Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 117

Thread: 2nd Coming backdrop

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As I've told you before, brother, you can fit a puzzle together perfectly, and yet the picture doesn't match. This doesn't mean you've solved the puzzle!
    On the other hand, you can keep the picture intact and have a few missing pieces of the puzzle. This works, and is how I'm operating. I don't have to have the puzzle completed to understand what the picture indicates!
    Just to work through this "picture" IF the pieces fit together perfectly then even if you don't have all the pieces you can still see that it is coming together.
    When however a piece won't fit no matter which way round you turn it, then you know you have made a mistake.

    The problem is you are forcing the puzzle to create the wrong picture. So you have a picture which is looking like what you expect, but you have pieces which will never fit and so are left out or a contorted to try and fit.

    The error is in your predetermining the picture rather than allowing how the pieces come together to create the correct picture.
    I don;t have a single missing piece or a single piece which is bent or contorted.
    This has forced me to reconsider other views I had on things - for example when the NJ and NHNE start.
    It as forced me to clarify how Luke 17 and Luke 21 work together, along with Matt 24.
    It pulls into Zech 14 and Isa 65 and other OT prophecy.

    The KEY is CONTEXT and not CONTORTION.
    This is why I can't accept your view as though in some cases your ideas as to how to used a word might have merit, even then they fall short due to other words and phrases such as "all these things."

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Just to work through this "picture" IF the pieces fit together perfectly then even if you don't have all the pieces you can still see that it is coming together.
    When however a piece won't fit no matter which way round you turn it, then you know you have made a mistake.

    The problem is you are forcing the puzzle to create the wrong picture. So you have a picture which is looking like what you expect, but you have pieces which will never fit and so are left out or a contorted to try and fit.

    The error is in your predetermining the picture rather than allowing how the pieces come together to create the correct picture.
    I don;t have a single missing piece or a single piece which is bent or contorted.
    This has forced me to reconsider other views I had on things - for example when the NJ and NHNE start.
    It as forced me to clarify how Luke 17 and Luke 21 work together, along with Matt 24.
    It pulls into Zech 14 and Isa 65 and other OT prophecy.

    The KEY is CONTEXT and not CONTORTION.
    This is why I can't accept your view as though in some cases your ideas as to how to used a word might have merit, even then they fall short due to other words and phrases such as "all these things."
    I've worked puzzles where many of the pieces seemed exactly alike, and where there is very little differentiation in color and image. I literally solved the puzzle by undoing a good number of pieces that fit, and yet did not solve the puzzle. My wife can witness to this!

    But brother, I'll take any positive you have for our conversations. I don't subscribe to your "over confidence," but I think you're sincerely trying to be a "good guy." Thanks for that!

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I've worked puzzles where many of the pieces seemed exactly alike, and where there is very little differentiation in color and image. I literally solved the puzzle by undoing a good number of pieces that fit, and yet did not solve the puzzle. My wife can witness to this!

    But brother, I'll take any positive you have for our conversations. I don't subscribe to your "over confidence," but I think you're sincerely trying to be a "good guy." Thanks for that!
    It is often NOT by the pieces that fit by which we solve the puzzle, but by the ones that don't.
    Why I try to clarify for you your error is because you claim pieces as fitting when they clearly do not. You don't see it as clear because you have a false picture in your head of how it is meant to go together.
    Another way to consider this is the point of the cornerstone.
    You build from a place of FACT on which all things are certain. You have made YOUR fact, "this generation", and then built out from that, and so have connected something correctly which connect to events in the time of 70 AD. Thus emboldened you try to keep building out from there.
    However "this generation" is NOT the cornerstone. Jesus gave us the springboard, the cornerstone with the explanation about the temple in 70 AD.
    Now you may argue this is the SAME thing, however I obviously argue it is not.
    It is as things DO fit to that cornerstone we build the picture, and then we find things which we thought were a mirror of it in reality are not. It then allows certain wasteful and harmful contortions to be dropped.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It is often NOT by the pieces that fit by which we solve the puzzle, but by the ones that don't.
    Why I try to clarify for you your error is because you claim pieces as fitting when they clearly do not. You don't see it as clear because you have a false picture in your head of how it is meant to go together.
    Another way to consider this is the point of the cornerstone.
    You build from a place of FACT on which all things are certain. You have made YOUR fact, "this generation", and then built out from that, and so have connected something correctly which connect to events in the time of 70 AD. Thus emboldened you try to keep building out from there.
    However "this generation" is NOT the cornerstone. Jesus gave us the springboard, the cornerstone with the explanation about the temple in 70 AD.
    Now you may argue this is the SAME thing, however I obviously argue it is not.
    It is as things DO fit to that cornerstone we build the picture, and then we find things which we thought were a mirror of it in reality are not. It then allows certain wasteful and harmful contortions to be dropped.
    Yes, we obviously disagree. I do not find that I and the Church Fathers are "contorting" anything, nor are we creating a confusing picture. In my mind, things fit nicely, although I do recognize things that are stumbling blocks to you.

