Danie'ls 70th week from gracethrufaith.com

[Interplanner]

Bible2, re your last line above.
The New Jerusalem is not literal. God is the temple. The Lamb is the light. It is real simple. This is why the city already matters to Paul in Gal 4. He distances himself from Jerusalem below which is enslaved, while he considers himself a child of the one above which is free. It is already blessing those who believe.

 

[iamlamad]

Lamad, you would want to question the Jewish friends about why Mt 24 would automatically be about our times when the normal reading of it is questions about theirs: the temple and city being overrun; the end of time coming 'immediately after' that. If they are bright, historically informed students, that would be the first realm of meaning.

btw, most high schools in Israel are Jewish; I don't know what your surprise is there. But they are mostly secular, in contemporary terms, although they might be more historically informed by the simple fact of living right there.

My surprise was that they studied the New Testament at all.

Lamad

 

[Interplanner]

they prob study it because the authors were Jewish, but the distinction of Christian v Judaism is veiled. If they read Luke (esp.) in any ordinary sense, they are not going to miss the numerous referals to the DofJ

 

[Bible2]

Interplanner said in post 81:

The New Jerusalem is not literal. God is the temple. The Lamb is the light.

Note that God being the only temple in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22), and the Lamb being the light in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23), doesn't contradict the fact that New Jerusalem itself is a literal city 1,500 miles cubed (Revelation 21:16), with literal pearly gates and literal streets of gold (Revelation 21:21). It's God the Father's house in the 3rd heaven (Revelation 21:2-3, cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2b,4, Revelation 2:7b, Revelation 22:2,14), in which house Jesus left to prepare a place for the church (John 14:2). All those in the church, both Jews and Gentiles, have figuratively come to New Jerusalem by coming under the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:22-24, Galatians 4:24-26), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and which only the church comes under by believing in Jesus' New Covenant death on the Cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), the very heart of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

The church looks for Jesus' return from heaven (Philippians 3:20) and his setting up of his physical kingdom on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). New Jerusalem won't descend from the 3rd heaven to the earth until after a new earth (a new surface of the earth) has been created (Revelation 21:1-4), sometime after the 1,000 years and subsequent events are over (Revelation 20:7-15). The church will physically live and reign in New Jerusalem with God the Father and Jesus on the new earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5).

 

[Bible2]

Interplanner said in post 80:

Lamad, you would want to question the Jewish friends about why Mt 24 would automatically be about our times when the normal reading of it is questions about theirs: the temple and city being overrun; the end of time coming 'immediately after' that. If they are bright, historically informed students, that would be the first realm of meaning.

btw, most high schools in Israel are Jewish; I don't know what your surprise is there. But they are mostly secular, in contemporary terms, although they might be more historically informed by the simple fact of living right there.

Do you mean that Matthew 24 refers to the historical, 2nd temple and Jerusalem being overrun in 70 AD? If so, note that just as the highly detailed tribulation events of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 find no historical fulfillment, so the tribulation events of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 find no historical fulfillment. For example, Luke 21:24 refers to the same future treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles as Revelation 11:2b, during the Antichrist's future, literal 42-month worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-18), the details of which time period are shown from 4 different angles in Revelation chapters 11 to 14 (Revelation 11:2b-3, Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 14:9-13). The myriad details of these chapters have never been fulfilled. Also, Jesus' 2nd coming and the church's gathering together (rapture) in Matthew 24:30-31 (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) have never been fulfilled, but must occur "immediately after" the future tribulation of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:2 to 20:6).

Also, the end of Herod's temple building (also called the 2nd temple building) in 70 AD didn't fulfill Matthew 24:2, for the stones of the 2nd temple's Western Wall (also called the Wailing Wall) still stand today one on top of the other, just as they did when Jesus spoke that prophecy. Matthew 24:2 included the Wailing Wall, for Matthew 24:2 wasn't referring to only the single 2nd temple building in the center of the Temple Mount (the building that contained the holy place and the most holy place), but was referring to "all these things", all the plural "buildings"/structures/oikodome (G3619) of the entire 2nd-temple complex (Matthew 24:1). Indeed, Matthew 24:2 could even have been spoken just to the north and west of the Wailing Wall, for it was spoken just after Jesus had departed from the temple complex (Matthew 24:1), and one of the main temple-complex exits (called Wilson's Arch and bridge by archaeologists) was just to the north of the Wailing Wall and at the same level as the top of the Temple Mount (see the temple-complex map-insert in the December, 2008 issue of National Geographic magazine).

