Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: What is the sign of the Return?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere big like Texas
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by third hero View Post

    So....
    What is the sign of His coming? I mean, what event can we all point to that screams out, "Here He comes!"? I am very interested in reading what is out there.
    Ok, I'll bite. First, the most disputed one is Israel is once again a Nation on her land. (knew you'd like that one.) and I'm serious.

    Other than that, I think the things screaming out is immorality, love growing cold, a different gospel becoming mainstream, a blending of religions. The kind of things that would make Jesus say "When I come, will I find faith on the earth?". It will be things which have always been only more intense just as birth pains get. Yes, these things have always been, the difference is because of a love grown cold people become so accustomed to it and indifferent they don't realize how much worse it is. I'm sure the screams will get louder.

    My opinion is the scoffers. When everyone is saying He is not coming back that's when He will.
    I have a Blog. Please visit!

    My Blog http://bibleforums.org/forum/blog.php?b=537

    Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life!

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by My heart's Desire View Post
    Ok, I'll bite. First, the most disputed one is Israel is once again a Nation on her land. (knew you'd like that one.) and I'm serious.

    Other than that, I think the things screaming out is immorality, love growing cold, a different gospel becoming mainstream, a blending of religions. The kind of things that would make Jesus say "When I come, will I find faith on the earth?". It will be things which have always been only more intense just as birth pains get. Yes, these things have always been, the difference is because of a love grown cold people become so accustomed to it and indifferent they don't realize how much worse it is. I'm sure the screams will get louder.

    My opinion is the scoffers. When everyone is saying He is not coming back that's when He will.
    Yep - but there's a distinction between the birth-pain signs (plural) which show that the time is drawing close, and THE SIGN.

    ananias
    "But you must not be called Rabbi, for One is your teacher, Christ, and you are all brothers.

    And call no one your father on the earth, for One is your Father in Heaven.

    Nor be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, even Christ."
    (Mat.23: 8-10)

    AND

    "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another.

    By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another."
    (Joh.13: 34-35)

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Hi ananias

    I believe they both recorded events faithfully and they shed light on each other.
    That's true - but they also differ from one another - that's why the picture that is revealed when the light is shed on the written Word is not seen the same way by everyone - some of us are seeing two vases and some are seeing to faces pointed toward one another in one and the same picture. Perhaps it's both?

    ananias
    "But you must not be called Rabbi, for One is your teacher, Christ, and you are all brothers.

    And call no one your father on the earth, for One is your Father in Heaven.

    Nor be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, even Christ."
    (Mat.23: 8-10)

    AND

    "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another.

    By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another."
    (Joh.13: 34-35)

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere big like Texas
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ananias View Post
    Yep - but there's a distinction between the birth-pain signs (plural) which show that the time is drawing close, and THE SIGN.

    ananias
    Well.....you know premil believes He can return at any time (no specific sign) and its' been that way since He rose from death and returned to Heaven so that increasing birth pangs are the signs for the rapture of the Church.

    When He appears at His coming at the end of the age, I believe it is the sign of Him appearing in the sky on that white horse with His armies so it would seem that when all the armies of the earth are assembled in the Valley of Jezreel then all heads better be looking up!
    I have a Blog. Please visit!

    My Blog http://bibleforums.org/forum/blog.php?b=537

    Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life!

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by khoolaid View Post
    i think this is the winner.

    -when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand -matthew 24:15
    don't overlook this post, anyone
    "But you must not be called Rabbi, for One is your teacher, Christ, and you are all brothers.

    And call no one your father on the earth, for One is your Father in Heaven.

    Nor be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, even Christ."
    (Mat.23: 8-10)

    AND

    "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another.

    By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another."
    (Joh.13: 34-35)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,912
    That's true - but they also differ from one another
    Hmmm, so your saying that they interpreted Jesus teaching that day differently?

    Luke uses those eyewitness accounts to clarify the teachings.--lk 1.

    Both luke and Matt start and finish the olivet discourse the same way.

    MATT
    Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."




    "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.


    LK
    As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."


    "There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
    26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken



    God bless

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Taking a Vacation for While
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Retrobyter View Post
    Shabbat shalom, Literalist-Luke!

    Hey, I'm always up for a challenge! Let me give it to you simply: The phrase in the above quotation, "all the peoples of the earth will mourn," is NOT about all the peoples of the earth! This is a direct quote from the OT passage Zechariah 12:12; however, let me give you the full gist of what is happening by giving it in context:

    Zech. 12:10-14
    And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me whom they pierced through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Yerushalayim, as the mourning of Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: the family of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Natan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

    The Greek word for "earth" is "ge" and it can also mean "land" or "ground" or even "dirt." This is also true for the Hebrew word "eretz," and this is the word that is being used in Zechariah. The nation of Isra'el has always been tied to the Land, even when they were separated from it for so long. In fact, to talk about the nation of Isra'el today, they will use the phrase "eretz Yisra'el," meaning "the land of Israel" to describe the nation's location. And, in spite of the way that the British and the Arabs and the Palestinians have carved up the land and will continue to do so, the Land is theirs by Divine decree and will be returned to them when the Messiah returns!