    And I agree--the cornerstone of my arguments are that Jesus said the temple would be destroyed, that the Disciples asked when this would be, and that Jesus answered that it would be in "this generation." Since I take this absolutely literally, as do the Church Fathers, I see Jesus predicting a rather imminent event in the lifetime of his listeners, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in 70 AD.

    This is indeed a cornerstone in my arguments. And I find everything said in the Olivet Discourse as consistent with this hypothesis. Indeed, it is more than an hypothesis to me, because this is quite literally what is written. Sorry we don't share sentiments! If you see this as "confusion," you clearly miss what I'm seeing. I wish I could fix that, but I obviously fall short at this point.

    Let me add this. At the heart of all of this Forum's disagreement with my position on the OD is a Hal Lindsey-like presupposition, that Jesus is here satisfying our eschatological curiosity, giving us hints as to how to unravel the puzzle of the future. We think God is here giving us puzzles to solve, to figure out the endtimes picture, what nations will rise against whom, who is the Antichrist, and when, approx., Jesus will come.

    This is *not* what I see biblical prophecy doing. It does encourage us to be aware of our own times, as to how they fit into eschatology. But the purpose of this is so that we recognize the antichrists *in our own time,* so as to avoid pitfalls in our own time. Thus, we manage our behavior *today,* and not just try to guess when decisions will become more important. *Today* is always the priority, since salvation is "today," or "now."

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,620
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually it was a prophesy. Further there was a prophecy that there would be an AOD, and then we find an AoD did occur.
    Daniel wasn't given just one prophecy about it either, but 2 distinct ones.
    Let me clarify. I was referring to the structural destruction of the temple. Not the defilement of its sanctity which is what A4E did in contrast to the Romans in 70AD. Jesus was specific that "no stone would be left standing upon another" after the destruction is done. That's a judgment never happened before.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Let me clarify. I was referring to the structural destruction of the temple. Not the defilement of its sanctity which is what A4E did in contrast to the Romans in 70AD. Jesus was specific that "no stone would be left standing upon another" after the destruction is done. That's a judgment never happened before.
    Except in 586 BC.
    Yet where do we have prophecy that not one stone for that date?

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, we obviously disagree. I do not find that I and the Church Fathers are "contorting" anything, nor are we creating a confusing picture. In my mind, things fit nicely, although I do recognize things that are stumbling blocks to you.
    I don't know how you can write you are NOT contorting anything when you claim OUT is IN and ALL is SOME etc etc.
    You are creating a FALSE one dimensional picture.

    And I agree--the cornerstone of my arguments are that Jesus said the temple would be destroyed, that the Disciples asked when this would be, and that Jesus answered that it would be in "this generation." Since I take this absolutely literally, as do the Church Fathers, I see Jesus predicting a rather imminent event in the lifetime of his listeners, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in 70 AD.
    No that isn't your cornerstone. Your cornerstone is "this generation".
    My cornerstone is 70 AD and things align very differently when that is your cornerstone.

    Let me add this. At the heart of all of this Forum's disagreement with my position on the OD is a Hal Lindsey-like presupposition, that Jesus is here satisfying our eschatological curiosity, giving us hints as to how to unravel the puzzle of the future. We think God is here giving us puzzles to solve, to figure out the endtimes picture, what nations will rise against whom, who is the Antichrist, and when, approx., Jesus will come.
    So it isn't a puzzle? It si ALL clear and straight forward??
    Jesus isn't satisfying eschatological curiosity, nor is He focusing on 70 AD. He is wanting us to understand what will happen and how we are to act and what we should see as being false and how to go through great tribulation and prepare for His return.

