Two Essential Features of NT Eschatology

[EarlyActs]

When comparing how the NT sounds with modern/pop eschatology today, there are two essential differences in foundations:

1, the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 came in Christ. The meaning is not about what it might split into off in a detached future from that point. In Acts 1-2, the kingdom came and the apostles were clothed (borrowing a Levitical term) with its authority, which is imperative: it consists of declarations for people now that Christ is Davidically enthroned. It does not say what results will or will not take place.
2, the vision of Daniel 9 is intact; it is also not splintered into a future at a certain point. While 24 is about the Gospel of Christ, the rest is a miniature history of the NT from that 'cutting off of Messiah' until the destruction of the city and sanctuary because of the desolating leader, first mentioned in ch 8. This is why the one quote of the NT of Dan 9 is a vital, direct, present warning to believers in the 1st cent: 'get out!' of Jerusalem when this person is acting in Jerusalem, using the temple as his fort.

In eschatology study, the idea of breaking from the 1st century about these things and jumping to a detached point centuries away has traditionally been called 'futurism' (distinct from its secular usage, for ex., Toffler). I don't know of any futurism in the NT, even though the return of Christ on the final day of judgement was delayed, and is. In his own intro to his new book ISRAEL MATTERS, I do not find where McDermott is even aware of either of these two features not being in the NT.

 

[Josheb]

When comparing how the NT sounds with modern/pop eschatology today, there are two essential differences in foundations:

1, the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 came in Christ. The meaning is not about what it might split into off in a detached future from that point. In Acts 1-2, the kingdom came and the apostles were clothed (borrowing a Levitical term) with its authority, which is imperative: it consists of declarations for people now that Christ is Davidically enthroned. It does not say what results will or will not take place.
2, the vision of Daniel 9 is intact; it is also not splintered into a future at a certain point. While 24 is about the Gospel of Christ, the rest is a miniature history of the NT from that 'cutting off of Messiah' until the destruction of the city and sanctuary because of the desolating leader, first mentioned in ch 8. This is why the one quote of the NT of Dan 9 is a vital, direct, present warning to believers in the 1st cent: 'get out!' of Jerusalem when this person is acting in Jerusalem, using the temple as his fort.

In eschatology study, the idea of breaking from the 1st century about these things and jumping to a detached point centuries away has traditionally been called 'futurism' (distinct from its secular usage, for ex., Toffler). I don't know of any futurism in the NT, even though the return of Christ on the final day of judgement was delayed, and is. In his own intro to his new book ISRAEL MATTERS, I do not find where McDermott is even aware of either of these two features not being in the NT.

I am 100% with you regarding the disdain for "modern/pop eschatology," or what I call "modern futurism." I'm sure you have witnessed my many posts refuting the premise and providing a scripturally consistent alternative. That being said, I'd like to ask you a few questions about this op because I wonder if you realize what happened in the op and whether perhaps you have unwittingly influenced by modern futurism despite you best efforts to the contrary.

Note the title is "Two Essential Features of NT Eschatology." That title caught my eye. It caught my eye because few articulate a New Testament eschatology. Because of the ubiquitous influence of modern futurism there exists a condition commonly practiced where eschatology is couched first and foremost in the Old Testament, not the New. It happened in this op. That it happened is clear and undeniable. What I do not know is whether or not that was intentional. I'll come back to that point and address it in a separate post. If memory serves me well then you don't like lengthy posts so I'll end this one here and broach each observation or inquiry in separate posts. For now,

How much do you think you might have been unwittingly influenced by modern futurism given the fact this op is couched first and foremost in Daniel (not Acts or some other NT book)?

 

[Josheb]

Two Essential Features of NT Eschatology


When comparing how the NT sounds with modern/pop eschatology today, there are two essential differences in foundations: ..........

I noted the subtle but significant change from the title to the op's opening statement. The title asserts two essential features of NT eschatology, but the opening line asserts two essential "differences in foundations." I assume no bait and switch was intended.

Are differences essentials? Are the differences between NT eschatology and any other eschatology (modern/pop futurism or otherwise) essential? Aren't the essentials established first regardless of whatever else exists and then those essentials used as objective measures of differences found elsewhere? If so, then I again want to ask whether or not this was intentional or unwitting. It's a simple mistake to make but maybe it was intended. If so then conflating or otherwise confusing essentials and essential differences is a problem. Can you clarify that for me?

