A Preterist problem passage?

[EarlyActs]

This is where it gets weird, the gospel was preached well before 70AD.

And some people cling to the tree called 70AD.

It's strange that the Jews continued to suffer persecution throughout the centuries, culminating in the Holocaust, which made 70AD look like child's play in comparison.

Heresy. I still do when it comes to preterism.
As far as here-say goes, anything outside of scripture is just that (here-say) which happened in the first century.

I'm not sure which verse you are referring to, but this I know the 70 weeks are up for debate amongst Christians.

Is that what Christian is divided when it comes to eschatology? Or are all Christians preterists? Even amongst preterists there are differences of opinion.

I thought the Jews were to believe in Jesus, their promised Messiah, otherwise Christians today are in big trouble as we sit as freedom fighters on the WWW, instead of going out into the world with the Great Commission as our Lord told us. Or does our salvation depend on how well we evangelize the world?

the time of wrath
You are not treating the NT as a coherent, unified statement; that unless Israel joined in spreading the Gospel, they would be dashed to pieces. There is no attempt to compare to other time periods. Some of them have nothing to do with a position about the Gospel. Many of the Jews of N Europe moved back because of the leverage of the G Eliot novel which treated that return as a 'fulfillment of prophecy' without the Jews believing on the Christ of the Gospel!

 

[EarlyActs]

This is where it gets weird, the gospel was preached well before 70AD.

And some people cling to the tree called 70AD.

It's strange that the Jews continued to suffer persecution throughout the centuries, culminating in the Holocaust, which made 70AD look like child's play in comparison.

Heresy. I still do when it comes to preterism.
As far as here-say goes, anything outside of scripture is just that (here-say) which happened in the first century.

I'm not sure which verse you are referring to, but this I know the 70 weeks are up for debate amongst Christians.

Is that what Christian is divided when it comes to eschatology? Or are all Christians preterists? Even amongst preterists there are differences of opinion.

I thought the Jews were to believe in Jesus, their promised Messiah, otherwise Christians today are in big trouble as we sit as freedom fighters on the WWW, instead of going out into the world with the Great Commission as our Lord told us. Or does our salvation depend on how well we evangelize the world?

NT history
Your view of history is too amateur to consider. Did the fire of Rome in 64 not happen because it was not in the NT? Did Josephus not surrender to Rome because it is not in the NT? Ridiculous thinking.

So if you didn't mean hear-say but meant heresy, you'll need to demonstrate proof. If you meant hear-say (that the event of 66-72 were detailed by the apostles), you will also need to supply proof.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is where it gets weird, the gospel was preached well before 70AD.

And some people cling to the tree called 70AD.

It's strange that the Jews continued to suffer persecution throughout the centuries, culminating in the Holocaust, which made 70AD look like child's play in comparison.

Heresy. I still do when it comes to preterism.
As far as here-say goes, anything outside of scripture is just that (here-say) which happened in the first century.

I'm not sure which verse you are referring to, but this I know the 70 weeks are up for debate amongst Christians.

Is that what Christian is divided when it comes to eschatology? Or are all Christians preterists? Even amongst preterists there are differences of opinion.

I thought the Jews were to believe in Jesus, their promised Messiah, otherwise Christians today are in big trouble as we sit as freedom fighters on the WWW, instead of going out into the world with the Great Commission as our Lord told us. Or does our salvation depend on how well we evangelize the world?

re Dan 9
If you don't know how v24+ is a compact NT history, then you are simply not familiar with the issues involved. The only reason to break up the 70 weeks is to insert a 2nd program believed to be operating in the Bible. This was devised by the Rothschild-funded Scofield, whose cornerstone was that the Bible did not make sense; we needed his system so that it would make sense.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is where it gets weird, the gospel was preached well before 70AD.

And some people cling to the tree called 70AD.

It's strange that the Jews continued to suffer persecution throughout the centuries, culminating in the Holocaust, which made 70AD look like child's play in comparison.

Heresy. I still do when it comes to preterism.
As far as here-say goes, anything outside of scripture is just that (here-say) which happened in the first century.

I'm not sure which verse you are referring to, but this I know the 70 weeks are up for debate amongst Christians.

Is that what Christian is divided when it comes to eschatology? Or are all Christians preterists? Even amongst preterists there are differences of opinion.

I thought the Jews were to believe in Jesus, their promised Messiah, otherwise Christians today are in big trouble as we sit as freedom fighters on the WWW, instead of going out into the world with the Great Commission as our Lord told us. Or does our salvation depend on how well we evangelize the world?

divided eschatology
There has to be a future day of wrath on the world, of course, but that was delayed after 70. That is exactly how Mt 24:29+ is to be understood; the Father decided to delay. Mk 13 allows and 2 Peter 3 explains it after the fact. Mt 24 is Judean 1st century before v29.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is where it gets weird, the gospel was preached well before 70AD.

And some people cling to the tree called 70AD.

It's strange that the Jews continued to suffer persecution throughout the centuries, culminating in the Holocaust, which made 70AD look like child's play in comparison.

