Daniel 9

[EarlyActs]

Why do you dismiss the testimony of all of scripture, and isolate passages? Well, I wish I hadn't looked at I Peter 2 again, because now I have more questions about where you get your ideas from. If you mean dispensationalism, I slept through dispensationalism for two or three days. Does that help? I then slept through Covenant Theology for two or three days. However, I will admit that I found more to like in progressive dispensationalism, where some/many problems were rectified. However, I then stopped caring.

Acts 3 "24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also proclaimed these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God [k]made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 For you first, God raised up His [l]Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”"

What warning? I don't see a warning here. Context is key.

I Peter 2 does not say that those in East Asia Minor are the chosen people. He doesn't say that. He is speaking to another group of people that are part of the church, and is addressing them as part of the church. (Not as the whole church.) If what you are saying is true, the only people who will be in heaven are those from East Asia Minor.

Also, so I would understand what you are asking me to study, I went to google which said "We don't know either". You stumped google.

So sorry, the Levitical quote is v23, right before.

I Peter was written to them; they were the usual mix of Jews and others. The point being that a 'delicate' verse was forthrightly used for believers who were not Jews.

Glad you slept through the theologies; I'm a historian first. I think that is the most important thing I learned writing THE COVENANT WAR which took 35 years. Also I worked in actual books not 'boogles.'

But when I heard Ryrie (DTSeminary) say that 2P2P is the 'sine qua non'--the one defining thing of D'ism, I jumped away to avoid collateral damage from the train wreck.

Sure enough they would do such things as deny that David had seen the resurrection and also say that an actual millenial temple was going to be built for Amos 9.

 

[EarlyActs]

Why do you dismiss the testimony of all of scripture, and isolate passages? Well, I wish I hadn't looked at I Peter 2 again, because now I have more questions about where you get your ideas from. If you mean dispensationalism, I slept through dispensationalism for two or three days. Does that help? I then slept through Covenant Theology for two or three days. However, I will admit that I found more to like in progressive dispensationalism, where some/many problems were rectified. However, I then stopped caring.

Acts 3 "24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also proclaimed these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God [k]made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 For you first, God raised up His [l]Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”"

What warning? I don't see a warning here. Context is key.

I Peter 2 does not say that those in East Asia Minor are the chosen people. He doesn't say that. He is speaking to another group of people that are part of the church, and is addressing them as part of the church. (Not as the whole church.) If what you are saying is true, the only people who will be in heaven are those from East Asia Minor.

Also, so I would understand what you are asking me to study, I went to google which said "We don't know either". You stumped google.

re isolated Scripture. I spent about 2 years on how the NT interps the OT. So I don't really know what you mean about evading or isolated Scripture.

Let's review something: a couple places in Acts summarize the 40 days of teaching as 'teaching them from Moses and the prophets (that could be David, Acts 2) all that had to happen: how the Christ would suffer and then be preached among the nations.'

That is a good headstone to use when diving in. You would want to go first through Acts, to at least ch 15's quote of Amos (there's only a few after that). I find about 20 distinct passages, some repetition. This would be the freshest from the 40 days. This is the subject of a big chapter in my book THE ENTHRONED KING.

The next batch would be Paul. This is why Gal 3 matters so much. Very dense! He said he was taught in person as well. Wow, look what shows: many of the same as the list of about 20 in early Acts. Then it tapers off, with the Isaiah 58 being very important in ch 4. But then you look at Romans and you see many of the same ones, and the most density of quotation of the OT anywhere, except Hebrews. Still, many of the same ones.

Hebrews is often unique on this, because it is a whole new batch, and obviously more directed at that generation of Jews to do the right thing, to do it now (while it is still called Today!), in that generation, and maybe save the place from being burnt down. That's one instance where there is a rational connection between the Christian message and saving the land of Israel.

I personally think it would be very neat if the whole temple complex had become a 'Christian amphitheater' without barriers, and a place of learning of and praise of Christ. No curtain to the center, the speaker could stand there and prob be heard all over.