 

[Josheb]

Two Essential Features of NT Eschatology

When comparing how the NT sounds with modern/pop eschatology today, there are two essential differences in foundations:

1, the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 came in Christ. The meaning is not about what it might split into off in a detached future from that point. In Acts 1-2, the kingdom came and the apostles were clothed (borrowing a Levitical term) with its authority, which is imperative: it consists of declarations for people now that Christ is Davidically enthroned. It does not say what results will or will not take place.
2, the vision of Daniel 9 is intact; it is also not splintered into a future at a certain point. While 24 is about the Gospel of Christ, the rest is a miniature history of the NT from that 'cutting off of Messiah' until the destruction of the city and sanctuary because of the desolating leader, first mentioned in ch 8. This is why the one quote of the NT of Dan 9 is a vital, direct, present warning to believers in the 1st cent: 'get out!' of Jerusalem when this person is acting in Jerusalem, using the temple as his fort.

In eschatology study, the idea of breaking from the 1st century about these things and jumping to a detached point centuries away has traditionally been called 'futurism' (distinct from its secular usage, for ex., Toffler). I don't know of any futurism in the NT, even though the return of Christ on the final day of judgement was delayed, and is. In his own intro to his new book ISRAEL MATTERS, I do not find where McDermott is even aware of either of these two features not being in the NT.

Why start with Daniel if the purpose of the op is New Testament eschatology? Daniel is not New Testament.

Why start with the priesthood or the monarchy? The eschatology of the Bible was introduced long before the priesthood was established, longer still before the earthly monarchy was established, and longer still before the era of the prophets was established. In most cases the Jews and Judaism got the first two wrong and egregiously misunderstood and abused the third. Why not start with Genesis 1, 12, or 15 instead of Daniel? New Testament eschatology does not start with Daniel (it starts and ends with Jesus ).

Can you understand how the op reads to others holding a New Testament eschatology? Can you understand how I and others might cock our heads and wonder "What in the world? Why assert an NT eschatology beginning with Daniel?" Can you understand doing so might not be the best way to persuade modern/pop futurists?

 

[Josheb]

In Acts 1-2, the kingdom came and the apostles were clothed (borrowing a Levitical term) with its authority, which is imperative: it consists of declarations for people now that Christ is Davidically enthroned.

Amen! Mostly.

Christ was not enthroned Davidically. David was enthroned Christologically. That is a very important difference between modern/pop futurism and NT eschatology. God never wanted a king like all the other nations for Israel. This is explicitly stated in 1 Samuel 8. Just as explicitly stated is the fact God took the people's request for a king like all the other nations as a rejection of Him as their King. This is fundamental to New Testament eschatology because God never stopped being King. He was not honored as King of Israel throughout the NT but that does not change the fact there has always and only been one King: the Creator of all things made.

More importantly relevant to Acts 1-2 is the definition of the promised throne because God did not define the throne a s a chair where someone would sit and God did not define the throne to be a chair on earth in which some person would physically sit on earth. This is another way the Hebrews misunderstood the promise, and another way modern/pop futurism really mucks things up quite badly. Acts 2 explains the throne and the promise God made thereof. Peter, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost explicitly stated the promised throne was the resurrection.

Acts 2:29-36 ESV
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”


God's Son would NOT rot in the grave. He would resurrect. That is what the promise was about. That is essential to New Testament eschatology! The Jews and modern/pop futurists deny that text. They twist it and force it to say things other than what is clearly, plainly, explicitly stated. The promise can first be found expressed by God (through the prophet Nathan) in 2 Samuel 7. The Jews thought it was about an earthly monarchy (which God never wanted), and modern/pop futurists stay couched in the misguided Judaic reasoning. That is an essential difference between what they think and New Testament eschatology.

 

[Josheb]

It does not say what results will or will not take place.

I'm not sure what is intended with this statement because there are places in the NT where the results are stated.

One area of revelation occurs in the overlap between soteriology and eschatology. New Testament soteriology is often eschatological and New Testament eschatology is inextricable from soteriology. Only the saved will be saved. That is a stumbling block for the Jew (and the Judaizers of New Testament eschatology) and foolishness to the Gentile (or modern/pop Tofflerian futurist. We know, for example, that the NT saints were living in the end times, and it was upon them the ends of the ages had come. Not the beginning of the ages, but the ends of the ages. This is essential to New Testament eschatology. We know that judgment was pending on the first century, and we know there is also an eternal aspect of the New Testament eschatology, not one or the other.

So, can you clarify for me what you mean by saying the results were not said?

 

[Josheb]

In eschatology study, the idea of breaking from the 1st century about these things and jumping to a detached point centuries away has traditionally been called 'futurism' (distinct from its secular usage, for ex., Toffler).