    This is *not* what I see biblical prophecy doing. It does encourage us to be aware of our own times, as to how they fit into eschatology. But the purpose of this is so that we recognize the antichrists *in our own time,* so as to avoid pitfalls in our own time. Thus, we manage our behavior *today,* and not just try to guess when decisions will become more important. *Today* is always the priority, since salvation is "today," or "now."
    By making is about "this generation" of the 1st century then you remove a whole swath of what Jesus was saying for us today, because you make it about yesterday.
    And some is for tomorrow.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I don't know how you can write you are NOT contorting anything when you claim OUT is IN and ALL is SOME etc etc.
    You are creating a FALSE one dimensional picture.
    The "out is in" issue is just a single piece of the puzzle you are having trouble with, and this is throwing off the picture I'm trying to present to you. If you hypothetically work through the picture with me you will find that a missing piece here or there will not disturb the emerging picture, which is coherent and consistent. I don't personally have a problem with the "in is out" thing, because as I said the matter has nothing to do with actually being *in* the temple. Rather, it has to do with being *in* the perimeter of area surrounding the city of Jerusalem. That is being *in* the Holy Place for me. That may still be outside of the gates proper of the city, but it is still *within* the perimeter I've described. And that's because the "Holy Place" has not been specified. It may include the territory that includes it, in whatever concentric circle that would be defined by the "Holy Place." It is not specifically defined as the *temple.* And it is not specifically defined as the *city walls of Jerusalem.* It is actually defined as *outside of* the walls of Jerusalem, as an Army that encircles the city. So the concentric circle surrounding the temple would actually be *larger than* the city walls themselves!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No that isn't your cornerstone. Your cornerstone is "this generation".
    My cornerstone is 70 AD and things align very differently when that is your cornerstone.
    You don't get to define my own terms. I told you what my cornerstone is. It is the initial description of the destruction of the temple, and the questions that provoked. That extends from the destruction of the temple to the 2nd Coming. The priority, then, is the 70 AD destruction of the temple in *this generation.* That is literally what is said.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So it isn't a puzzle? It si ALL clear and straight forward??
    Jesus isn't satisfying eschatological curiosity, nor is He focusing on 70 AD. He is wanting us to understand what will happen and how we are to act and what we should see as being false and how to go through great tribulation and prepare for His return.
    I don't think the idea I conveyed is difficult to understand. There are people who are into eschatology out of an unhealthy curiosity, an interest in future prognostication. This is carnal and for self-glory, to draw people after themselves.

    On the other hand, Jesus gives the future as a goal to stimulate current action. We are forewarned about dangers that lie in the future so as to presently prepare to avoid them. And we are to know about future rewards so that we are stirred to win those rewards.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    By making is about "this generation" of the 1st century then you remove a whole swath of what Jesus was saying for us today, because you make it about yesterday.
    And some is for tomorrow.
    Tomorrow's goals stimulate us today. We need to know about tomorrow so as to prepare today.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The "out is in" issue is just a single piece of the puzzle you are having trouble with, and this is throwing off the picture I'm trying to present to you. If you hypothetically work through the picture with me you will find that a missing piece here or there will not disturb the emerging picture, which is coherent and consistent. I don't personally have a problem with the "in is out" thing, because as I said the matter has nothing to do with actually being *in* the temple. Rather, it has to do with being *in* the perimeter of area surrounding the city of Jerusalem. That is being *in* the Holy Place for me. That may still be outside of the gates proper of the city, but it is still *within* the perimeter I've described. And that's because the "Holy Place" has not been specified. It may include the territory that includes it, in whatever concentric circle that would be defined by the "Holy Place." It is not specifically defined as the *temple.* And it is not specifically defined as the *city walls of Jerusalem.* It is actually defined as *outside of* the walls of Jerusalem, as an Army that encircles the city. So the concentric circle surrounding the temple would actually be *larger than* the city walls themselves!
    This is NOT a missing piece. This is a piece which you are DISTORTING.
    You are saying it means something drastically different to what is stated.
    This is why it is NOT coherent nor consistent.
    You can personally contort and distort to your hearts content, and cut off pieces that don't fit and make them all go nicely together. However it is then a FALSE picture.
    Don;t bother trying to explain your nonsense again. I know it is nonsense and anyone else reading it will note it is nonsense.