But God had another plan by sending the people who attended Pentecost back home with this double set of accounts: the miracle of languages heard, and the message of Davidic enthronement that was heard through them. Talk about a jump-start to the Christian mission in 17 locations around the empire, or beyond. Humanly speaking, what faster way at that time was there to distribute the message that completely?

Thus we have a living, moving temple all through society, especially a theme in Ephesians. It's the little tent of David, a tabernacle that moves! Amos 9, Acts 15. Now that's also interesting because it is the best statement of something you keep addressing: the end of distinctions/difference. See chs 2-3! But also, there is no 'recipient' listed in 1:1. It was blank in the best manuscripts. That means it was circulated more as a publication than a single-use letter, and explains its similarity to nearby Colossae, written first.

In contrast to this, I am often treated to Ezek 38, 39 by D'ists. It has no interp by the NT, and so why do people in the midwest US take that one theme and discredit everything else you say or know? It's very odd. Just as odd as the un-conclusion they reach when they read Eph 3:5-6.

 

[armylngst]

So sorry, the Levitical quote is v23, right before.

I Peter was written to them; they were the usual mix of Jews and others. The point being that a 'delicate' verse was forthrightly used for believers who were not Jews.

Glad you slept through the theologies; I'm a historian first. I think that is the most important thing I learned writing THE COVENANT WAR which took 35 years. Also I worked in actual books not 'boogles.'

But when I heard Ryrie (DTSeminary) say that 2P2P is the 'sine qua non'--the one defining thing of D'ism, I jumped away to avoid collateral damage from the train wreck.

Sure enough they would do such things as deny that David had seen the resurrection and also say that an actual millenial temple was going to be built for Amos 9.

22 Moses said, ‘The [i]Lord God will raise up for you a prophet [j]like me from your brothers; to Him you shall listen to everything He says to you. 23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

I hope you understand when I say that I completely agree with what this says, and it does nothing to change my belief in the slightest. Instead, it bolsters it. It actually strengthens my belief. The reason Paul wrote this is BECAUSE the Jews are a special case. The Jews are God's chosen people, Israel God's chosen nation. The Gentiles don't get a prophet from among them, only the Jews did. It is because of their elevated position as the chosen people of God. Not only do they go to hell, just like the Gentile sinners, their soul will be utterly destroyed from among the people. What does scripture say of the children of God who are rejected at judgment? They are tossed in the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Why the weeping? Why the gnashing of teeth? Why not just the burning and torment of fire?

Their torment is top-tier. They knew God. They were His chosen people. They saw God act, heard the histories of God's actions for His people, tasted of the blessings of promise, and yet rejected. Their knowledge, their understanding, will torment them for all eternity. They had all this... and missed it. Imagine the excitement of being promised a great reward (perhaps going to your first ball game with your parents if you are good), and screwing it up at the last minute and not receiving it. When one's heart is set on a prize, and one just misses it barely, it is heart breaking and soul crushing. Imagine that feeling lasting for eternity, and only getting worse with every moment. Child's play. The message here is that Israel's rejection will be so much worse as to be expressed as weeping and gnashing of teeth that never ends.

This changes nothing when Paul says that after God is done with the Gentiles, all of Israel will be saved. It is the remnant that will remain when God is done pouring His wrath out on the world. The elect. They are the ones who survive until the end. Zechariah 12, God will pour out on the inhabitants repentance and grace, that the people look upon Him whom they have pierced and mourn for Him. They will recognize Him, and they will mourn for Him, and God will save them, His chosen people Israel. He will forgive them. And they will know Him, and none will say "know Yahweh" for all will know Him.

 

[EarlyActs]

22 Moses said, ‘The [i]Lord God will raise up for you a prophet [j]like me from your brothers; to Him you shall listen to everything He says to you. 23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

I hope you understand when I say that I completely agree with what this says, and it does nothing to change my belief in the slightest. Instead, it bolsters it. It actually strengthens my belief. The reason Paul wrote this is BECAUSE the Jews are a special case. The Jews are God's chosen people, Israel God's chosen nation. The Gentiles don't get a prophet from among them, only the Jews did. It is because of their elevated position as the chosen people of God. Not only do they go to hell, just like the Gentile sinners, their soul will be utterly destroyed from among the people. What does scripture say of the children of God who are rejected at judgment? They are tossed in the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Why the weeping? Why the gnashing of teeth? Why not just the burning and torment of fire?

