Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | Coper44 | 184829 | ||
CDBJ, The book of Revelation was written approx. 65AD-66AD. The claims of a late date (95AD-96AD) are not based on solid evidence. They are based on a few questionable quotes. Again, you're always better off trusting Scripture as opposed to man's wisdom as stjohn has pointed out. The internal evidence from the book of Revelation itself shows that John wrote it during the earlier date. For example look at Rev. 11:1- Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there... If John in fact wrote The Revelation in the 90's you would expect at least a mention of the catastrophic events of 70AD just twenty five years earlier. Instead he says that he is told to measure the temple. This would be possible in 65AD, but not 95AD. I have asked those who hold to the late date if the events described in Revelation took place soon after 95AD since John clearly said that the events would take place shortly. There is no evidence of anything happening around 100AD that comes close to the events of 70AD. I would encourage you to read the several books out there that challenge the claims of a late date theory. I believe the evidence shows that all the NT books were completed by 70AD so John didn't miss the return of Christ at all! Coper |
||||||
2 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | stjohn | 184846 | ||
My dear Coper: You say that you believe every word of Scripture is true, and you would be absolutely correct. But, it makes me wonder how you can be so sure the apostles had it right, when you point out how many times they say He will come soon. And I am sorry to ask you yet another question, when you have said that is the only way we seem to respond to your view. May I say that is how our Lord quite often responded. So I hope you will not hold that against us. You really don't have many answers to very pertinent questions. It seems all you have are your old arguments. But as I started to say, How can you be so sure, that the apostles didn't misunderstand our Lord? As they continually misunderstood Him During His earthly ministry? It should come as no surprise. And I somehow suspect that you will spin that around and point it back our way as that seems to be your way. And, sense John is reporting what he has clearly stated to be a vision, why should we assume that he was to physically measure the temple. And please just answer my question. And please don't remind me that I am chasing my tail as I am Painfully aware that, that, is probably just what I am doing. Thank you for your good wishes for my peace, that is very gracious of you. God bless stj |
||||||
3 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | Coper44 | 184861 | ||
stj, If you can't trust the Apostles who can you trust? When they misunderstood our Lord prior to receiving the Holy Spirit, they were not writing under inspiration. Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant in it's original form? When we read the words of the Apostles we are reading the very words of God. That is what is referred to in Christiianity as, "The verbal inspiration of the Bible". So, if one holds that the Apostles could be in error in one area, how do we defend anything they wrote? I think it is very dangerous to go down that road. As far as John physically measuring the temple, it's interesting to me that he had many opportunities to refer back to the destruction of Jerusalem and this would be one of those times. Have you wondered why John, if writing in 95AD, never even hints at the destruction of Jerusalem. After all, it was the most devastating event that has ever happened to the Jew, and the most vindicating event to ever happen to the Christian! Coper |
||||||
4 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | stjohn | 184871 | ||
"vindicating" sounds just a little anti-Semitic, satanic? I don't happen to feel "vindicated". THAT is the most telling and reviling thing you have said. Evil, eventually, shows its ugly head! |
||||||
5 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | Coper44 | 184874 | ||
stj, That word did not originate with me. I wonder if you even know what it means. When Satan suffered a defeat and God's enemies were destroyed there was no shame if the first century christians felt vindicated. Would you have preferred if God had went back on His promises and allowed the temple, priests and sacrificial system to continue? 2 Thess 1:6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. God inflicted vengeance on the first century unbelieving Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem, is that offensive to you? I would say that "vengeance" is a much stronger word than "vindicated"! Another nice try, but I really don't see where you're coming from. It appears you're just lashing out and I'll be surprised if you're not reprimanded by the moderator! Coper |
||||||
6 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | stjohn | 184876 | ||
Nothing that God does ofends me. It's all His. And He, Is my Lord And Master. |
||||||
7 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | stjohn | 184878 | ||
Excerpt on Preterism; Author unknown: The heart of this error is based on Jesus' statement that "this generation shall not pass, till all things be fulfilled" (Mat 24:34). It seems easy enough to claim Jesus was speaking about a first-century generation; however, logic ends there when one contemplates the fulfillment of all Bible prophecy. In order to make 70 AD the magic year, we would have to delete dozens of prophecies that were never fulfilled. When was the Gospel preached to all the nations? When was the Mark of the Beast implemented? What about China's 200-million-man army? When did 100-pound hailstones fall from the sky? And what date was it when the Euphrates River dried up? The questions are endless. Why did we have the rebirth of Israel? If Jerusalem was forever removed from being the burdensome stone, why has it now returned to that status? When did all the Jews shout, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," as Jesus said they would? After being so strict in their interpretation of Matthew 24:34, preterists then run roughshod over many clear statements of Scripture. They say that although the "resurrection" happened in 70 AD, the