Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 117

Thread: 2nd Coming backdrop

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Men like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Victorinus all wanted to see Daniel's 70th Week, the Abomination of Desolation, and the Great Tribulation as something future and fulfilled in the time of Antichrist. And yet Antichrist is not mentioned in any of these.
    So they simply wanted to see that?
    Don't you think they would be happier if that was past?
    They did not see that though Irenaeus lived closer to that time than later ECFs.
    Irenaeus also was NOT taught that it was past either.
    IOW it was ONLY as people became separated by place and time that the AoD was put into the past.

    The 70th Week of Daniel is the 1st Coming of Christ, the AoD is the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the Great Tribulation is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age.
    Nope,. none of these is correct.
    The GT is stated clearly in Rev 7 and it is affecting ALL tribes peoples and nations.
    The GD is what affected the Jews through their Diaspora.

    The 2nd Coming of Christ is used by Jesus as a backdrop to the events he predicted would take place in *his generation.* He was specifically warning his Disciples and Apostles about what would happen *in their own time and experience.* He was telling them of the judgment to befall *their own generation* because of their wickedness in rejecting Christ and persecuting them.

    So Jesus made it clear that just as the 2nd Coming would bring judgment against the pagan world so his 1st Coming would bring judgment to Israel in his own time. This is the pattern of history in the NT age, a time of historical judgment, to be completed only at the 2nd Coming, following world judgment. Nothing could be clearer to me! Jesus used the 2nd Coming as a backdrop for his prediction of imminent judgment in his own generation!
    Again nope, the time of the fulfillment of the age as they KNEW Jesus was the Messiah is what they were looking for.
    The backdrop was the present struggle and the destruction of the temple, but the focus was on living for Him.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So they simply wanted to see that?
    Don't you think they would be happier if that was past?
    They did not see that though Irenaeus lived closer to that time than later ECFs.
    Irenaeus also was NOT taught that it was past either.
    IOW it was ONLY as people became separated by place and time that the AoD was put into the past.


    Nope,. none of these is correct.
    The GT is stated clearly in Rev 7 and it is affecting ALL tribes peoples and nations.
    The GD is what affected the Jews through their Diaspora.


    Again nope, the time of the fulfillment of the age as they KNEW Jesus was the Messiah is what they were looking for.
    The backdrop was the present struggle and the destruction of the temple, but the focus was on living for Him.
    No, the major prophecy was the destruction of the temple itself. I don't know why you shift things to the 2nd Coming? That was an afterthought, introduced by the Disciples.

    Jesus never tried to pinpoint the date of his 2nd Coming, which is synonymous with the entry of the Kingdom. On the other hand, he was pointing out that judgment was at hand, since the time of his 1st Coming. This would be an ongoing revelation of his 1st Coming, to be an age of expecting judgment, because the 2nd Coming would bring judgment to the whole world. And judgment would begin with Israel.

    Thus, the more immediate need to prepare for judgment in Israel was the real priority for Jesus' Disciples, and Jesus was warning them about it, using the backdrop of the 2nd Coming to show that the entire nature of the age was characterized by the threat of an approaching eschatological judgment. Thus, the 2nd Coming was a backdrop to the prophecy of the temple's destruction, and not the opposite.

    Again, your view of the Great Tribulation and the Great Distress as two separate events is wrong and unjustified. The various versions of the Olivet Discourse were the same, using slightly different words. "Great Distress" means "Great Tribulation!" Both are more easily understood by Luke's version that the Great Tribulation was the Jewish dislocation in the NT age--the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. It was *not* an event of short duration, but rather, a long extended period of Jewish suffering beginning in the time the Romans desolated Jerusalem.

    The impact of the Great Tribulation upon Jewish Christians is unmistakable, and so, this period of Distress was explained by Jesus to affect both Jewish unbelievers and Jewish believers. And the idea of persecuting Christians therefore also speaks to Christians in other countries. We can learn, as Christians, from the Olivet Discourse, which was primarily addressed to Jews!

    Again, Victorinus, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus were respected Church Fathers who held a *minority position* that the AoD was the future Antichrist. I believe that most of the Church Fathers held that the AoD was the Roman desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in the Early Church.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, the major prophecy was the destruction of the temple itself. I don't know why you shift things to the 2nd Coming? That was an afterthought, introduced by the Disciples.
    Nope the MAJOR prophecy was His Second Coming, which was also the fulfillment of scripture and the Coming of the Kingdom.
    The temple is a footnote. It is a launch point which shows the CHANGE from the OT to the NT which lasts UNTIL He returns.
    I understand why you pay attention to it, but YOU give far more attention to it than the gospel writers. Matthew doesn't even note it in the OD. He has dealt with it in Matt 23.