Their torment is top-tier. They knew God. They were His chosen people. They saw God act, heard the histories of God's actions for His people, tasted of the blessings of promise, and yet rejected. Their knowledge, their understanding, will torment them for all eternity. They had all this... and missed it. Imagine the excitement of being promised a great reward (perhaps going to your first ball game with your parents if you are good), and screwing it up at the last minute and not receiving it. When one's heart is set on a prize, and one just misses it barely, it is heart breaking and soul crushing. Imagine that feeling lasting for eternity, and only getting worse with every moment. Child's play. The message here is that Israel's rejection will be so much worse as to be expressed as weeping and gnashing of teeth that never ends.

This changes nothing when Paul says that after God is done with the Gentiles, all of Israel will be saved. It is the remnant that will remain when God is done pouring His wrath out on the world. The elect. They are the ones who survive until the end. Zechariah 12, God will pour out on the inhabitants repentance and grace, that the people look upon Him whom they have pierced and mourn for Him. They will recognize Him, and they will mourn for Him, and God will save them, His chosen people Israel. He will forgive them. And they will know Him, and none will say "know Yahweh" for all will know Him.

All believers are his chosen people and royal priesthood according to I Pet 2, but let's get real: all the technical terms for fellowship, membership, citizenship of Israel are available to Gentiles through Christ, in Eph 3:5-6.

There is no NT passage that is as clear as you think about this before/during/after/trib/rapture/millenium stuff, which is why it is very divisive. It really should left alone ("it is not for you to know!" Acts 1:9) and people should ground themselves in history.

The only NT quote of Zech 12 is that it is about Christ historically. Surely you can see that if there is a faith-based Israel, that changes who battles whom in the Rev. A pastor this morning said the last great battle to rule the world will be over Jerusalem. I really don't get sentiment like this after reading the superlative chapters on Christ like Eph 1, Col 1, Phil 2. Who cares? It is not for us to know! But regardless many more lines go to describing the NHNE than the millenium. 2 Pet 3 fails to mention it--the most complete treatment of the 2nd coming, nor does I Cor 15. We should spend time fighting tyranny with groups like Tactical Civics. com.

 

[EarlyActs]

As I mentioned above about Acts 1 and the comeback by the angel about the kingdom of Israel: 'you will clothed with power when the Spirit comes.' These terms combine both the priesthood clothes and the authority of the kingdom in the message. That message was that the resurrection was the Davidic enthronement of Ps 2 and 110 and that David himself knew that. This does not change the world per se, but it does put the world on notice that this world is Christ's and he must be honored, or you will be dashed to pieces.

 

[EarlyActs]

In the 2018 dramatization JEREMIAH, there is an interesting juxtaposition: the announcement of a new covenant arrives as Israel is pounded by Babylon. The point is well taken. The question is whether it was as literal as it seems, for if not, the NT is guilty of misusing the passages. They are all used in the present tense, and there is an understanding that the OT can be very vivid but not necessarily as exact as crass literalism would render it.

 

[armylngst]

All believers are his chosen people and royal priesthood according to I Pet 2, but let's get real: all the technical terms for fellowship, membership, citizenship of Israel are available to Gentiles through Christ, in Eph 3:5-6.

So, why aren't you following the law to the letter? That burden that Peter says belongs to the Jews? Why not? Is it because God through James is clear that this isn't for the Gentiles? It is the burden of the Jews, one which even they couldn't bear. (Read Peter's speech.)

There is no NT passage that is as clear as you think about this before/during/after/trib/rapture/millenium stuff, which is why it is very divisive. It really should left alone ("it is not for you to know!" Acts 1:9) and people should ground themselves in history.

It is only in Thessalonians. Someone has already made this clear.