Heresy. I still do when it comes to preterism.
As far as here-say goes, anything outside of scripture is just that (here-say) which happened in the first century.

I'm not sure which verse you are referring to, but this I know the 70 weeks are up for debate amongst Christians.

Is that what Christian is divided when it comes to eschatology? Or are all Christians preterists? Even amongst preterists there are differences of opinion.

I thought the Jews were to believe in Jesus, their promised Messiah, otherwise Christians today are in big trouble as we sit as freedom fighters on the WWW, instead of going out into the world with the Great Commission as our Lord told us. Or does our salvation depend on how well we evangelize the world?

the Jews were to believe
there is no place or way for the Jews to believe in that generation that would not have helped make for peace in that generation in that country. That is the uniform meaning of the NT about that generation. You can make applications to other situations, but you can't change the cause and effect of the Gospel causing people not to escalate rebellion against Rome. And Dan 9 had said the country would be ruined, which Caiaphas hoped to prevent by ending Jesus life, Jn 12. Instead, releasing Barabbas ('Son Of The Father'!) only made revolt fever worse.

This is not a case of 'salvation depending' in any other sense than what would happen in that generation. The apostles wanted them to save themselves (through Christ of course) from that wicked generation (Acts 2-4).

 

[EarlyActs]

That is dividingline of the true Israel (believing line of Abraham-->Isaac-->Jacob) from the non believing line of (Abraham-->Isaac-->Jacob).
The former are the true Israel, not believing Christians. Thus all Israel will be saved!

No, the rest of the chapter makes that clear that "us" in v24 is both Jew and Gentile believers. With 4 OT quotes as supports. Isaac does provide a picture, of faith, but that's just it; it was the faith that makes Abraham Israel, not the race.

btw the you have the same set of names for both lines; didn't you mean to end with Ishmael like Gal 4 (Is 55) for the unbelieving/slave woman's line which is also meant only to be a picture/allegory of the current situation? (Otherwise no 'Ishmaelites' can be save.)

"Thus" in Rom 11:26 is not therefore. It is 'kai houtos' which is usually in this manner, in this way. The comparison is drawn to the partial race-nation, not the whole thing, just prior. this in turn is true because the olive tree is faith-based, not the race-nation, in the previous analogy.

the dividing line of the NT and Rom 11 is clearly faith. It is clearly not a race-nation basis.

In a masterful play on words, Mt 22's vineyard parable says that a new nation (ethnos) would be formed. Obviously this is because it not any of the existing ones! See Eph 2-3, where technical terms about membership and inheritance of Israel are freely applied to Gentile believers too. It always was about believers, says Heb 11. (Did I mention that is in Hebrews?)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Re dies he reign?
You are falling exactly for what he warned about when he said it will not come by recognized signs etc.

He was enthroned and his kingdom is imperative; all men must obey; they don’t at their peril, Ps 2.

Not sure what you mean

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

There is a sense which you are right about them expecting one; but it was a mistake and he made that clear. In fact that was the zealot problem; they were quite literal. I know of no place where that problem is to be later embraced as good.

It still is a problem

If God says A B And C will happen. And only A and B happen, and we change the meaning of C to make it appear it happened. We have imposed a flaw in interpretation.

If A and B happened literally we can know with confidence that C will also

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

My 24 has a very decisive switch at v29. It is very direct and current until that. The details before v29 are 1st century Judean and the quote of Dan 9 shows it is the 70th week.

So a blanket statement does no good.

It has also been suggested that their question ‘the end of the age?’ Is actually ‘when does temple Judaism end and your kingdom take over?’ And in fact there was overlap with a warning to leave the old because they would be ‘crucifying the Son again.’

All I need to do is look tot he fact that

1. 1 There was no abomination of desolation in 70 AD
2. There was no great tribulation at or near that time like has never been seen before or after (again WW1 and WW2 made 70 AD look like a picni
3. Nothing in 70 AD would have even come close to ending all life on earth cause ing the return of Jesus
4. Jesus did not return there was no sign in heaven/

If even one of these things did nto come true, it is more than enough evidence to show it did nto happen. Now All 4??

 

[EarlyActs]

Not sure what you mean

Then for the record, you don’t know yet what Acts 2 is saying. It is the same as the statements of Rom 1:1-3, Heb 1 several, Eph 1 several and of course Phil 2.

The resurrection was the enthronement of Christ that David foresaw says Acts 2:30,31.

 

[EarlyActs]

It still is a problem

If God says A B And C will happen. And only A and B happen, and we change the meaning of C to make it appear it happened. We have imposed a flaw in interpretation.

If A and B happened literally we can know with confidence that C will also

This is different E-G. It is not that C did not happen but was delayed, and the allowance for delay is expressed.