    Jesus never tried to pinpoint the date of his 2nd Coming, which is synonymous with the entry of the Kingdom. On the other hand, he was pointing out that judgment was at hand, since the time of his 1st Coming. This would be an ongoing revelation of his 1st Coming, to be an age of expecting judgment, because the 2nd Coming would bring judgment to the whole world. And judgment would begin with Israel.
    Actually He does give a LOT of information as to when it would come and what signs where NOT His coming and which were.
    Also NO He did not say when He comes (in the OD) would be a time of judgement. Rather He says AFTER He comes will be a time of judgment.

    Again, your view of the Great Tribulation and the Great Distress as two separate events is wrong and unjustified. The various versions of the Olivet Discourse were the same, using slightly different words. "Great Distress" means "Great Tribulation!" Both are more easily understood by Luke's version that the Great Tribulation was the Jewish dislocation in the NT age--the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. It was *not* an event of short duration, but rather, a long extended period of Jewish suffering beginning in the time the Romans desolated Jerusalem.
    Great Distress does NOT mean Great Tribulation. Some class them as synonyms, but this is because one may be caused by the other.
    Luke DID write about the Jewish Diaspora - completely agree.
    Matthew did NOT write about the Jewish Diaspora - completely disagree with you.

    You read one thing and then put other things into it because you start with a FALSE assumption.
    They are CLEARLY NOT the same, as has been highlighted to you repeatedly, and yet which you continue to gloss over, retreating into ECFs which don't even agree with you.

    The impact of the Great Tribulation upon Jewish Christians is unmistakable, and so, this period of Distress was explained by Jesus to affect both Jewish unbelievers and Jewish believers. And the idea of persecuting Christians therefore also speaks to Christians in other countries. We can learn, as Christians, from the Olivet Discourse, which was primarily addressed to Jews!

    How many more times will you state this rubbish.
    The idea in Luke is of Jewish persecution - this does NOT then mean persecution of Gentile believers.
    The idea in Matthew though is different and IS of persecution of Believers, but NOT of Jews, beyond the start of the GT.

    Again, Victorinus, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus were respected Church Fathers who held a *minority position* that the AoD was the future Antichrist. I believe that most of the Church Fathers held that the AoD was the Roman desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in the Early Church.
    You have given ZERO church Fathers that held that the AoD was the Roman desolation.
    Rather you have LATER ECFs, who claim the 70 weeks was fulfilled, which then begs HOW was the AoD fulfilled, to which the ECFs have varying answers or no answer at all.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope the MAJOR prophecy was His Second Coming, which was also the fulfillment of scripture and the Coming of the Kingdom.
    The temple is a footnote. It is a launch point which shows the CHANGE from the OT to the NT which lasts UNTIL He returns.
    I understand why you pay attention to it, but YOU give far more attention to it than the gospel writers. Matthew doesn't even note it in the OD. He has dealt with it in Matt 23.
    You don't begin a major Discourse with the "footnote!" The major focus of the Discourse is the "launching point," which was the declaration that the temple would be desolated. And the connection with the later reference to the "abomination of desolation" should be obvious to you! The desolation of the temple was the "abomination of desolation!"

    This was a *major prophecy!* It was *not* a footnote. It rattled the Disciples, and caused them to ask for more details. The Olivet Discourse immediately provided details that the Disciples were inquiring about. False Messiahs, false prophets, earthquakes, famines, wars, rumors of wars, persecution of believers, lost love in the society, and ultimately the desolation of the temple.

    These things presaged the 2nd Coming, which is also what the Disciples asked about. They 1st asked about when the temple would be destroyed. But they also wanted to know how this event fit in with the 2nd Coming, which should've been about the salvation of Israel, about the coming of the Kingdom, about the end of the age of Jewish suffering.

    To make this all about, or primarily about, the 2nd Coming is only half the story, and not even the Main Story. The Main Story was the prediction of the fall of the temple, which was *huge,* because it presaged the end of worship under the Mosaic Law! That was *huge!* The destruction of the temple was the destruction of the very symbol of the Law of Moses! The Law completely surrounded worship at the temple! And you make this a "footnote?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually He does give a LOT of information as to when it would come and what signs where NOT His coming and which were.
    Also NO He did not say when He comes (in the OD) would be a time of judgement. Rather He says AFTER He comes will be a time of judgment.