    You don't get to define my own terms. I told you what my cornerstone is. It is the initial description of the destruction of the temple, and the questions that provoked. That extends from the destruction of the temple to the 2nd Coming. The priority, then, is the 70 AD destruction of the temple in *this generation.* That is literally what is said.
    You said what it is, but then you do NOT actually use it as such. Therefore anyone can see you are not stating the truth of your own position. We KNOW what your cornerstone is from countless quotes, and your cornerstone is "this generation" and is why you get Preterist thrown at you a lot, as you use the SAME cornerstone as a Preterist, but simply distort things in a different way.

    I don't think the idea I conveyed is difficult to understand. There are people who are into eschatology out of an unhealthy curiosity, an interest in future prognostication. This is carnal and for self-glory, to draw people after themselves.
    It could be, or it could be from a desire to understand what God is doing. Prophecy is fundamentally God telling His people what He is doing (or has done).
    We have confidence about Jesus BECAUSE God spoke to the prophets and told them what would happen (and even when) and then it was fulfilled.
    Understanding prophecy correctly gives glory to God - which I hope you realise is important for me.

    On the other hand, Jesus gives the future as a goal to stimulate current action. We are forewarned about dangers that lie in the future so as to presently prepare to avoid them. And we are to know about future rewards so that we are stirred to win those rewards.
    Tomorrow's goals stimulate us today. We need to know about tomorrow so as to prepare today.
    Not just stimulate, though this is part, but also prepare. God told Pharaoh about the 7 fat cows and the 7 lean cows so that Joseph could do something.
    God told Daniel about the times under the Greeks so that the Jews could be wise and act correctly.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    This is NOT a missing piece. This is a piece which you are DISTORTING.
    You are saying it means something drastically different to what is stated.
    This is why it is NOT coherent nor consistent.
    You can personally contort and distort to your hearts content, and cut off pieces that don't fit and make them all go nicely together. However it is then a FALSE picture.
    Don;t bother trying to explain your nonsense again. I know it is nonsense and anyone else reading it will note it is nonsense.
    In fact my position makes sense to me--otherwise I would not have it. And it is biblical because if we compare all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse, we find that the AoD is interpreted by Luke to be the *encirclement of Jerusalem by a Roman Army.* This means *in is out," brother, to use your crude way of opposing my position. But again, you are opposing what Jesus said, that the Roman Army was *outside of* Jerusalem's walls, and was also the force that would *desolate* Jerusalem, the Holy Place.

    Biblically, Daniel portrays the Holy Place not just as the temple, but also as the city of Jerusalem. We know that because Jesus is actually quoting from Daniel here!

    So, for Jesus, out is in. To surround Jerusalem is to be *in* the Holy Place. In other words, according to Jesus, just *surrounding* Jerusalem is sufficient to be *in the Holy Place.*

    Again, the "Holy Place" is defined by Daniel to be both the city and the sanctuary. And so, surrounding the city to destroy it was the initial action of desolating the city. Just staging a siege against Jerusalem was "standing in the Holy Place."

    You can make fun of it all you want, but I believe you're making fun of Jesus' words!! Calling my position, thus, "nonsense," is just a cheap cop out. You don't want to argue any further because you have no answers, except to call what Jesus said "nonsense."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You said what it is, but then you do NOT actually use it as such. Therefore anyone can see you are not stating the truth of your own position. We KNOW what your cornerstone is from countless quotes, and your cornerstone is "this generation" and is why you get Preterist thrown at you a lot, as you use the SAME cornerstone as a Preterist, but simply distort things in a different way.
    Whenever you lose patience with an argument you resort to the "Preterist" name-calling thing. Do I have to explain to you, once again, the difference between Preterism and the Historicist position of the Church Fathers on Dan 9/Olivet Discourse?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It could be, or it could be from a desire to understand what God is doing. Prophecy is fundamentally God telling His people what He is doing (or has done).
    We have confidence about Jesus BECAUSE God spoke to the prophets and told them what would happen (and even when) and then it was fulfilled.
    Understanding prophecy correctly gives glory to God - which I hope you realise is important for me.
    I believe you are seeking God's glory, yes. But your view on the Olivet Discourse is more a "prognostication" thing than something that keeps man's "prophetic maps" off the podium. The best way to read the signs of the times is by avoiding the idols and false Christs in our time! Counting down the number of days until Armageddon is a complete waste of mental energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not just stimulate, though this is part, but also prepare. God told Pharaoh about the 7 fat cows and the 7 lean cows so that Joseph could do something.
    God told Daniel about the times under the Greeks so that the Jews could be wise and act correctly.
    The Jewish believers had a double preparation, to prepare for 70 AD and for the 2nd Coming. They would not see the 2nd Coming. So their preparation for the 2nd Coming was primarily a preparation for the 70 AD event.

