Results 1 - 20 of 84
|Results from: Notes
Author: Suede67 Ordered by Date
|1||Did this war already occur?||Rev 12:7||Suede67||116176|
This all happened around 70 AD when Jerusalem was sieged by the Romans. Look at Revelation and the Olivet Discourse found in Luke 21. They describing the same thing, only Jesus reveals much greater detail to John in Revelation. True that 1,000 years is but one day to the Lord, but not to us. In the Bible we have the Lord telling mortal men something. Jesus would not say I am coming quickly to mortals knowing full well that our lives are greatly limited. Here's a great example. Daniel was told to seal up his prophecy because the days were not near. Note, that's relative to him and mortal life.
6th century B.C: "Seal up the vision; for it shall be for many days." (Dan. 8:26)
Interestingly though, John was told the opposite of what Daniel was told.
1st century A.D.: "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." (Rev. 22:10)
Now, Daniel was told to seal up his prophecies, but they would be fulfilled within roughly 500 years. But John was told NOT to seal up his prophecies and they haven't come to pass in 2,000 years? This is not good Biblical interpretation. God takes into account the mortality of fleshy man. Time indicators in the New Testament demand rapid fulfillment, within the 1st Century. Take care,
|2||Did this war already occur?||Rev 12:7||Suede67||116128|
Are you sure this didn't already happen? Are you positive this is in reference to a Third Temple? Conclusively? Take care,
|3||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||116092|
Well, good to hear from you. I was just going to check back with you and see how your studies were going, and your...let's say CAPS post was on the front. I'm glad to hear that it wasn't directed at me, and I'm sorry you've reached some opposition. You've also cleared out your profile so I couldn't e-mail you, even though I know what church you attend. You're a DFW resident as am I. Anyways, you can always e-mail me at
Just be sure to put a subject like Ischus or something. You know, one of the beauties of the internet is you can always walk away from it. LOL, I know I've had to this MANY of times, being a Preterist and all! So no big deal. Besides, there's other forums too, I spread myself over several of them. Anyways though, I really appreciated your willingness to hear me out and give Preterism a fair and honest look, whether you ultimately adopt it or not. I of course encourage you to study it further! ;-) Alright, well, take care, hope to hear from you sometime in the future, may God bless regardless thought.
|4||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115585|
“Ok, so now I need to hear your view on the current status of Hell, Heaven, and the Kingdom of God.”
Great. Heaven always has been, always will be. When Adam sinned, he cut ties with God, his sin separated us. Mankind could not go to heaven, he had to go to Sheol or Hades and await the Messiah that would atone the sin that Adam started that separated us from God. It is because of Jesus, that we can get into Heaven and bypass Sheol; something people from the Old Testament could not do. The kingdom of God is here, now, Christians make this up. We are totally under the New Covenant, and the Kingdom of God will never end no that it’s in place.
“Are you saying that Hell and/or Satan no longer exists?”
Hell yes, Satan no. First of all, it’s unfortunate that we often confuse Hades with Hell. These are really two different things. Hades is the Greek equivalent of Sheol, or the grave. Sometimes it was called Abraham’s Bosom. This in essence was a holding tank of sorts. Since Adam sinned, no man could go to heaven to be with God, but where did he go when he died? He went to Sheol or Hades to await the Messiah. BUT, after the Messiah came, Sheol/Hades was no longer needed. Hades gave up the dead in her, and they were judged. But, then Hades gets thrown into the ‘lake of fire’. It is this lake of fire that we often refer to as Hell. But we can see, that Hades and Hell are two very different things.
Rev 20:13,14 “ And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
The devil, or Satan finds a similar fate.
Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
And when we think about this, it makes sense. If Satan is still around, then really Jesus didn’t defeat him. Jesus still has things to do. This of course is not true.
“How do you interpret the 1000 years in Rev. 20?”
To me John is speaking prophetically, not literally. It represents a transition period from roughly 30 AD to 70 AD. Most people balk at this idea, but it’s really not that difficult. One, prophetic language tends to be VERY poetic, just read through some of the OT prophesies and you’ll understand. Look at what else is in Rev 20:1-2. You got an angel, a key, a chain, an abyss, and a dragon. I think it is unfair to say these are literal, and I think it’s unfair to say that they are poetic or symbolic, but then to demand that the 1,000 years be literal. To me, that would be bad interpretation.
“What is your view of the "already, not yet" philosophy?”