    Great Distress does NOT mean Great Tribulation. Some class them as synonyms, but this is because one may be caused by the other.
    Luke DID write about the Jewish Diaspora - completely agree.
    Matthew did NOT write about the Jewish Diaspora - completely disagree with you.
    False. Great Tribulation means Great Distress. They are the same thing. They are stated in the same place in the Discourse in all accounts. They all refer to the same thing, which is the Distress of the Jews in the present age, particularly after the fall of Jerusalem. Israel would be dispersed among the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. How you can see this any other way is strange to me. But I do know a lot of people believe as you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You read one thing and then put other things into it because you start with a FALSE assumption.
    They are CLEARLY NOT the same, as has been highlighted to you repeatedly, and yet which you continue to gloss over, retreating into ECFs which don't even agree with you.


    How many more times will you state this rubbish.
    The idea in Luke is of Jewish persecution - this does NOT then mean persecution of Gentile believers.
    The idea in Matthew though is different and IS of persecution of Believers, but NOT of Jews, beyond the start of the GT.
    Apparently you are unable to win the argument by compliments?
    Brother, you are so wrong! The idea in all accounts of the Olivet Discourse is of Jewish tribulation. Unbelieving Jews would be judged and thrown into an age-long Diaspora--just like the Babylonian Captivity--only worse! And Jewish believers would be forced to suffer along with their Jewish compatriots, even though they are believers. They don't deserve the Diaspora, and yet are forced into it by their belonging to a fallen nation. And at the same time Jesus said that Jewish believers would suffer even further by suffering persecution from their unbelieving Jewish brethren, and also from Gentile pagans! Nothing could be clearer to me, and it certainly isn't rubbish!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You have given ZERO church Fathers that held that the AoD was the Roman desolation.
    Rather you have LATER ECFs, who claim the 70 weeks was fulfilled, which then begs HOW was the AoD fulfilled, to which the ECFs have varying answers or no answer at all.

    No, the quotes I gave you show the 70th Week ending with the death of Christ, and with the ensuing Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I think perhaps you are unable to read between the lines, or even what is plainly said if it doesn't meet *your requirements* for proof?
    Last edited by randyk; Nov 28th 2018 at 04:31 AM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You don't begin a major Discourse with the "footnote!" The major focus of the Discourse is the "launching point," which was the declaration that the temple would be desolated. And the connection with the later reference to the "abomination of desolation" should be obvious to you! The desolation of the temple was the "abomination of desolation!"
    Actually the footnote is the introduction.
    He starts with what is going to happen next and then leads on through the age to the time of His return, highlighting what is false signs and leading to the things whihc need to be done BEFORE the end.
    Then He speaks about His return.

    This was a *major prophecy!* It was *not* a footnote. It rattled the Disciples, and caused them to ask for more details. The Olivet Discourse immediately provided details that the Disciples were inquiring about. False Messiahs, false prophets, earthquakes, famines, wars, rumors of wars, persecution of believers, lost love in the society, and ultimately the desolation of the temple.
    Really, were they so rattled? Did they write about it much in any of the letters or was it discussed or preached about?
    Not a single further statement within the ENTIRE NT.
    Obviously very major (note the heavy sarcasm.)

    These things presaged the 2nd Coming, which is also what the Disciples asked about. They 1st asked about when the temple would be destroyed. But they also wanted to know how this event fit in with the 2nd Coming, which should've been about the salvation of Israel, about the coming of the Kingdom, about the end of the age of Jewish suffering.
    Presaged - how long before? 70 AD was almost 2,000 years ago.

    To make this all about, or primarily about, the 2nd Coming is only half the story, and not even the Main Story. The Main Story was the prediction of the fall of the temple, which was *huge,* because he presaged the end of worship under the Mosaic Law! That was *huge!* The destruction of the temple was the destruction of the very symbol of the Law of Moses! The Law completely surrounded worship at the temple! And you make this a "footnote?"
    No, it is clearly (for anyone who isn't pre-biased and making assumptions a priori) about this present age leading to His return.
    We can take assurance that this will happen because of what He told us HAS happened. So it is a proof for anyone who is unsure.

    False. Great Tribulation means Great Distress. They are the same thing. They are stated in the same place in the Discourse in all accounts. They all refer to the same thing, which is the Distress of the Jews in the present age, particularly after the fall of Jerusalem. Israel would be dispersed among the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. How you can see this any other way is strange to me. But I do know a lot of people believe as you do.
    Nope, not stated in the same place.
    Luke 17 doesn't even get put with the rest of the Discourse by Luke.
    Matt 24 makes NO mention of the distress of the Jews beyond a FUTURE event happening in Jerusalem. He has no Diaspora mentioned, no trampling by the Gentiles.
    Matthew has events happen AFTER the Gospel is preached throughout the whole world, whereas Luke has the destruction happening BEFORE later events.