bodies of Christians were left in the grave. Preterists take the dangerous step of spiritualizing all passages of Scripture that relate to the nation of Israel, and claim that these refer to the church, the "New Israel." They teach that the "old earth," which Scripture says will pass away, is the Old Covenant. The new heaven and new earth, they say, is the New Covenant, and the "elements," which Scripture says will burn with fervent heat when this happens, are the "elements of the law." Preterism produces some bizarre explanations for why the world is still experiencing suffering and calamity. One explanation I ran across cited God's need for population control as the reason for mankind's suffering. Here is what one preterist author wrote: "I believe that people are born and people die. Kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall. God is the providential population controller. He brings famine, disease, natural catastrophes, wars and tumults. One-third of the population of Europe was destroyed by the Black Plague in the early part of this millennium. Eight hundred fifty thousand were killed in the 1556 earthquake in the Shanghai province of China. Two million were killed in World War II. Thirteen million were killed under Stalin and 6 million under Hitler. God is very equipped to control population." When did God become the cause of sufering? Ge I thought sin and the devil were the cause! God bless stj |
||||||
8 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | stjohn | 184879 | ||
More on the same; One finds modern Preterist sources relying heavily upon writings of Josephus, so far they can allege a "physical" type of "evidence;" In absence of physical evidence of the more substantial and important events (such as, Bodily Resurrection, Judgment), "interpretation" becomes another sort, it is alleged that these took place "invisibly," in some "spiritual" sense. Josephus makes no report of "seeing" Jesus, the Resurrection, or Judgment, so it is necessary for Preterists to make prophecies have an "unseen" fulfillment. This you must accept "by faith." The "hermeneutic" of Preterism is geared to writings by a Pharisee Priest (who was not a believer in Jesus Christ) being the "rule" by which to determine prophetic fulfillments, and where there is no "physical" evidence, one must resort to the "spiritual" sense. This parallels the usual "adjustment" of interpretation made by "predictors" whose "predictions" have failed, and some other "sense" is then adopted. Preterists simply do it in a "retrospective" manner. Preterism begins with the presupposition that the Return of Christ took place in A.D.70, then it proceeds to impose this idea upon Bible teaching of the "imminence" of the Return. Imminence becomes "prediction" in the mind of the Preterist! Thus, Scripture that implies the imminence of the Return of Christ is applied by the Preterist to A.D.70, in accordance with the presupposed theory. A basic error involves skirting of the fact that (1) Jesus said He did not "know" the time of His Return, and (2) that it was "not for you to know" the times or seasons for the events which the Father has put "in His own power" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2; Acts 1:8; Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). Preterist interpretations rest upon the assumption that Jesus did in fact know when He would return, and that He "predicted" an alleged "time frame" for His coming; Preterism also imposes "prediction" into the teachings of the Apostles, as if they knew the "times' and seasons" were within a "time frame." Matthew 10:23 is obviously referring to the "coming" of Jesus into "cities" of Israel where He sent the disciples (see Matthew 11:1). The disciples were sent on a "short" mission to "cities of Israel," and they would not finish it before Jesus had also "come" to preach in those "cities." The Preterist view would have this mean that the Second Coming would occur before the disciples had completed this "short" mission! In fact, they would still be on this mission up to A.D.70! Matthew 16:28 could only be the "coming" described in 17:1-9, as Peter relates in 2 Peter 1:16-18. The Preterist view that this refers to a "coming" in A.D.70 makes this a "prediction," which would mean that Jesus did know when He would return. What Jesus did know (and state) was that only "some" (Peter, James, John) would see the "Transfiguration," which they did. Preterists teach that only John was alive in A.D.70, which would mean he alone would have "seen" the Coming, clearly contradicting what Jesus said ā "some." Matthew 24:34 has the word "generation," which the Preterists insist is a "40 year period of time," or "time frame," when in fact, it refers to the "progeny" that is traced as far back as Cain, and the case of the slaying of Zacharias in 2 Chronicles 24 (Matthew 23:35). The Preterists make a play on "the Greek," when in fact, the Greek words derive from the same word and all are defined to mean "progeny" by the New Analytical Greek Lexicon. The word is not referring to a "period of time." The Preterist view again is based on the error that Jesus knew when He would return and was making a "prediction," clearly contradicting Scriptures which teach otherwise. Other than these verses, on writings by the Apostles it is necessary for Preterists to allege that the Apostles knew the "times and seasons," and were making "predictions." With such erroneous presuppositions, all of the verses that teach the "imminence" of the Return are viewed erroneously as being predictions. But if it is accepted that Jesus did not know when He would return, and that it was not for the disciples to know, then all that is taught by Jesus and the Apostles is the imminence of the Return. And when Peter was met with an objection which related to the matter of "time" ā "Where is the promise of His coming?" (as if it had been "too long" for the promise of His coming to be taken seriously), Peter's reply discounted the significance of any length of time involved, as he referred to this in relation to God's "clock" on time (2 Peter 3:8). Viewed on God's "calendar," it's hardly been "two days" since Jesus went back to Heaven. And what Peter said about this matter in his epistle is just as valid today as it was in his day. Peace stj |
||||||