Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
#321
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
#321
Melach said:
so matthew 24 is about ad70 and ripple also to end of the world

just like isaiah 7:14, sign in that time to a king ahaz, but later ripple to Jesus!
Click to expand...

I can agree somewhat with your "ripple" idea (in some cases, like in your other example),

...but in the Olivet Discourse, I see TWO DISTINCT things [time-frames] being covered (same as in Matt22:7 [70ad events: Lk21:23,20, 12-24] and then v.8 [which is the far-future time-frame])… so that in Matthew 24 (STARTING with "the beginning of birth PANGS") this chpt is ALL "far-future". See the following [again? :D ] :

[quoting other post]

Here's something I wrote in the context of a different convo and thread, but it speaks to this issue... that the Olivet Discourse speaks to two distinct things (separately, but in which some of the things which are distinct, sound similar):

[quoting that post]

The "SEE" then "FLEE" is indeed following the "beginning of birth pangs [plural]" in Matthew 24.

But in Luke 21, THIS IS NOT THE CASE.


--"the beginning of birth pangs" = Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8 / and DESCRIBED in Lk21:8-11...

[but then verse 12 says, "BUT BEFORE ALL THESE" (and then [vv.12-24a] describes the 70ad events which must come BEFORE the "beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]"/and 1Th5:2-3 is the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]")]


so...

in Luke 21 the order is not "birth pangs" THEN "SEE" THEN "FLEE," but instead is "SEE [Jeru compassed with armies]" THEN "FLEE" [BEFORE ALL OF THESE--->] "beginning of birth pangs" [which is Matt24:4-8/Mt13:5-8/Lk21:8-11 and then followed by much more...].

Completely distinct and wholly different SEQUENCE (not to mention the specific thing they were/are to "SEE" in each)

____________

--Luke 21:24 [in the SECTION re: events surrounding 70ad (vv.12-24a)] "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all the nations..."

--Matthew 24:29-31 [re: their gathering] parallel to Isaiah 27:12-13 [at the "GREAT" trumpet], where Isaiah says, "ye shall be gathered ONE by ONE, O ye children of Israel" and..."and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount AT JERUSALEM"

Completely opposite things. (And neither of them are speaking of our Rapture, per contexts.)

[end of that quoted post]


This is a SEQUENCE issue pertaining to "the beginning of birth pangs": Matthew24:4-8 / Mark13:5-8 / Luke21:8-11 and what verse 12 there says must come "BEFORE ALL THESE [before all these beginning of birth pangs]" and that is, the 70ad events must occur "BEFORE" them
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#322
#322
Melach said:
i think what is best is what dcontroversal said. he said double fulfilled

so matthew 24 is about ad70 and ripple also to end of the world

just like isaiah 7:14, sign in that time to a king ahaz, but later ripple to Jesus!
Click to expand...
But where does scripture mention a dual fulfillment?

If the mosaic age has ended with the destruction of the temple why would God have to do it again?

Jesus did tell us His Kingdom was not of this world...........to my mind all scripture has to harmonize...now I am just waking up to the inconsistencies of the completely futurist position but I see th preterist view as much stronger both Biblically and in light of a full study of the siege of Jerusalum and the historical records of that time.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#323
#323
TheDivineWatermark said:
..but in the Olivet Discourse, I see TWO DISTINCT things [time-frames] being covered (same as in Matt22:7 [70ad events: Lk21:23,20, 12-24] and then v.8 [which is the far-future time-frame])… so that in Matthew 24 (STARTING with "the beginning of birth PANGS") this chpt is ALL "far-future". See the following [again? :D ] :
Click to expand...
Now would this have not been confusing for the disciples?

Especially since Jesus makes no mention that He was transitioning to prophesy about the end of the Church Age?
 
T

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
#324
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
#324
UnderGrace said:
Now would this have not been confusing for the disciples?

Especially since Jesus makes no mention that He was transitioning to prophesy about the end of the Church Age?
Click to expand...

They were fully expecting "the age [singular] to come" to be "any day now" (which they correctly understood to mean [what we now call] "the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom," or what they called in Acts 1:6 "[will you at this time] restore again the kingdom to Israel?"... Now Jesus is not correcting their [proper expectation and] understanding of the "NATURE" of said kingdom [and recall He had just spent something like 40-days with them, post-resurrection! speaking to them of "kingdom" things], He just speaks to them [in response to their Q re: the TIMING of it] about the "TIMING," that it is not for THEM [standing before Him in that setting] to know...)

What they heard Him say in the Olivet Discourse was all of what we see written there (they may very well have THOUGHT it all pertained "any day now" when they heard it)... but the Spirit had it recorded in such a way so as to make it unmistakable to the readers that two distinct things are being referred to:

one set BEFORE "the beginning of birth pangs," and the other set FOLLOWING "the beginning of birth pangs"

(what they probably didn't grasp regarding "TIMING," is that one set is "far-future"... but STILL pertaining to the"YOU," which in the Olivet Discourse is a "proleptic 'you'" meaning basically, "all those in the future of the same category," and in this context, it is "all those TO WHOM "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom" was promised [NOT to "the Church which is His body"]--the Olivet Discourse is not covering the Subject of our Rapture at all [but the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom (commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth), and the limited, specific years immediately preceding that]).