    Apparently you are unable to win the argument by compliments?
    Brother, you are so wrong! The idea in all accounts of the Olivet Discourse is of Jewish tribulation. Unbelieving Jews would be judged and thrown into an age-long Diaspora--just like the Babylonian Captivity--only worse! And Jewish believers would be forced to suffer along with their Jewish compatriots, even though they are believers. They don't deserve the Diaspora, and yet are forced into it by their belonging to a fallen nation. And at the same time Jesus said that Jewish believers would suffer even further by suffering persecution from their unbelieving Jewish brethren, and also from Gentile pagans! Nothing could be clearer to me, and it certainly isn't rubbish!

    As long as you REFUSE to read what is stated AS it is stated you will continue to be wrong. You have one end of the stick and don't recognise the other end, and barely notice the stick itself.

    No, the quotes I gave you show the 70th Week ending with the death of Christ, and with the ensuing Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I think perhaps you are unable to read between the lines, or even what is plainly said if it doesn't meet *your requirements* for proof?
    You did give quotes of some who said the 70th week was with the destruction of Jerusalem. And those same people had half the week when Jesus was on the earth, and others say it isn't the 70th week at all.
    Yet NOT ONE of ALL the quotes actually equates the Roman army with Abomination.
    Instead it requires YOU to read between the lines - IOW make your OWN interpretation of what they say as what they say doesn't actually say what you claim.
    I can read between lines as well, but I prefer to stick with what is written NOT what someone SPECULATES may be the meaning.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    148

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You do not get to decide what the "Doctrine of Man" is and what the "Doctrine of God" is. God gets to decide that, brother. For me, I incline towards what the Scriptures are saying more explicitly to me. I'm not just going to accept *your word* for what the "Doctrine of God" is. This is an extraneous kind of criticism that is absolutely unnecessary in these discussions. We *all* want to believe in "God's doctrines" and not in "Man's doctrines." You should not set yourself up as sole arbiter of what is truly "from God!"

    So let's move on to discuss what sounds more explicitly Scriptural, shall we? Jesus refers his Olivet Discourse back to Dan 9 and the AoD in that passage. That is where Jerusalem and the temple get "desolated" in the generation in which Messiah is "cut off." Luke 21 mentions the "encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies" in the very same place in the Discourse that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 mention the AoD. All versions mention a "desolation." Matthew and Mark mention specifically the Abomination of "Desolation," which is, like Luke 21, a "desolation."

    All of these versions describe the same things because they represent the exact same Discourse. The AoD is not something separate, and the encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies is not something separate. They are all referring to the same "desolation" of Jerusalem and the temple, as spoken of in Dan 9. This is not the "Doctrine of Man," brother. What is the "Doctrine of Man" is the incessant accusation and criticism that divides honest brothers who are trying to determine what God's word is actually saying!
    Knowing what God says in His Own written Word makes it EASY... to know when men are trying to insert their own doctrines instead! If you don't know that, then you are admitting you don't understand God's Word.


    Mark 8:14-21
    14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.

    15 And He charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod."

    16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.

    17 And when Jesus knew it, He saith unto them, "Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?

    18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

    19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up?" They say unto Him, "Twelve."

    20 "And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up?" And they said, "Seven."

    21 And He said unto them, "How is it that ye do not understand?"
    KJV

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    148

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    ....
    So let's move on to discuss what sounds more explicitly Scriptural, shall we? Jesus refers his Olivet Discourse back to Dan 9 and the AoD in that passage. That is where Jerusalem and the temple get "desolated" in the generation in which Messiah is "cut off." Luke 21 mentions the "encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies" in the very same place in the Discourse that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 mention the AoD. All versions mention a "desolation." Matthew and Mark mention specifically the Abomination of "Desolation," which is, like Luke 21, a "desolation."

    All of these versions describe the same things because they represent the exact same Discourse. The AoD is not something separate, and the encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies is not something separate. They are all referring to the same "desolation" of Jerusalem and the temple, as spoken of in Dan 9. This is not the "Doctrine of Man," brother. What is the "Doctrine of Man" is the incessant accusation and criticism that divides honest brothers who are trying to determine what God's word is actually saying!
    Jerusalem getting desolated (destroyed) is NOT in the Book of Daniel involving the "abomination of desolation". THAT... is one of the places where you are serving the leaven doctrines of men instead of keeping to God's Word as written.