Yep. However, two observations are worth noting because 1) the futurism goes by many names and the futurists do not use or like the term futurism/futurist, and 2) only the full-preterist thinks everything eschatologically prophetic has been fulfilled. The full-pret view is both the normative and statistical outlier. It is normatively and statistically more outlying that modern/pop futurism .

Are you a full-preterist? (you mention McDermott later, so I assume not but only full-prets lack any and all futurism)

I don't know of any futurism in the NT, even though the return of Christ on the final day of judgement was delayed, and is.

Hmmm.....

Can you provide the New Testament verse explicitly stating the return of Jesus was/is delayed?

 

[Josheb]

In his own intro to his new book ISRAEL MATTERS, I do not find where McDermott is even aware of either of these two features not being in the NT.

????

Is this op intended to be a moratorium on the views of Gerald McDermott? Are we discussing New Testament eschatology as the New Testament itself asserts New Testament eschatology, or are we discussing McDermott's views as he imagines the New Testament to assert McDermottian eschatology? Did McDermott couch his views in Daniel and, if so, were you unwittingly persuaded by his method and content to believe as he believes? Is this op intended to be a discussion of "New Christian Zionism"? If so, then please come right out immediately and directly and state that is what this op is about.

Can you understand it looks like a bait and switch? You started out asserting "Two Essential Features of New Testament Eschatology," moved that thesis to "two essential differences in foundations," and then disclosed this has something to do with Gerald McDermott's views and his New Christian Zionism. Was this intentional, or did the op get muddied in the effort to be brief? How do you expect to discuss McDermott's view(s) with those unfamiliar with his views? Will you present them as McDermott's views? Will you present them as your own views? Or will this form of Zionism be presented as New Testament eschatology as if the three are identical? How do you avoid the fact McDermott is somewhat different, but still a modern futurist? Here are all the questions just asked listed in bullet points...

• Is this op intended to be a moratorium on the views of Gerald McDermott?
• Are we discussing New Testament eschatology as the New Testament itself asserts New Testament eschatology, or are we discussing McDermott's views as he imagines the New Testament to assert McDermottian eschatology?
• Did McDermott couch his views in Daniel and, if so, were you unwittingly persuaded by his method and content to believe as he believes?
• Is this op intended to be a discussion of "New Christian Zionism"?
• Can you understand it looks like a bait and switch?
• Was not disclosing these are McDermott's views intentional, or did the op get muddied in the effort to be brief?
• How do you expect to discuss McDermott's view(s) with those unfamiliar with his views?
• Will you present them as McDermott's views? Will you present them as your own views? Or will this form of Zionism be presented as New Testament eschatology as if the three are identical?
• How do you avoid the fact McDermott is somewhat different, but still a modern futurist?

.

 

[Josheb]

How familiar are you with the history of Zionism, particularly the moderns zionisms of Christian Zionism, Jewish Zionism, and New Christian Zionism, and specifically the origins of each?

 

[Ghada]

When comparing how the NT sounds with modern/pop eschatology today, there are two essential differences in foundations:

1, the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 came in Christ. The meaning is not about what it might split into off in a detached future from that point. In Acts 1-2, the kingdom came and the apostles were clothed (borrowing a Levitical term) with its authority, which is imperative: it consists of declarations for people now that Christ is Davidically enthroned. It does not say what results will or will not take place.
2, the vision of Daniel 9 is intact; it is also not splintered into a future at a certain point. While 24 is about the Gospel of Christ, the rest is a miniature history of the NT from that 'cutting off of Messiah' until the destruction of the city and sanctuary because of the desolating leader, first mentioned in ch 8. This is why the one quote of the NT of Dan 9 is a vital, direct, present warning to believers in the 1st cent: 'get out!' of Jerusalem when this person is acting in Jerusalem, using the temple as his fort.

3 essential features of NT eschatology:

1. That we are now and have been in the last days, since Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

2. These last days will end, when the Lord returns to resurrect His saints to meet Him into the air.

3. Saints have been enduring great tribulation on earth, since Cain slew Abel. Such great tribulation upon saints will also end when the Lord returns to rule the earth.

I don't know of any futurism in the NT,

Maybe not detached, but distinctly changed futurism is when these last days of man's unjust rule on earth ends, and the Lord's righteous rule begins with great power and glory.

Until then, the present truth of great tribulation for saints on earth continues...

even though the return of Christ on the final day of judgement was delayed, and is.

The judgment of nations after plagues and war around Judea, is not the last judgment of the Lord on earth. His last judgment on earth is after His thousand year reign, with fire of God comes down upon Satan's last stand.