    (There's a great story behind this passage in Zechariah that I'd like to go into, but I'll wait for now. Suffice it to say that it has to do with Luke 3.)

    Now, if you can understand who comprised the Messianic communities at the time of the first century, it DOES apply to the "infant church," but only if you can understand that the Nazarene sect, including any believing Goyim or Gentiles, was a SUBSET of believing Isra'el!

    Retrobyter
    Considering that Jesus had already established an international perspective with His phrase "nation against nation" and "kingdom against kingdom", I'm afraid I can't accept isolating that phrase to Israel.

    I do recognize that the interpretation you have suggested is an option, but you aren't providing convincing evidence in favor of rejecting the other option(s).
    ----------------------------------------------
    When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    1,314
    Blog Entries
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Hmmm, so your saying that they interpreted Jesus teaching that day differently?

    Luke uses those eyewitness accounts to clarify the teachings.--lk 1.
    There are reporters today that give accounts from other people's vantage points. This does not mean that their version, or the compilation of the people's accounts are altogether accurate. According to Luke's own words, in Luke 21, the topic for discussion is not the end of the age, but rather the destruction of the Temple, which I must say that the Lord gave an accurate prophecy of what was going to happen to that city, because it happened exactly as He said it, with not one stone on top of another.

    Both luke and Matt start and finish the olivet discourse the same way.
    My beliefs and that of wpm start out as the same, for we both believe in the Return of the Lord being the time in which the saints are gathered to Him in the air, but from there, our beliefs go in two entirely two different and opposing directions. Thus is the case with Luke 21's version. There is a reason why Jesus said to them, "but before all of these", in verse 12. That is because everything that He said before that point was to happen AFTER what he said next. This distinction is often overlooked, and yet, it is vital in seeing the direction that Luke is taking on his version of the Olivet Discourse.

    My actual opinion is thaat Jesus covered both the before the birth pangs, and after, and that the actual olivet Discourse encompassed all of Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 17:17-31 and Luke 21. What most people cared about, the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, was what the reporter, Luke reported. Matthew and Mark's version shows us that He said a lot more than what is chronicled in Luke 21.

    You know, it has been said that critical thinking, aka reasoning and logic, has no place in the Bible. It is also said that reason and faith can not be mixed. I completely disagree with that notion. I believe in the exact opposite. If God is the creative force of all life, and God is a logical, thinking, reasoning being, (Joel 2's let us reason together), then the way in which God operates can be seen through the pattern that He has shown us in the Bible. This means that every phrase has a meaning, and should be judged on not only it's own merits, but in context to the whole story. In the Case of the Olivet discourse, the wording of each author's version becomes critical in interpreting what the author was talking about, and how it all fits into the story as a whole. Phrases such as, "but before all these", brings great clarity to the story as a whole, and not only that, it makes the whole story make sense. This separates Luke's version of the Olivet discourse into the "before the birth pangs" section, which Mark's version highlights as well as Matthew's "After the birth pangs" section.

    I am tired, and if that does not completely make sense, I will further explain it after I get some sleep.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Hmmm, so your saying that they interpreted Jesus teaching that day differently?

    Luke uses those eyewitness accounts to clarify the teachings.--lk 1.

    Both luke and Matt start and finish the olivet discourse the same way.

    God bless
    They couldn't have interpreted Jesus teaching that day differently, since Luke wasn't present that day - only Matthew was.

    We have to interpret Luke 21 in the light of Luke's record of the discples' question, and Matthew 24 in the light of Matthew's record of the disciples' question - which records do not perfectly correspond with one another.

    As third hero correctly points out, Luke is writing like any honest reporter would write - and this is evident also by the way Luke places part of the Olivet Discourse in Luk.17: 23-37 - according to Luke 14: 1, 25 and 15: 1 and 17: 23-37, the Lord wasn't sitting on the Mount of Olives when He said these things - yet these are His words Matthew records as part of the Olivet Discourse.

    It's clear that Luke did not always know the chronological sequence of when the Lord said what, and where He was when He said what He said, whereas Matthew did know, because he was an eye-witness. Luke and Mark are totally honest, and nothing they write is untrue, but they did not have the advantage that Matthew had - which was a first-hand knowledge of the things they wrote about.

    John also had a first-hand knowledge, but even John, in his gospel, isn't as concerned with accurately recording the chronological sequence of events as Matthew is - John's promary concern is to show the union of Deity and Manhood in Jesus.