When Jesus spoke the Luke 4:17-21 things, how many ppl (present that day) do we supposed "fully understood" that ONLY a portion of Isa61 was being "fulfilled THIS DAY"??

that He was transitioning to prophesy about the end of the Church Age?
Click to expand...
He wasn't.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#325
#325
UnderGrace said:
Okay so look here..... @dcontroversal @eternally-gratefull @crossnote

Concerning Matthew 24:2-4 (NKJV)

2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.

Notice Jesus just spoke about the Temple having no stone left on top of another

Now we know the Temple is part of the Mosaic Age....the disciples heard what Jesus stated and asked what will be the sign of the end the Mosaic Age (destruction of the Temple).
Surely you cannot see this as a reference to the end of the Christian age since in no way is the Temple tied to the Christian age.

70 AD was the end of the Mosaic age, this is the point of the entire Olivet Discourse....and the historical record can support it very clearly as well.

Okay ....I'll be waiting and burning the midnight oil rereading this thread, I am sure though I can answer each and every question with ease!!:unsure:
Click to expand...
One problem

At the end of the age, the disciples KNEW Christ would return.

So no, He was not talking about the mosaic age, but the age that would end wit Christ’s return.

The temple having not one stone left was fulfilled in ad 70 with the destruction of the city and temple

The beginning of the end of the age would start with the Abomination of desolation

You also have to add the wars and rumors of wars. Nation rising against nation. BUT THE END IS NOT YET. Then you have the birth pangs.

Non of that was possible in just a few decades.


 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#326
#326
UnderGrace said:
From John to the 70 AD was a transition period from one age to another.....God finally put an end to the Temple sacrifices as He prophesied He would.
Click to expand...
God put an end? He never promised that, It says the man of sin would put an end, By committing the abomination of desolation.

People focus on the temple too much, Most of Israel's existence there was no temple. If the temple was essential for salvation. Far to many jews would be lost because their was no temple. Daniel witnessed the destruction of the temple as a teenage, and lived the rest of his life with no temple.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#327
#327
UnderGrace said:
Mr. dcon the law passed away completely when the Temple was destroyed....but we can put that aside for now.

Okay, in my Bible Jesus starts with the Temple in verse 2.....really He does go look...I really mean it, He did.

The Jews rejected their Messiah. This did not happen with John.

That is a bold statement building = nothing, not to the Jews it was not nothing, it was the center of Jerusalem life.
Click to expand...
The law passed away when jesus said it is finished
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#328
#328
eternally-gratefull said:
God put an end? He never promised that, It says the man of sin would put an end, By committing the abomination of desolation.

People focus on the temple too much, Most of Israel's existence there was no temple. If the temple was essential for salvation. Far to many jews would be lost because their was no temple. Daniel witnessed the destruction of the temple as a teenage, and lived the rest of his life with no temple.
Click to expand...
Yes I would agree the Temple sacrifices came to end via the Romans ( they indeed committed the abomination of desolation) who destroyed the Temple.

LOL...I think it is the futurists who focus on the Temple the preterist know that that has been fulfilled. :D
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#329
#329
UnderGrace said:
Okay...if what you say is true then the question of the disciples should not have followed after Jesus made the statement about the Temple, but He would have reference John which He did not.
Click to expand...
They asked three questions

1. When will these things be 0- (the destruction of the temple
2. The end of the age (end of the time of the gentiles or gentile dominion over Isreal as prophesied in Daniel)
3. The sign of your coming (they knew the age would end with his return as he already promised.

Ad 70 only fulfilled the first question.

Far to many things had to occurs before the 2 and 3rd could even start.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#330
#330
Melach said:
but dcon how would orthodox jews ever accept a non-jewish messiah as Christ? thats why i believe beast has to be someone who can sell himself as counterfeit messiah.
Click to expand...
He will come from rome, as he will be part of the reformed roman empire

And who said the jews would accept him?

He offers them peace..then he takes that peace away when he defiles their holy place with an idol
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#331
#331
eternally-gratefull said:
They asked three questions

1. When will these things be 0- (the destruction of the temple
2. The end of the age (end of the time of the gentiles or gentile dominion over Isreal as prophesied in Daniel)
3. The sign of your coming (they knew the age would end with his return as he already promised.

Ad 70 only fulfilled the first question.