The last judgment of God from His throne, is after this heaven and earth flee from His face.

In his own intro to his new book ISRAEL MATTERS, I do not find where McDermott is even aware of either of these two features not being in the NT.

The Israel of the risen God of Israel certainly does matter on earth and in heaven today.

Israel after the flesh will only matter again after the warfare of His return. That's when the Lord and King will fulfill His promise to resurrected Abraham, and give the land promised to him and his natural seed.

In the meantime, all unrepented sinners are now uncircumcisied gentile to God, whether Jew or Greek after the flesh.

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

 

[Josheb]

3 essential features of NT eschatology:

1. That we are now and have been in the last days, since Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

2. These last days will end, when the Lord returns to resurrect His saints to meet Him into the air.

3. Saints have been enduring great tribulation on earth, since Cain slew Abel. Such great tribulation upon saints will also end when the Lord returns to rule the earth.

According to scripture the ends of the ages came upon the New Testament era Christians. It was not the beginning of the last days, but the ends of the last days.

1 Corinthians 10:1-12
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play." Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore, let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

Paul is pretty clear. The Old Testament events he referenced were written directly and specifically for his original audience, not directly and specifically for people living twenty centuries later. Peter made it quite plain they were living in the last days in which Jesus had been revealed.
1 Peter 1:17-21
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Peter did not write, "those last times twenty centuries from when I write this letter." The last times were in the first century. The ends, not the beginnings, of the ages was in the first century. Peter, preaching under the influence of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost also quoted Joel's prophecy about the last days to say Joel's prophecy had come true right then and there in the first century at Pentecost.

Acts 2:16-18
But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: "And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.'

The author of Hebrews also couched the last days in the first century.

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

James also wrote of the last day as occurring in the first century, appliable to his original readers.

James 5:1-3
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted, and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!


Those two did not say "those last days" with any indication the last days were in the far, far distant future. They did not say treasure would be stored up for 2000+ years. In fact, not a single New Testament writer ever stated anything indicating the last days or time were about people they did not know, people who'd be living long, long after the writers were dead and resurrected. That view is directly a product of what the op labels as "modern/pop" futurism.

Is there a basis in scripture itself for the end of something to last 2000 or more years? Any actual scripture explicitly stating any end lasts multiple thousands of years. Any verse actually explicitly stating the last days began but did not end in the first century AND would last multiple millennia? If so, then post it. If not, then acknowledge the lack.

Exactly. God certainly knows how to speak plainly.

That is correct, and God spoke plainly when He had Paul explicitly stated the ends of the ages had come upon the believers in Corinth. The ends, not the beginnings. The beginnings of the ages had started long before then. They were living in the last days and the ends of the ages had come upon them.


How can something contradicting scripture be essential?

 

[Ghada]

Any verse actually explicitly stating the last days began but did not end

There is no Scripture stating in any way, that the last days have ended.

And the Spirit prophecies those last days would continue:

For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The promise of the last days is the gospel of Jesus Christ preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.

No Scripture says those last days ended, and if they did end, then also the promised gospel of the last days must also be ended.

The Spirit says that promise of the last days is for the next generation and the next...until the Lord returns as lightning shining from east to west.

Anyone saying those last days ended, are saying the promise of those last days by the Spirit, was false prophecy of Christ.

but the ends of the last days.

This is adding to the prophecy. No apostle speaks of the end of the last days, but only of the last days.

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Jesus' prophecy of the end to come is only after the gospel is preached to all nations on earth.

The lord's commission was not yet fulfilled over all the earth in the days of that generation, neither in their last days nor by it's end.

According to scripture the ends of the ages came upon the New Testament era Christians. It was not the beginning of the last days,

The end of the ages following the Lord's coming in the flesh, is not yet the end of those ages, because this age following the Lord's coming in the flesh is not ended.

The end of the ages is manifestly not yet.

Those last days were spoken of pertaining to their manner. False teachers, perilous times, antichrists, false apostles. mockers, scoffers...and most importantly of all the pouring out of the Spirit upon all flesh, with salvation by the gospel of Jesus Christ come to them that repent.

Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

The manner of those last days remain, especially the revealed salvation by the gospel of Jesus Christ, and so those last days remain.

It is these last days with the gospel preached by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, that the prophets of old enquired into, when prophesying the last days gospel and grace:

Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

They prophesied the coming last days, and also searched into the manner of them after the Lord's coming. The manner of the last days cannot be separated from the last days, and vica-versa.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?

Can a tree be separated from it's fruits? Can the fruits remain if the tree is at an end? I trow not.