The only NT quote of Zech 12 is that it is about Christ historically. Surely you can see that if there is a faith-based Israel, that changes who battles whom in the Rev. A pastor this morning said the last great battle to rule the world will be over Jerusalem. I really don't get sentiment like this after reading the superlative chapters on Christ like Eph 1, Col 1, Phil 2. Who cares? It is not for us to know! But regardless many more lines go to describing the NHNE than the millenium. 2 Pet 3 fails to mention it--the most complete treatment of the 2nd coming, nor does I Cor 15. We should spend time fighting tyranny with groups like Tactical Civics. com.

Revelation was written so that we would know. The final battle is over Jerusalem, because the only way Satan can defeat God is to defeat Jerusalem/Israel. Something he has not been able to do.

 

[EarlyActs]

1, why not the law. Well, duh. It's not about that. The Promised blessings preceded the Law, and the Law 'was a child-trainer to lead us to Christ' where neither 'circ nor uncirc matter, but faith working by love.'

Do you know Galatians at all? Sorry to put it this way, but I have found it to be the case for nearly 50 years now--that people who are so intent on 'getting the future just right' based on 2 peoples/2 programs have almost no idea what the NT is actually saying.

2, "It is only in Thess." Sorry I have no idea what "it" is. The topic was the amount of confusion of those timeframes and their issues. A sermon on these things yesterday bounced between 10 'prooftext' passages, so the problem is much wider than Thess. How much attention does it take to realize Paul spoke directly, vitally, urgently to THAT generation in the Thess passages, because they wanted to know what would happen to friends and relatives? In fact, there's nothing else to it, but to answer that question. And yet that is not how things turned out anyway in history.

We should spend time on history, not on theory. And on present day tyranny, not on being in the know of the future. Tacticalcivics.com

I heard a sermon yesterday on the rapture, in which you would think it is the all-absorbing message. When he got to I Th 2:16 he actually denied the completed, past tense! (He thought the verse belonged somewhere in the theoretical slots of between the 'trib' and the 'mill.')

But if we follow NT history as it unfolded, we would have very different conclusions.

3, the final battle. The first pages of the Rev say it was for those people (west Asia Minor churches) to know what to make of the appalling disaster happening in Judea. The final battle of Rev 20 is Satan's forces against God's people, the same as I Thess 2, and God defeats those forces and we are in the NHNE. There is nothing Judaic nor geographic about it. You can't keep switching back and forth between faith-believers and the race-nation of Israel. God does not have 2 programs going that allows for that.

The clearest proof of the absence of 2 programs is the new covenant. You have to decide whether the apostles are nuts or they are right. Well, they had 40 days of teaching from Jesus about this. But I have heard teachers do like the above about the wrath:
'Peter was confused in Acts 2' or
'David was talking about the millenium in the Acts 2:30,31 quote' or
'Dan 9's list of 6 things Messiah accomplishes is not the Gospel, it's something for Israel in the millenium.'
They are otherwise very good teachers and they have helped people believe on Christ.

 

[EarlyActs]

Here is Van Meter's conclusions. Author of THE DATING GAME.





THE DATING GAME CONCLUSIONS

The wrap of Van Der Meter’s “Dating Game” about the date of the writing of Revelation







My partial preterism flies in the face of much that I was taught. Kenneth Gentry attended the same dispensational premillenial Bible college that I did (albeit many years before me) and he has the same testimony…of losing friends and relationships after changing his view… But our commitment to God’s Word must come before tradition. We must be Berean…

…Many date the Revelation post-90 AD because it fits better with their futuristic interpretation of the Revelation…

I have tried to set forth as clearly and simply as possible my conviction that the Revelation was penned prior to 70 AD. But a short document like the one you are reading is hardly sufficient to do justice to the matter at hand. I have mentioned the name Gentry several times already in this study (and in footnotes). For his doctoral thesis, Mr. Gentry wrote a dissertation on the dating of the Revelation. The dissertation was later edited and published as BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL, which in its third edition is published by American Vision.

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL is a compelling argument for the early dating of the Revelation. I first read excerpts from this book several years ago as a dispensationalist. While Mr. Gentry did not convince me then of preterism (that change would come much later) I was convinced from the evidence that the Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. I am not sure that one can make an educated assertion as to the dating of the Revelation without reading and considering the evidence set forth by Mr. Gentry… To date, no one has successfully refuted his scholarship (2009).