    Preparing for the 70 AD event was by choosing to live righteous lives, and to minister effectively for the Lord. In doing so they prepared themselves against the judgment of 70 AD, which was against the Jewish People. But it also prepared them for the 2nd Coming, which bestows either judgment or eternal rewards on men.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    In fact my position makes sense to me--otherwise I would not have it. And it is biblical because if we compare all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse, we find that the AoD is interpreted by Luke to be the *encirclement of Jerusalem by a Roman Army.* This means *in is out," brother, to use your crude way of opposing my position. But again, you are opposing what Jesus said, that the Roman Army was *outside of* Jerusalem's walls, and was also the force that would *desolate* Jerusalem, the Holy Place.
    I have ZERO idea why you can think it makes sense. It is BIZARRE. It is NOT Biblical.
    Also you keep saying Luke is INTERPRETING what Jesus said. Sorry but that is a LIE of the DEVIL!!

    Luke NEVER interprets what Jesus said. Not a single time.
    Jesus said the words "an army would surround Jerusalem."

    It does NOT mean IN is OUT. God's Word NEVER is DISTORTED or CONTORTED in this manner.

    The ONLY thing you have correct is that a (Roman) army would desolate Jerusalem. However it wasn't even the army (which surrounds Jerusalem) Jesus mentioned in Luke 21 which would do this, but another army 4 years later.

    Biblically, Daniel portrays the Holy Place not just as the temple, but also as the city of Jerusalem. We know that because Jesus is actually quoting from Daniel here!
    Nope Daniel does NOT do that. Please provide the verse where Daniel does that. Can't find it? Oops!
    Further EVEN IF Daniel had ALL of Jerusalem as the Holy Place, that still doesn't work because the army in 66 AD did NOT gain entry to Jerusalem.

    As long as you say Luke is interpreting the words of Jesus instead of saying Luke is giving the witness account then you will NEVER get the TRUTH.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I have ZERo idea why you can think it makes sense. It is BIZARRE. It is NOT Biblical.
    Also you keep saying Luke is INTERPRETING what Jesus said. Sorry but that is a LIE of the DEVIL!!

    Luke NEVER interprets what Jesus said. Not a single time.
    Jesus said the words "an army would surround Jerusalem."

    It does NOT mean IN is OUT. God's Word NEVER is DISTORTED or CONTORTED in this manner.

    The ONLY thing you have correct is that a (Roman) army would desolate Jerusalem. However it wasn't even the army (which surrounds Jerusalem) Jesus mentioned in Luke 21 which would do this, but another army 4 years later.


    Nope Daniel does NOT do that. Please provide the verse where Daniel does that. Can't find it? Oops!
    Further EVEN IF Daniel had ALL of Jerusalem as the Holy Place, that still doesn't work because the army in 66 AD did NOT gain entry to Jerusalem.

    As long as you say Luke is interpreting the words of Jesus instead of saying Luke is giving the witness account then you will NEVER get the TRUTH.
    You must either be as stubborn as a tree stump, or unable to get past your pride to understand another person's position. Are you unable to understand the way somebody else thinks? I think better of you than that! So let me try at least one more time.