Also, in Matthew 24:2, the "here" can include not just the entire 2nd-temple complex, but every structure throughout Jerusalem. For the similar statement in Luke 19:44 applied to the whole city (Luke 19:41-44). Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44 could be fulfilled at the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, right before and at Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

 

[Interplanner]

Luke has more about the DofJ than Mt and Mk, and yes, it is historical. I have a master's degree, and when my thesis started it was on Luke-Acts and the 'great revolt.' You've been 'doing' eschatology so long, you are tone-deaf. There is nothing future about Luke's references, except the obvious world-wide return which was expected right after the DofJ. But like the others, a distant future return was allowed.

btw, someone here, I think Bible2, keep saying that Mt 24 & //s can't be 70 AD because the stones never actually came down. Really? So why isn't the 2nd temple there right now? I'm afraid this is a rather painful topic. The poor thing was raided and looted a lot. Since it is not a 'position' about a chapter of Scripture, I don't know of a position more foolish than saying these things didn't happen in 70AD; it is exactly what he was talking about. He made direct, tangible, concrete, vivid, practical instructions about what to do when the time came. Since there was a huge zealot revolt in 6 AD also, you could say his remarks were overdue. It is total fantasy to think people talk so directly and practically about things that are 3000 years off or whatever.

Now about that trampling starting in the distant future. A load of whooey. I have no idea where this got started like most of futurism. It happened in his generation (had he lived to full life-expectancy); it happened in the 'future pluperfect' grammatical sense: it would start at a point and go on from there. That is historic fact. That is why it is trampled now.

You might want to read some military history about what it is like when Rome takes a city. They had to take everything because the zealots 'fortressed' in the temple. Your last prgr is completely pointless and a nuisance.

 

[Interplanner]

about the cube: I've been out looking for it ever since I read Gal 4 40 years ago which says it is above and free and is intimate enough to be called 'our mother' and present tense. Your comments about it being literal are nonsense. Nothing about the new heavens and earth is literal, which is why the new creation already exists (2 Cor 5 is an objective reality; it is not talking about individual's lives, though they are a side effect of it). You have no idea what he is trying to comunicate there, which, by the way is about Judaism (I mean the 'old has passed' is about Judaism, and he says this first-hand. Factor that when you march out all the Judaic components of your futurism).

How can you be a believer and not know what 'a stream of living water for the healing of the nations' actually means? It is one of the most impressive images of Rev for us today. It's from Jn 7 which in turn is from several OT passages. You're just afraid of what it actually means because it will explode the literal edifice. It will.

 

[iamlamad]

about the cube: I've been out looking for it ever since I read Gal 4 40 years ago which says it is above and free and is intimate enough to be called 'our mother' and present tense. Your comments about it being literal are nonsense. Nothing about the new heavens and earth is literal, which is why the new creation already exists (2 Cor 5 is an objective reality; it is not talking about individual's lives, though they are a side effect of it). You have no idea what he is trying to comunicate there, which, by the way is about Judaism (I mean the 'old has passed' is about Judaism, and he says this first-hand. Factor that when you march out all the Judaic components of your futurism).

How can you be a believer and not know what 'a stream of living water for the healing of the nations' actually means? It is one of the most impressive images of Rev for us today. It's from Jn 7 which in turn is from several OT passages. You're just afraid of what it actually means because it will explode the literal edifice. It will.

ha ha! I wish you had met and listened to Gary L Wood when he was at my church. He died in an auto accident and went to heaven, but his sister finally prayed him back to earth. He SAW the city. He went through one of the pearly gates. He talked with Jesus, he walked on streets of gold. He swam in the River of life. He dove to the bottom to see what it was, and came up with a hand full of lovely gems!