 

[armylngst]

Here is Van Meter's conclusions. Author of THE DATING GAME.

THE DATING GAME CONCLUSIONS

The wrap of Van Der Meter’s “Dating Game” about the date of the writing of Revelation

My partial preterism flies in the face of much that I was taught. Kenneth Gentry attended the same dispensational premillenial Bible college that I did (albeit many years before me) and he has the same testimony…of losing friends and relationships after changing his view… But our commitment to God’s Word must come before tradition. We must be Berean…

…Many date the Revelation post-90 AD because it fits better with their futuristic interpretation of the Revelation…

Actually, no. Preterism requires a pre 70AD date, or all of preterism fails. A belief that hinges upon an unknown variable, which wasn't unknown prior to the 4th century. Irenaeus, who heard John speak when he was at Smyrna, puts the date of Revelation at around 95AD. Eusebius verified this. First hand account from someone who lived when Revelation was circulated, who was a student of Polycarp, to whom John wrote the letter to the church of Smyrna, as the first Bishop of Smyrna. (Polycarp was one of John's disciples.)

1. We have Irenaeus dating Revelation as the end of Domitian's reign (81AD-95AD). We have Eusebius naming Domitian as the one Irenaeus was talking about. We have Domitian, whose favored form of punishment was exile, such as John on the Island of Patmos.

2. The church of Smyrna did not exist in 60AD, and, as written by Polycarp, Smyrna had not yet been evangelized in 60AD. No apostles had been to Smyrna yet.

3. Laodicea was rubble in 60AD due to an earthquake. Almost the whole city was destroyed. How could someone say that they were rich and in need of nothing, if they are still a pile of rubble in 65AD? Archaeologists say that it was a 30-year renovation project. (Which would, strangely enough, put the city's restoration at about 90AD.)

I have tried to set forth as clearly and simply as possible my conviction that the Revelation was penned prior to 70 AD. But a short document like the one you are reading is hardly sufficient to do justice to the matter at hand. I have mentioned the name Gentry several times already in this study (and in footnotes). For his doctoral thesis, Mr. Gentry wrote a dissertation on the dating of the Revelation. The dissertation was later edited and published as BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL, which in its third edition is published by American Vision.

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL is a compelling argument for the early dating of the Revelation. I first read excerpts from this book several years ago as a dispensationalist. While Mr. Gentry did not convince me then of preterism (that change would come much later) I was convinced from the evidence that the Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. I am not sure that one can make an educated assertion as to the dating of the Revelation without reading and considering the evidence set forth by Mr. Gentry… To date, no one has successfully refuted his scholarship (2009).

That "no one has successfully refuted his scholarship" is solely based on personal bias. Once again, if the date fails, preterism fails. (Amillennialism and preterism are not the same thing, though preterism did become a part of it. Preterism came out during the counter reformation where the Catholic Church was trying to lure protestants back into the church. Amillennialism formed around the 4th century, if not a little before. (Augustine was a main proponent at the time, because he was rather miffed with the chilians. One of the reasons he changed his beliefs was because he was upset.)

There is a refutation of Gentry in The Master's Seminary Journal from 1994. From the little I read, it says that Gentry based his defense on his interpretation of prophecies in Revelation. (That may be an over generalization.) Internal evidence, while ignoring external evidence and testimony of those alive when Revelation was written. The one question I was left with, after reading just a little of the refutation, is how one could believe that Jesus wasn't crucified for the world, and because of the world? If one believed that, they would understand that Revelation is the judgment of the world, not the Jews.

 

[EarlyActs]

Actually, no. Preterism requires a pre 70AD date, or all of preterism fails. A belief that hinges upon an unknown variable, which wasn't unknown prior to the 4th century. Irenaeus, who heard John speak when he was at Smyrna, puts the date of Revelation at around 95AD. Eusebius verified this. First hand account from someone who lived when Revelation was circulated, who was a student of Polycarp, to whom John wrote the letter to the church of Smyrna, as the first Bishop of Smyrna. (Polycarp was one of John's disciples.)