Far to many things had to occurs before the 2 and 3rd could even start.
Click to expand...
#2 I think you mean the end of the Mosaic Age.....Jesus referenced the Temple....and that no stone would be left on another stone.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#332
#332
UnderGrace said:
Yes I agree that the new age was started, however when I read Hebrews and Matthews as quoted above the Mosaic Law did not end until the temple was destroyed. It seems to me that one was ushered as the other was fading out...except one faded out with a BANG!!
70 AD :)
Click to expand...
Again, It ended when Christ said it is finished, At that time, he fulfilled the law and became our great high priest. Also at that time, the veil was ripped. By God, showing that no longer did sacrifice and burnt offering need to be sacrificed for sin, because the payment was done, finished, completed.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#333
#333
UnderGrace said:
But where does scripture mention a dual fulfillment?

If the mosaic age has ended with the destruction of the temple why would God have to do it again?

Jesus did tell us His Kingdom was not of this world...........to my mind all scripture has to harmonize...now I am just waking up to the inconsistencies of the completely futurist position but I see th preterist view as much stronger both Biblically and in light of a full study of the siege of Jerusalum and the historical records of that time.
Click to expand...
UGHH!!!!!!! Lolol
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#334
#334
eternally-gratefull said:
One problem

At the end of the age, the disciples KNEW Christ would return.

So no, He was not talking about the mosaic age, but the age that would end wit Christ’s return.

The temple having not one stone left was fulfilled in ad 70 with the destruction of the city and temple

The beginning of the end of the age would start with the Abomination of desolation

You also have to add the wars and rumors of wars. Nation rising against nation. BUT THE END IS NOT YET. Then you have the birth pangs.

Non of that was possible in just a few decades.
Click to expand...
All of these did occur in history, can be proven from the historical record within the time period of the Roman rule.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#336
#336
UnderGrace said:
Yes I would agree the Temple sacrifices came to end via the Romans ( they indeed committed the abomination of desolation) who destroyed the Temple.
Click to expand...
No, They destroyed the temple

They did not make the holy place unclean.

Your mixing two events.

LOL...I think it is the futurists who focus on the Temple the preterist know that that has been fulfilled. :D
Click to expand...
Yes they focus on the temple to much. The end of the age has many things that will happen. NOt just the temple.. If you focus on the temple to much you miss the rest of the stuff.

To a premil, the temple is but one small part. That fits in with all the rest (the wars and rumors of wars. The kingdoms which rise and fall. The birth pangs, the great tribulation. The two witnesses, The 144000 jewish missionaries. Etc etc etc..
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#337
#337
UnderGrace said:
#2 I think you mean the end of the Mosaic Age.....Jesus referenced the Temple....and that no stone would be left on another stone.
Click to expand...
I disagree, they asked when the and of the gentile age or the gentile beasts would end, The knew nothing of any other age, only the prophesies which showed that jerusalem would be under gentile dominion until the end of the age.. And when that age ended, a few things would happen

1. The messiah would come
2. Isreal will repent
3. Isreal will be restored
4. The gentiles will be punished
5. The son of david will rule

Again, There are many many events that the bible says will happen. Even paul in romans 11 states the end will not come until the time of the gentile is completed. he spoke of the gentile kingdoms.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#338
#338
eternally-gratefull said:
No, They destroyed the temple

They did not make the holy place unclean.

Your mixing two events.



Yes they focus on the temple to much. The end of the age has many things that will happen. NOt just the temple.. If you focus on the temple to much you miss the rest of the stuff.

To a premil, the temple is but one small part. That fits in with all the rest (the wars and rumors of wars. The kingdoms which rise and fall. The birth pangs, the great tribulation. The two witnesses, The 144000 jewish missionaries. Etc etc etc..
Click to expand...
I am not mixing anything, I am at my computer talking to you!!
And all these tangents are making my head spin!:sick:
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#339
#339
UnderGrace said:
All of these did occur in history, can be proven from the historical record within the time period of the Roman rule.
Click to expand...
They did?

So kingdom rose and fell (Only rome was in power then, there was no other kingdoms)
So The abomination of desolation occured?
So disease, famine, National disasters and all the birth pangs (exponential increase in severity and strength) occurred?
Then the grat tribulation (did you read the post I showed were 5 times more jews died in WW2 then died in ad 70? And where 70 to 90 million peole lost their lives in that same war?

I can go on and on sis.. How can you say they have already happened? Its impossible
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#340
#340
eternally-gratefull said:
I disagree, they asked when the and of the gentile age or the gentile beasts would end, The knew nothing of any other age, only the prophesies which showed that jerusalem would be under gentile dominion until the end of the age.. And when that age ended, a few things would happen

1. The messiah would come
2. Isreal will repent
3. Isreal will be restored
4. The gentiles will be punished
5. The son of david will rule

Again, There are many many events that the bible says will happen. Even paul in romans 11 states the end will not come until the time of the gentile is completed. he spoke of the gentile kingdoms.
Click to expand...
Okay let us stay on point.

Matthew 24: 2-4

Jesus makes a prophesy about the Temple correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.