    Dan 11:31
    31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
    KJV


    Does that sound like 70 A.D. Jerusalem with that "sanctuary" being polluted with that "abomination" being placed? No, of course not. That is why the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is not... what the "abomination of desolation" is even about from the Book of Daniel! I just gave by that solid Biblical proof... that you are NOT following the Daniel Scripture as written, but instead are following a leaven doctrine of man, trying to insert it, into the Daniel Scripture!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually the footnote is the introduction.
    He starts with what is going to happen next and then leads on through the age to the time of His return, highlighting what is false signs and leading to the things whihc need to be done BEFORE the end.
    Then He speaks about His return.
    False, a Discourse does not begin with a "footnote!" Furthermore, the question being asked has to be answered in the Discourse! The question asked was, "When will this destruction of the temple, stone by stone, take place?" For Jesus to ignore this question, and to go on to address, almost exclusively, the 2nd Coming, is beyond ridiculous. And it is patently illogical. You must show how Jesus answered this question?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Really, were they so rattled? Did they write about it much in any of the letters or was it discussed or preached about?
    Not a single further statement within the ENTIRE NT.
    Obviously very major (note the heavy sarcasm.)
    Then this is a classic case of "not being able to see the forest for the trees." Much of the NT Scriptures were written to explain how NT law displaced OT law.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Presaged - how long before? 70 AD was almost 2,000 years ago.
    As I said, the predicted fall of Jerusalem and of the temple presaged the entire character of the age, in which OT worship would fail, Israel would be temporarily cast away, and judgments would regularly fall upon men who exhaust God's patience. All the way up until the 2nd Coming these judgments would take place. And the 2nd Coming itself would not just be the salvation of Israel, but also the judgment of men in all nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No, it is clearly (for anyone who isn't pre-biased and making assumptions a priori) about this present age leading to His return.
    We can take assurance that this will happen because of what He told us HAS happened. So it is a proof for anyone who is unsure.

    Nope, not stated in the same place.
    Luke 17 doesn't even get put with the rest of the Discourse by Luke.
    Matt 24 makes NO mention of the distress of the Jews beyond a FUTURE event happening in Jerusalem. He has no Diaspora mentioned, no trampling by the Gentiles.
    Matthew has events happen AFTER the Gospel is preached throughout the whole world, whereas Luke has the destruction happening BEFORE later events.
    I've shown you these things in detail before, lining up all of the versions, including Luke 17, showing how they referred to the exact same things. Luke 17 was separated by Luke to specifically deal with an issue that spoke to him, which had to do with the expectation of unbelieving Jews. But that also is part of the rest of the Discourse in Luke 21, which implies that the Jewish people worshiped with a complete lack of awareness!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory

    As long as you REFUSE to read what is stated AS it is stated you will continue to be wrong. You have one end of the stick and don't recognise the other end, and barely notice the stick itself.
    On the contrary, my position is built on exactly what is stated, and with a comparison between the different accounts. You have different accounts saying different things! Well, of course they use different words, but they are saying the same things.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You did give quotes of some who said the 70th week was with the destruction of Jerusalem. And those same people had half the week when Jesus was on the earth, and others say it isn't the 70th week at all.
    Yet NOT ONE of ALL the quotes actually equates the Roman army with Abomination.
    Instead it requires YOU to read between the lines - IOW make your OWN interpretation of what they say as what they say doesn't actually say what you claim.
    I can read between lines as well, but I prefer to stick with what is written NOT what someone SPECULATES may be the meaning.

    No, it's common sense, brother. If all of them are equating the 70 Weeks with the 1st Coming of Christ, then they are seeing the AoD as fulfilled in the generation of Christ. That's why some of them mentioned that the AoD was Nero, or the 70 AD destruction, or something else in Jesus' generation, following his death. None of these except Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Victorinus saw the 70th Weeks as fulfilled in the generation of Christ. This isn't even "reading between the lines." This is what they say.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    False, a Discourse does not begin with a "footnote!" Furthermore, the question being asked has to be answered in the Discourse! The question asked was, "When will this destruction of the temple, stone by stone, take place?" For Jesus to ignore this question, and to go on to address, almost exclusively, the 2nd Coming, is beyond ridiculous. And it is patently illogical. You must show how Jesus answered this question?
    Yes we would call it an introduction. A starting point.
    It was answered in the Discourse.
    What were the various questions asked?:
    Luk 21:7* And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”
    Notice Luke records TWO connected questions, which would be about what Jesus had said.
    Guess what Jesus answered this question in what Luke recounts of the OD.
    Luke notes it in respect to 70 AD.