1, only the Father would decide when to end the works after the Destruction of Israel
2, Mark 13s parable of the return of the Master, gives 4 options
3, 2 Peter 3 says it is explaining why there was a delay

 

[EarlyActs]

All I need to do is look tot he fact that

1. 1 There was no abomination of desolation in 70 AD
2. There was no great tribulation at or near that time like has never been seen before or after (again WW1 and WW2 made 70 AD look like a picni
3. Nothing in 70 AD would have even come close to ending all life on earth cause ing the return of Jesus
4. Jesus did not return there was no sign in heaven/

If even one of these things did nto come true, it is more than enough evidence to show it did nto happen. Now All 4??

Yes the Aof D took place like Dan 9 said

The horrible turmoil was about 3.5 years. It does not matter that later wars and events might be worse; the statement was true at the time

You don’t know the contingency of Mt 24:29 to see that your 3rd point is moot.

The return to destroy the world has been delayed. However , there very bizarre signs and events when the temple was destroyed. Find a summary of Josephus document The Jewish War.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Then for the record, you don’t know yet what Acts 2 is saying. It is the same as the statements of Rom 1:1-3, Heb 1 several, Eph 1 several and of course Phil 2.

The resurrection was the enthronement of Christ that David foresaw says Acts 2:30,31.

I know exactly what acts 2 was saying

Acts 2 does not say when jesus said in matt 24

29. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Which also coincides with what the disciples were told the day Jesus left

Acts 1: 9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

So this is how anyone living in the time of acts 2 would have seen the return of the lord.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yes the Aof D took place like Dan 9 said

No it did not

And even if it did. Not everyone could see. Jesus said when you see it standing in the holy place.. that was impossible in 70 AD

The horrible turmoil was about 3.5 years. It does not matter that later wars and events might be worse; the statement was true at the time

It was not the greatest tribulation that would ever happen, it has been trumped by 2 world wars

You don’t know the contingency of Mt 24:29 to see that your 3rd point is moot.

Well you have not proven me to be in error. All i see is you trying to put things that that are not there. So your point is moot. A

The return to destroy the world has been delayed. However , there very bizarre signs and events when the temple was destroyed. Find a summary of Josephus document The Jewish War.

I have read them, I know they happened

I look for the day when they will be restored. Which they will. Even if I am not here.

 

[EarlyActs]

All I need to do is look tot he fact that

1. 1 There was no abomination of desolation in 70 AD
2. There was no great tribulation at or near that time like has never been seen before or after (again WW1 and WW2 made 70 AD look like a picni
3. Nothing in 70 AD would have even come close to ending all life on earth cause ing the return of Jesus
4. Jesus did not return there was no sign in heaven/

If even one of these things did nto come true, it is more than enough evidence to show it did nto happen. Now All 4??

Btw ending life on earth does not cause the return of Jesus, but the reverse. A NHNE will be made and won’t have the same kind of corporeality as now

 

[EarlyActs]

I know exactly what acts 2 was saying

Acts 2 does not say when jesus said in matt 24

29. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Which also coincides with what the disciples were told the day Jesus left

Acts 1: 9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

So this is how anyone living in the time of acts 2 would have seen the return of the lord.

But you missed the enthronement. It is based on Ps 2 and 110 and the rabbi schools were thick with debate about how. Jesus was enthroned by the resurrection which smashed all their conceptions.

 

[EarlyActs]

I know exactly what acts 2 was saying

Acts 2 does not say when jesus said in matt 24

29. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Which also coincides with what the disciples were told the day Jesus left

Acts 1: 9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

So this is how anyone living in the time of acts 2 would have seen the return of the lord.

Yes Mt 24 days that but not just that. You don’t get to comparmentalize. He gave an allowance that only the Fatger would know when both of these events would happen.

The DofJ was even delayed from how Dan 9 reads. The destruction of the world still waits.

 

[EarlyActs]

I know exactly what acts 2 was saying

Acts 2 does not say when jesus said in matt 24

29. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Which also coincides with what the disciples were told the day Jesus left

Acts 1: 9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

So this is how anyone living in the time of acts 2 would have seen the return of the lord.

That means returning without any explosions or destruction. Which he did many times in Acts helping found the church. Otherwise that Acts 1 event would be firy and explosive!

 

[EarlyActs]

I know exactly what acts 2 was saying

Acts 2 does not say when jesus said in matt 24

29. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Which also coincides with what the disciples were told the day Jesus left

Acts 1: 9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

So this is how anyone living in the time of acts 2 would have seen the return of the lord.

The last bold print sentence does not support you.

 

[EarlyActs]

No it did not

And even if it did. Not everyone could see. Jesus said when you see it standing in the holy place.. that was impossible in 70 AD

It was not the greatest tribulation that would ever happen, it has been trumped by 2 world wars

Well you have not proven me to be in error. All i see is you trying to put things that that are not there. So your point is moot. A

I have read them, I know they happened

I look for the day when they will be restored. Which they will. Even if I am not here.

One item per post please

Re the DofA.
Everyone in Judea in that generation knew a really awful person took over the temple and made it a fort. You don’t know history. The Christians left for Pella in the Decapolis for safety.