Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 177

Thread: Brief commentary on Matt 24

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I will quote my sources again, following this post, which are certainly not exhaustive. They are just quick references. But they are sufficient to prove my point, that there is this connection between the 70th Week of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse of Jesus. Jesus not only made an explicit reference to it, but he interpreted it. He made himself to be the Messiah of the 70th Week, to be followed by the AoD within his own generation, following his death.
    I'm connecting the dots, which we must do if these Church Fathers are not dealing with the same questions we're now trying to answer. It isn't a matter of just filling in the blanks with whatever position we want to hold. Rather, it is common sense.
    Nope they do NOT prove your point.
    I already went through each one. I am not going to bother doing so again.
    There IS a definite connection between the Daniel 9 prophecy AND the Olivet Discourse. This is NOT in contention.
    What is in contention is YOUR personal claims, such that He is the Messiah of the 70th week. And that He was to be followed by the AoD in His generation.

    Not a SINGLE quote of the ECFs has Jesus saying any of this.
    Irenaeus does NOT.
    Origen does NOT. He has the 70th week finishing with the COMING of Jesus - NOT His death.
    Tertullian does NOT. He has the 70th week finishing in 70 AD.
    Sextes Julius Africanus does NOT. He matches Origen with the COMING of Jesus as the 70th week ending.

    So how you are joining dots is BIZARRE. You are indeed filling blanks with whatever you want regardless of what the ECFs actually have said.

    These Church Fathers focused on the 70 Weeks of Daniel, and connected it to the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, whether this is by seeing it as fulfilled in the time of Jesus or by comparing the AoD of the 70 Weeks prophecy with the AoD of Jesus' prophecy.
    Fulfilled with the coming of Jesus is very different to fulfilled in 70 AD, and is different again from fulfilled with the DEATH of Jesus.

    There is an obvious connection these Church Fathers are making between the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse of Jesus because elements of both are dealt with together, and all see the 70th Week fulfilled with Jesus' earthly ministry.
    Nope, NOT a SINGLE ECF has the 70 weeks fulfilled with the death of Jesus.

    My point is that we must see the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel together with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, in which Jesus saw himself fulfilling the 70th Week, to be followed by a destruction of Jerusalem in his own generation.
    I think we get your point. What we don't understand is how you can claim what you are based on the OD itself OR what the ECFs you have quoted have said.
    Perhaps you are rejecting this because it is me putting it. However ask your brother or anyone else and see if they can untangle your disparate quotes with disparate timings and somehow make them about the SAME time.
    What they have in common is you have got quotes about the 70 weeks!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As to your claim that I'm "illogical," I would say you're not representing my position properly. I'm saying that the Great Tribulation is synonymous with the Great Distress--they mean the same thing. They're synonyms. And they represent a specifically *Jewish* Tribulation, a deportation from the Promised Land following a siege by the Romans in 70 AD.

    This developing Jewish Diaspora was to last throughout the entire NT age until the return of Christ, and would be the worst in history for *duration.* That is, it would be the *longest* Jewish tribulation in all of their history. It would have to be "cut short" to preserve the Jews from extermination, or extinction.
    An interesting claim about cutting short - so 2000 years is being cut short? Strange idea of short!
    However apart from this, I can agree that the Jewish Diaspora was a Great Distress. This is what this verse points to:
    Luk 21:24* They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    Inasmuch as this was a *Jewish* Tribulation it affects all Jews, believers and unbelievers. All would be deported from the Promised Land. But the Christians would suffer a unique kind of tribulation, including persecution from their fellow Jews as well as persecution from pagan Gentiles.
    This was a *Jewish prophecy,* and related primarily to the Jews. However, in principle the prophecy speaks to Christians everywhere who go through the same kind of experience within their own nations. The prophecy wasn't directly dealing with Gentile Christians, but it is a teaching that certainly instructs Christians from all nations.
    Here is where you are illogical.
    IF this is about Jews then it is NOT about Gentiles. This is very simple.
    It does NOT speak about Christians everywhere.
    If Jerusalem is trampled underfoot this does NOT affect Christians in Washington.
    There is NO "in principle" about the prophecy speaking to Christians everywhere.
    The problem for you is that Luke speaks of a GD for Jews, while Matthew speaks of a GT for Christians and so you try to claim they are the SAME thing.
    When you actually put it down in a Venn diagram like I described you will see how stupid the claim is.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Let's test this against the texts involved.

    Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
    5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
    6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
    7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
    8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
    9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
    10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
    11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
    12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
    13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
    14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

    All of the above have absolutely zero to do with the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles. The destruction of the temple can't be found anywhere in the contexts above. So far we have at least 11 verses having nothing to do with the destruction of the temple, yet you are claiming.."The main purpose of the Discourse was to predict the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles!"
    Here's the problem, David. You say that none of these verses have a thing to do with the desolation of the temple. And yet you obviously cut out the introductory verses, which *indicated* that all of the following had *everything* to do with the desolation of Jerusalem!

    Can you imagine if I did the following? I'm going to tell you a story.
    Seattle is going to be destroyed by a great earthquake.
    1) There will be tremors.
    2) There will be foreboding in the newspapers.
    3) There will be preliminary social upheavals in the city.
    4) There will be strange behaviors by animals in the zoos.

    But then I decide to tell you the following. 1-4 will happen, and will have nothing to do with a coming earthquake in Seattle, simply because I'm not going to mention it 1st. Does not mentioning the earthquake mean that 1-4 have nothing to do with the preliminary signs of the earthquake? No, it just means that I didn't mention what the preliminary signs were pointing to!

    So let's start over. Jesus began by introducing the main event about to happen. The temple in Jerusalem would be desolated. It will be completely destroyed. This is a *major event* in Israel's history. It impacts the very worship that Israel had been engaged in for many hundreds of years. It hearkens back to the devastation of the Babylonian invasion. It was a colossal event Jesus was describing, and could not be mistaken for importance.

    Thus, the verses that followed could *not* just suddenly lose the effect of what Jesus had just said. The disciples immediately wanted to know when this would happen, and how this affects the promised salvation of the Israeli nation. Jesus then began to explain *when* this would happen, and how it relates to his 2nd Coming. The temple would be destroyed in his own generation after a number of preliminary signs, but this would *not* be the end of the age.

    There would be a long period of Jewish deportation, just as happened during the Babylonian Captivity. The 2nd Coming, by contrast, would take place without warning to evil doers, and so, in his own generation there would be little warning that the Roman armies would completely destroy the temple and Jerusalem.

    The preliminary signs of the impending Roman siege against Jerusalem were the things you listed. And they all happened in Jesus' generation, before the temple was destroyed by the Romans. Some of these signs continue on throughout the age, long after the fall of Jerusalem. But the point is, all of these signs would be present leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD
    Since it is debatable as to whether or not Matthew 24:15-22 have to do with the destruction of the temple, and even if it does, though this is not meaning I'm agreeing it does, that would be only 7 verses thusfar that might have to do with the destruction of the temple, meaning since verse 4.
    In my view there can be no debate whether Jesus referred to the destruction of the temple. He clearly does so at the beginning of this Discourse. And similarly, there can be little debate whether these verses that follow have to do with preliminary signs leading up to this event.

    For this reason it is beyond dispute that the AoD is the Roman devastation of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Luke's version makes this transparently clear. Nearly everybody agrees on that!

    What normally happens is that futurist Christians, who want everything to be about the Antichrist, and not historical prophecy, formulate a dualistic interpretation in which Jesus simultaneously predicts the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and a future AoD in which Antichrist proclaims himself God in the temple in Jerusalem. This kind of dualistic interpretation confuses biblical inteerpretation, and should not be indulged in. It clouds the picture. It is perfectly sensible to view the AoD as the Roman devastation without creating a future Antichrist as a secondary fulfillment of the *same prophecy!*

    I certainly am a futurist in the sense I believe in a future Antichrist. I just don't believe we should make the AoD of the Olivet Discourse about the Antichrist when it clearly was fulfilled in the Roman devastation of Jerusalem!

    A secondary purpose of the Olivet Discourse, however, was to deal with the question about the 2nd Coming and the about the coming of the Kingdom. Jesus tied prophecy of his 2nd Coming to the events of his own generation because the truths were the same. It was all about how men relate to Jesus, whether during his earthly ministry or today, when we are confronted by his spirit.