    Mat 24:3* As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?
    Notice here that Matthew records THREE questions of which the first is related to the temple and the other two are about other things.
    Jesus answers these three questions in what Matthew records of the OD.
    However Matthew notes a future destruction of Jerusalem which is tied into the other two questions.

    More importantly however is that Jesus wants to tell them things greater than the destruction of the temple. He tells them things which are NOT in answer to their asked questions, but tells them things they need to know. He knows better than us what we need to know.

    Then this is a classic case of "not being able to see the forest for the trees." Much of the NT Scriptures were written to explain how NT law displaced OT law.
    An incorrect claim. Never mind. Perhaps when you get out of the jungle you'll see the forest.

    I've shown you these things in detail before, lining up all of the versions, including Luke 17, showing how they referred to the exact same things. Luke 17 was separated by Luke to specifically deal with an issue that spoke to him, which had to do with the expectation of unbelieving Jews. But that also is part of the rest of the Discourse in Luke 21, which implies that the Jewish people worshiped with a complete lack of awareness!
    I know you have tried to. They do NOT however refer to the same things as seen when your view was dealt with.

    On the contrary, my position is built on exactly what is stated, and with a comparison between the different accounts. You have different accounts saying different things! Well, of course they use different words, but they are saying the same things.
    Nope your position is built on a predetermined assumption.
    Each one of the accounts MUST make sense in themselves.

    No, it's common sense, brother. If all of them are equating the 70 Weeks with the 1st Coming of Christ, then they are seeing the AoD as fulfilled in the generation of Christ. That's why some of them mentioned that the AoD was Nero, or the 70 AD destruction, or something else in Jesus' generation, following his death. None of these except Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Victorinus saw the 70th Weeks as fulfilled in the generation of Christ. This isn't even "reading between the lines." This is what they say.
    But they aren't all doing that. So your first claim is false.
    Secondly some have the 70th week ended with the coming of Christ, another has part of the 70th week with Christ and part with 70 AD.
    Some make no reference to the 70 weeks but simply note the AoD, and others the destruction.
    IOW common sense tells us that they ALL saw it differently.
    Now none of them made reference to "this generation" which means this is YOU making that claim. They were happy to reference other scriptures which supported what they said, but none used that argument. Possibly because they realised that "all these things" hadn't happened, only some.
    So this is NOT what they say. It is what you are chopping and changing to make say something similar to what you are suggesting.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Yes we would call it an introduction. A starting point.
    It was answered in the Discourse.
    What were the various questions asked?:
    Luk 21:7* And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”
    Notice Luke records TWO connected questions, which would be about what Jesus had said.
    Guess what Jesus answered this question in what Luke recounts of the OD.
    Luke notes it in respect to 70 AD.

    Mat 24:3* As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?
    Notice here that Matthew records THREE questions of which the first is related to the temple and the other two are about other things.
    Jesus answers these three questions in what Matthew records of the OD.
    However Matthew notes a future destruction of Jerusalem which is tied into the other two questions.

    More importantly however is that Jesus wants to tell them things greater than the destruction of the temple. He tells them things which are NOT in answer to their asked questions, but tells them things they need to know. He knows better than us what we need to know.
    Actually no. Jesus isn't going to bring up unrelated issues to the questions being asked. He was asked about 2 things, about things to affect his 1st Coming and about things to affect his 2nd Coming. And he was asked with the assumption that the issues are tied together. And they are.

    I've gone to pains to explain how I view these 2 questions as being tied together. And I don't think the way Luke phrased these questions were remarkably different than how Matthew describes it. The assumption has to be made in Luke that the central focus was on the 70 AD destruction of the temple. This perspective is not lost by the way Matthew phrased the questions, adding the part about the 2nd Coming. Both events are clearly tied together in the minds of those asking the questions. And Jesus answered the questions directly, without adding extraneous material that he thought we should know about.

    To reiterate, Jesus primarily focused on the judgment of Israel in 70 AD. When asked about it, he directly answered the question. There would be a few preliminary signs, followed by the event in the generation of his apostles! That was not diverting to the 2nd Coming. That was a direct answer to a direct question.

    When would the fall of the temple happen? It would happen in "this generation." "All these things" to happen preliminarily to the destruction of the temple would happen in "this generation." Posing "all these things" as qualified by a particular set of signs is an important qualifier, which you completely ignore and dismiss. "All these things" are *not* exhaustive in their application! They only apply to the Main Event, the destruction of the temple. That was the central question.