He is only one of MANY that God has allowed to enter and visit heaven. many have seen their own mansions. OF COURSE the New Jerusalem is real! Jessie Duplantis got to read some of the names of the Apostles on the foundation walls. He read Peter, Paul, James and John in that order, if I remember right. But the angel pulled him through the pearly gate before He could read any more.

Everyone that has been there describes in exactly as the bible describes it.

Lamad

 

[Interplanner]

You're kidding of course. "I know a man who was caught up to Paradise. He head inexpressible things--things that man is not permitted to tell." Inexpressible does not mean beyond the human ability to express, but not permitted. Do you keep that in mind. Not permitted.

The structure the foundations and walls passage is speaking of is nothing other than the present kingdom of Luke 17 and 22, which is a present tense kingdom now confered, and is a living building that is growing daily. God himself is its temple, the Lamb is the light source. It is not actual, but is vital and wonderful.

You don't need to 'go to heaven and back' to understand it. Paul said nothing of that in Gal 4. He knew it existed because of all the nations becoming believers. It is a "cloud" in the "air" but it is not H2O.

It does take some work to get it; 40 days of studying how the NT uses the OT will help. But short cuts like supposed trips to heaven which are not permitted are not going to help you grasp what the apostles really meant.

*the science of eschatology is to learn the patterns of the 2500 quotes of the OT by the NT

 

[iamlamad]

You're kidding of course. "I know a man who was caught up to Paradise. He head inexpressible things--things that man is not permitted to tell." Inexpressible does not mean beyond the human ability to express, but not permitted. Do you keep that in mind. Not permitted.

The structure the foundations and walls passage is speaking of is nothing other than the present kingdom of Luke 17 and 22, which is a present tense kingdom now confered, and is a living building that is growing daily. God himself is its temple, the Lamb is the light source. It is not actual, but is vital and wonderful.

You don't need to 'go to heaven and back' to understand it. Paul said nothing of that in Gal 4. He knew it existed because of all the nations becoming believers. It is a "cloud" in the "air" but it is not H2O.

It does take some work to get it; 40 days of studying how the NT uses the OT will help. But short cuts like supposed trips to heaven which are not permitted are not going to help you grasp what the apostles really meant.

*the science of eschatology is to learn the patterns of the 2500 quotes of the OT by the NT

Of course I am not kidding. Do you never read? I have a stack of books of people that have been and returned and written about it. Just because Paul was not allowed to talk about does not mean NO ONE can. It was not written as a forever law, only about HIS trip to heaven. We don't know what it was that Paul saw. It is now almost 2000 years later and this age is ending; I believe God is doing this simply because He wants everyone to know and believe about heaven.

Why would you not believe, when Revelation is so specific about it?

To different books tell about the different levels in the city and elevators that take people up or down to different levels.

One book was quite specific. He was amazed that each level had rivers, fountains, etc. He may have told how many levels there are in the city, I can't remember. He did say how many feet thick the outer wall is. I have heard Jessie Duplantis tell his testimony of heaven time and time again.
I think one of the greatest stories ever told about heaven is the book, "Scenes beyond the Grave," by Marietta Davis. I think that is correct for her name. She got to watch the instructions or classroom training for the children, about what Jesus did for us. It was the life of Christ from the prospective of heaven. It is absolutely marvelous. I downloaded it off the internet free. I probably have it in my computer if anyone wants a copy.

IF you look up spiritlessons on google, it is a website where many people whom God has taken to heaven and hell tell their testimony. If these kinds of testimonies agrees with the word of God, I see no reason why NOT to read them. Since the testimonies I have heard about heaven agree 100 % with what the bible says, I must believe them.

Did you forget what Jesus said, "my kingdom it not from here." AT that time, His kingdom on earth was a spiritual kingdom - - it still is.

Lamad

 

[Interplanner]

No, Paul generalized and said 'a man is not permitted to say.' The only reason he did, if you follow his complicated response to "super-apostles" in Judaism, was to quiet them. that is why there is only one of these in the Bible, and why it only applies to that problem (the deviant teachers of Judaism).