1. We have Irenaeus dating Revelation as the end of Domitian's reign (81AD-95AD). We have Eusebius naming Domitian as the one Irenaeus was talking about. We have Domitian, whose favored form of punishment was exile, such as John on the Island of Patmos.

2. The church of Smyrna did not exist in 60AD, and, as written by Polycarp, Smyrna had not yet been evangelized in 60AD. No apostles had been to Smyrna yet.

3. Laodicea was rubble in 60AD due to an earthquake. Almost the whole city was destroyed. How could someone say that they were rich and in need of nothing, if they are still a pile of rubble in 65AD? Archaeologists say that it was a 30-year renovation project. (Which would, strangely enough, put the city's restoration at about 90AD.)

That "no one has successfully refuted his scholarship" is solely based on personal bias. Once again, if the date fails, preterism fails. (Amillennialism and preterism are not the same thing, though preterism did become a part of it. Preterism came out during the counter reformation where the Catholic Church was trying to lure protestants back into the church. Amillennialism formed around the 4th century, if not a little before. (Augustine was a main proponent at the time, because he was rather miffed with the chilians. One of the reasons he changed his beliefs was because he was upset.)

There is a refutation of Gentry in The Master's Seminary Journal from 1994. From the little I read, it says that Gentry based his defense on his interpretation of prophecies in Revelation. (That may be an over generalization.) Internal evidence, while ignoring external evidence and testimony of those alive when Revelation was written. The one question I was left with, after reading just a little of the refutation, is how one could believe that Jesus wasn't crucified for the world, and because of the world? If one believed that, they would understand that Revelation is the judgment of the world, not the Jews.

I find that because of the vastly different material of the 7 letters compared to the description of wrath in the rest, that it seems to be a long term project. I just don't see the connection of the two types anyway.

If John was writing to answer the horror of the destruction, as a pastor, he didn't put that in the 7 and he did address it in the rest, which would matter most right after it happened.

I notice that the church is already called the bride of Christ by Paul in Eph 5 and that needs to be connected to the wedding in the Rev after the stoning of the harlot (the term is a Levitical priests wayward wife). Those things certainly mean the judgement material would have been sooner.

I don't have much invested in the Rev, because I believe that it is more rational to have ordinary-language passages fix the main points of a doctrine, and the symbolic can settle around those. Ie, ordinary passages on the final judgement should interp the Rev. All the same, it has great songs and compassion for suffering.

 

[armylngst]

I find that because of the vastly different material of the 7 letters compared to the description of wrath in the rest, that it seems to be a long term project. I just don't see the connection of the two types anyway.

Premillennialists, and apparently others, believe the letters cover church history. Hence even Steven Camp had a song "Living in Laodicea". Part of the reason why premillennialists believe Jesus is coming soon.

If John was writing to answer the horror of the destruction, as a pastor, he didn't put that in the 7 and he did address it in the rest, which would matter most right after it happened.

I think my biggest issue is that preterists don't consider that this is not the judgment of the Jews/Israel, but of the whole world. Israel is just a focal point at the end, when Satan's true goal comes to light. The destruction of the people God chose for Himself. (Note: I don't mean they are the elect of Ephesians 1. They are the nation, they are the people group God chose to make HImself known to the world through, and through which the salvation of the world would come. Paul takes the time to remind everyone that he is a Jew. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have done the same.

I notice that the church is already called the bride of Christ by Paul in Eph 5 and that needs to be connected to the wedding in the Rev after the stoning of the harlot (the term is a Levitical priests wayward wife). Those things certainly mean the judgement material would have been sooner.

Except the church is invited to the marriage supper. When John goes to see the bride, He is shown the New Jerusalem. Coincidence? I consider it a mystery as to how that all works. Even Paul said it is a mystery.

I don't have much invested in the Rev, because I believe that it is more rational to have ordinary-language passages fix the main points of a doctrine, and the symbolic can settle around those. Ie, ordinary passages on the final judgement should interp the Rev. All the same, it has great songs and compassion for suffering.