    The reason the 2nd Coming appeared in the minds of the Disciples with the prophecy of the temple's destruction is because this event stood as an obstacle to the prophecy of Israel's salvation, which takes place at the end of the age and at the 2nd Coming. Jesus' answer, again, was direct. He said that whereas his 1st Coming had not been strictly about salvation, so the entire character of the age, up until the 2nd Coming, would continue to be about judgment and punishment. In other words, final salvation would be delayed from his 1st Coming to his 2nd Coming. Therefore, the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD had to precede the 2nd Coming.

    As to providing signs about the 2nd Coming, Jesus indicated that the signs were very similar between the signs of the temple's destruction and the sign of the 2nd Coming. But the important thing was to accept him as the ultimate sign, which is something that could be prepared for only by immediate acceptance of his moral standards. Salvation could not come only by belonging to the Jewish society. Rather, it is the acceptance of Jesus that enables men to avoid punishment, either now or in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    An incorrect claim. Never mind. Perhaps when you get out of the jungle you'll see the forest.

    I know you have tried to. They do NOT however refer to the same things as seen when your view was dealt with.

    Nope your position is built on a predetermined assumption.
    Each one of the accounts MUST make sense in themselves.
    No, the record can stand for itself. I provided all of the accounts, showing the parallel issues appear in the chronology of the Discourse. This enables one to identify the AoD, the generation, and the Great Tribulation. You don't *want* to believe this! You have the agenda, brother--not me. I've changed views many times through the years. After 40 years I've come to hold to the view I have now. And I'm still open to change. That's the only way we learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    But they aren't all doing that. So your first claim is false.
    Secondly some have the 70th week ended with the coming of Christ, another has part of the 70th week with Christ and part with 70 AD.
    Some make no reference to the 70 weeks but simply note the AoD, and others the destruction.
    IOW common sense tells us that they ALL saw it differently.
    Now none of them made reference to "this generation" which means this is YOU making that claim. They were happy to reference other scriptures which supported what they said, but none used that argument. Possibly because they realised that "all these things" hadn't happened, only some.
    So this is NOT what they say. It is what you are chopping and changing to make say something similar to what you are suggesting.
    You regularly play these kinds of word games. If they don't use any arguments about what "generation" means, you claim there isn't any argument for the 70th Week and the AoD being fulfilled in Jesus' generation. Or, you claim that because they each have a nuanced view of how the 70th Week was fulfilled that they don't agree at all. These are "word games." Clearly, they are all referring to the 70th Week of Daniel, and to its fulfillment in the *time of Christ.* And this means they referred this fulfillment to the "generation" of Christ! A few of them may have looked at the AoD differently, but they were still in the time or generation of Christ!

    My quotations of these Fathers are sufficient to prove my case. I used references by others who drew the same conclusions. So I'm not at all alone in my conclusions!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace View Post
    Jerusalem getting desolated (destroyed) is NOT in the Book of Daniel involving the "abomination of desolation". THAT... is one of the places where you are serving the leaven doctrines of men instead of keeping to God's Word as written.

    Dan 11:31
    31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
    KJV


    Does that sound like 70 A.D. Jerusalem with that "sanctuary" being polluted with that "abomination" being placed? No, of course not. That is why the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is not... what the "abomination of desolation" is even about from the Book of Daniel! I just gave by that solid Biblical proof... that you are NOT following the Daniel Scripture as written, but instead are following a leaven doctrine of man, trying to insert it, into the Daniel Scripture!
    I'll have to address this later. But for now, let me say that Dan 11 plays no role in this, even though it talks about Antiochus 4, who is indeed an AoD. I believe the Olivet Discourse refers not to the AoD of Antiochus, but rather, to Dan 9, where the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is described as an AoD. This is a completely different abomination than is found in Antiochus or Dan 11!

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,620
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I just explained to a brother what I believe is essential to understand the Olivet Discourse. As I've said elsewhere the Main Subject is the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But equally important is the fact the 2nd Coming is made the backdrop to the events coming in the generation of Jesus' apostles. Unless this is understood, these 2 events, the 2nd Coming and the desolation of the temple in 70 AD, cannot be properly understood.

    Jesus' Disciples fully understood, from the Prophets, that there was coming the "Age to Come," also known as the "Messianic Kingdom." When Jesus said that Jerusalem would be desolated, they wanted to know how this fits in with the restoration of Israel in the Age to Come?