I don't read stuff like for that reason but also because I'm not an existentialist. An existentialist says there is no real historic knowledge about anything; there is only our sheer experiences in a universe which is otherwise meaningless. That is not the Christian view and Christian existentialism is an oxmoron.

As for the Rev, I am far from certain that it is prognostication, like Nostradamus. I recently posted the audio blog on 'the woman and the beast' which is a historic understanding that shows the woman (1st cent. Israel/Jerusalem/Judais) riding on the authority of the beast (Rome) which explains why Jews accessed Roman admin power all through Acts. And why Rome turns on the woman and destroys her (the DofJ). I go with the historic understanding of these materials first. There are good reasons to see Nero as the figure meant by the 666 number, and why the thing was written during that incredible difficult decade of the 60s.

As in any legal proceding, the most important evidence is the most immediate after the event took place. Heb 2 says there was all kinds of 'witness' or attestation to what had happened in the Gospel. I don't know why we would need anything 2000 years later.

I am too busy with the 2500 quotes of the OT by the NT to bother with best-selling NDE books. Nothing like them is found in Acts, which is our model. Our model sermon is the historic Acts 13 sermon, in which 'everything promised to the fathers was realized in the resurrection of Christ.'

 

[iamlamad]

No, Paul generalized and said 'a man is not permitted to say.' The only reason he did, if you follow his complicated response to "super-apostles" in Judaism, was to quiet them. that is why there is only one of these in the Bible, and why it only applies to that problem (the deviant teachers of Judaism).

I don't read stuff like for that reason but also because I'm not an existentialist. An existentialist says there is no real historic knowledge about anything; there is only our sheer experiences in a universe which is otherwise meaningless. That is not the Christian view and Christian existentialism is an oxmoron.

As for the Rev, I am far from certain that it is prognostication, like Nostradamus. I recently posted the audio blog on 'the woman and the beast' which is a historic understanding that shows the woman (1st cent. Israel/Jerusalem/Judais) riding on the authority of the beast (Rome) which explains why Jews accessed Roman admin power all through Acts. And why Rome turns on the woman and destroys her (the DofJ). I go with the historic understanding of these materials first. There are good reasons to see Nero as the figure meant by the 666 number, and why the thing was written during that incredible difficult decade of the 60s.

As in any legal proceding, the most important evidence is the most immediate after the event took place. Heb 2 says there was all kinds of 'witness' or attestation to what had happened in the Gospel. I don't know why we would need anything 2000 years later.

I am too busy with the 2500 quotes of the OT by the NT to bother with best-selling NDE books. Nothing like them is found in Acts, which is our model. Our model sermon is the historic Acts 13 sermon, in which 'everything promised to the fathers was realized in the resurrection of Christ.'

You did not read Acts closely enough! I believe when Paul went to heaven was when He was stoned. The Jews were good at stoning. I am convinced they KILLED Paul and God brought him back from the dead. If you notice, much of the last many chapters of Acts is Paul's personal testimony of what happened to Him.

Today there are many good books of How God deals with people today. Some of these have been to heaven. some to hell and some to both. They are there for you or anyone to read. I think you will miss out on much if you ignore them. In fact, today there are some that are dictating words from our Heavenly Father and Jesus, for us to read. There are hundreds of these messages from heaven. the main theme of all of them is that TIME IS UP!
Jesus is coming for His bride VERY SOON.

People ignore these warnings at their own peril.

Lamad

 

[Bible2]

Interplanner said in post 89:

The structure the foundations and walls passage is speaking of is nothing other than the present kingdom of Luke 17 and 22, which is a present tense kingdom now confered, and is a living building that is growing daily.

Are you thinking of Revelation 21:2,9,10? If so, it means that the physical structure of the literal city of New Jerusalem is a picture of the church. Something can be literal and at the same time symbolically picture something else, like how in Matthew 21:19 the fig tree was literal and at the same time its being without fruit symbolically pictured unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel being without fruit (Matthew 21:43).

Just as New Jerusalem's literal wall foundations have the names of the 12 apostles on them (Revelation 21:14), so the church's foundation is the apostles (Ephesians 2:20). And just as New Jerusalem's literal pearly gates have the names of Israel's 12 tribes on them (Revelation 21:12,21), so the church consists of Israel's 12 tribes (see the "Israel" part of post 56).