You should invest time in it, especially due to the warnings and the understanding that Jesus can return at any time. The fear I have for postmil is that they are missing it because they have set a standard which means, they aren't looking for Christ's return any time soon. The church has to take over the world first.

 

[EarlyActs]

ArmyL
I think my biggest issue is that preterists don't consider that this is not the judgment of the Jews/Israel, but of the whole world.

I don't try to be in a camp; I'm a historian, as you could see from THE COVENANT REVOLT.

The events in Judea were def a judgement of Israel. Rom 2: the Jew first and then the gentile. They were to be coupled events (that is why Mt 24A is about Judea in THAT generation and then the end was 'right after' (v29, which starts 24B).

Rom 11:30 is quite clear: there is no dealing with nations, only with whether people have faith in Christ. That's why there believers from all nations. Yes, Paul did remind he was a Jew and Jesus said that in Jn 4 (salvation through Israel) but it is not about a future battle or ruling the earth. It is the salvation in Christ now, proving (in Paul's case) that there was not rejection.

 

[EarlyActs]

ArmyL:
Except the church is invited to the marriage supper.

Do you realize that visions in the Rev are not sequential unless stated? Yes, there are some thens. But he can just have a vision as a new topic, any time. The book even starts over!

Mt24A is the same way. There are some 5 layers that are all features of the generation. Not a sequence of features. The warning that the AofD could show is also 'anytime.' I wonder why he would let them stay that late, and maybe as soon as they heard it was possible, they left.

I say this because I detect the usual tendency to think there is some sequence all worked out from one end to the other.

The other Jerusalem is already mentioned in Gal 4 and Heb 12 way before any of this. I fail to see a problem.

 

[Eleanor]

ArmyL:
Except the church is invited to the marriage supper.
Do you realize that visions in the Rev are not sequential unless stated? Yes, there are some thens. But he can just have a vision as a new topic, any time.
The book even starts over!

Because like Daniel and Zechariah 1-6, they are not successive chronology, but are progressive parallelisms.

Mt24A is the same way. There are some 5 layers that are all features of the generation. Not a sequence of features. The warning that the AofD could show is also 'anytime.' I wonder why he would let them stay that late, and maybe as soon as they heard it was possible, they left.
I say this because I detect the usual tendency to think there is some sequence all worked out from one end to the other.
The other Jerusalem is already mentioned in Gal 4 and Heb 12 way before any of this. I fail to see a problem.

 

[EarlyActs]

Premillennialists, and apparently others, believe the letters cover church history. Hence even Steven Camp had a song "Living in Laodicea". Part of the reason why premillennialists believe Jesus is coming soon.

I think my biggest issue is that preterists don't consider that this is not the judgment of the Jews/Israel, but of the whole world. Israel is just a focal point at the end, when Satan's true goal comes to light. The destruction of the people God chose for Himself. (Note: I don't mean they are the elect of Ephesians 1. They are the nation, they are the people group God chose to make HImself known to the world through, and through which the salvation of the world would come. Paul takes the time to remind everyone that he is a Jew. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have done the same.

Except the church is invited to the marriage supper. When John goes to see the bride, He is shown the New Jerusalem. Coincidence? I consider it a mystery as to how that all works. Even Paul said it is a mystery.

You should invest time in it, especially due to the warnings and the understanding that Jesus can return at any time. The fear I have for postmil is that they are missing it because they have set a standard which means, they aren't looking for Christ's return any time soon. The church has to take over the world first.

Investment:
All we need to know is justification from our sins in Christ. Even the ordinary-language passages on the 'end' in the NT letters do not have anything like this labyrinth called the Rev. Nor do they have any Judaic detail or locations. It is not sound thinking to put the symbolic above the didactic. Have you read any other apocalyptic pieces?

If a person is truly seeking the victory after the mill, they are doing what Rev 20 says (it is not hard to see the match between that and I Th 1:10 or esp 2 Th 2:8). At the end of the very long Rev 20 reign, there is a surrounding of believers by Satan and then his vanquishing. That's enough drama for me, but more to the point, surely you can see the match to the didactic lines?