    I believe Luke brings out more clearly what Matt 24 and Mar 13 are saying about the AoD. He "interprets" it to be the encirclement of Jerusalem by a Roman Army. By that I mean *that is how Luke views the AoD!* You may disagree, but surely you understand my position, and are not at the point of having a nervous breakdown over my audacious claims!? *Lots* of Bible scholars have viewed it just the way I do, and you didn't get bent out of shape over them, did you?

    So if Luke defined the AoD as the *encirclement of Jerusalem by a Roman Army,* then it is not difficult to understand how *outside of* Jerusalem can represent being *inside of* the Holy Place. Just being in the *vicinity* of Jerusalem is actually a siege in the Holy Place, or *holy area,* of Jerusalem. As such, the area around Jerusalem is holy along with area within the formal dimensions of the city. I've given you many arguments for this, and yet you fall back on the "in is out" argument? This shows no effort at understanding another person's position. The wish you have is to show the impossibility of another position, and thus make no effort to understand it, nor to appreciate it.

    And yet I've offered several reasonable explanations for such a position.
    1) Daniel defined the Holy Place as both the city and the sanctuary. In Dan 9 it is said that not just one, but *two elements,* are involved in this desolation at the end of a 70 Weeks period. The 2 elements are 1) the city, and 2) the sanctuary. This is unmistakable and beyond refutation.
    2) If Jerusalem is the Holy Place, along with the temple itself, then the area around Jerusalem is the Holy Place as well, for the simple reason that Jesus defined it that way! He saw the encirclement of Jerusalem by the Roman Army as being the "abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place."

    So you begin your attempted interpretation of the Olivet Discourse with the elimination of any possibility that Jesus could've been defining the "Holy Place" as the area surrounding Jerusalem! And this is precisely what Jesus indicated it was, by making reference to Dan 9, where the "desolation" concerns both the city and the sanctuary!

    You are doomed to failure with this black and white approach. You are attempting to invalidate anything outside of your own self-imposed presuppositions! You *require* absolutely that the "Holy Place" be defined as the temple. I do understand and appreciate that argument, as I've indicated before. I just don't think it squares with what Jesus is here saying.

    But believe what you will, brother. I'm not here to make you believe anything. I'm here to speak to those who may benefit from my study and inspiration. Maybe I will never be able to help you in anything? Maybe you are that proud or stubborn? If so, I wonder if God Himself is able to show you all that He wishes to show you? Learning begins with absolute humility. And that is a choice.

    I'm not asking you to "cave" to my position, as if I was superior to you. I'm just asking that you understand and *appreciate* my view, as an equal. That shows God that you are open to *any way* that He may wish to help you learn.

    After all, it is God who chooses the way we are to receive truth. We do not get to pick what brother or sister may bring us truth. Just show a kindness and a willingness, and I will be satisfied.

    But trying to bully others into agreeing with you (by insult) is carnal, in my view. It shows no trust that God is able to accomplish things *His way.*

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You must either be as stubborn as a tree stump, or unable to get past your pride to understand another person's position. Are you unable to understand the way somebody else thinks? I think better of you than that! So let me try at least one more time.
    I do fully get what you have explained umpteen times.
    Your further explanation does NOT stop it being bizarre or distorted.
    Further you continue to claim Luke is interpreting what Jesus said.
    Let me post the words and then you show me where Luke has "interpreted" Jesus' words. I believe that Luke has reported Jesus' words as accurately as possible, through inspiration.

    Luk 21:20* “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.*
    Luk 21:21* Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,

    So where in this is Luke "interpreting" Jesus' words? This is an incredibly DAMAGING claim to make.
    Jesus gives a VERY EXACT prophecy that an army will come and surround Jerusalem AND that it will be possible to flee AFTERWARDS.
    Now IF this was about the army in 70 AD it would NOT be correct.

    However the army in 66 AD was defeated and gone. EXACTLY as Jesus prophesied. You could depart AFTER the city was surrounded. This was IMPOSSIBLE 4 years later.
    Luke is NOT interpreting a later event when the army did take control of Jerusalem.

    Now an army which NEVER enters Jerusalem and NEVER enters the holy Place and NEVER exerts its authority having been beaten, can IN NO WAY be consider an AoD.