Interplanner said in post 89:

It is a "cloud" in the "air" but it is not H2O.

Regarding a "cloud", are you thinking of Hebrews 12:1? If so, it refers to a singular, already-existing, and only-figurative "cloud" of only-Old Testament witnesses (Hebrews 11), whereas 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Matthew 24:30, and Revelation 1:7 refer to plural, not-yet-existing, clouds which will be literal, like Luke 9:34's literal cloud (up on a mountain: Luke 9:28). But the clouds of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Matthew 24:30, and Revelation 1:7 will be up in the sky (the first heaven), the literal air, like Acts 1:9's literal cloud was "up" in the sky, and like the literal cloud in which the two witnesses will ascend bodily "up" to heaven (Revelation 11:12).

Interplanner said in post 89:

It is a "cloud" in the "air" but it is not H2O.

Regarding the "air", are you thinking of 1 Thessalonians 4:17? If so, its "air" will be the literal air, like the air in 1 Corinthians 9:26, 1 Corinthians 14:9, and Acts 22:23 is the literal air. But the air in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 will be up in the sky (as high as the clouds), like the air in Revelation 9:2 and Revelation 16:17 will be the literal air up in the sky.

 

[iamlamad]

Thanks, but I will continue to believe that the city is real, and people live there, and God's throne is there, just as so many have seen it.

Always remember, "If the plain sense makes sense, don't look for any other sense, or you will end up with nonsense."

Lamad

 

[Interplanner]

No one has seen God at any time; but God the only son who is at the Father's side has made him known. --Jn. 1. This is not found in our experiences of him (Jn 4:42), but the historic meaning, which speaks forever (Heb 1).

 

[iamlamad]

No one has seen God at any time; but God the only son who is at the Father's side has made him known. --Jn. 1. This is not found in our experiences of him (Jn 4:42), but the historic meaning, which speaks forever (Heb 1).

Who did Abraham see?
Who did Isaiah see?

 

[JLB777]

Who did Abraham see?
Who did Isaiah see?

YHWH the Christ.

Also known as The Angel of The Lord.

They did not see God the Father.

After Jesus was raised, however this changed as John wrote of seeing Him who sits upon the throne.


JLB

 

[iamlamad]

YHWH the Christ.

Also known as The Angel of The Lord.

They did not see God the Father.

After Jesus was raised, however this changed as John wrote of seeing Him who sits upon the throne.

JLB

I believe Isaiah saw the form of God the Father on the throne. I think Daniel did too, as the "ancient of Days." Many people within the last 20 years or so have seen the Father on the throne, but only a form, or a part of Him such as His legs. One saw Jesus walk right into the Father and the two become one. Then, he asked an angel a very silly question: He asked, "I see Jesus and the Father, but where is the Holy Spirit?" The angel answered, "he's on the earth!" Then he felt silly - for he certainly knew that!

Lamad

 

[JLB777]

I believe Isaiah saw the form of God the Father on the throne. I think Daniel did too, as the "ancient of Days." Many people within the last 20 years or so have seen the Father on the throne, but only a form, or a part of Him such as His legs. One saw Jesus walk right into the Father and the two become one. Then, he asked an angel a very silly question: He asked, "I see Jesus and the Father, but where is the Holy Spirit?" The angel answered, "he's on the earth!" Then he felt silly - for he certainly knew that!

Lamad

No one saw God the Father before Jesus ascended to heaven.

The OT saints were preserved alive in Abrahams Bosom.


JLB

 

[Interplanner]

enough. As I said about Heb 2, it's saying that the closer the evidence is to the original event, the better, in legal procedings. The power of God in the Gospel has been attested to by signs, wonders and miracles back then. A few people today may need a nudge now and then, but it is not to be sought because so much that was so close to the original events took place.

God is not an exhibitionist. His eternal power and divine nature are seen daily. His intention with the signs in Heb 2 was to make it impossible not to believe what took place in Jesus Christ and his redemption. Especially for the type of people who 'seek a sign'... as I Cor 1 says.