No, this is pretty simple nonsense. Jesus did NOT recognise that only a small group would adhere. Nor does it make any mention of divorce. This is you making things up. You are NOT explaining WHY Jesus would confirm a covenant, the very thing which you are saying He came to tear up.

    Please think! If God used Babylon in the OT, who was an "abomination," why is it that you think God can't use Rome as an "abomination?" Don't you realize that any kind of contamination of God's legal order was considered an "abomination?" That would certainly include pagans who contaminate God's holy place in the region of Jerusalem!
    I do try and think. God does NOT cause abomination. You are changing what God allows to God doing. God can allow the Romans to set up an abomination is correct. However the reason is not because God makes them an abomination. Rather it will be because they ARE an abomination, and do abominable things.
    You still fail to deal with your twisted interpretation which makes God the initiator of the abomination.

    All Israel was supposed to remain "clean." A pagan Roman Army not only desecrated God's holy country, but approaching Jerusalem would be an affront to the Holy Place of Jerusalem! God's religious order emanated out of Jerusalem from the temple! A pagan Army approaching Jerusalem would therefore be the worst form of "abomination!"
    Sorry, but that means Jerusalem was an abomination for ALL the period of Roman rule from at least 7 AD.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,929

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually this is NOT about the exclusive Hebrew Law. Paul's argument is that trying to receive the Spirit by keeping the Law is foolish.
    The Law of Moses is on occasion separately mentioned. This is because this is an expression of the Law.
    Do you keep the 10 commandments? Yet this IS the exclusive Hebrew law given to Moses. Do you try to Love God and love your neighbour? Well this IS the exclusive Hebrew Law given to Moses. Your claims about exclusivity show the moulding of your teachers.
    The Law and its TRUTH is for everyone, but not everyone knows it.
    The Hebrews were given a codified form for living by it as a Society WITHIN which we find the principles on which that Mosaic Law is based and which is NOT exclusively theirs.
    You fail to distinguish between the Law of Moses as a subgroup from the Eternal Law of God for Man in Creation. They are different and mean different things. If you confuse these two things you will end up trying to put the Church under the Law of Moses.

    Yes, Paul was arguing that Christians did not and could not receive the Spirit as a permanent possession by keeping the Law of Moses. So what Law do we keep if not the Law of Moses? Obviously, obedience is directed towards Christ so that we may obtain his righteousness, in acknowledgment that our own record of righteousness is insufficient to merit eternal life. These are different laws!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Where does Paul call either of them a Covenant? Perhaps it would help if you read on to Galatians 3:6 where Abraham has righteousness credited to him by faith.
    The Covenant was an agreement that required things of Israel. Those things included the Law of Moses.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Matt 5 does NOT speak of a confirmation of the Covenant of Mosaic Law, but of a fulfillment of the requirements of the Law.
    Romans 15 does NOT speaks of confirmation of the Covenant of Mosaic Law but of confirmation of the PROMISES made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
    Same thing to me. Jesus confirmed *in himself* the righteousness to which the Law testified, including the promises made to the Patriarchs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No, this is pretty simple nonsense. Jesus did NOT recognise that only a small group would adhere. Nor does it make any mention of divorce. This is you making things up. You are NOT explaining WHY Jesus would confirm a covenant, the very thing which you are saying He came to tear up.
    He came as the righteousness to which the Law referred. The Law was a temporary righteousness for Israel until Christ came. This is what Jesus confirmed by his righteous acts. The "divorce" taking place between God and Israel was identified as taking place whenever Israel was exiled from their land. That happened during the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. And this was going to happen again.

    If Israel failed under the Law, and they did, then Jesus recognized that the majority in Israel had gone apostate and would be "divorced" under the Law. But Jesus had come to be the atonement for this failure, so that the Law did not need to be restored, as before.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I do try and think. God does NOT cause abomination. You are changing what God allows to God doing. God can allow the Romans to set up an abomination is correct. However the reason is not because God makes them an abomination. Rather it will be because they ARE an abomination, and do abominable things.
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, that people make themselves an "abomination" by choosing pagan ways and then entering into sacred territory. God directs this to take place by bringing this pagan Army into the Holy Place of Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You still fail to deal with your twisted interpretation which makes God the initiator of the abomination.

    Sorry, but that means Jerusalem was an abomination for ALL the period of Roman rule from at least 7 AD.
    According to Daniel the 4th Beast rules until the coming of Christ's Kingdom. According to Jesus the "times of the Gentiles/Romans" continues until the coming of his Kingdom. So yes, the "abomination" caused desolation and left Israel under Gentile/Roman oppression throughout this age. And that is, in a sense, a fact. It may not be technically "Rome" that is oppressing Jerusalem today. But that Jerusalem is oppressed is beyond dispute. Rome did not "give back" Jerusalem to the Jewish People!

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,465
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is a reference paper for "Glory" on the parallel elements in the Olivet Discourse comparing the 3 synoptic gospels. This is to show that these 21 or so elements in the Discourse describe the exact same story, and mean exactly the same thing in each account.
    In Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 we have the following points in common, in relatively the same order.

    1) not one stone--the temple would fall
    2) deception--the disciples should avoid deception/false eschatological expectation
    3) wars
    4) earthquakes
    5) beginning of birth pains--international trouble for Israel
    6) persecution--Christian persecution and hate for Christians
    7) wickedness--evil in Israel
    8) gospel--Christian proclamation of God's word
    9) AoD--desolation of Jerusalem by Roman armies
    10) flee to mountains--escape from an invasion
    11) pregnant women in dread--escape under harsh conditions from an invasion
    12) great distress
    13) distress cut short--Gentile oppression of the Jewish People ends
    14) "here is the Messiah"--misdirection about Christian truth
    15) false messiahs and false prophets--false religion in Israel
    16) vultures gather--divine judgment through military conquest
    17) Son of Man--eschatology is from outside of human works
    18) fig tree--events in Jesus' generation
    19) days of Noah--preparation for Christ's Coming is anticipatory of world judgment
    20) one taken one left--judgment in Israel removes some in exile, and leaves some alone
    21) keep watch--Christian navigation in the world
    OK Lets work through these and see if there is any merit in it.

    5) Birth pains in Matt 24:8 is NOT the same as trouble for Israel.
    8) No mention of Christian proclamation of God's Word in Luke
    9) AoD is NOT the same as Roman armies.
    10 and 11) similar but also different. Matthew speaks of it happening over a Sabbath. Luke does not have the same urgency.
    12) Great Distress and Great Tribulation are NOT the same.
    13) Matthew has GT cut short, but Luke does NOT have it cut short whatsoever. In fact it lasts 2000 years.
    19 & 20) Not in Luke 21.

    So we have a few bits which are the same 12 in total and 9 which are not the same. You claim it is the same without the wording itself showing it is.
    Do I need to list all the bits which are different on top of these 9?

    Of course we expect some similarities as they are reporting form the same Discourse. It would be very surprising if it wasn't.
    However there are many things stated with different chronological perspectives about different people connected to different happenings which show they are NOT the same.
    You have provided nothing new or usable in this, and have failed to deal with the real differences.

    A simple example is that Great Distress is stated to occur to this people due to God's wrath. This clearly is NOT the same as Great Tribulation upon Christians due to severe persecution.
    You have them as being the same, yet clearly they are not.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,929

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    OK Lets work through these and see if there is any merit in it.
    5) Birth pains in Matt 24:8 is NOT the same as trouble for Israel.
    It's the same in all 3 versions. Deception, wars, and earthquakes in reference to the approaching destruction of the Jewish temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    8) No mention of Christian proclamation of God's Word in Luke
    Luke 21.13 And so you will *bear testimony* to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    9) AoD is NOT the same as Roman armies.
    That is an irrational assumption you're making. In fact it is very likely that Luke is describing the same thing as Matthew and Mark said in the same place in the same Discourse!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    10 and 11) similar but also different. Matthew speaks of it happening over a Sabbath. Luke does not have the same urgency.
    It's more logical to explain the differences as omissions or inclusions of details, rather than completely different material.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    12) Great Distress and Great Tribulation are NOT the same.
    Like I've been saying, differentiating meaning due to *synonyms* being used is not rational. You must have an agenda to *want* to mean something different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    13) Matthew has GT cut short, but Luke does NOT have it cut short whatsoever. In fact it lasts 2000 years.
    Luke 21.24Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until *the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled*.

    These are the same in all versions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    19 & 20) Not in Luke 21.
    The omission of Noah's Flood and the "taken and left" can, as I said, be included under other points already made. That would be a slightly modified, condensed version.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So we have a few bits which are the same 12 in total and 9 which are not the same. You claim it is the same without the wording itself showing it is.
    Do I need to list all the bits which are different on top of these 9?
    I already did this yesterday in one of my posts. I explained every change among the 3 versions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Of course we expect some similarities as they are reporting form the same Discourse. It would be very surprising if it wasn't.
    However there are many things stated with different chronological perspectives about different people connected to different happenings which show they are NOT the same.
    You have provided nothing new or usable in this, and have failed to deal with the real differences.
    They are not real differences. I've explained every difference, and they are incidental and do not indicate major differences in the accounts. They all express the same general elements in the same general order. I'm surprised that you are unable or unwilling to see this?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A simple example is that Great Distress is stated to occur to this people due to God's wrath. This clearly is NOT the same as Great Tribulation upon Christians due to severe persecution.
    You have them as being the same, yet clearly they are not.
    Christian persecution and Jewish punishment is described and distinguished in all of the versions, and are both included in what is called "Jewish Distress."

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,465
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It's the same in all 3 versions. Deception, wars, and earthquakes in reference to the approaching destruction of the Jewish temple.
    Nope, you listed wars and earthquakes as similarities 3 & 4, so they are NOT similarity 5.
    A similarity is where the same thing is stated in a different version.
    Luke makes NO mention of anything in place of birth pains.

    Luke 21.13 And so you will *bear testimony* to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.
    Sorry, but this passage is about being persecuted, NOT abut going into the world and proclaiming. It is NOT an additional similarity but actually covered again in another one.

    That is an irrational assumption you're making. In fact it is very likely that Luke is describing the same thing as Matthew and Mark said in the same place in the same Discourse!
    What we are looking at is whether they state the same thing in another way. You are FORCING this to be saying the same thing, when it is not. You are the one being irrational (especially for this exercise). What you are really saying is, because I find this in a similar place in the listing so I will claim it is the same. Yet it isn't actually in the same place at all.

    It's more logical to explain the differences as omissions or inclusions of details, rather than completely different material.
    It may be an omission or an inclusion, but that doesn't allow you to say it IS the same.

    Like I've been saying, differentiating meaning due to *synonyms* being used is not rational. You must have an agenda to *want* to mean something different?
    You are the one with the agenda trying to PROVE that they are the same.
    I am looking at it as what is written. Distress is NOT a synonym for Tribulation. So your claim is WRONG at the fundamental level. Get your foundation right then the house will stand. get it wrong and it will collapse.
    I have highlighted many times that Distress for a Jew DOES NOT mean Tribulation for a Believer. This is simply what language shows.

    Luke 21.24Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until *the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled*.
    These are the same in all versions.
    No it is NOT the same. Matt and Mark do NOT have Jerusalem trampled by the Gentiles, especially NOT until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    The omission of Noah's Flood and the "taken and left" can, as I said, be included under other points already made. That would be a slightly modified, condensed version.
    You are cl;aiming that these 21 points were found in all 3. However we find that these points are NOT made therefore it is WRONG to put them as part of the 21.

    I already did this yesterday in one of my posts. I explained every change among the 3 versions.
    No you didn't. You tried to, in a similar fashion to this. You assumed it is the same, and then said, because it is the same so everything is sorted.

    They are not real differences. I've explained every difference, and they are incidental and do not indicate major differences in the accounts. They all express the same general elements in the same general order. I'm surprised that you are unable or unwilling to see this?
    They are MAJOR differences. Yo see a pattern and so claim it is the same thing. I see the pattern, but I notice where peices you are putting in the jigsaw don't fit.

    Christian persecution and Jewish punishment is described and distinguished in all of the versions, and are both included in what is called "Jewish Distress."
    How is it described in Luke and Matthew? Not in the same places. If they are then are you really saying that Luke thinks all Jewish distress is the same as Christian persecution.
    Your rationale is wrong.

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,929

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, you listed wars and earthquakes as similarities 3 & 4, so they are NOT similarity 5.
    A similarity is where the same thing is stated in a different version.
    I've pointed this out before. Matthew lists deception, wars, and earthquakes. Mark lists deception, wars, and earthquakes. Luke lists deception, wars, and earthquakes. These are all the *same.*

    And then all 3 versions have these described as the "beginning of birth pains," using one form of language or another. Matthew and Mark both use "beginning of birth pains." Luke uses, "These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

    In a nutshell, all 3 versions are *similar* inasmuch as all 3 versions speak of what *begins* the process, and all 3 versions describe what this "beginning" consists of, including deception, wars, and earthquakes.

    I have no clue what your problem is with this? You seem to be "splitting hairs!"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Luke makes NO mention of anything in place of birth pains.
    On the contrary, Luke says, "These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” Since this phrase is used in the exact same place in the Discourse that the other versions describe the "beginning of birth pains," we can safely conclude that this is just different language used for the same thing. Please note the similarity between the words "first" and "beginning."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry, but this passage is about being persecuted, NOT abut going into the world and proclaiming. It is NOT an additional similarity but actually covered again in another one.
    Again, this statement from Luke is given in the same place that Matthew and Mark refer to the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom, which follows the persecution by the Jews of Jesus' disciples. Luke is simply describing the preaching of the gospel in the same context, in the context of the Jews persecuting them.

    Luke 21.13 And so you will *bear testimony* to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

    In other words, this is just different phrasing for the same general concept. Matthew, Mark, and Luke here are actually saying the same exact things!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What we are looking at is whether they state the same thing in another way. You are FORCING this to be saying the same thing, when it is not. You are the one being irrational (especially for this exercise). What you are really saying is, because I find this in a similar place in the listing so I will claim it is the same. Yet it isn't actually in the same place at all.
    I completely disagree. You are forcing *differences* when synonymous phrasing is being used *in the same exact Discourse!* I could accept your point if these differences were insurmountable. But they are not only not insurmountable--they are obviously synonymous concepts! Therefore, I don't feel I'm "forcing" anything!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It may be an omission or an inclusion, but that doesn't allow you to say it IS the same.
    The relatively few omissions are redundant in the minds of those who omitted them, since the missing elements could easily be assumed as included in some of the other elements. For example, the missing elements in Mark, such as the Flood of Noah, or the "taken and left," could easily be subsumed under the element of "keeping watch." In other words, they are not significant omissions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You are the one with the agenda trying to PROVE that they are the same.
    I am looking at it as what is written. Distress is NOT a synonym for Tribulation. So your claim is WRONG at the fundamental level. Get your foundation right then the house will stand. get it wrong and it will collapse.
    I have highlighted many times that Distress for a Jew DOES NOT mean Tribulation for a Believer. This is simply what language shows.
    I understand that you are distinguishing Christian persecution from Jewish tribulation. But I'm saying that the words "distress" and "tribulation" are synonyms. Therefore, if this passage *includes* Christian persecution in the Jewish tribulation, then they are not incompatible concepts. For example, Jewish tribulation would include *Jews* who suffer Christian persecution.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No it is NOT the same. Matt and Mark do NOT have Jerusalem trampled by the Gentiles, especially NOT until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
    That begs the question. If The AoD *is* in fact the trampling of Jerusalem, then "the fulness of the times of the Gentiles" is the same as the "cutting off of Jewish distress."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You are cl;aiming that these 21 points were found in all 3. However we find that these points are NOT made therefore it is WRONG to put them as part of the 21.
    This also begs the question. If some of the points you claim are different actually are not, but only different phrasing, than *most* of these 21 points are included in all 3, or at the very least, are subsumed under other elements that are more broad and inclusive of these concepts generally.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No you didn't. You tried to, in a similar fashion to this. You assumed it is the same, and then said, because it is the same so everything is sorted.
    Using *your arguments* you would disagree. But using *my arguments* I did explain all of these differences, which are not critical differences. They are language differences, with the same general meaning being included in all 3 versions. The 21 elements are the same in all 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    They are MAJOR differences. Yo see a pattern and so claim it is the same thing. I see the pattern, but I notice where peices you are putting in the jigsaw don't fit.
    You are splitting hairs, and failing to see the similarities. You are pushing your contrary agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    How is it described in Luke and Matthew? Not in the same places. If they are then are you really saying that Luke thinks all Jewish distress is the same as Christian persecution.
    Your rationale is wrong.
    False. Jesus was describing a time of trouble for the Jewish people, including Christian and non-Christians. The general trouble results from a majority of Jewish unbelievers. But this spells trouble for the minority Christians as well. All one Jewish tribulation. All one Jewish distress.

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,465
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I've pointed this out before. Matthew lists deception, wars, and earthquakes. Mark lists deception, wars, and earthquakes. Luke lists deception, wars, and earthquakes. These are all the *same.*
    Fine, and you have listed them as such.