    This is why when we read Matthew, we can't interpret Matthew in the light of Mark or Luke.

    ananias
    "But you must not be called Rabbi, for One is your teacher, Christ, and you are all brothers.

    And call no one your father on the earth, for One is your Father in Heaven.

    Nor be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, even Christ."
    (Mat.23: 8-10)

    AND

    "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another.

    By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another."
    (Joh.13: 34-35)

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6)
    Posts
    14,927
    Quote Originally Posted by ananias View Post
    Hello, Jeff. Yes, I'm fully aware of the above fact. But while it's good to compare Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's versions of the Olivet Discourse, we can't interpret Matthew's version "in the light of" either Luke or Mark.
    Says who? Each of them clearly is an account of the Olivet Discourse and each was inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have no basis for saying that Matthew can't be interpreted in light of either Luke or Mark.

    In the first place, Matthew was an eye-witness disciple of the Lord and His teaching, and His Olivet-Discourse, whereas Luke wrote later from notes he had taken from other eye-witness disciples, and Mark, according to scanty early church tradition, wrote down what Peter had told him, but it is not known whether this was before or after Peter's martyrdom.
    Are you trying to say that Matthew is a more reliable account than Mark or Luke despite the fact that the author of each is God?

    In the second place - and this is important - Luke's and Mark's records of the disciples' question are different to Matthew's, and relate only to the destruction of the temple:

    "As to these things which you see, days will come in which there shall not be left a stone on a stone, which shall not be thrown down. And they asked Him, saying, Teacher, but when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luk 21:6-7)

    "And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, across from the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately, Tell us, When shall all these things be? And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? (Mar 13:3-4)

    But Matthew records the disciples asking a question with a much larger scope:

    "And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mat 24:3)
    If what is recorded in Luke has only to do with the destruction of the temple then why does part of Jesus' answer include a global scope, such as when He speaks about "25 ...upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth"?

    The structure of Matthew's gospel is very precise and totally unique, and the Olivet Disocurse (chapter 24 of matthew) to the end of chapter 25 of Matthew come at the end of the sixth division of Matthew's gospel
    ( http://divisionsofmatthew.blogspot.com/ )

    One cannot separate the Lord's Olivet Discourse recorded by Matthew into an "A.D 70 part" and an "end of the age part", because the rules that govern both the original Greek and the English langauge prevent it - since the words "and", "therefore", "but", "for" and "then" (Greek: tote - "the when") join the whole passage together from verse 9 right up to the end of chapter 25 (the close of the sixth division of Matthew's gospel) - and the context throughout is the end of the age and the return of Christ.

    The structure of Matthew's gospel: http://divisionsofmatthew.blogspot.com/ shows that the author had a first-hand and eye-witness knowledge of what he wrote about, whereas neither Luke nor Mark had the same advantage.

    Matthew betrays an author who is obsessed not only with the details of the events, but also with the chronological sequence of the events that took place, as can be seen from the way he traces, in the sixth division of Matthew's gospel, the Lord's journey into Jerusalem and everything that took place from His first entry into the temple until His resurrection.

    Therefore because of the above facts, I think that while it's good to compare Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's acccounts of the Olivet Discourse, it isn't wise to interpret Matthew's version "in the light of" either Mark's or Luke's versions. Luke is clearly addressing the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, and then he makes a quantum-leap in time from verse 25 onwards, to the end of the age and the return of Christ.
    Oh, so Luke makes a quantum-leap in time, but it's not possible that Matthew could have done the same? I don't see the logic in that.

    Furthermore, not only did the events that took place in 70 A.D did not result in the return of Christ, but the armies surrounding Jerusalem is something which is prophesied to occur again at the end of this age
    It is? Where?

    The main two points we should bear in mind are

    (1) that Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse is joined from verse Mat.24: 9 to the end of Matthew 25 by the words "and", "therefore", "but", "for" and "then". To ignore this fact is to defy the common rules of both the Greek and English; and
    Luke contains the same kind of words, yet you see no problem in seeing a change in subject there at verse 25. Where is the consistency in your view?

    (2) that because Matthew was an eye-witness of the Lord and His teaching, whereas Luke and Mark were not, and because the structure of Matthew's gospel is unique among the four gospels, we cannot interpret Matthew's gospel "in the light of" Mark's and Luke's versions - and John, of course, makes no mention of the Olivet Discourse in his gospel.
    It's all inspired by the Holy Spirit and we should always compare scripture with scripture. In this case, the scriptures are clearly related.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6)
    Posts
    14,927
    Quote Originally Posted by third hero View Post
    There are reporters today that give accounts from other people's vantage points. This does not mean that their version, or the compilation of the people's accounts are altogether accurate. According to Luke's own words, in Luke 21, the topic for discussion is not the end of the age, but rather the destruction of the Temple, which I must say that the Lord gave an accurate prophecy of what was going to happen to that city, because it happened exactly as He said it, with not one stone on top of another.
    If Luke 21 only records Jesus' answer to the question regarding the temple then how do you explain verses 25-28?