A cop out in my opinion, and in light of the Bible it is incorrect. What it attempts to say is that you do have things, but not in full. I don’t buy this, it sounds like someone is ducking some issues.
The sad thing is, I want to say that an understanding of end times is not essential. But, really, it is. Not for salvation, but for an understanding of the Bible as a whole. One thing that irks me is that people ignore audience relevance. We MUST understand that the Gospels and Letters that make up the New Testament made sense to the first century Christians. What I like to say is this, the Bible is written for us, but not to us. Do you see the difference? We, in the 21st century are NOT the people the Letters and Gospels are addressed to. It’s shocking, but it’s true. In fact, 19 of the NT books have specific people or groups of people they are addressed to! If you remove the audience, the time indicators don’t make sense. Let’s look at who Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is addressed to.
1 Corinthians 1:2 “To the church of God in Corinth….”
Ok, now that we know this, let’s look at 1 Cor 15:51,52
“We shall not all fall sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”
So…who is the ‘we’ in this passage? Us, or the 1st Century Corinthians? Do you see the difference that makes? Startling isn’t it? Let me allow you to ponder on that. Heads up, I might not be on tomorrow, we’ve got company and what not, entertaining I guess. But I’ll follow up when I can. Take care, your friends are with you.
|5||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115487|
Ok, last part is judgement, which is pretty simple. The dead are going to be judged. Note too that in verse 13 we finally have all the people how died pre-Cross, pulled out of Hades, which is the Greek equavilent of Sheol. That is the ressurection of the dead. Now, because of Christ's atoning work, Sheol or Hades is not needed anymore, so it is emptied and destroyed. It has served its purpose as a sort of 'holding tank' for souls before the Messiah came. Death is gone too, and a lot of people misinterpret this. They believe that physically we will not die anymore. This is not the case. We have to ask, what death did Adam bring into the world by sinning? Was it physical, or was it spiritual? It was spiritual. Adam was warned on the exact day he ate from the tree, he would die. But, when he and Eve ate from it, did they fall over physically dead? No, they didn't. But they did die spiritually. Note what Jesus tells Martha, "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25,26) Being immortal in the flesh is not taught in the Bible. Hope that sort of covers what you were after, let me know if it doesn't, take care,
|6||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115476|
1) what is your definition of the Kingdom that Jesus spoke about (and is it phys. or Spiritual)
Spiritual, though we as believers make up a physical reality of it. I find it interesting, not in a good way, that a lot of Christian theology downplays the Spiritual side of Christianity. God to me is just not overly concerned with the flesh, those are manly things, not Godly things. The resurrected body is a big one I have problems with, but that’s another topic. Luke 17:20,21 “Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."
2) What was Jesus' ministry about? What was his goal?
That's pretty broad. We could go with to teach, and live a perfect life, but in short to redeem mankind. Hebrews 9:26 “He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
3) What did the cross accomplish, and what did it not accomplish?
The Cross provided atonement for sins. Eph 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace." Christians that died right after the cross could also skip Sheol or 'the grave' and go directly to heaven. What it did not directly accomplish was, the resurrection of the dead from Sheol, the Wrath, the Judgement, the consummation of the Ages, the fulfillment of the New Covenant; the things happened at the Second Coming.
4)What is God's view of the Jews and the Law today?
Probably not good. Allow me to speak bluntly. It's upsetting that many Christians accept a pluralistic 'faith' with the Jews, as in Judaism is still valid in the eyes of God. I agree that we should be cordial and polite to all, but we need to in the same respect stand firm in our faith. To say that Judaism is equally valid smacks Christ and everything he did for us. In short, it is blasphemous. It's terrible that some theologies like Dispensationalism actually have Israel restarting atonement sacrifices and that those would be acceptable to God! That's blasphemous. It bothers me too that many Jews just accept out of hand that the Messiah will come one day, he's only taking his time, despite the fact that in Daniel we are told when he would appear. Even the Talmud notes that the time for the Messiah has passed. It bugs me that they cannot give an honest evaluation of their own 'faith'. Too much pride, they are Jews for the love of being Jewish, not for the glory of God. In all seriousness, I really, really fear what will happen if a third temple is built in Jerusalem. God knocked the temple down twice, he'll do it again. The nation of Israel has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bible or "God's Plan". Christians often turn a blind or very biased eye to the events in Israel simply because it involves Jews. But as we can see with Preterism, being 'Jewish' is a moot point now. Take care,
|7||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115410|
"Can you explain to me then, in light of everything that you have said, what exactly Jesus has done already, has yet to do, and where he is at this moment?"
Well, Jesus has done EVERYTHING! There's nothing left for him to do, he is here with us.
"Also, can you tell me how you interpret Rev.20?"
Yes, I'll sort of skim over it, baring time, it's late. Revelation is not written in exact chronological order, it's very close, but not quite. In Rev 20, John is going to do a bit of a recap until verse 7. The question is, when was Satan bound? Well Jesus actually stated this, we just often over look it. Look at Matt 12 starting at vs 22. Jesus is accused of using Satan to drive out demons. Jesus tells them this is impossible since Satan is in charge of demons. But here's what he says, "29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house." Who is the strong man? Satan. What has happened to him? He's bound. Isn't this what John was talking about in Rev 20? Yes. See being in a chain is symbolic, this doesn't mean that Satan was totally powerless, just that he was limited. Paul too was bound with a chain, but we was still very active. (Acts 28:20, 2 Tim 1:16) Satan could not deceive large masses, or nations because he was bound, and since he was bound, demons could be driven out.
On the thrones starting in verse 4 are the Christians that have died after the cross, namely the martyrs that were killed by Rome. The Beast is noted as Roman emperors, usually Nero whose evils against Christendom are legendary.
Verse 7 we have Satan released and he is going to get Rome to attack Jerusalem, noted as Gog and Magog. They surround the city and here's where I introduce a different view of verse 9. Most people believe that an army will surround Jerusalem, but that she will be saved when fire comes down and devours the army. This is incorrect. Fire is noted as judgement or wrath, but who is God projecting his wrath at? It's Jerusalem. So when we read verse 9 we need to understand that Jerusalem is surrounded and then God's wrath is unleashed on HER, not on the army. The army is the means and method of God's wrath. Here's why I say all this. Look at the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21. Jesus is going to tell the disciples about 'end times' and note what he says in verse 20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near." See Jerusalem was not going to be saved when she was surrounded by armies, but destroyed.
Verse 10, Satan is overthrown finally, yes he's no longer around in any sort of real capacity, as disturbing as that sounds. Note, Hebrews 2:5 "For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels."
We are currently in that 'world to come', the next age. And Romans 16:20 “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” Under whose feet? The Christians of the 1st Century.
Lastly is judgement which I will hit, well later today! It's late, I'm going to call it a night. Keep questions coming though, they're all good. Take care,
|8||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115408|
"Are you saying the organizing principle of the entire Bible can be expressed from the Temple destruction?"
I wouldn't necessarily say it's the organizing principle, but I do believe it's a symbolic conclusion. Let's ask, was it God's intent to be seperated from man? Was it his intent for us to have to do blood sacrifices? Was it his intent to dwell in an earthly man built temple? No. The Bible is the story of how man and God had a relationship and how man fell and how God restored the relationship. The Temple destruction is a symbol, and finale of God's promised work to restore mankind in his eyes.
"Is this particular tragedy a touchstone for all the essential doctrines of the Christian faith?'
I wouldn't say for ALL essential doctrines. Eschatology has never been consider essential as far as salvation goes. However, I do believe it is very important to understand and literally paramount to understanding the Bible as a whole correctly.
"Also, can you be more specific on how you know that God was deliberately de-wickeding His kingdom with the Temple destruction? Many Christians also perished at that time."
Well, first it's actually incorrect to assume that Christians died in Jerusalem. Jewish historian Jospheus records ZERO deaths of Christians. Why? Because they all fled the city before it was fully laid to siege. Israel was God's people, his country, his kingdom. But she had grown very, very wicked. Jerusalem was basically God's city, but it too had become just as wicked, and the Temple was ground zero. To understand all this, one needs to study the Olivet Discourse and Revelation and understand that it is Jerusalem that is the focal point. Once one grasps that, her destruction becomes self evident. I would recommend looking into the Olivet Discourse for starters, namely Luke's account, chapter 21 starting at verse 5. Take care, good questions again.
|9||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115402|
"Thanks for putting me on the road to growth"
Absolutely! I'm so glad you were receptive to it.
"What I am suggesting is that perhaps they both saw those still living under the Law as "living in the past" so to speak."