    Jesus indicated that if men could not see him for who he was in his own generation there is no way men are going to be able to prepare for his 2nd Coming without seeing who he is now, in the *spirit!* Preparation for the Kingdom is a matter of *present repentance,* and not by making future calculations as to precisely when he will come! It will be the same at the end of the age as it was in Jesus' day--men must prepare for the Kingdom by *repenting now!*

    This is the connection Jesus was trying to make between prophecy of his 2nd Coming and the prophecy of the temple's destruction. Men would not accept him, who was right in front of them. And they would therefore be judged without preparation. On the other hand, believers would be aware, and could even dodge some judgments that were directed towards unbelievers.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD
    Instead of me pasting all of the verses left, there is then Matthew 24:23-51 to consider. That's around 28 verses, and not a single one of these have to do with the destruction of the temple either.

    So from verse 4 to verse 51, only 7 of those verses might possibly be connected with the destruction of the temple. That leaves 39 that aren't about the destruction of the temple. You therefore would have us to believe, that even though only 7 verses might possibly have to do with the destruction of the temple, and that 39 verses wouldn't, this somehow equals..."The main purpose of the Discourse was to predict the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles!" That sounds somewhat unreasonable, given that the math clearly proves otherwise.
    The main subject, as introduced, was indeed the devastation of the Roman destruction of the temple. But Jesus tied this in, also, with his 2nd Coming. Both issues were tied together in his own generation, since men must prepare for his Coming in *all* generations! The coming of the Kingdom is indeed extremely important. But it is even more important that *we prepare now,* so that we may enter into that Kingdom!

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Here's the problem, David. You say that none of these verses have a thing to do with the desolation of the temple. And yet you obviously cut out the introductory verses, which *indicated* that all of the following had *everything* to do with the desolation of Jerusalem!

    Can you imagine if I did the following? I'm going to tell you a story.
    Seattle is going to be destroyed by a great earthquake.
    1) There will be tremors.
    2) There will be foreboding in the newspapers.
    3) There will be preliminary social upheavals in the city.
    4) There will be strange behaviors by animals in the zoos.

    But then I decide to tell you the following. 1-4 will happen, and will have nothing to do with a coming earthquake in Seattle, simply because I'm not going to mention it 1st. Does not mentioning the earthquake mean that 1-4 have nothing to do with the preliminary signs of the earthquake? No, it just means that I didn't mention what the preliminary signs were pointing to!
    Your example falls down IMMEDIATELY.
    None of those things were about the destruction. They were NOT signs the destruction would happen either.

    So let's start over. Jesus began by introducing the main event about to happen. The temple in Jerusalem would be desolated. It will be completely destroyed. This is a *major event* in Israel's history. It impacts the very worship that Israel had been engaged in for many hundreds of years. It hearkens back to the devastation of the Babylonian invasion. It was a colossal event Jesus was describing, and could not be mistaken for importance.
    It was indeed a major event.

    Thus, the verses that followed could *not* just suddenly lose the effect of what Jesus had just said. The disciples immediately wanted to know when this would happen, and how this affects the promised salvation of the Israeli nation. Jesus then began to explain *when* this would happen, and how it relates to his 2nd Coming. The temple would be destroyed in his own generation after a number of preliminary signs, but this would *not* be the end of the age.
    Actually they did, as Jesus said:
    Luk 21:8* And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.*

    Is this verse about 70 AD?
    Was it a precursor to 70 AD?
    Did it have ANYTHING to do with 70 AD?

    Nope NOT a thing.
    So Jesus has grabbed their attention by speaking about the temple, but then He talks about things ENTIRELY unconnected with the temple.

    In modern parlance you might call the temple destruction as click bait.

    There would be a long period of Jewish deportation, just as happened during the Babylonian Captivity. The 2nd Coming, by contrast, would take place without warning to evil doers, and so, in his own generation there would be little warning that the Roman armies would completely destroy the temple and Jerusalem.
    Actually there was plenty of warning about what the Romans would do. So your claim doesn't match historical reality.

    The preliminary signs of the impending Roman siege against Jerusalem were the things you listed. And they all happened in Jesus' generation, before the temple was destroyed by the Romans. Some of these signs continue on throughout the age, long after the fall of Jerusalem. But the point is, all of these signs would be present leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
    Nope the ONLY preliminary sign was WITHIN the verses I mentioned in Luke. Absolutely NOTHING in Matthew about 70 AD.

    In my view there can be no debate whether Jesus referred to the destruction of the temple. He clearly does so at the beginning of this Discourse. And similarly, there can be little debate whether these verses that follow have to do with preliminary signs leading up to this event.
    Actually there is CLEAR debate as CLEARLY (absolutely anyone who reads it) these signs are NOT preliminary to the temple destruction of 70 AD.
    These signs are stated as about people claiming to be Jesus.
    Did many claim to be Jesus before 70 AD? Nope.

    For this reason it is beyond dispute that the AoD is the Roman devastation of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Luke's version makes this transparently clear. Nearly everybody agrees on that!
    As your reason is empty, so too the claim.
    However the AoD is stated clearly what it is, and you make it about something else.
    Luke's version does NOT make the destruction of the temple as the AoD. It simply makes mention of the destruction and a SIGN which is ENTIRELY different.

    What normally happens is that futurist Christians, who want everything to be about the Antichrist, and not historical prophecy, formulate a dualistic interpretation in which Jesus simultaneously predicts the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and a future AoD in which Antichrist proclaims himself God in the temple in Jerusalem. This kind of dualistic interpretation confuses biblical inteerpretation, and should not be indulged in. It clouds the picture. It is perfectly sensible to view the AoD as the Roman devastation without creating a future Antichrist as a secondary fulfillment of the *same prophecy!*
    It is NOT sensible to claim the devastation by the Romans is the AoD. It is a possibility to be considered, and after consideration of the FACTS rejected as it does NOT fit.

    I certainly am a futurist in the sense I believe in a future Antichrist. I just don't believe we should make the AoD of the Olivet Discourse about the Antichrist when it clearly was fulfilled in the Roman devastation of Jerusalem!
    As it wasn't and you have NO ONE who has a valid fulfilment amongst your ECFs (IOW they got it wrong) so why should anyone accept their idea?

    A secondary purpose of the Olivet Discourse, however, was to deal with the question about the 2nd Coming and the about the coming of the Kingdom. Jesus tied prophecy of his 2nd Coming to the events of his own generation because the truths were the same. It was all about how men relate to Jesus, whether during his earthly ministry or today, when we are confronted by his spirit.
    As more verses speak about the preliminary to His return AND about His return so the argument made stands as valid.
    You have tried to deal with it and failed by your example.

    Jesus indicated that if men could not see him for who he was in his own generation there is no way men are going to be able to prepare for his 2nd Coming without seeing who he is now, in the *spirit!* Preparation for the Kingdom is a matter of *present repentance,* and not by making future calculations as to precisely when he will come! It will be the same at the end of the age as it was in Jesus' day--men must prepare for the Kingdom by *repenting now!*
    Where does Jesus speak about present repentance in the OD? The only reference is the need for the Jews to say "Blessed is He..."

    This is the connection Jesus was trying to make between prophecy of his 2nd Coming and the prophecy of the temple's destruction. Men would not accept him, who was right in front of them. And they would therefore be judged without preparation. On the other hand, believers would be aware, and could even dodge some judgments that were directed towards unbelievers.
    Weird.

    The main subject, as introduced, was indeed the devastation of the Roman destruction of the temple. But Jesus tied this in, also, with his 2nd Coming. Both issues were tied together in his own generation, since men must prepare for his Coming in *all* generations! The coming of the Kingdom is indeed extremely important. But it is even more important that *we prepare now,* so that we may enter into that Kingdom!
    Nope the main subject as seen by WHAT Jesus said is NOT the Roman destruction of the temple, EVEN in Luke it isn't, which is where Jesus speaks about it the most.
    Now you want it to be All generations NOT This generation of All things?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Your example falls down IMMEDIATELY.
    None of those things were about the destruction. They were NOT signs the destruction would happen either.
    This shows how incredibly biased you are against my position. I gave you a self-made example of a *prophecy* in which these signs were designed, by God, to be preliminary warning of a coming earthquake in Seattle! And you say none of these *signs* were about the earthquake?

    It's the same thing with the signs Jesus gave about the destruction of the temple. These signs were given to precede the temple's destruction. They didn't have to be part of the destruction of the temple itself, eg stones falling, fires burning, people dying. The signs of false prophets, for example, were a sign because it indicated there was an expectation that something was about to happen. And people were not properly looking to Jesus to prepare for this event.

    Preaching the gospel was all about getting people prepared for this coming temple destruction because in embracing Jesus' righteousness they *were* prepared for judgment! The preaching of the gospel was not directly linked to the temple's destruction, but was a preceding sign of its imminent coming.

    News of wars and rumors of wars were also preceding signs. They were not about the temple destruction itself, but they were preparatory to that event. I don't know how you can fail to see this?

    I think that we like to read all of these warning signs as a general depiction of the current Church Age, so that we can sort of read the "signs of the times," and look through a crystal ball, anticipating future events. We like to be prophets in the world, showing men how much we know and can anticipate things.

    But this is just the "flesh." People need to connect to Jesus--not to us. We try to show the way to Jesus not by making predictions or by doing tricks and miracles. Rather, we show them *righteousness,* so that by their conscience they are convicted to repent of their sin. In this way they properly prepare for the Kingdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It was indeed a major event.

    Actually they did, as Jesus said:
    Luk 21:8* And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.*

    Is this verse about 70 AD?
    Was it a precursor to 70 AD?
    Did it have ANYTHING to do with 70 AD?

    Nope NOT a thing.
    So Jesus has grabbed their attention by speaking about the temple, but then He talks about things ENTIRELY unconnected with the temple.

    In modern parlance you might call the temple destruction as click bait.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually there was plenty of warning about what the Romans would do. So your claim doesn't match historical reality.
    You're missing the most important element in this--the spiritual element. As I said, the Jews did not recognize the Messiah in their midst! They missed the *spiritual element.* They therefore missed the real warning, which was a spiritual call to repentance. If they had heard Jesus' message, they would've recognized their sin, and they would've known that judgment was coming through the Romans to punish them for their sins!

    But they actually taught themselves to believe they were immune from judgment and could, like the Maccabees, fight on. Instead of repenting internally they thought the thing was to fight with carnal weapons or ignore their conscience altogether. Thus, the signs of war were not preparation for the judgment of God in 70 AD.

    Here in my country, the US, there was little preparation for 911, the Twin Towers attack. America has become hardened in their sins, and fail to recognize the spiritual call that is going out through Christians. All of the clouds looming on the horizon, threatening troubles and judgments, do not prepare America for divine judgment at all! They do see trouble brewing, but they do not think it is divine judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope the ONLY preliminary sign was WITHIN the verses I mentioned in Luke. Absolutely NOTHING in Matthew about 70 AD.

    Actually there is CLEAR debate as CLEARLY (absolutely anyone who reads it) these signs are NOT preliminary to the temple destruction of 70 AD.
    These signs are stated as about people claiming to be Jesus.
    Did many claim to be Jesus before 70 AD? Nope.
    They claimed to come in his name before 70 AD, yes. We read about it in the letters of Paul. Paul regularly talked about those Christians who set themselves apart as cult leaders. We certainly see it in 2 Thes 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As your reason is empty, so too the claim.
    However the AoD is stated clearly what it is, and you make it about something else.
    Luke's version does NOT make the destruction of the temple as the AoD. It simply makes mention of the destruction and a SIGN which is ENTIRELY different.
    I disagree. You make different versions of the same Discourse about different things. This is wrong. Among the Church Fathers most seemed to focus on the generation of Christ and the Roman destruction--not the Antichrist. Only Irenaeus and his follower, Hippolytus, thought otherwise, as far as I can see.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is NOT sensible to claim the devastation by the Romans is the AoD. It is a possibility to be considered, and after consideration of the FACTS rejected as it does NOT fit.
    Right. It does not fit *for you.* For many others, including the Church Fathers, it fits perfectly well.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As it wasn't and you have NO ONE who has a valid fulfilment amongst your ECFs (IOW they got it wrong) so why should anyone accept their idea?
    The most important part the ECFs got right, and that is that the 70 Weeks prophecy was fulfilled in the lifetime of Jesus and his generation. Some of them positively identified the AoD as the devastation of Jerusalem. But most of them identified the time period of Jesus as the era in which the AoD took place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As more verses speak about the preliminary to His return AND about His return so the argument made stands as valid.
    You have tried to deal with it and failed by your example.

    Where does Jesus speak about present repentance in the OD? The only reference is the need for the Jews to say "Blessed is He..."

    Weird.
    Weird? How spiritual are you, brother? Don't you realize that the Jesus right in front of you, as a spiritual reality, is the thing that convicts you of sin and righteousness? This is what prepares men for the 2nd Coming--not a bunch of preparatory signs that enable them to anticipate that event!

    It was the very thing that Jesus was saying to his own generation. The Jews were wicked, and were not repenting. They ignored Jesus in their midst. And judgment was about to fall upon them. They could not prepare for the approaching siege of the Romans, unless they repented of their sins. Nothing weird about it. Perhaps you are just so extremely biased against everything I say that you just can't understand what I'm saying? I suggest you use that good brain of yours and try to understand what I'm really saying?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope the main subject as seen by WHAT Jesus said is NOT the Roman destruction of the temple, EVEN in Luke it isn't, which is where Jesus speaks about it the most.
    Now you want it to be All generations NOT This generation of All things?
    That's confusing.... You say Luke talks about the temple's destruction, but doesn't make it the main subject? You say I want this to be "all generations?" I'm not making anything anything. I'm just referring to what Jesus said. He introduced the Discourse with a declaration that the temple would be completely destroyed. If ever there was a main subject, this is it!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This shows how incredibly biased you are against my position. I gave you a self-made example of a *prophecy* in which these signs were designed, by God, to be preliminary warning of a coming earthquake in Seattle! And you say none of these *signs* were about the earthquake?
    Actually I was speaking about the things Jesus spoke about.
    They do NOT correlate with the example hence your example falls down.
    You see one group - your example was about the earhquake. In Matt and Luke though they are not.

    It's the same thing with the signs Jesus gave about the destruction of the temple. These signs were given to precede the temple's destruction. They didn't have to be part of the destruction of the temple itself, eg stones falling, fires burning, people dying. The signs of false prophets, for example, were a sign because it indicated there was an expectation that something was about to happen. And people were not properly looking to Jesus to prepare for this event.
    Nope.
    These were NOT signs about the temple.
    There was only ONE sign about the temple and this was the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.
    That was it - nothing else.

    Preaching the gospel was all about getting people prepared for this coming temple destruction because in embracing Jesus' righteousness they *were* prepared for judgment! The preaching of the gospel was not directly linked to the temple's destruction, but was a preceding sign of its imminent coming.
    Nope, not about the temple.

    News of wars and rumors of wars were also preceding signs. They were not about the temple destruction itself, but they were preparatory to that event. I don't know how you can fail to see this?
    Again not about the temple.

    I think that we like to read all of these warning signs as a general depiction of the current Church Age, so that we can sort of read the "signs of the times," and look through a crystal ball, anticipating future events. We like to be prophets in the world, showing men how much we know and can anticipate things.
    It is certainly better to take what is said as said rather than trying to impose a false historical perspective.

    But this is just the "flesh." People need to connect to Jesus--not to us. We try to show the way to Jesus not by making predictions or by doing tricks and miracles. Rather, we show them *righteousness,* so that by their conscience they are convicted to repent of their sin. In this way they properly prepare for the Kingdom.
    Weird. Jesus spoke of these things and then you claim this is about the flesh? Either Jesus DID give us words to act upon, in which case there is NO flesh involved, or He didn't.

    You're missing the most important element in this--the spiritual element. As I said, the Jews did not recognize the Messiah in their midst! They missed the *spiritual element.* They therefore missed the real warning, which was a spiritual call to repentance. If they had heard Jesus' message, they would've recognized their sin, and they would've known that judgment was coming through the Romans to punish them for their sins!
    Who was Jesus speaking to? The disciples. Did they KNOW who Jesus was? Certainly.

    But they actually taught themselves to believe they were immune from judgment and could, like the Maccabees, fight on. Instead of repenting internally they thought the thing was to fight with carnal weapons or ignore their conscience altogether. Thus, the signs of war were not preparation for the judgment of God in 70 AD.

    Here in my country, the US, there was little preparation for 911, the Twin Towers attack. America has become hardened in their sins, and fail to recognize the spiritual call that is going out through Christians. All of the clouds looming on the horizon, threatening troubles and judgments, do not prepare America for divine judgment at all! They do see trouble brewing, but they do not think it is divine judgment.
    Ummm...

    They claimed to come in his name before 70 AD, yes. We read about it in the letters of Paul. Paul regularly talked about those Christians who set themselves apart as cult leaders. We certainly see it in 2 Thes 2.
    They did NOT claim to be Jesus, or that they were Jesus returned.
    2 Thess 2 definitely doesn't say that. It speaks about being raptured to Jesus, and having fallen short.

    I disagree. You make different versions of the same Discourse about different things. This is wrong. Among the Church Fathers most seemed to focus on the generation of Christ and the Roman destruction--not the Antichrist. Only Irenaeus and his follower, Hippolytus, thought otherwise, as far as I can see.
    Wrong again. The Discourse covers many things and we need the entirety of it to understand everything covered.
    However when Jesus spoke SPECIFICALLY about what would happen to the Jews He was NOT saying this was happening to the Gentiles.
    When He spoke about what would happen to Christians He also was not referring to the Jews or Gentiles.

    Right. It does not fit *for you.* For many others, including the Church Fathers, it fits perfectly well.
    Not a SINGLE ECF held the same view as you therefore your statement is FALSE. This is what becomes debilitating. You make claims which are patently FALSE going from your OWN quotes, and still you claim they are correct. Please put the EXACT quote where an ECF says the Roman army was the AoD! What you have is some ECFs saying the destruction of Jerusalem by a Roman army was the End of the 70 weeks. Another says a statue AFTER 70 AD was the AoD.

    The most important part the ECFs got right, and that is that the 70 Weeks prophecy was fulfilled in the lifetime of Jesus and his generation. Some of them positively identified the AoD as the devastation of Jerusalem. But most of them identified the time period of Jesus as the era in which the AoD took place.
    Again which ECF said the 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled by the death of Jesus? Please provide the quote. You are claiming things they NEVER wrote.
    Some did identify the AoD with the destruction of Jerusalem by stating there was a statue placed in the temple thus meeting the criteria of the prophecy.

    What you don't seem to get is that the ECFs were justifying their views on the scriptures we have and trying to fit as best they could. NOT a SINGLE ECF has an AoD which ACTUALLY meets the criteria even though they tried.
    Irenaeus however oted this had NOT occurred and so didn't try.

    Weird? How spiritual are you, brother? Don't you realize that the Jesus right in front of you, as a spiritual reality, is the thing that convicts you of sin and righteousness? This is what prepares men for the 2nd Coming--not a bunch of preparatory signs that enable them to anticipate that event!
    It is the SPirit which convicts - however you were claiming the WORDS of the OD were doing this, which is something else and truly weird.

    It was the very thing that Jesus was saying to his own generation. The Jews were wicked, and were not repenting. They ignored Jesus in their midst. And judgment was about to fall upon them. They could not prepare for the approaching siege of the Romans, unless they repented of their sins. Nothing weird about it. Perhaps you are just so extremely biased against everything I say that you just can't understand what I'm saying? I suggest you use that good brain of yours and try to understand what I'm really saying?
    Was this in the OD? Really?
    It is weird to claim something is stated in a passage when it isn't.
    Should the Jews repent of their sins? Certainly. Is that what Jesus was saying about the destruction or was Jesus saying IT WILL HAPPEN?

    That's confusing.... You say Luke talks about the temple's destruction, but doesn't make it the main subject? You say I want this to be "all generations?" I'm not making anything anything. I'm just referring to what Jesus said. He introduced the Discourse with a declaration that the temple would be completely destroyed. If ever there was a main subject, this is it!
    Yes I highlighted the total amount of verses Luke wrote about the temple's destruction, and it was NOT the majority of what Luke wrote about.
    Maybe read what Luke wrote in isolation? You may notice it is NOT primarily about the temple.
    You do indeed try making all sorts of things by rewording things.
    In is NOT Out.
    All is NOT Some.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,693
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    This is why I added the event of the fire called down from heaven entering into the temple and a voice coming then from within the throne AKA God.

    In addition we now see them worshipping.....they need a temple.
    I don't see the correlation, but thanks.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,693
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It is indeed Final Judgement at the END.
    However He also sits in judgement at the START.

    Two judgements occur at the START - the first is our works are burned up, and only the gold remains. If you prefer the parable of the servants, then that is fine too. The second is the judgement of the nations based upon HOW they treated Jesus' brothers, as read in Matt 25.

    The SIMPLE truth is that 2 Peter 3 also mentions this time and you have to decide upon three choices:
    1) The view I present which has the NHNE starting with Jesus' return and the change happening then.
    2) The view of the PostMil which also has the NHNE start with Jesus' return, but they have His final judgement also at that time.
    3) The view DurbanDude presents which is TWO NHNEs.

    The 4 which is what you are clinging to, doesn't actually fit with scripture. It is a compromise for PreMil who throw out the PostMil baby with the bath water.
    Isaiah 65 IS very clearly an NHNE and I challenge you to state WHEN that NHNE starts according to Isaiah.
    Your evasion has been it is general prophecy - which doesn't mean anything. It is like those who claim it is symbolism. A prophecy has a meaning and so the question is what is the MEANING that we need to give to the prophecy.
    Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

    Even a 10-year-old will recognise that the above passages occur at the same time. Yes, despite your scholarly maturity you find it expedient to put 1000 years between them. Therefore, in your expert knowledge: (a) At the onset of the MILLENNIUM, Jesus sits on the White Throne and the heaven and earth flee from him. (b) Then after 1000 years, the Judgment takes place.

    It is disappointing that some of us are not interested in seeking the scriptural truth -- it has all come down to just winning the argument. Whether our position aligns with scripture or not is immaterial.

    I am not interested in this type of discussion, I'm for the scriptural truth.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    846

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't know what you base your "certainty" on, with respect to how soon God would've produced "the little horn" had Israel repented at Christ's 1st coming? At any rate, it just didn't happen that way. I can see how some Jews might've anticipated the revelation of the "little horn" at some time during the ancient Roman Empire, however.

    I don't share your view that the Church age is a kind of "parenthesis" in the linear history of Israel. I believe that it was God's purpose, all along, to de-paganize the Gentile nations, after 1st de-paganizing Israel. The plan of God for the Christian mission was the original blueprint, in my opinion, although it wasn't initially apparent that this was the way it was supposed to go down.
    Via the planning for one. Without the Church Age the Statue fits PERFECTLY (LOL think about it). The Four Beasts fit PERFECTLY, the 70th week Prophecy fits PERFECTLY. When the Church is Raptured, the Beast arises again. The Mortal Wound is caused by the Church which the gates of hell can't prevail against, Rome, the Fourth Beast is turned from a BEAST unto a Conveyor Belt for God's Holy Word.

    Jesus told the Jews this also when they were about to reject him. As Jesus was excoriating the Pharisees and Scribes/Jews he said this......Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

    37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

    39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

    Jesus is saying he would have gathered them together, but THEY WOULD NOT !! God knew this, but the Church was not the original plan, it's like Rebekah and Leah. Two Brides. Yes, God knew what Israel would do and prophesied about his plans to accept a strange people, but Israel had the CHANCE TO REPENT.......But as Jesus said, they WOULD NOT. If Israel would have accepted Jesus as their Messiah 2000 years ago, then Jesus returns to save them at that time, and starts his reign at that time, it was all contingent upon Israel REPENTING, thus Israel's own fate was in their own hands. God thus brought the Gospel unto the Gentiles, and turned His back on Israel for nigh 2000 years.

    I don't really know how adept the Pharisees were at understanding biblical prophecy, but I don't doubt they had a pretty extensive knowledge. I'm not sure how certain they were of prophetic interpretation, but they may very well have understood that the war was coming between God's Kingdom and the Roman Kingdom. Who it was that took upon themselves "Jesus' name" I'm not sure--perhaps cultic Christian leaders who sponsored zealotry or elitism of some kind? It did happen, apparently, in Jesus' time, after his death. I don't know why you would separate these verses, which appear together?
    You might want to read their rabbinic studies of the past, of course they knew Rome was the Fourth Beast. They knew the scriptures frontwards and backwards, they were very, very, intelligent, TOO INTELLIGENT if you catch my drift..........Not Jesus' name.........they were looking for the Messiah or Meshiac in Hebrew, the Christ in Greek. They did not understand what his name would be. Although Jesus or Yeshua in Hebrew means Salvation. The forerunner to the False Prophet I think was Jason from Antiochus Epiphanes fame, he paid to have his Pious High Priest brother Onias III killed and took over the High Priest's position, he then tried to Hellenize Jerusalem. His name was, GET THIS...Yeshua, but his Hellenized name was Jason. So I am saying verse 6 ends the 70 AD Event, because the Pharisees seek a "SAVIOR/MESSIAH to save them from the Roman Fourth Beast. They sought a Messiah who came in HIS OWN NAME.........Meanwhile Jesus came in the Father's name, that fulfilled John 5:43. I seperate verses 6 and 7 because verse 6 is about the 70 AD event, then Jesus says but the END IS NOT YET.......But is BY AND BY. Then he goes into the 2000 year Church Age starting in verse 7.

    [QUOTE]That's how I used to look at it, but no longer. I see the majority of signs leading up to the AoD as preparatory for the AoD, which was the 66-70 AD war. Some of these initial signs continue on throughout the Church age, such as the preaching of the gospel and the tribulation of the Jews in their Diaspora. But the "birth pains" had to do with the 70 AD destruction of the temple, I believe.[QUOTE] I had a TYPE...I Meant verses 7-14..........not verses 7-24. Just wanted to clarify that.

    The Signs via the Rev. ch. 6 Sun, Moon and the Stars can only be future brother. You have to see ALL THE SIGNS according to the scriptures, not some, but ALL.

    The Great Tribulation period follows, I believe, the initial signs that lead up to the AoD, the destruction of the temple. The Great Tribulation consists of a. the Jewish deportation from the Promised Land, and b. the Jewish Christians suffering from both the Jewish Diaspora and the persecution of unbelievers. Since this prediction preceded the birth of the Church, the focus was initially on Israel. Later, the concept of Christian suffering can be applied to Christians among other peoples as well.
    True, but it happens (AoD) in the End Time. The Birth Pangs are not a part of the tribulation period.

    I disagree. The main purpose of the Discourse was to predict the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles! The preaching of the gospel was to *begin* in the generation of the apostles, but would continue on until the end of the age. The AoD was fulfilled, however, in the 1st generation of the Church. That was the purpose of the Discourse. Answering questions about the 2nd Coming was secondary.
    Well we know the Gospel has still not been preached unto all the world. The AoD comes via the Anti-Christ, I have proven this many times. No one can read Daniel 12 and say its not an END TIME EVENT, because it tells us its and END TIME EVENT when Jesus returns and when the Saints are raised up at the end. So I don't really get anyone thinking otherwise there.

    Gota run, God Bless brother. Nice chatting a little here and there.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    These were NOT signs about the temple.
    There was only ONE sign about the temple and this was the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.
    That was it - nothing else.
    I'm calling these events "signs" because they were given by Jesus to precede the Main Event, which was the desolation of the temple in 70 AD. Whether you want to call them "signs of the temple destruction" or not isn't as important as recognizing that Jesus was answering the question: when will this Desolation take place? Jesus would go on to say that this Main Event would take place in the apostles' generation, but that it would *not* take place immediately. Prior to that event these initial "signs" would take place, indicating that only after they began to take place the Main Event would be fulfilled. In other words, these were initial signs, or "birth pains," and not the actual event. The Main Event took place in the war of 66-70 AD, during which the temple was desolated.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, not about the temple.
    Again not about the temple.
    I've already admitted the signs of the impending temple destruction were *not* about the temple destruction itself. They were *preceding signs* of the impending temple destruction. Your argument, therefore, is irrelevant to my point. What we have to do is decide if Jesus meant that the Main Event was the temple destruction, and that these signs were designed to show *when* the Main Event would take place. Very simply, I believe these "signs" were designed to show that the temple destruction was not immediate, that a preliminary period of false information would appear. My surmise is that this would provide time for the Jews to decide what they want to do with Jesus.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    They did NOT claim to be Jesus, or that they were Jesus returned.
    2 Thess 2 definitely doesn't say that. It speaks about being raptured to Jesus, and having fallen short.
    I suppose this debate would require another thread. For now let's assume that my position is that there were Jews and Christians both who produced false, misleading information that the Christians were to reject. Until judgment actually fell on Jerusalem there was a dividing process going on, separating the faithful Christians from those who did not get the message of Jesus regarding inward repentance.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Wrong again. The Discourse covers many things and we need the entirety of it to understand everything covered.
    However when Jesus spoke SPECIFICALLY about what would happen to the Jews He was NOT saying this was happening to the Gentiles.
    When He spoke about what would happen to Christians He also was not referring to the Jews or Gentiles.
    Jesus was speaking directly to Jews, unbelievers and believers. That future Gentile believers could learn lessons from this speech is undoubtedly true. Christians today learn from the OT Scriptures, even though most of it was directed to the Hebrews. The Olivet Discourse was directed primarily to the Jewish people. And Jesus recognized that he would be a dividing factor in separating believers from unbelievers.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not a SINGLE ECF held the same view as you therefore your statement is FALSE. This is what becomes debilitating. You make claims which are patently FALSE going from your OWN quotes, and still you claim they are correct. Please put the EXACT quote where an ECF says the Roman army was the AoD! What you have is some ECFs saying the destruction of Jerusalem by a Roman army was the End of the 70 weeks. Another says a statue AFTER 70 AD was the AoD.
    Augustine of Hippo (379) states, "For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (I will have to verify this quote later.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Again which ECF said the 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled by the death of Jesus? Please provide the quote. You are claiming things they NEVER wrote.
    Some did identify the AoD with the destruction of Jerusalem by stating there was a statue placed in the temple thus meeting the criteria of the prophecy.
    I already provided quotes. You simply dispute that they mean what they say. We would be repeating ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What you don't seem to get is that the ECFs were justifying their views on the scriptures we have and trying to fit as best they could. NOT a SINGLE ECF has an AoD which ACTUALLY meets the criteria even though they tried.
    Irenaeus however oted this had NOT occurred and so didn't try.
    False.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is the SPirit which convicts - however you were claiming the WORDS of the OD were doing this, which is something else and truly weird.
    This makes no sense to me. The Spirit of God used the words of the OD to make Jesus the source of conviction, which alone separates out Christians from the judgment of 70 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Was this in the OD? Really?
    It is weird to claim something is stated in a passage when it isn't.
    Should the Jews repent of their sins? Certainly. Is that what Jesus was saying about the destruction or was Jesus saying IT WILL HAPPEN?
    Turn back the page in the book of Matthew and read ch. 23. It's all there! This provides the general context for the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Yes I highlighted the total amount of verses Luke wrote about the temple's destruction, and it was NOT the majority of what Luke wrote about.
    Maybe read what Luke wrote in isolation? You may notice it is NOT primarily about the temple.
    You do indeed try making all sorts of things by rewording things.
    In is NOT Out.
    All is NOT Some.
    Nor is "this generation" "that generation!" Outside the walls of Jerusalem is still "in" the Holy Place, if we define the Holy Place as the vicinity of the temple. "All these things" in context apply to the things that determined the timing of the AoD in 70 AD. It did not refer to "other things" that had to do with when Jesus is coming again!

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm calling these events "signs" because they were given by Jesus to precede the Main Event, which was the desolation of the temple in 70 AD. Whether you want to call them "signs of the temple destruction" or not isn't as important as recognizing that Jesus was answering the question: when will this Desolation take place? Jesus would go on to say that this Main Event would take place in the apostles' generation, but that it would *not* take place immediately. Prior to that event these initial "signs" would take place, indicating that only after they began to take place the Main Event would be fulfilled. In other words, these were initial signs, or "birth pains," and not the actual event. The Main Event took place in the war of 66-70 AD, during which the temple was desolated.
    Jesus did NOT say these signs had anything to do with the destruction of the temple.
    Nor did Jesus say they would happen BEFORE the destruction of the temple.
    This is your personal interpretation, unsupported by what is actually stated.
    Further Jesus was NOT answering the question "when will the temple be destroyed" - which you may note is a different question to when a desolation will occur.
    If you want to think about desolation ONLY then Jesus said it best here:
    Mat 23:38* See, your house is left to you desolate.

    Jesus also did NOT say that the destruction would occur within the apostles lifetime.

    I've already admitted the signs of the impending temple destruction were *not* about the temple destruction itself. They were *preceding signs* of the impending temple destruction. Your argument, therefore, is irrelevant to my point. What we have to do is decide if Jesus meant that the Main Event was the temple destruction, and that these signs were designed to show *when* the Main Event would take place. Very simply, I believe these "signs" were designed to show that the temple destruction was not immediate, that a preliminary period of false information would appear. My surmise is that this would provide time for the Jews to decide what they want to do with Jesus.
    Nope, they were NOT preceding signs, they were statements of events which would occur which were NOT signs at all, though some would claim them to be.
    Further these were claimed NOT in relation to the Temple, but in relation to Jesus. IOW these were about false believers and NOT Jews.
    My argument therefore is ENTIRELY relevant.
    What you are trying to do is create a circular argument to prove your point.
    You say IF we assume this, then this means that. Of course by that very assumption it automatically will.
    However we have NO reason to assume that as that is NOT what is stated.

    I suppose this debate would require another thread. For now let's assume that my position is that there were Jews and Christians both who produced false, misleading information that the Christians were to reject. Until judgment actually fell on Jerusalem there was a dividing process going on, separating the faithful Christians from those who did not get the message of Jesus regarding inward repentance.
    Without 2 Thess 2 you have nothing related to what is stated. So this is another claim you have to drop.

    Jesus was speaking directly to Jews, unbelievers and believers. That future Gentile believers could learn lessons from this speech is undoubtedly true. Christians today learn from the OT Scriptures, even though most of it was directed to the Hebrews. The Olivet Discourse was directed primarily to the Jewish people. And Jesus recognized that he would be a dividing factor in separating believers from unbelievers.
    Really?
    Mat 24:1* Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.
    Starting point it is the disciples.

    Mat 24:3* As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately,
    Later on it is still the disciples, and this time privately.

    So taking it is one Discourse we discover by reading it that it is NOT addressed to unbelievers or to Jews in general.
    It is addressed SPECIFICALLY to Disciples and what they want to know from Jesus.

    Augustine of Hippo (379) states, "For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (I will have to verify this quote later.)
    He may well have said this. When you find the actual quote it would be good to see what it says.
    However this does not clarify when Augustine of Hippo (who is responsible for a lot of rubbish taught in churches) thought the 70 weeks was completed NOR what he believed the AoD to be. He could simply be utilising an earlier ECF such as Chrysostom.

    I already provided quotes. You simply dispute that they mean what they say. We would be repeating ourselves.
    Providing quotes is good. However you need to provide quotes which state what you claim.
    There is no point repeating yourself. What you need is an actual quote which says what you are claiming. Until then you are cliaming things without support.

    False.
    True! Which ECF explains what the AoD is, and which you would say this explains it! UNTIL you actually have a quote from an ECF which actually fits the prophecy as given by Jesus in the Discourse, it remains true you do NOT have one.

    This makes no sense to me. The Spirit of God used the words of the OD to make Jesus the source of conviction, which alone separates out Christians from the judgment of 70 AD.
    Huh? I think best drop this and it remains unclear what you are actually trying to claim.

    Turn back the page in the book of Matthew and read ch. 23. It's all there! This provides the general context for the Olivet Discourse.
    So now something which is NOT part of the OD suddenly IS in the OD?
    I have no problem with other events and scriptures being relevant, however you are claiming things stated WITHIN the OD which clearly are not.

    Nor is "this generation" "that generation!" Outside the walls of Jerusalem is still "in" the Holy Place, if we define the Holy Place as the vicinity of the temple. "All these things" in context apply to the things that determined the timing of the AoD in 70 AD. It did not refer to "other things" that had to do with when Jesus is coming again!
    Actually in Greek, which is the language we have the NT in, this IS that.
    However in that same language OUTSIDE is never INSIDE, nor is ALL ever SOME.
    You see IF you change the MEANING of words to something other than what they mean THEN those words become meaningless. You can then make scripture say ANYTHING you want.
    I prefer to stick to the meanings that words have and take what scripture actually says as TRUTH and not something we can simply twist to fit our own interpretation.

    At heart this is really the issue between us.
    You make claims based on what scripture says and what the ECFs say - yet when it is looked at as to what is ACTUALLY stated, then we find your claim is EMPTY.
    I think you cling onto it as you feel this is something God revealed to you and you would be losing something precious to think you misheard or didn't get what He was saying. I can understand that. I have had to consider and then reconsider a number of doctrines which either I or my family believed.
    To REALLY go with what is stated rather than a wanted meaning is hard.
    People can reject you for it.
    I don't think anyone yet agrees with my interpretation about the 70 weeks or about the NHNE, though a couple of people are reconsidering. It is easier though for people to simply not accept rather than they highlight it is wrong. Fortunately for me, no one has yet given anything from scripture which shows either of my interpretations are wrong. They simply prefer their own.
    I am highlighting issues and errors in your claims, and you can ignore those points, and choose to agree to disagree. You could otherwise choose to deal with those points made one by one and consider why the simple clear usage of language is that IN the Holy Place means quite simply that. All these things means quite simply that.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    165

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    The image of the beast is actually the temple in which the people build for whom they think is Christ. AKA like in the entire OT. Why would they build an idol to whom they think is Christ?


    Note the people did not build the image in Daniel.
    I don't think the people will be killed for refusing to worship the temple itself. The OT pattern is an abomination idol, and Ezekiel 8 & 9 may actually be the last days pattern.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

    Even a 10-year-old will recognise that the above passages occur at the same time. Yes, despite your scholarly maturity you find it expedient to put 1000 years between them. Therefore, in your expert knowledge: (a) At the onset of the MILLENNIUM, Jesus sits on the White Throne and the heaven and earth flee from him. (b) Then after 1000 years, the Judgment takes place.

    It is disappointing that some of us are not interested in seeking the scriptural truth -- it has all come down to just winning the argument. Whether our position aligns with scripture or not is immaterial.

    I am not interested in this type of discussion, I'm for the scriptural truth.
    I am ALL for scriptural truth.
    However does a 10 year old understand complex sentences? Some do and others don't.
    Let me break it down for you:
    And I saw a great white throne,
    and him that sat on it,
    from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

    Now this one sentence speaks of a number of things:
    1) John sees a throne. He is seeing it AFTER the MK is over and Satan has been cast into the Lake of Fire (as per verse 9).
    This is WITHIN the chronology, and gives the CLEAR idea that this is being seen AFTER the MK. I think we are in agreement over this.
    2) John sees the one who is sat on it.
    Still WITHIN the chronology, for He is sat at that time.
    3) John reports that from this ones face, the earth and heaven fled away.
    For those who are into the languages we find the Greek has this verb "fled" as V-AIA-3S which means Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person singular. I have give you the link to the Interlinear and you can check things out yourself.
    Here is more information about that particular usage of verb:
    Remember that Greek tenses indicate not only time of action, but more especially kind of action. The aorist tense is a secondary tense, and accordingly, in the indicative mood it indicates past action. In other moods, it does not indicate absolute time, and often does not even indicate relative time.
    Link here

    What you need to understand is that by using that particular verb form, John is noting that this event happened at some time in the past.
    John is NOT saying that the heaven and earth flee away WHEN He sat on the throne. He is stating it is FROM this person that the heaven and earth HAD fled away.

    So it is a PAST reality.
    4) This is a description about the One who is seated.
    The focus is ON the one who is on the throne NOT on the event.
    5) The final part is making clear that the event was passed and heaven and earth were not to be found again.

    In the next verse John then continues the chronology, which he had not stopped about what happens now that this person is sat on the throne.

    I am very interested in the TRUTH of scripture, and I research what is stated when challenged.
    The SIMPLE fact is that in English our tenses are not always as clearly delineated as in other languages.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Jesus did NOT say these signs had anything to do with the destruction of the temple.
    I'm saying this was Jesus' implication. Jesus was asked *when* the temple would be completely demolished. And he answered by saying that there would be preliminary signs. It is obvious to me, and apparently not to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nor did Jesus say they would happen BEFORE the destruction of the temple.
    This was the implication, however. Consider the question and the direct answer of Jesus...

    Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
    3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen...
    4 Jesus answered: “...5 For many will come in my name... 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars... 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.

    So, if you see Jesus answer the question about the destruction of the temple by describing it as the "Abomination of Desolation," then the "beginning of birth pains" clearly are preliminary signs for that event. But the key to understand my position here is to view the AoD as Jesus' depiction of the 70 AD event, at which time every stone of the temple would be removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This is your personal interpretation, unsupported by what is actually stated.
    Further Jesus was NOT answering the question "when will the temple be destroyed" - which you may note is a different question to when a desolation will occur.
    I do *not* note that! The question of when the temple would be destroyed, stone by stone, is answered by Jesus that it would be an AoD preceded by preliminary signs called "birth pains." This is exactly what Daniel described in ch. 9, that at the end of 70 Weeks the "city and the sanctuary" would be desolated. Since the 70 Weeks ended with Christ's crucifixion, it only remained for the "city and the sanctuary" to be desolated in the same generation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If you want to think about desolation ONLY then Jesus said it best here:
    Mat 23:38* See, your house is left to you desolate.

    Jesus also did NOT say that the destruction would occur within the apostles lifetime.
    We disagree. Jesus was directly confronting his generation in Matt 23. And in Matt 24 he directly warned his disciples and apostles.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, they were NOT preceding signs, they were statements of events which would occur which were NOT signs at all, though some would claim them to be.
    Further these were claimed NOT in relation to the Temple, but in relation to Jesus. IOW these were about false believers and NOT Jews.
    The entire Discourse is about the Jewish People, just as the 70 Weeks prophecy in Daniel was. Luke 21 makes it transparently clear that this was about the judgment against the Jewish People, indicated by the destruction of their temple, stone by stone. They would then be escorted out of their land and banished for the rest of the age. Obviously, we're in a transition period right now for the Jewish People, since they have established a modern state in our time. But many Jews remain in "exile."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    My argument therefore is ENTIRELY relevant.
    What you are trying to do is create a circular argument to prove your point.
    You say IF we assume this, then this means that. Of course by that very assumption it automatically will.
    However we have NO reason to assume that as that is NOT what is stated.
    Actually that is exactly what is stated. But your refusal to accept what Jesus said, in this regard, forces you to come up with alternative explanations. For me, this isn't an argument over whose alternative scenario is superior. If I began with your assumptions I might create the same scenario you have. In fact, I may have held your positions in the past. But currently, this is my best read on what Jesus said and meant...literally!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Without 2 Thess 2 you have nothing related to what is stated. So this is another claim you have to drop.
    Not at all. There were "false prophets" and "false Christs" in Jesus' generation. After Jesus died there were false Christians, ie people who came in Jesus' name, who were predicted by Jesus to rise in his own generation, before the temple's destruction. This can be substantiated by 2 Thes 2. But it would require another thread to discuss it more in depth. I don't have to drop this claim at all just because you wish for me to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Really?
    Mat 24:1* Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.
    Starting point it is the disciples.

    Mat 24:3* As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately,
    Later on it is still the disciples, and this time privately.

    So taking it is one Discourse we discover by reading it that it is NOT addressed to unbelievers or to Jews in general.
    It is addressed SPECIFICALLY to Disciples and what they want to know from Jesus.
    It is addressed to the Disciples, but it is *about* the Jewish People generally. The destruction of the temple concerns *all* the Jewish People!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    He may well have said this. When you find the actual quote it would be good to see what it says.
    However this does not clarify when Augustine of Hippo (who is responsible for a lot of rubbish taught in churches) thought the 70 weeks was completed NOR what he believed the AoD to be. He could simply be utilising an earlier ECF such as Chrysostom.


    Providing quotes is good. However you need to provide quotes which state what you claim.
    There is no point repeating yourself. What you need is an actual quote which says what you are claiming. Until then you are cliaming things without support.


    True! Which ECF explains what the AoD is, and which you would say this explains it! UNTIL you actually have a quote from an ECF which actually fits the prophecy as given by Jesus in the Discourse, it remains true you do NOT have one.


    Huh? I think best drop this and it remains unclear what you are actually trying to claim.


    So now something which is NOT part of the OD suddenly IS in the OD?
    No, Matthew organized his book, and placed ch. 23 before ch. 24. Draw the necessary conclusion. Jesus castigated the Jewish leadership for refusing to accept him and his words. He therefore predicted he would be withdrawn from Israel, leaving their "house" to perish. This is in perfect correlation with Dan 9, in which the Messiah is "cut off" in the 70th Week, leaving the "city and the sanctuary" to be desolated.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I have no problem with other events and scriptures being relevant, however you are claiming things stated WITHIN the OD which clearly are not.
    I was not. I was saying that Matthew 23 is directly before Matthew 24, and that both chapters make reference to the temple being destroyed. Matthew 23 plainly indicates the issue is how the Jewish leadership is responding to Jesus. Therefore, Matthew 24 is all about the resulting judgment against the Jewish temple and the Jewish people.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually in Greek, which is the language we have the NT in, this IS that.
    I'm not interested in word games...

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    At heart this is really the issue between us.
    You make claims based on what scripture says and what the ECFs say - yet when it is looked at as to what is ACTUALLY stated, then we find your claim is EMPTY.
    Yes, the issue is between us, and my claim is not empty. It is only empty for you because you make certain assumptions, and I draw certain conclusions. We are then at an impasse.

    Again, I quote the Church Fathers with the assumption that they are drawing upon a certain view of Dan 9 and the 70 Weeks prophecy. This is clearly being established in these quotes. But I go one step farther and see this as the basis for their Olivet Discourse interpretation, which again is in their quotes. But it is less clear *how* they are relating the two prophecies, Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse.

    The way I read these quotes indicate exactly what I've been saying, that the AoD of Dan 9 is the AoD of the Olivet Discourse, and they both have to do with the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary." And these Church Fathers clearly reference the destruction of the temple in *Jesus' generation.* They just don't *say* "Jesus' generation," which is seemingly what you require?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I think you cling onto it as you feel this is something God revealed to you and you would be losing something precious to think you misheard or didn't get what He was saying. I can understand that. I have had to consider and then reconsider a number of doctrines which either I or my family believed.
    To REALLY go with what is stated rather than a wanted meaning is hard.
    People can reject you for it.
    I don't think anyone yet agrees with my interpretation about the 70 weeks or about the NHNE, though a couple of people are reconsidering. It is easier though for people to simply not accept rather than they highlight it is wrong. Fortunately for me, no one has yet given anything from scripture which shows either of my interpretations are wrong. They simply prefer their own.
    I am highlighting issues and errors in your claims, and you can ignore those points, and choose to agree to disagree. You could otherwise choose to deal with those points made one by one and consider why the simple clear usage of language is that IN the Holy Place means quite simply that. All these things means quite simply that.
    Yes, I've told you that you have a strong argument that the "Holy Place" means precisely that--the Holy Place of the temple, and that something must be literally standing inside it.

    I disagree not because you have a weak argument here, but because surveying the entire context I must reach a different conclusion than you do. Actually, I've held a number of different positions over the last 40+ years. The position I now hold is something I've reached more recently, and am actually happy with for the 1st time in my life.

    I've considered your argument, and it is not a stumbling block to my position. The Roman Army standing outside the walls of Jerusalem in 66 AD was, for me, "standing in the Holy Place." It was an authoritative position, made by a military posture within the environs of Jerusalem, the Holy City. As such, it was quite literally standing *within the Holy Place.*

    No, the Roman Army was not yet literally positioned within the temple proper. But their authoritative claim clearly was being positioned against the God in that temple, and they eventually did set foot within the temple. I take Jesus' statement simply as an indication that his Disciples were to take warning when the Roman Army "encircled" Jerusalem, as Luke quite literally depicted it. And he depicted this in the same context in which Matthew and Mark described this as a "standing in the Holy Place."

    We can argue this until the stars fall, but it is what it is, I suppose. Thank you for the discussion. We may, of course, abort or continue--your choice?

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm saying this was Jesus' implication. Jesus was asked *when* the temple would be completely demolished. And he answered by saying that there would be preliminary signs. It is obvious to me, and apparently not to you.
    Did they ask that question like that?
    Mat 24:3* And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
    Notice TWO questions here, or three if you prefer.

    So Jesus starts by laying the FOUNDATION first, and then addresses the question.
    You have Jesus state things without a foundation.
    The Foundation is NOT that these signs happen first, but rather that these things happen and people claim things which are wrong.

    This was the implication, however. Consider the question and the direct answer of Jesus...

    Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
    3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen...
    4 Jesus answered: “...5 For many will come in my name... 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars... 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.

    So, if you see Jesus answer the question about the destruction of the temple by describing it as the "Abomination of Desolation," then the "beginning of birth pains" clearly are preliminary signs for that event. But the key to understand my position here is to view the AoD as Jesus' depiction of the 70 AD event, at which time every stone of the temple would be removed.
    I have indeed considered the questions (notice it is PLURAL).
    I also note that you removed that more than one question was asked.
    You see Jesus did eventually answer the question about the destruction of the Temple, as recorded in Luke 21.
    The birth pains are NOT for that destruction at all.
    They are the birth pains of the coming kingdom of God on earth.

    I do *not* note that! The question of when the temple would be destroyed, stone by stone, is answered by Jesus that it would be an AoD preceded by preliminary signs called "birth pains." This is exactly what Daniel described in ch. 9, that at the end of 70 Weeks the "city and the sanctuary" would be desolated. Since the 70 Weeks ended with Christ's crucifixion, it only remained for the "city and the sanctuary" to be desolated in the same generation.
    Nope. None of that is about 70 AD.

    We disagree. Jesus was directly confronting his generation in Matt 23. And in Matt 24 he directly warned his disciples and apostles.
    Actually Jesus was speaking to the leaders who were of the older generation in Matt 23.
    So you agree that Matt 24 which is the OD (Matt 23 did NOT occur on the Mount of Olives), was ONLY to the Disciples?

    The entire Discourse is about the Jewish People, just as the 70 Weeks prophecy in Daniel was. Luke 21 makes it transparently clear that this was about the judgment against the Jewish People, indicated by the destruction of their temple, stone by stone. They would then be escorted out of their land and banished for the rest of the age. Obviously, we're in a transition period right now for the Jewish People, since they have established a modern state in our time. But many Jews remain in "exile."
    No it isn't. You start with that assumption rather than examining what is stated to see IF it is true.
    Luke 21 does INDEED speak about the Jews. This is 4 verses out of far more.

    Actually that is exactly what is stated. But your refusal to accept what Jesus said, in this regard, forces you to come up with alternative explanations. For me, this isn't an argument over whose alternative scenario is superior. If I began with your assumptions I might create the same scenario you have. In fact, I may have held your positions in the past. But currently, this is my best read on what Jesus said and meant...literally!
    I accept what Jesus said.
    I don;t need an alternative,. I just go with what He said.
    You however create circular arguments.
    I begin by getting CONTEXT which starts by considering the destruction of the temple. It also includes His return.
    I then pay attention to what He actually said and the SIGNS He spoke about, as well as things which others would focus on and which He said were NOT the focus.
    Literally you are so far from what He said it is difficult you believe yourself.

    Not at all. There were "false prophets" and "false Christs" in Jesus' generation. After Jesus died there were false Christians, ie people who came in Jesus' name, who were predicted by Jesus to rise in his own generation, before the temple's destruction. This can be substantiated by 2 Thes 2. But it would require another thread to discuss it more in depth. I don't have to drop this claim at all just because you wish for me to do so.
    Please name a single person who claimed to be Jesus in His generation.
    You may have people with different ideas about what it means to be a Christian, but that is something else.
    2 Thess 2 does NOT substantiate this as I already highlighted for you.

    It is addressed to the Disciples, but it is *about* the Jewish People generally. The destruction of the temple concerns *all* the Jewish People!
    It isn't about the Jewish people, but about the disciples who were Jewish.
    Therefore they had a role like mentioned in Ezekiel 33 to be watchmen blowing the trumpet.

    No, Matthew organized his book, and placed ch. 23 before ch. 24. Draw the necessary conclusion. Jesus castigated the Jewish leadership for refusing to accept him and his words. He therefore predicted he would be withdrawn from Israel, leaving their "house" to perish. This is in perfect correlation with Dan 9, in which the Messiah is "cut off" in the 70th Week, leaving the "city and the sanctuary" to be desolated.
    Are you really trying to claim Matt 23 was spoken on the Mount of Olives?

    Mat 23:1* Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

    Mat 24:1* And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple

    Very clearly Matthew is saying Jesus WAS in the temple speaking to the multitudes and NOW He has left.
    He does NOT predict Himself being withdrawn in this passage.
    You read something in one part of the Bible and claim it to be another part. It isn't.

    I was not. I was saying that Matthew 23 is directly before Matthew 24, and that both chapters make reference to the temple being destroyed. Matthew 23 plainly indicates the issue is how the Jewish leadership is responding to Jesus. Therefore, Matthew 24 is all about the resulting judgment against the Jewish temple and the Jewish people.
    Matt 23 makes ZERO reference to being destroyed. It says "desolate" a different word with a different meaning.

    I'm not interested in word games...
    You certainly play with words.
    Your intransigence in regards to the FACTS of language when they say things other than what you want is also noted.

    Yes, the issue is between us, and my claim is not empty. It is only empty for you because you make certain assumptions, and I draw certain conclusions. We are then at an impasse.
    Nope, your claim IS empty.
    It is because I do NOT make you a priori assumptions that I do not agree with you.
    I do not twist words to mean something other than their plain meaning.
    I do not claim ECFs say something they have not said.
    You will automatically draw a conclusion IF your assumption DEMANDS such a conclusion regardless of how empty it is.

    Again, I quote the Church Fathers with the assumption that they are drawing upon a certain view of Dan 9 and the 70 Weeks prophecy. This is clearly being established in these quotes. But I go one step farther and see this as the basis for their Olivet Discourse interpretation, which again is in their quotes. But it is less clear *how* they are relating the two prophecies, Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse.
    Do you not realise you place the SAME assumptions you have made onto them without accepting what they are simply saying. By putting YOUR assumption THEN it means they automatically agree with you, even when they do NOT.
    You established NOTHING in your quotes EXCEPT that the ECFs had differing ideas as to when the 70 weeks was fulfilled.

    The way I read these quotes indicate exactly what I've been saying, that the AoD of Dan 9 is the AoD of the Olivet Discourse, and they both have to do with the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary." And these Church Fathers clearly reference the destruction of the temple in *Jesus' generation.* They just don't *say* "Jesus' generation," which is seemingly what you require?
    They don't reference generation at all. They don't quote scripture on that. The ECFs like to use scripture to support their viewpoint.

    Yes, I've told you that you have a strong argument that the "Holy Place" means precisely that--the Holy Place of the temple, and that something must be literally standing inside it.
    I disagree not because you have a weak argument here, but because surveying the entire context I must reach a different conclusion than you do. Actually, I've held a number of different positions over the last 40+ years. The position I now hold is something I've reached more recently, and am actually happy with for the 1st time in my life.
    It is because you MUST reach a different conclusion and NOT because the words themselves give a different conclusion.

    I've considered your argument, and it is not a stumbling block to my position. The Roman Army standing outside the walls of Jerusalem in 66 AD was, for me, "standing in the Holy Place." It was an authoritative position, made by a military posture within the environs of Jerusalem, the Holy City. As such, it was quite literally standing *within the Holy Place.*
    It was NOT an authoritative position (the Jews are in rebellion and defeated that army). Jesus didn't say, when you see an army standing in authority.
    Jesus spoke VERY CLEARLY. He said when you SEE the AoD standing IN the Holy Place.
    As long as you choose to play with words and refuse the clear meaning and determine beforehand what a CONTEXT means then you have a PRETEXT.

    We can argue this until the stars fall, but it is what it is, I suppose. Thank you for the discussion. We may, of course, abort or continue--your choice?
    I don't think they is much more useful to say as you have NO ECF quotes to support your view and you continue to claim the nonsense about an army which is outside is somehow what people were to see as being inside.
    As long as you continue to peddle such ways of thinking, then there is no way to move forward. I pray that one day you will reflect again on this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Need Advice: Commentary's on Revelation
    By matthewhenry in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Feb 14th 2016, 08:45 AM
  2. Commentary?
    By michael b in forum Bible studies - archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep 9th 2013, 03:34 AM
  3. Commentary on Romans
    By drmerillat in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul 20th 2010, 02:44 AM
  4. commentary for Psalms only
    By *Living~By~Faith* in forum Christian Fellowship
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Nov 16th 2008, 08:02 AM
  5. Commentary of Romans 9
    By Diolectic in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Nov 15th 2008, 04:26 AM

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
  •