    Jesus' reply involved explanation that before the restoration of Israel could occur, he would return in judgment, to destroy his enemies. In the same way, his own generation would suffer judgment for the way they would treat him.

    And so, Jesus explained that to properly prepare for his Coming, they must recognize that it is a Coming in judgment. Preparation requires repentance and righteous living, in response to his Gospel. In the same way, they could avoid judgment in their own generation, simply by adhering to the repentance preached by John the Baptist, and by attending to the words of the Gospel.

    Sometimes it may seem confusing, trying to determine what Jesus was applying to his 2nd Coming, and what he was applying to the events of his own generation. But it is clear that the Main Subject involved the events of his own generation, which is always what a prophet focuses on. He is not about projecting far off into the future unless it benefits the present generation.

    And so, the coming down off the housetops, and fleeing, the "abomination of desolation," and the gathering of eagles, were all about the events about to transpire in Jesus' generation. But they were explained in the context of *judgment,* in the light of what the 2nd Coming would be. Preparation for both events involve the same things--repentance from sin, and righteous living, or attending to the Gospel of Christ.
    On the contrary, the primary focus of the OD is the Second Coming. The events of 70 AD as well as the events yet to occur, merely form the backdrop in the run-up to his Glorious Return. I have keenly followed your dogged determination to prove your inverse account of the discourse as the true version. But in truth, your position is indefensible. Your case is exacerbated by your belief that Jesus considered the destruction of the temple and the subsequent exile of the Jews more IMPORTANT than his return. I am still dumbstruck on how you could equate the two and have 70 AD trump his second coming!

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,620
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    We can argue till the chickens come home to roost and still not prove that the AoD described in the OD occurred in 70 AD. With all the challenges posed to God's Sovereignty by the destruction of the temple, it is still impossible to qualify it an AoD since Jesus himself didn't say so. What makes the temple or any place of worship 'holy' is the presence of God, so when Jesus himself passed judgment that the temple would be destroyed, then the reader should understand that his glory has left there. Thus, making the temple no different from any other brick structure in Jerusalem at the time.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,814

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Your case is exacerbated by your belief that Jesus considered the destruction of the temple and the subsequent exile of the Jews more IMPORTANT than his return. I am still dumbstruck on how you could equate the two and have 70 AD trump his second coming!
    That's been my feelings as well. That says it all right there.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    On the contrary, the primary focus of the OD is the Second Coming. The events of 70 AD as well as the events yet to occur, merely form the backdrop in the run-up to his Glorious Return. I have keenly followed your dogged determination to prove your inverse account of the discourse as the true version. But in truth, your position is indefensible. Your case is exacerbated by your belief that Jesus considered the destruction of the temple and the subsequent exile of the Jews more IMPORTANT than his return. I am still dumbstruck on how you could equate the two and have 70 AD trump his second coming!
    Let me show you the absurdity of your argument brother. Suppose I show you any passage in the Bible that speaks of some historical event with a side-reference to the coming of God's Kingdom. With the focus on a particular event to come, that was extremely important for that particular generation, does that mean that the coming of God's Kingdom plays "2nd fiddle" to that particular historical event? No, not at all. It happens all the time. Let me give you an example from every day life.

    The stock market is poised to plunge, putting lots of investors at risk. I quickly warn them about what I'm hearing, that they should pull their investments, and be cautious with the current events in mind. At the same time I add a warning that at the Judgment God will hold us all accountable about the way we manage our finances, because these things are important to our families, to our children, and to those we help.

    In this case, do you think mention of the judgment at the 2nd Coming is being trumped by the importance of mentioning a current event as an immediate need? Your claim that Jesus' 2nd Coming is being "trumped" by my prioritization of the 70 AD event is therefore absurd, a ridiculous argument. An immediate need trumps a long range forecast, no matter how important it is in the eternal scheme of things. The 70 AD event was an event Jesus' generation had to immediately deal with, and it was a priority. The importance of the 2nd Coming is not being reduced in any way whatsoever. To claim I'm doing this is more emotional than rational, in my judgment. You just don't want to believe my position is correct, for whatever reason.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 3rd 2018, 12:22 AM
  2. Is Jesus coming with Heaven at “His coming”?
    By Soldier_of_Faith in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 24th 2017, 06:55 AM
  3. Changes coming up.
    By Old man in forum Prayer
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Mar 11th 2016, 11:57 PM
  4. Jesus 1st coming/2nd coming??
    By Joe King in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 19th 2009, 08:16 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 8th 2009, 11:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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