    And then all 3 versions have these described as the "beginning of birth pains," using one form of language or another. Matthew and Mark both use "beginning of birth pains." Luke uses, "These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”
    Nope, Luke makes NO mention of birth pains.
    A birth pain is about something being born. Luke speaks in connection with tribulation, which Matt and Mark mention separately.

    In a nutshell, all 3 versions are *similar* inasmuch as all 3 versions speak of what *begins* the process, and all 3 versions describe what this "beginning" consists of, including deception, wars, and earthquakes.

    I have no clue what your problem is with this? You seem to be "splitting hairs!"
    You made out that they are the SAME thing. I am highlighting that some of those things you claim are the SAME are indeed the SAME. However other things you claim are the same are not. You have split hairs to make your list so i have dealt with each item on the list.

    On the contrary, Luke says, "These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” Since this phrase is used in the exact same place in the Discourse that the other versions describe the "beginning of birth pains," we can safely conclude that this is just different language used for the same thing. Please note the similarity between the words "first" and "beginning."
    Actually what does Luke say?
    Luke 21:12* But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake.
    This is NOT the SAME but a follow on point.

    Again, this statement from Luke is given in the same place that Matthew and Mark refer to the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom, which follows the persecution by the Jews of Jesus' disciples. Luke is simply describing the preaching of the gospel in the same context, in the context of the Jews persecuting them.

    Luke 21.13 And so you will *bear testimony* to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

    In other words, this is just different phrasing for the same general concept. Matthew, Mark, and Luke here are actually saying the same exact things!
    You see, you are MAKING the SAME mistake. Because one thing was said in one account you translate a different phrase which is NOT the same INTO the same to meet your preconceived criteria.
    Going OUT into the whole world is NOT the same as being dragged INTO court. In BOTH cases you can argue that a witness is being held, but the whole thrust is ENTIRELY different and speaks of a different situation.

    I completely disagree. You are forcing *differences* when synonymous phrasing is being used *in the same exact Discourse!* I could accept your point if these differences were insurmountable. But they are not only not insurmountable--they are obviously synonymous concepts! Therefore, I don't feel I'm "forcing" anything!
    You keep claiming synonyms, when the words are NOT synonyms. Maybe check with a dictionary as to the meaning of words.
    Now I did highlight how the words may be used together, but that does NOT make them synonyms, and they can also be used apart.
    You are forcing into a preconceived paradigm, rather than understanding what the words mean in there OWN context.

    The relatively few omissions are redundant in the minds of those who omitted them, since the missing elements could easily be assumed as included in some of the other elements. For example, the missing elements in Mark, such as the Flood of Noah, or the "taken and left," could easily be subsumed under the element of "keeping watch." In other words, they are not significant omissions.
    Wow, you can assume the words of Jesus! Really the Flood of Noah, is simply keep watch? Boy.

    I understand that you are distinguishing Christian persecution from Jewish tribulation. But I'm saying that the words "distress" and "tribulation" are synonyms. Therefore, if this passage *includes* Christian persecution in the Jewish tribulation, then they are not incompatible concepts. For example, Jewish tribulation would include *Jews* who suffer Christian persecution.
    they are speaking of ENTIRELY different people so of course I will not agree that they are the SAME. It is EXTREMELY poor to claim that because a Christian might get caught up in the wrath of God, so
    it is the same concept. It isn't.

    That begs the question. If The AoD *is* in fact the trampling of Jerusalem, then "the fulness of the times of the Gentiles" is the same as the "cutting off of Jewish distress."
    Actually the AoD is NOT the trampling of Jerusalem.
    The trampling of Jerusalem IS connected to the Jewish distress. So when Jerusalem is no longer trampled then the time of Distress is over and so is the time of the Gentiles.

    This also begs the question. If some of the points you claim are different actually are not, but only different phrasing, than *most* of these 21 points are included in all 3, or at the very least, are subsumed under other elements that are more broad and inclusive of these concepts generally.
    As they are different it highlights that there are things which Luke recorded which Matt and Mark didn't and vice versa.

    False. Jesus was describing a time of trouble for the Jewish people, including Christian and non-Christians. The general trouble results from a majority of Jewish unbelievers. But this spells trouble for the minority Christians as well. All one Jewish tribulation. All one Jewish distress.
    So therefore you have NO Great Tribulation for Christians. You make it ALL about 70 AD.
    The Christian persecution in Matthew is NOT part of God's wrath against the Jews. Therefore your claim FAILS completely on such a simple point.