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by John146 View Post
    Says who? Each of them clearly is an account of the Olivet Discourse and each was inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have no basis for saying that Matthew can't be interpreted in light of either Luke or Mark.

    Are you trying to say that Matthew is a more reliable account than Mark or Luke despite the fact that the author of each is God?

    If what is recorded in Luke has only to do with the destruction of the temple then why does part of Jesus' answer include a global scope, such as when He speaks about "25 ...upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth"?

    Oh, so Luke makes a quantum-leap in time, but it's not possible that Matthew could have done the same? I don't see the logic in that.

    It is? Where?

    Luke contains the same kind of words, yet you see no problem in seeing a change in subject there at verse 25. Where is the consistency in your view?

    It's all inspired by the Holy Spirit and we should always compare scripture with scripture. In this case, the scriptures are clearly related.
    Each and every individual author of the Bible's 66 books was inspired by the Holy Spirit, Jeff - you know I'm not saying that they were not inspired.
    But even in the books of 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles there are slightly conflicting versions of certain accounts - I can't remember now exactly where they are, but I know they do exist. And there are slightly conflicting versions in the 4 gospels of what exactly what took place the day the Lord rose from the dead. You can't say that every single time one book of the Bible has an account of an event or detail which is in slight conflict with the account in another book, that the Bible isn't nevertheless 100% inspired by God and you can't say that the Bible is fallible either (I know you're not saying that)

    But you're implying that Matthew 24 and Luke 21 MUST be speaking of the same period of tribulation, or else the Bible is not inspired - yet it is not Luke 21 which parallels Matthew 24, but Luk.17: 23-37 - and Luke.17: 26 shows that Jesus is talking about His second coming.

    Your implication (that if I say that Luke 21 and Matthew 24 differ, then I'm saying that the Bible isn't inspired), doesn't hold ground - because whatever Jesus said in Mat.24: 16-28 is said in Luk.17: 23-37 - not in Luke 21.

    ananias
    "But you must not be called Rabbi, for One is your teacher, Christ, and you are all brothers.

    And call no one your father on the earth, for One is your Father in Heaven.

    Nor be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, even Christ."
    (Mat.23: 8-10)

    AND

    "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another.

    By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another."
    (Joh.13: 34-35)

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    1,314
    Blog Entries
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by John146 View Post
    If Luke 21 only records Jesus' answer to the question regarding the temple then how do you explain verses 25-28?
    People only give accounts to what they remember, or what is the "most important" to them. Luke had given a report of what the people around that time heard. Most of it is what they did not understand, but they did pay attention to the portions that dealt with the destruction of the Temple. Here is where you have the detail.

    Signs in the heavens, men's hearts failing from the tossing of the waves, do you honestly believe that we can get any gauge of whether the Lord is returning or not based on those last signs? If that is the case, the switch to pre-trib now, because these things have happened for a very very long time.

    What does verses 25-28 prove? It proves that there is definitely more to the Olivet discourse than what the people who told Luke described. Things like, the signs of the end of the age. Matthew, a disciple who was clearly there, understood exactly what Jesus was saying concerning the end of the age, and thus focused on that.

    The better question to ask is this:
    Which version is the correct version of the Olivet Discourse? Is it Luke or Matthew's version?


    My answer? Both, and neither. From Luke's perspective, the people that told him of the Olivet Discourse focused on the destruction of the temple, which He clearly highlighted in verse 7. Matthew focused on the end of the age, which omitted the prophecies that dealt with the time before the start of the birth pangs. Mark 13 is the key to understanding both versions, because it is Peter's oratory to Mark that gives us the clue that we needed to understand. Both versions, that of both Matthew and Luke, are incorporated into Mark's version....

    ..or are they?

    Mark's version was written first.

    When you factor this into the equation. You see this.

    Luke may have read Mark's version, and realized that Peter omitted a vast majority of things, like the Lord's upbringing. Luke, therefore, went out to investigate, and gained a lot of knowledge about the Lord's upbringing and the teachings that the people remembered. Matthew read both versions, and because he was an original Disciple, (probably the only one who could write, being a tax collector), and wanted to include things that were omitted in both versions, like chapter 25.

    The conclusion is this, that all three versions make up the whole of the Olivet Discourse. It was a long discourse that had a vast amount of information that Lord Jesus gave to the disciples. I am willing to believe that there was even more information that the Lord actually said than what was written in all three versions, since John made that point very clear in the last chapter of his Gospel.

    How about that for an explanation?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •