Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183734 | ||
CDBJ, After you've expressed your views concerning the time-frame of the NT writers then we can discuss the details of his second coming. Again, Jesus said he would return to the generation that he was speaking to (notice how many times he addressed his comments to "you" in Matt. 24), he said that some of those standing before him would not die before he came (Matt. 16), and the other NT writers took their que from him and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said that his coming was imminent (near, soon, at hand etc.). I believe the writers of the new testament were true prophets because their prophecies came to pass. With respect, Coper |
||||||
2 | Why 70 AD. and why predictions? | Matt 16:28 | Brian#9 | 183746 | ||
Hello Coper, Following this post has raised some questions. Would you please answer them so I will be able to understand better? Why 70 AD? The temple was not the earthly dwelling place of God. We the believers are from Pentecost on, no need for one made of stone. The priesthood-Jesus Christ is our high priest and advocate at the Fathers right hand. The sacrifices- Jesus paid that at the cross. The veil was torn from the top to the bottom at His death. All of these happen before 70 AD. You seem to view Matt 16:24 as a prediction that Jesus did know when He was coming back. What about Matt. 24:36, Mark 13:32,( only the Father knows ). As John was the only one that was alive in 70 AD. which would mean that he alone would have seen the Coming. How do you explain 'some'? Matt. 24:34 No predictions, He did not know. Would not generations be defined as progeny rather than a time frame? In the Quest of Truth, Brian |
||||||
3 | Why 70 AD. and why predictions? | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183787 | ||
Brian, I hope I'm not out of line since you addressed Coper, but I would like to share a few thoughts on this. You have heeded the most important teaching in asking for and receiving the salvation of Jesus. Will all this discussion about what happened when or who did what have any bearing on your salvation? Of course not. But what about the lost person? He has heard of this salvation offered and it sounds much better than the alternative. He dives into the NT with zeal and encounters these very plain prophesies of Jesus regarding His parousia and judgement. He's confused - the Church says all this is still future. Was Jesus misquoted? Was He wrong? Did He deliberately deceive those He was speaking to so as to confuse them for some reason? Maybe starting with the OT will help clarify. Then he comes to the test of a prophet: Deut. 18:22, "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Many atheists and others use these "failed" prophesies of Jesus (especially Matthew 24) to "prove" He was NOT the Messiah! Maybe this lost person will continue searching for the truth, or maybe he'll try some other religion. True, only the Father knew the day and hour but Matt. 16:28; 24:34 and others narrowed the time frame to a specific period - a generation, the ones to which He spoke. Finally, the Preterist view is important to me beause the Bible makes more sense. Before it frequently contradicted what I had been taught. I should have been looking for what I'd been taught to match the Bible, not vice-versa. I feel blessed to have found Preterism. God bless the internet - well, some of it! Praying for guidance in your quest, Tom |
||||||
4 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Brian#9 | 183837 | ||
Hello Tom, I will ask you the same questions. Why 70 A.D.? Matt. 16:28; explain 'some'. In 70 A.D. John was the only one alive. Then His Coming in 70 A.D. would be contradicting Jesus. Matt 24:34; 'generation' as a period of time or time frame thereby saying Jesus was predicting His Coming. Only the Father knows as you pointed out.Jesus did not and could not reveal any more than what the Father warranted Him to reveal.(John 17:8, John 15:15, John 8:26) Jesus was under the authority of the Father.(John 12:48, John 12:50, John 5:30, John 5:19, John 8:28, John 14:10, John 15:10, John 14:24, John 17:14) Christ was the Mediator of the Father's Will. Remember Acts 1:7 and Mark 13:33. To reveal more would be a sin, right? If Jesus came back as King of kings, and Lord of lords In 70 A.D. did the MT. of Olive split in half? (Zech. 14:4) Did everybody in the world see Him? (Matt. 24:30) What about the sun, moon, stars , and the powers of heaven shaken? (Matt. 24:29) As we do not know when Jesus is to return are we not suppose to be in readiness, watchfulness, prayerfulness with our hearts on things above (Luke 12:34) and not things of the world (Matt. 6:24-33). It has not been two days since Jesus was here. ( 2 Peter 3:8) In Quest of Truth, Brian |
||||||
5 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183851 | ||
Hi Brian, Sorry, I misunderstood the focus of your question to be, why is the study of Jesus predictions and 70 AD of importance? Was John the only one left? Not long ago I searched for info on disciples' deaths and found a virtual void. What is your source for this? Of possible interest to you might be http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1878_russell_parousia/russell_parousia_03d.html : Opening of the Seventh Seal, continues Russell's commentary, Rev. 8 through 11. The last trumpet sounds, the Judgement is come. He says the two witnesses were Jesus brother James and Peter. He rejects as a fable the claim that Peter was crucified upside down - at his request so as not to die in the same manner as Jesus - in Rome by order of Nero. Cited as proof of Peter's crucifixion is Jesus' prediction of Peter's martydom at John 21:18, but the language does not indicate crucifixion as the means. And I think it highly unlikely that the evil despot Nero would find mercy to grant Peter's request. Now, this is not proof of course but the conclusions of the commentator, and to me a plausible scenario that would match the Truth spoken by Jesus. I beleive the disciples hearing Jesus say to them, "34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." could have had no other understanding than that their generation - them and others living at that time - were the ones meant, and that after all signs detailed from verse 4-33 were fulfilled, then would be His Coming. I agree He couldn't reveal more than the Father would allow and to do so would be to sin. Moreover, to say He didn't know if He did know would also be a sin. During His transformation to human form, He had to have had many of man's limitations. He truly didn't know the day and hour. And He was tempted, experienced the emotions of a man, and felt pain, oh what pain! No the Mt. of Olive has not split, nor has the sun went dark, etc. But if it were ever to happen, it would be the end of life on earth then eventually our solar system at the least. Wouldn't that mean that God has broken the promise made in Gen. 8:21,22? Since I don't see that as possible I have to conclude this type language is figurative or symbolic. Matt. 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." appear - phaino: can mean to be seen but also to appear to the mind, seem to one's judgment or opinion. tribe - phule: a tribe, in the NT all the persons descending from one of the twelve sons of the patriarch Jacob, a nation, people. earth - ge: can mean earth as a whole but also a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region. As far as I know no one has ever suggested OT descriptions of God coming in the clouds was a literal visible event. I beleive Jesus return in judgement happened in 70AD, but I agree it is still imperative we be ready to meet our Maker for we know not when that might be. Two days for us or for God? Tom |
||||||
6 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | stjohn | 183855 | ||
Did I read you rite? "No the Mt. of Olive has not split, nor has the sun went dark, etc. But if it were ever to happen, it would be the end of life on earth then eventually our solar system at the least." Does the bible say that there will be a new heavn and a new earth or did I miss read that? Maby God is to weak to pull that one off! stj P.S. you really dont have to answer. |
||||||
7 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183878 | ||
stj, In Gen. 8 is God's promise after the flood, "21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." In 2 Pet.3:13 we find; "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." It would appear that Peter is contradicting God's promise. In Matt. 24:35 Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Here it appears God contradicts Himself. How can this apparrent contradiction be reconciled? Looking at God's promise in Gen. 8 again, verse 22 begins with "While the earth remaineth." Did God use a little doublespeak here to leave Himself an out? That argument negated by Psalm 104:5; "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." And Ecc.1:4; "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." God made an eternal promise and set the rainbow as a reminder. Our options have dwindled to one - new heavens and earth can't mean what they appear to mean. Defering to one more competent than I to explain this figurative language, following are some excerpts from a sermon by David Curtis of Berean Bible Church: "This idea is seen more clearly as we look at other passages where mention is made of the destruction of a state and government using language which seems to set forth the end of the world, as the collapse of heaven and earth. In Isaiah 13:1-13, this is not an oracle against the universe or world, but against the nation of Babylon. Notice verse 13, "Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place." Now remember, he is speaking about the destruction of Babylon, but it sounds like world wide destruction. In Isaiah 24-27 we see the invasion of Israel by Nebuchadnezzar. He carries them away to captivity. Notice the language that he uses in Isaiah 24:3-6 and Isaiah 24:19-20. What I want you to see in these verses is how God refers to Israel as the earth. He says the earth is "utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly...the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again" (Verses 1,3,4,19,20). Notice how many times God referred to Israel as the "earth." This is apocalyptic language speaking of the destruction of the people of Israel. In Isaiah 34:3-5, we have a description of the fall of Edom, notice the language that is used. "...and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down...For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment." This is Biblical language to describe the fall of a nation. It should be clear that it is not to be taken literally. In Nahum 1:1-5, the subject of this judgment is Nineveh, not the physical world. "The burden of Nineveh...the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers...The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein." This is the way God describes the fall of a nation. If this language describes the judgment of God on nations, why, when we come to the New Testament, do we make it be the destruction of the universe? It is only because we do not understand how the scripture uses this apocalyptic language." One final point stj, do you beleive you are subject to the law of the old covenant or the new? If your answer is the new then consider Matt. 5:: 17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." If we are under the new covenant, "heaven and earth" have passed, no matter what you feel under your feet or see when you look up. Tom |
||||||
8 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | stjohn | 183893 | ||
HI Tom; Well; you make a very good argument. First of all I'd like to compliment you, it all looks and sounds very good. But; if I may, lets take a closer look. You pointed out in Gen 8:21 that god made a promise, in which it looks like God; is saying that He will never again destroy the earth. Well; you are right, it does look that way. But; lets read on just a little and look at Gen 9: starting with v) 11; "I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." 12, God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13, I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14, "It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15, and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. Now, let me lift a couple of quotes out, and I don't like lifting verses out of context, but I don't think we are doing that here. what I am trying to do here is put things in context. "never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh." and, "neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." Now it seems to me, God, cleared that up in case we had a question. And; in case we didn't get it the first time; He said it twice. Now, here is your next point. v, 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." Some have suggested that before the flood there were no seasons. And the flood set the earth of kilter, and, being that, (off kilter that is) as you know, is the reason we have seasons. well, I don't know, wasn't there, didn't see it, but, if you believe in a literal flood, like my self and many other believers do. Who knows? I don't think we should argue over that one. Your next point is. "In 2 Pet.3:13 we find; "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelt righteousness." It would appear that Peter is contradicting God's promise. Well; may I say not if you didn't misunderstand scripture in the first place! Ok, here is the next quote from your note; "in Matt. 24:35 Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Here it appears God contradicts Himself. How can this apparent contradiction be reconciled?" Again; we need to look back at Gods promise/covenant, and read the whole thing. Brother I hope you can see how easy it is to get fouled up when we don't read the whole of scripture to see what God is trying to say to us. Next; you ask. did God use doublespeak? No. I say again, No. God does not use doublespeak. Next; this was presented. Psalm 104:5; "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Now, my self I don't know what the foundation of the earth would look like. and the earth is round and floats in space, it does not need a foundation, as we know what a foundation is. Do you suppose this could be figurative? It looks that way to me! And may I point out speaking of figurative language that your esteemed expert doesn't seem know that Isaiah, and in fact, I would say all the prophetic writers used a great deal more figurative or metaphoric language than any of the other writhers of Scripture. The word Babylon for instance is figurative for the world, and sinful man it is used in many places in the bible that way, for instance the book of revelation uses it many times. Our Lord and Peter were speaking very plainly by the way, you can see that if you read toughs passages through in context. Now; as far as your last statement and I'm quoting you now, I say that in case some one reading this might think that I said this. "heaven and earth" have passed, no matter what you feel under your feet or see when you look up. I really don't know what to say without sounding to flippant. God bless stj |
||||||
9 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183911 | ||
Hello again stj, Before I respond to your points, I'd like to note a couple things. First, this is the first time I've participated in a forum like this and I'm most impressed with the civility and respect shown by all those posting on this page. The thinking process and research involved in asking/answering questions is most educational. Specifically stj, your points cause me to revisit these verses again and I see things that I hadn't before. Gen. 8:21; And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." What I see here now is that the LORD spoke this to no person but "said in His heart," but here we see it in black and white, apparrently divinely conveyed without anyone hearing it. Just an interesting sidelight. Now in chapter 9 God is speaking not to His own heart but to Noah, to whom the flood was a very personal and undoubtably stressfull event and He gave him multiple assurances that he nor anyone else would endure that again. When I first saw this I also thought this was an elaboration of promise in the previous chapter that ruled out another flood but not other means of destruction. That is why I searched to see if there was any confirmation of the seemingly all inclusive promise of 8:21. That brings me back to Psalm 104:5 where you point out something I had glossed over, namely the word foundations. "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Thinking this over I think this indeed refers to a literal foundation - namely the Divinely created forces of the universe that hold the earth and everything else in place. Now the question is what does the word "it" refer to, foundations or earth? I choose earth. Let me guess - you choose foundations, right? Since there's nothing in this chapter to verify which, I move on to the other verse I cited which you did not address: Ecc. 1:4; "1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. 3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." I can only see this much plainer statement as confirmation of the promise of Gen. 8:21. In all fairness I must admit there are places where "for ever" is used symbolically for a long period of time instead of perpetual existence. Indeed, Strong's definition allows for this. At any rate, our differing views on the nature and timing of Jesus' return likely preclude any agreement on this. Regarding 2 Peter 3:13 and Matt. 24:35, my point was that if annialation of heaven and earth was not to be part of God's Judgement - as I beleive - then taking them as literal would result in a contradiction. Most that beleive the 2nd coming to be future obviously take "passing of heaven and earth" in the literal sense. I used the excerpts from David Curtis to illustrate how so much of OT language is symbolic. You seem to agree when you say, " I would say all the prophetic writers used a great deal more figurative or metaphoric language than any of the other writhers of Scripture." Rereading my previous post, I failed to make my main point. That is, how is it that such language in the OT is recognized as symbolic, but in the NT similar language must be literal? I apologize if I sounded flippant. Let me repost the question rephrasing the last sentence. One final point stj, do you beleive you are subject to the law of the old covenant or the new? If your answer is the new then consider Matt. 5:: 17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This says to me that the law (old covenant) could not pass until heaven and earth passed and all be fulfilled. If taken literally then we are apparrently still subject to the old covenant. But, I dare say every Christian considers themselves to be under the new covenant. For this to be true, "heaven and earth" must be taken symbolically, and the passing of them must be a past event. Your thoughts? Tom |
||||||
10 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | stjohn | 183933 | ||
Hi Tom: Thank you, so much, for your comments about the forum. I too am knew to this, and feel very much the same way. also I am sure that the long time users of this site appreciate your compliment as well, I think that it should be reflected to them. And there was no need to apologize, I, if any be guilty. it was I that was flippant. All respect to you sir. To start with, your observation of v,21 looks pretty good. But will you show me please, were it says that God, speaking in His heart, is making a promise? I am sure we can agree that God is good to His word. And I think that I would have to insist that the promise was made starting in chapter 9:9 . Also; may I add that back in v, 21 chapter 8. Where does it say destroy the earth? God says in His word many times that things are or will be cursed, but I don't know how that necessarily translates into destroy. Personally I have trouble seeing it that way. My point is, I cant say necessarily that God is talking here about destroy. at least not here any way. And also; if I may say, at the end of v 21, I would think that God, if He were making a blunt statement, "neither will I again smite any more every thing living," well I don't think He would have put a comma after "living ,". I think maybe He would have ended the sentence rite then and put a period. I don't know. what do you think? And, of corse God ends the sentence with, " as I have done". Well, what did He done? He done the earth with a FLOOD thats what He done. Any way, I hope you see my point. I am using the King James by the way. But just about any one would work here, I think there are many very good ones out there. Oh, I think I would rude indeed, and sorely remiss if i did not mention the NASB. Ok, now lets look at what Noah is seeing, lets picture what the earth might look like after a world flood, where, "every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground"...Baren wasted and dead every thing has ben destroyed as far as you can see, washed off nothing left but the..., (foundation).... Just a thought. I liked your definition for foundation too "the Divinely created forces of the universe that hold the earth and everything else in place.", very much by the way. I don't think (definition) is the right word. But any way, I like it very much. I also like what you said at the end of the paragraph, "In all fairness I must admit there are places where "for ever" is used symbolically for a long period of time instead of perpetual existence. Indeed, Strong's definition allows for this.".... For obvious reasons. Lets move on, your next point is that you failed to make your point in your previous post. actually your point was well taken. I think the fault lies with me. I did not do a very good job on that one. so; if I may I'd like to take another stab at it. My hunt and peck stile of typing and truly pathetic spelling skills (much of the time my spell check program cant even give me a clue!), some times I give up and restructure the sentence and it makes this a little tiring so I was trying to end quickly and turn in. But I digress... sorry. Ok, the point I should have made was this, that the prophecies you spoke of, although they spoke of things that would happen to specific places and in specific times in the OT, they were, if you please, two fold, in that they came to pass in the OT but they are also a picture for us of what is to come in Gods final judgment. And I can say very honestly, that used to really scare me especially the book of revelation, man my knees would really knock over that one. But as God's word became more and more real to me, and as the Spirt made God's love more and more real to my heart, I began to realize that the judgment was not for God's children, but for the world, and for sinful man. When I in the spirit read the story of the prodigal son; the father running to meet the son kissings him on the neck through tears of joy. And when I realized that was a picture of God and how much he loves us, and when in the word it says in 1Thessalonians 4:16-17, v,16, For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: v,17, Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the lord." WE can be sure that we have nothing to fear at all. Amen stj |
||||||
11 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | stjohn | 183934 | ||
Hello again Tom: the last note cut me off as I went over the limit, so I will finish here, sorry. Ok: Now; having said all that; (see #183933) lets look at matt.5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The NASB uses "abolish" instead of fulfill. I don't Know if this is a better translation. I am not an expert in greek by any means, but i think it might help us to understand what our Lord is saying. "Fulfill", "The law and the prophets", I hope we can agree that no one; other then our lord Jesus, ever could fulfill the law, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and, I hope we can agree that our Lord jesus, certainly fulfilled all of the prophesies that were written about Him in the OT. And, as under the new covenant, we, now no longer under the law, we are now filled with God's Spirit, born again, we now have the law (also a fulfillment of prophesy) written on the tablets of our hearts. Well thats all for now, I pray we can continue the discussion. peas stj |
||||||
12 | Why 70 A.D. and why predictions | Matt 16:28 | Tomret | 183962 | ||
Thanks stj for your generous comments. Your observations are very insightful. First let me note the Septuagint version of this verse: "8:21 And the Lord God smelled a smell of sweetness, and the Lord God having considered, said, I will not any more curse the earth, because of the works of men, because the imagination of man is intently bent upon evil things from his youth, I will not therefore any more smite all living flesh as I have done." The only difference I wish to note here is that instead of "said in His heart," He only "said" here indicating the words were spoken not communicated telepathically as I previously suggested. Promise does not appear in Gen. 8:21. As you noted previously, chapter 9 is a continuation and elaboration of verse 21 thus they are linked together. You correctly note the word destroy does not appear here. Indeed the flood did not destroy the earth but the inhabitants of it save those on the ark. As for the comma you mention, the original Hebrew had no punctuation - or vowels for that matter.Now, I arrived at these verses seeking evidence that the NT interpretations of many futurists indicating vaporization of the earth and dissolving of the heavens is in error. Even though I admitted for ever could be a long time as well as eternal, I still take Ecc. 1:4 to mean eternal. I agree about OT events being twofold foretelling the final judgement, but the question is when. I think on 1 Thess. 4:16-17 we will have much agreement. I beleive this absolutely describes the saints being taken up to be with the Lord. But, again we will have differences on when. Indulge me for a moment and consider the possibility that the 2nd coming occured in 70AD as you read the following: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/stevens-ed_p_01.html : Silence Demands a Rapture, which brought me back to the first question I had when first exposed to the preterist view - why did no one make any mention of the judgement after the fact? For several decades after 70AD virtually nothing was written. It even occured to me then that a literal rapture would account for it, but all that I read from the modern preterist writers saw being caught up as symbolic. Now this writer has convinced me the rapture, being caught up in the air, was literal. If all true Christians were taken up, there was no one left to explain the scriptures, so succeeding generations were left to try to interpret them. With those that were left being of the persuasion that their Messiah - a worldly warrior king - was yet to come, how long was it until anybody even tried to understand the Gospels and words of the Apostles? Did this future expectation influence their interpretation? And consider their plight - the NT was not in a book form. They had no concordance or commentaries or internet. This could explain the multitude of interpretations we have. Now to your last point, does not "all prophesy" include the coming in judgement? If we are under the new law, does that not verify the judgement is past? Tom |
||||||