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,929

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Fine, and you have listed them as such.

    Nope, Luke makes NO mention of birth pains.
    A birth pain is about something being born. Luke speaks in connection with tribulation, which Matt and Mark mention separately.
    The "beginning of birth pains" can be condensed down to "these things are just the start." They are the same!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You made out that they are the SAME thing. I am highlighting that some of those things you claim are the SAME are indeed the SAME. However other things you claim are the same are not. You have split hairs to make your list so i have dealt with each item on the list.

    Actually what does Luke say?
    Luke 21:12* But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake.
    This is NOT the SAME but a follow on point.

    You see, you are MAKING the SAME mistake. Because one thing was said in one account you translate a different phrase which is NOT the same INTO the same to meet your preconceived criteria.
    Going OUT into the whole world is NOT the same as being dragged INTO court. In BOTH cases you can argue that a witness is being held, but the whole thrust is ENTIRELY different and speaks of a different situation.
    Preaching the gospel in order to give testimony in international courts is the same thing as "bearing testimony before kings." *Preaching the gospel* is the same as *bearing testimony.*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You keep claiming synonyms, when the words are NOT synonyms. Maybe check with a dictionary as to the meaning of words.
    Now I did highlight how the words may be used together, but that does NOT make them synonyms, and they can also be used apart.
    You are forcing into a preconceived paradigm, rather than understanding what the words mean in there OWN context.
    No, compare the texts. They are saying the same things. Yes, there are additional words, different phrasing, etc. But when different phrases are connected in one passage, you know they are saying the same thing in a related passage that may use only one of the phrases, or fewer words. A condensed version is the *same version* reduced in size.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Wow, you can assume the words of Jesus! Really the Flood of Noah, is simply keep watch? Boy.
    If you see where the Flood of Noah is used in Matthew and in Luke, you can see the connection to being "watchful" or "alert to deception" in all 3 accounts. In Matthew the Christians are to be on the look out against deception, leading to a gathering of vultures (Romans), after which there is distress (exile), and finally the coming of the Son of Man (the Kingdom). Obviously, the disciples of Jesus cannot be on the alert for things far off in the distant future. They can only be alert to what is going on in their own generation. Therefore, they were alert to the "beginning of sorrows," which is, I believe, the 70 AD event, which leads to an age-long punishment.

    The description of Noah's Flood and the "taken and left" follows the account of the coming of the Son of Man. But it is a reiteration of the need for "watching." Luke 17 follows the exact same pattern. Thus, keeping "watch" is inclusive, conceptually, of the items to be watched out for, which I believe to be the Roman Army, the "beginning of sorrows." This event will resemble Noah's Flood, and being "taken away or left to survive."

    Matt 24.26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘*There he is*, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the *vultures* will gather.
    29 “Immediately after the distress of those days... 36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the *days of Noah*, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; *one will be taken and the other left*.
    42 “Therefore *keep watch*, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.


    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*.”


    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    they are speaking of ENTIRELY different people so of course I will not agree that they are the SAME. It is EXTREMELY poor to claim that because a Christian might get caught up in the wrath of God, so
    it is the same concept. It isn't.
    Christian Jews are still Jews. Both believing and unbelieving Jews are all Jews. They are all caught up, as an ethnic group, in a national catastrophe. Nothing weird about that. Godly people do get caught up in natural judgments against a predominantly wicked society. Lot lost his home in Sodom not because of his own evil deeds, but rather, because he lived in proximity with a largely wicked society.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually the AoD is NOT the trampling of Jerusalem.
    The trampling of Jerusalem IS connected to the Jewish distress. So when Jerusalem is no longer trampled then the time of Distress is over and so is the time of the Gentiles.
    The AoD is, in my view, the trampling of Jerusalem. In Luke's version, the Roman armies encircle Jerusalem and destroy both it and its temple. Then Israel is taken in captivity and go through an age of distress, until the time of Gentile dominion is ended.

    This is described in different terms in Matthew and Mark. They describe the same event as the AoD, which is the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple. And the end of this period of distress is described as being "cut short" on behalf of the Christians. We know all versions are describing the same event, even though some condense and remove some of the words because "flee to the mountains," "pregnant women," and "great distress" are all described as part of this event in all of the versions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As they are different it highlights that there are things which Luke recorded which Matt and Mark didn't and vice versa.
    Condensing phrases and sentences, and thus omitting a few words, does not mean that these accounts are different.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So therefore you have NO Great Tribulation for Christians. You make it ALL about 70 AD.
    The Christian persecution in Matthew is NOT part of God's wrath against the Jews. Therefore your claim FAILS completely on such a simple point.
    Trouble is, you're not right.
    1) All versions describe the same AoD event, which affects both believing and unbelieving Jews. Christians are persecuted by their unbelieving brethren. And the unbelieving brethren actually cause this punishment to befall the nation as a whole, leading to great distress for the *whole nation,* believers and unbelievers.

    2) Persecution for Christians is described in *all 3 versions.*

    3) It is not "all about 70 AD." It is *centered on* 70 AD! This is the "beginning of birth pains," or just the start of a long process of Great Tribulation, or Great Distress. The punishment only *begins* in 70 AD. The punishment *ends* at the Coming of Christ.

    4) To say that Christian Jews suffered along with their fellow Jews in 70 AD is not the same thing as saying Christians were *punished* along with their fellow Jews in 70 AD, which is what your implication seems to be. Obviously, there are innocent casualties in wars and in natural disasters, which God may have been designed for wicked unbelievers. For example, righteous Jeremiah had to go through trouble in Jerusalem in a punishment designed not for him, but for unbelieving Hebrews.

    I will follow up with a comparison of the passages to prove:
    1) Christian Persecution is in all 3 accounts.
    2) The preaching of the gospel as a *testimony* is the same as *bearing testimony.*
    3) The "beginning of birth pains" is the same as "these things are just a start."

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,929

    Re: Day of Christ's "Revelation?"

    This is just here for reference material, to show the following...
    1) To show "preaching the gospel as a testimony" is the same as "bearing testimony" in all 3 accounts of the Olivet Discourse.

    You will find the following elements in the following:

    Matthew: persecution, hatred, betrayal, increased wickedness, cooled love, standing firm for salvation, gospel preached, testimony to all nations.

    Mark: flogging, standing before kings as witnesses, gospel preached, say what is given, family betrayal and rebellion, hatred, standing firm for salvation.

    Luke: persecution, brought before kings to bear testimony, given words, family betrayal, hatred, standing firm for salvation.

    Matt 24.9 “Then you will be handed over to be *persecuted* and put to death, and you will be *hated* by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will *betray* and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of *wickedness*, the *love of most will grow cold*, 13 but the one who *stands firm to the end will be saved*. 14 And *this gospel of the kingdom will be preached* in the whole world as a *testimony* to all nations, and then the end will come.

    Mark 13.9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and *flogged* in the synagogues. On account of me you will *stand before governors and kings as witnesses* to them. 10 And *the gospel must first be preached* to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just *say whatever is given you* at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. 12 “Brother will *betray* brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will *hate* because of me, but the one who *stands firm to the end will be saved*.

    Luke 21.12 “But before all this, they will seize you and *persecute* you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be *brought before kings and governors*, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will *bear testimony* to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will *give you words and wisdom* that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be *betrayed* even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will *hate* you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 *Stand firm, and you will win life*.

    All 3 accounts agree on the theme of persecution for the Jewish believers, or Christians.
    All 3 talk about betrayal and hatred, whether by family or ethnic relations.
    All 3 talk about Christians standing firm for salvation.
    In all 3 accounts the gospel is preached in the form of standing in faith and in love before international courts, giving testimony with inspired words.

    Mark and Luke speak of giving testimony in the form of *inspired* testimony before kings.
    Matthew speaks of preaching of the gospel as a testimony to all nations.
    In other words, *giving an inspired testimony before kings* in Mark and Luke is the same as preaching the gospel as an *international testimony* in Matthew.

    2) In the matter of comparing the "beginning of birth pains" with Luke's "this must happen first."

    Matt 24.4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one *deceives* you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of *wars* and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and *earthquakes* in various places. 8 All these are the *beginning of birth pains*.

    Mark 13.5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one *deceives* you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of *wars* and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be *earthquakes* in various places, and famines. These are the *beginning of birth pains*.

    Luke 21.8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not *deceived*. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of *wars* and uprisings, do not be frightened. *These things must happen first*, but the end will not come right away.”

    Here, the elements 1) deception, 2) wars, and 3) things first are listed in each account.
    In these 3 accounts the "beginning of birth pains" and "these things must happen first" are saying the same exact thing, except that Luke condenses the description, eliminating the descriptive metaphor, "birth pains."

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
  •