Your main error is to think of the last days in number of days only, not in their manner, that makes them the days they are.

If the fruits remain, then so must the days of the tree, however long they last.

.

The Old Testament events he referenced were written directly and specifically for his original audience, not directly and specifically for people living twenty centuries later. Peter made it quite plain they were living in the last days in which Jesus had been revealed.

The OT prophesies and preached was Jesus Christ's revealed gospel and grace in the last days. You make the gospel of the last days to end only for that first beginning generation of the Lord's coming in the flesh.

The prophecy of the last days was all about the coming of the Lord, and the gospel of His grace to follow. Ending those last days must end that gospel of the last days.

Trying to separate the coming of the last days from the coming gospel of the Lord with newborn creatures in Christ, is like trying to separate the beginning of the heaven and earth, from God creating the heaven and earth.

Jesus created the last days by coming in the flesh, and he will end the last days by coming again in resurrected flesh and bones.

James also wrote of the last day as occurring in the first century, appliable to his original readers.

If the last days are not appliable to the next generation and the next, then neither are the Scriptures applying to the last days:

There are no more false teachers and prophets, perilous times, antichrists, mockers, scoffers...and of course the revealed gospel and grace of Jesus Christ.

As well as the doctrine and law and commandments of Christ written by His apostles in those last days to those 'original' hearers and readers only.

The NT gospel of the last days is not past, nor the coming again and resurrection at the end of the last days has past.

Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Those two did not say "those last days" with any indication the last days were in the far, far distant future.

However far to come and go with at least the next generation and the next...even unto this age which is not ended.

Old prophecy of the prophets was of those last days to come. If those last days did not come with the Lord coming in the flesh, then the NT apostles would have likewise prophesied those last days as yet to come.

Instead, the NT apostles confirm those prophesied last days had come with the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, and would continue coming to the next generation and the next...

The error that is essential to correct about prophesies pertaining to the last days, is that they have come and are still coming.

Most err in limiting them to a future generation only. This is the first time I've seen someone try to limit them to the first generation only. (Along with the prophesied gospel of the last days.)

5. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Scoffers in the last days say the Lord is not coming again. Much more in these last days.

The same is said for those who declare those last days are ended, so that He is not coming to end them.

The Spirit prophecies there would be the promise of the last days in the next generation and the next...until after the gospel is preached in every nation, and only then is the end come, which is the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ coming as shining lightning over all the earth, to rule the nations thereof.

With His resurrected saints saved by the gospel of grace of Jesus Christ in the last days before He comes again.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The Lord come in the flesh is the beginning of the last days of unjust man's rule on earth, and the Lord coming in power and glory is the ending of unjust man's last days ruling on earth.

That first generation of the Lord's coming was the beginning of generations and ages to come after the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection. Which generation and age we are in now, and manifestly is not ended.

The Lord is the beginning and the ending of the last days of unjust man's rule on earth.

 

[Josheb]

There is no Scripture stating in any way, that the last days have ended.

I never said otherwise.

What I did post is scripture. The scriptures explicitly state the ends of the ages had come in the first century and you are not addressing that fact. You've written a lengthy response that has absolutely nothing to do with what Paul explicitly stated.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

The ends of the ages had come. It was not the beginning that had come. It was not that the ends would be coming in the future. The ends had come. That is what the scripture states. That is what I have asked you to address. Do NOT say, "the beginning of the last days began back then but they have not ended," because that has nothing to do with what Paul stated. Paul said the ends had come.

Did the ends come back then, or was Paul mistaken (or lying)? Please do NOT waste another post not addressing 1 Corinthians 10:11.

The end of the ages is manifestly not yet.

Paul stated otherwise.

that's not an opinion. Paul explicitly stated the ends had come.

Anyone saying those last days ended, are saying the promise of those last days by the Spirit, was false prophecy of Christ.

Yes, and anyone who denies what scripture explicitly states is a false teacher. You should not consider those people your teachers and you should not practice that denial in the forum. Paul explicitly stated the ends had come. The ends, not the beginnings.

And you are not addressing that fact.

The end of the ages following the Lord's coming in the flesh, is not yet the end of those ages, because this age following the Lord's coming in the flesh is not ended.

Paul stated otherwise.

The end of the ages is manifestly not yet.

Paul stated otherwise.

Those last days were...

Bla bla bla


The ends of the ages had come in the first century. It was the ends that had come, not the beginnings. I'll take up the "last days" once you've bowed to what Paul wrote about the ends of the ages having come back in the first century, and when I do, I will expect you to bow to scripture exactly as written there, too.