Well, not necessarily living in the past, but living in a present that would have no future. Another thing we need to bear in mind is the people that are being addressed, Paul is addressing Gentiles, Hebrews is to Jews. In Col 2:17 Paul shows us that he knows the reality is coming and that the shadow is dissipating and very soon will be gone. Now, with this knowledge, for the Gentiles he's writing to there is no need to go under the law, only to come out of it a few years later. This is sort of a lost understanding to why Paul was so insistent on not putting the Gentiles under the Law in Acts 15. In Hebrews though, the author let's the Jews know that the Old Covenant is still valid, but that it is going away. So, not so much like you are currently 'living in the past', but that you will be very, very soon.
"There are several references in each book to the past actions of the completion, fufillment, and nullification of the Law on the cross."
Jesus did do much with the cross, note the veil of the temple being torn down. BUT, there was still more to do. The resurrection, the judgements, the wrath and the dwelling with mankind. So yes, let us not discount the cross by any means for it is certainly a key focual point.
"I am working this out with fear and trembling,"
Good. I did too. I still remember when this information came pouring down on me, I thought I was going to throw up. LOL
Lastly, Colin aka flinkywood asked me asome more good questions, you may look at my response given at 1:28 in this section. Take care,
|10||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115400|
1) Was the destruction of the Temple part of God's ridding "the 'Kingdom of God' of the wicked"?
Yes. The faithful living in Jerusalem were told to flee the city before it's destruction, the Olivet Discourse and Revelation cover these warnings. You probably aren't aware of this, but the Harlot of Revelation is Jerusalem. John the Baptist, Jesus and the Disciples explictly warned the wicked Jews (namely the Pharisees) that the wrath of God was coming for them. Matt. 3:7 John and the pharisees; Matt. 21-vineyard parable; Matt. 26:64-warning to Caiaphas, the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, the whole Sanhedrin; Lk. 23:28-30 Jesus warns the women of Jerusalem compare with Rev. 6:14-17; Acts 2:17 Peter warns a crowd that the Last Days were upon them just like Joel prophesized; and those are just a few.
2) Was the Holocaust a 20th Century analog of this?
You know, a lot of people say that the Jews still suffer today for killing Jesus. I personally believe that hardships are more apt to fall on non believers then believers (though the sun shines on both) and do not feel that this has anything to do with the Holocaust. Most people believe that Matthew 27:25 means that ALL the Jews forever will be under a 'blood curse' for killing Jesus. I do not. I believe that when "And all the people said, 'His blood shall be on us and on our children!" they were signing off on a punishment that would be realized in full in 70 AD.
3) How does the destruction of the Temple Harmonize the Bible as a whole?
Well, that has to do with the New Covenant coming in, which of course the Jews had known about for quite some time due to the prophets. If you'll notice, espeically in the NT, there's usually a earthly event that symbolizes a divine reality. Look at the Temple veil on earth that was torn when Christ was killed. (Mt 27:51) Why? That symbolized that Jesus was the link between God and man, that was a earthly symbol of a divine reality, Heb 9:24 "For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;" The temple being destroyed was God's way of letting us know that he was here with us, that our bodies were his temple. See the tabernacle, the temple, the veil; God did away with all those things, those shadows of the divine reality which is Jesus the Christ. This harminizes the Bible by allowing us to see that God dwells among men once more like he did in Genesis. No longer do we need Temples and Tabernacles and altars; God made good on his promise! Take care,
|11||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115392|
Not me my friend, but the Holy Spirit, I'm just a vessel. I was blessed greatly and equally hit in the heart when God revealed his mystery to me. Let me just say, that you are not alone. There is much to learn, but are ready. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions you may have. Consult the Greek, look at the Bible in the original languages, that's what I did. Look at Young's Literal Translation too. I don't want you to accept this without searching the scriptures. Look at them through the eyes of the 1st Century populace and what is being told to THEM. You see, the last and greatest lie the Devil ever told was that Christ did NOT come again. Thoughts and prayers go out to you.
|12||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115388|
Well, they certianly wouldn't recommend it! But chances are we will all die with unrepentanted sins. God knows though. We in no way can limit God's grace. Take care,
|13||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115381|
No, and certianly not Paul. Christians are to keep these moral laws, but we are humans, sinners by nature and many will slip. Are they unsaved? No. Is God's grace so weak that he can not save a murderer, or a adulteress?
|14||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115380|
Pretty good illustration, but it's a bit off. I guess the point I'm making is that the Law was still valid for a time after Christ's death and ascension. Why? Paul knew this best and noted that the law was only a shadow of things to COME.
Col 2:17 "things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."
Interesting line there. Paul is saying in essence that even though the law is around, it is but a shadow of a coming reality. Hebrews 10:1 says the same. What people are missing is that it's a coming reality, not a present one. So, did Christ leave us in a state of 'limbo', or did he fulfill all things. It's clear that Christ's work was not entirely finished at the cross. This is noted in black and white in Hebrews 8:13
"When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."
See? The Old Covenant was still valid even post ascension. Something else had to happen, what was it? Hebrews 9:28
"so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."
See, the period from roughly 30 AD to 70 AD was similar to the wandering of the Israelites in the desert in Exodus. There was a 40 year transition period there, to rid the "Kingdom of God" of the wicked. This would be capped off by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is the way to harminize the Bible as a whole. This is why Futurism can not work, it's missing both the broad picture, and the details. Take care,
|15||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115342|
Very good, but it still to me doesn't quite cover why the Law in practice was still applicable. But, Jesus did say that "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 So...does this mean that we are under written law? No, it doesn't, but why not?
|16||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115340|
"...the OT faith-giants were as non-legalistic as you could get."
They sure were.
"I think of David eating the "shewbread" (1 Sam 21.6) as cited also by Jesus (Matt 12.4), in His idictment of Pharisitic legalism."
Yes, excellent, aside from Jesus out right scolding of them.
"For David the Moral Law (not the Levitical laws) was "...a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105)"
Yes, Moral is fine, Levitical law, no. Take care,
|17||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115338|
"You post a fair question. I respect your Preteristic view, and I'm sure that you are aware of the other views, so I won't discuss them with you."
Thanks for respecting it, that's much more than I usually get. I am very familiar with other views, I like most Christians was raised a Futurist until deep study showed me that that view was incorrect.
You have an interesting take, but believing Jews kept on with blood sacrifices post the cross. The question is why, since you correctly stated that "The sacrificial component of the Law was fulfilled in Jesus, so it was no longer valid." A good look at Acts and Hebrews can help clear this up, Take care,
|18||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115306|
I too still think the OT is huge, just like you do. I don't count it out, or try and discount it. But, I see God dealing with mankind in a progressive way. There is a difference between pre Messiah times, and Post Messiah times. As far as Christianity goes, I believe the NT has more of a DIRECT bearing on us the OT does. We see the fruition and correct application of the OT. We see it very much in principle, as opposed to strict legalistic practice. Again, this doesn't count the OT out, it's just that the two volumes are different and we can't approach them in the exact same way. I think people that do head down the road of Error. That's me though. Take care,
|19||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115254|
""I think that we are saying the same thing in different ways, and with different points of emphasis.""
I agree. I sort of got 'jumped' here and I feel it's based on people's assumptions of what I was saying, not an actual, critical look at what I was saying. Thank you for going back over the posts.
""Is there another aspect that we can discuss?""
Perhaps there is, let me see how you react to this. It's interesting to find in the NT that the Jewish followers of Christ do actually remain under a rigid practice of the Law, well beyond mere principle, but Gentiles really are not aside from a handful of 'courtesy' laws. This seems to be odd to many as this is post ascension. Though there's different explanations to this, there's only one that I find truly valid and that's the Preteristic view. As far as "end times" go, I'm a Preterist and believe the Second Coming and all that goes with it happened in 70 AD. This means that until final completion of all things, the Law was still very much to be practiced by Jewish believers, that is until completion. This explains why the Law was still practiced by Jewish believers in the NT, and why practice of it trails off greatly. I'll let you sleep on that one, take care,
|20||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115248|
"""Things that were valid in the OT, the Law, aren't any longer." This is absolutely false. The Law, apart from its cultural components, is completely valid. Where do you think Jesus got his priciples from? I am saying that God's principles and His nature are represented in the OT in a very unique way, and the NT cannot be a sufficient substitute for this.""
Well, having 'prinicples' is very different from having 'practices', that's my point that's been missed this whole time due to semantics. The NT is sufficent, different, but sufficent none the less. Granted it would be better to have both, if a case arises where one can't, then go with the NT.
""The OT is not intended to give us information about the past,""
Of course it was, it's a very, very valid historical record.
""(It is) God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.""
Yes, I agree. But once again, we aren't under it in practice. Jesus and the writers of the NT were the fulfillment and application of the Law. Take care,
|Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last  >>|