And it would be much more worthwhile for people to spend time in Tactical Civics.com's approach. About 75 years ago, US counties decided to just elect prosecutors instead of hold grand juries, which kept local control on law and enforcement. Now we are flooded with Soros corruption and no way to prosecute. What a waste. This is not an eschatology view, it is just common sense.

 

[Rev. Man Ron]

Daniel 9:27
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”


Question. Who is the he?

It is not Antiochus nor Jesus, it is the end time Anti-Christ. The 70 weeks of punishment is designed to get Israel to repent, the very prophesy (Dan. 9:24-27) says so. Have they repented yet? Of course not, thus the 70th week has not been initiated yet. The "Time of the Gentiles" is referring unto service, that is what Paul in Rom. 9-11 is speaking about how God choses whom He will (to serve Him). He chose Jacob over Esau, the Potter choses the vessel, so when we get to the Time of the Gentiles being come in full, it means the Gentile Churches Service unto God is over, only after this has come to pass will Israel's blindness as a nation be dealt with, during the 70th week.

 

[armylngst]

It is not Antiochus nor Jesus, it is the end time Anti-Christ. The 70 weeks of punishment is designed to get Israel to repent, the very prophesy (Dan. 9:24-27) says so. Have they repented yet? Of course not, thus the 70th week has not been initiated yet. The "Time of the Gentiles" is referring unto service, that is what Paul in Rom. 9-11 is speaking about how God choses whom He will (to serve Him). He chose Jacob over Esau, the Potter choses the vessel, so when we get to the Time of the Gentiles being come in full, it means the Gentile Churches Service unto God is over, only after this has come to pass will Israel's blindness as a nation be dealt with, during the 70th week.

I always considered the time of the Gentiles as the time after the Jews rejected Christ that the Gentiles come in to Christ. Once Jesus is done gathering in the Gentiles, then the fullness of the Gentiles has come. At that time, God's mercy turns to the Jews, and God forgives them and saves them. (the remnant, the elect from Israel as seen in God's message to Elijah.) And thus, all become one. (Something like that.) There are generally three groups. The church, the nation of Israel (Jews, non-believers, not saved), and the Gentiles who are not saved. Outside the church, they are two groups.

 

[Eleanor]

I always considered the time of the Gentiles as the time after the Jews rejected Christ that the Gentiles come in to Christ. Once Jesus is done gathering in the Gentiles, then the fullness of the Gentiles has come. At that time, God's mercy turns to the Jews, and God forgives them and saves them. (the remnant, the elect from Israel as seen in God's message to Elijah.) And thus, all become one. (Something like that.)

What about all those who died in unbelief for thousands of years?

 

[Rev. Man Ron]

“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall [j]be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a [k]covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the [l]desolate.”"

You are of course correct here, but did you ever think the translators used one to many "verses" since really there are no verses in the bible? I think 25 should get half of verse 26 and 27 should get the other half of vs. 26. Like this

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, (1)to finish the transgression, and (2)to make an end of sins, and (3)to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to (4)bring in everlasting righteousness, and to (5)seal up the vision and prophecy, and to (6)anoint the most Holy.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks(49 yrs), and threescore and two weeks(434 yrs): the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself(So after 49 yrs + 434 years which = 483 years Jesus is slain for mankind's sins):

and the people(Romans/Europeans) of the prince that shall come(Anti-Christ 2000 some odd yrs later) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary(Romans in 70 AD); and the end thereof shall be with a flood(Army), and unto the end of the war desolations are determined(Israel were dispersed the world over).27 And he(A.C.)shall confirm the covenant(Agreement) with many(not Just Israel but the whole Mediterranean Sea Region) for one week(7 years): and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate(He will rule until Jesus shows up and casts him into hell).

I think some people get confused by a bad placement of the scriptures, the English translators seemingly divided it wrongly. Vs. 26 is an unneeded vs.

Also note how it says "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never be equaled again." Is there anything in history that equals or goes beyond what happened in 70AD. Short answer... yes.

Yes, and none of those were as great as WW1 or WW2. People simply get tunnel vision far too often, as we have all done at times mind you. Good stuff