    Your attitude towards the word of God beggars belief when you start saying that any of the Gospel authors INTERPRETED the words of Jesus.
    This is Luke's preface:
    Luk 1:1* Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,*
    Luk 1:2* just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,*
    Luk 1:3* it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,*
    Luk 1:4* that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

    Luke is recording eyewitness testimony NOT explaining that testimony. The ONLY thing Luke does is to put it in an order - which is topical, but based basically on a chronology which he seems to have got from Mark's Gospel.

    Jesus said "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.*... AND He also said “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),...

    BOTH sentences came out of Jesus' mouth.

    Your claim IS a LIE of the DEVIL. It is belittling yourself when you state it. This is not an insult, but a statement of fact. If you are insulted by it, then ask yourself why you believe the LIE of the DEVIL?

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,620
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Except in 586 BC.
    Yet where do we have prophecy that not one stone for that date?
    Remind me what happened in 586 BC? Any prophecy of the destruction of the temple will suffice. It doesn't have to be explicit about one stone not standing upon another.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I do fully get what you have explained umpteen times.
    Your further explanation does NOT stop it being bizarre or distorted.
    Further you continue to claim Luke is interpreting what Jesus said.
    Let me post the words and then you show me where Luke has "interpreted" Jesus' words. I believe that Luke has reported Jesus' words as accurately as possible, through inspiration.

    Luk 21:20* “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.*
    Luk 21:21* Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,

    So where in this is Luke "interpreting" Jesus' words? This is an incredibly DAMAGING claim to make.
    Jesus gives a VERY EXACT prophecy that an army will come and surround Jerusalem AND that it will be possible to flee AFTERWARDS.
    Now IF this was about the army in 70 AD it would NOT be correct.
    You're right. I've explained this to you umpteen times! Here it is again. Luke's "interpretation" really refers to *Luke's version of the same material.* He "interpreted" the AoD material as the Roman Army encircling Jerusalem. In other words, that is his version of the same material--thus, "his interpretation" of the source material.

    There is *nothing bizarre* in viewing things *precisely as Dan 9/the OD indicates!* Dan 9 defines the Holy Place as Jerusalem and the temple, together with an invading Army. Jesus interprets this as the same--an invading Army surrounding Jerusalem to "desolate it."

    Luke's version describes it as a "desolation." Luk 21:20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

    This is exactly how Dan 9 describes it: as a "desolation" of the city and the sanctuary, or as an "abomination of desolation" standing in the Holy Place. These are the words Jesus used to describe it.

    In sum, both Dan 9/OD depict the "desolation," or the AoD, as an Army encircling Jerusalem and the temple to destroy it. Thus, the Roman Army stood, both in 66 AD and 70 AD, in the surrounding area of Jerusalem to desolate it. The actual desolation, however, took place in 70 AD, giving Jewish believers time to flee. Jewish believers could also have fled, I believe, in 70 AD, if they fled from places nearby, outside of Jerusalem proper. The entire area was, I believe, the "Holy Place."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However the army in 66 AD was defeated and gone. EXACTLY as Jesus prophesied. You could depart AFTER the city was surrounded. This was IMPOSSIBLE 4 years later.
    Luke is NOT interpreting a later event when the army did take control of Jerusalem.

    Now an army which NEVER enters Jerusalem and NEVER enters the holy Place and NEVER exerts its authority having been beaten, can IN NO WAY be consider an AoD.

    Your attitude towards the word of God beggars belief when you start saying that any of the Gospel authors INTERPRETED the words of Jesus.
    This is Luke's preface:
    Luk 1:1* Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,*
    Luk 1:2* just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,*
    Luk 1:3* it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,*
    Luk 1:4* that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

    Luke is recording eyewitness testimony NOT explaining that testimony. The ONLY thing Luke does is to put it in an order - which is topical, but based basically on a chronology which he seems to have got from Mark's Gospel.

    Jesus said "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.*... AND He also said “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),...

    BOTH sentences came out of Jesus' mouth.

    Your claim IS a LIE of the DEVIL. It is belittling yourself when you state it. This is not an insult, but a statement of fact. If you are insulted by it, then ask yourself why you believe the LIE of the DEVIL?
    I'm happy to rest my confidence on what Jesus said. How you characterize that interpretation is an unfortunate depiction. It may be what you really believe. But it does not show good Christian character. If so, am I to really believe you understand the Christian Scriptures?

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
  •