The Magnitude of the End of the Age

[iamlamad]

Perhaps, but as in the example of Noah, we know that when God says he's going to do something in "seven days", that He's not going to wait 7000 years to do it.


See my response above. If Noah took the position you do, he wouldn't have bothered building the ark.



Rather, the Bible calls the final generation of the Mosaic covenant "the last days" and calls the Gospel age "everlasting".

Well now, I don't think Paul put a time on the rapture of the church! He only told us it would happen, and would be the trigger for the Day of the Lord. Perhaps you should ask the Lord why He is waiting so long! Could it be He is more interested in harvest than in time?

 

[keras]

Your post #78 was interesting. What in it particularly did you want to discuss?

I would have thought you may want to know more about what God has planned for our future.

To totally destroy Jerusalem would be to violate OT prophecy.

You show how little you know of OT prophecy. Jerusalem and all the cities of the Middle east will be destroyed in the forthcoming Lord's Day of wrath: Isaiah 4:3-4, Isaiah 29:1-8, Isaiah 64:10-12, Jeremiah 7:34, Jeremiah 9:11, Amos 2:5. Plus Damascus; Isaiah 17:1. Plus Amman; Amos 1:13-14, Zephaniah 2:9

 

[iamlamad]

So you are saying that they will not take place?

No, Even the Son did not know, only the Father. Christ knew the signs but He did not know the date. Not in His earthly time here anyway.

That they were not an authority on this is obvious with Peter's question.

I have to apply nothing. Peter was asking why the promise had not come. His explanation is simple. God is not limited by time as we are. A short time to God is like a thousand years. Simple.

I have no issue with the time frame. They were simply instructed to be always ready.
I have no issue with the gospel either.

So, you want to base history on a song? It thought you wanted to level the playing field.

You do realize that this is a song, right?

The book of revelations is not about a song. It is reality.

Can you show me any historical evidence, other than the Bible, that the sun and moon stopped in the sky, and that later, it went backward? No, but it did happen and it is totally in the possible abilities of God.

If any of the events, that are future prophesies, in the book of revelations, that were revealed by Christ to John, had of happened before today, they would of happened less than 2000 years ago and there would be no doubt that we would have record of it today.

These events are going to change the face of the earth, the population of mankind and the very heavenly bodies of stars and planets.

They have not happened yet and could not of happened yet.

Again, you do know it's a song right? Not reality?

Yes that is odd. I wonder why Ezekiel didn't mention the F-15's with "daisy Cutters".

Maybe due to the fact that he had no words to describe them?

Anyway. I have read enough, in researching responses to your views, to understand and reinforce my belief that we are indeed close, these events are real and the scriptures clearly indicate it...... if you take the time to study them along with current events.

"They have not happened yet and could not of happened yet."
Readers, this is the KEY: Most of Revelation has not happened yet. It is FUTURE, and that is not a bad word.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Achilles,
You replied to me saying you'd be willing to discuss a couple passages and I agreed, but things are so out of sequence I'm having trouble locating the necessary posts. I believe you wanted to discuss I Thessalonians 4 passages and I Corinthians 15 to examine the sequence of end time events given us there and compare it to your response to me regarding Matthew 24:37-41??
Located the posts; here they are...
TFT Post:
But one must also take these end time passages into account when considering what these seeming catastrophes might look like...
Matthew 24:37-41:
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

We know that they will be days of great distress, but seems that this distress is mostly experienced by only some...believers. Does this mean persecution? does this mean spiritual and emotional pain? Feelings of being torn between going the way of the world or facing severe persecution? Could be pain due to spiritually lost loved one? I don't know, but some will be making merry according to these passages I quote so I'd rule out natural disasters, etc...that comes immediately before the Return.
Achilles Response:
I've considered these passages as well. I think that one set of passages (the peaceful set) is speaking about the rapture, and the other set of passages (the catastrophic set) is speaking about the wrath of God.

So I think that the rapture happens first and then that inaugurates the wrath and the judgement of God.

Let me know how you'd like to get into this discussion or how to go about it most expeditiously.

 

[dysert]

COMPARE THIS:
standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’ (Rev 18:10)

TO THIS:
And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Rev 11:8)

Well that's at least something, but of course it's far from conclusive when you have other verses like this:

Jos 10:2 that they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, like one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were mighty.

Jon 1:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me."

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

You guys need to start a thread for your discussion and not take this OP off track.

 

[dysert]

You guys need to start a thread for your discussion and not take this OP off track.

You're right.

 

[Goatee]

"22 Unless those days had been cut short, no [j]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the [k]elect those days will be cut short." Mt. 24:22 (NASB)

There are now 7.6 billion people on planet earth, meaning that Christ is saying that every single one of them would die had those days not been cut short. That means that some catastrophe of incredible magnitude is coming on this planet. There are other statements to this effect as well. I think that many have forgotten about the magnitude of the end of the age.

All happened in 70AD my friend

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

All happened in 70AD my friend

This is the full preterist position which is not allowed to be promoted on this forum. You are in violation of the rules.

 

[Goatee]

This is the full preterist position which is not allowed to be promoted on this forum. You are in violation of the rules.

I am not a full preterist though. And that which i quoted above is partial preterism.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I am not a full preterist though. And that which i quoted above is partial preterism.

No, you said it ALL happened in 70A.D. that is full preterism.

 

[Goatee]

No, you said it ALL happened in 70A.D. that is full preterism.

What is 'all' though? Define by what was meant as 'all'.

Full preterism believes that there is nothing more to happen. Jesus is still to return though so how can you say that the 'all' includes the return of Jesus?

The 'all' i was referring to was the destruction on Jerusalem in AD70. This i believe is what is being referred to in the scripture texts quoted.

 

[parousia70]

No, you said it ALL happened in 70A.D. that is full preterism.

Pretty sure he means the same "all" that Jesus meant here:

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

Futurists, by a vast majority, assign this passage to AD70.

Such is NOT Full Preterism to do so.

 

[Goatee]

Pretty sure he means the same "all" that Jesus meant here:

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

Futurists, by a vast majority, assign this passage to AD70.

Such is NOT Full Preterism to do so.

Exactly!

 

[parousia70]

Well that's at least something, but of course it's far from conclusive when you have other verses like this:

Jos 10:2 that they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, like one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were mighty.

Jon 1:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me."

St John, in the Revelation, only called ONE city "the Great City".

 

[parousia70]

So you are saying that they will not take place?

I'm saying that they DID take place, on time, as promised.

No, Even the Son did not know, only the Father. Christ knew the signs but He did not know the date. Not in His earthly time here anyway.

So when He spoke to the Church at Sardis, FROM HEAVEN, did He know?

3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. (Rev 3:3)

Was He lying to them?

That they were not an authority on this is obvious with Peter's question.

Peter is most certainly the Authority over and above you or I

I have no issue with the time frame. They were simply instructed to be always ready.

So Jesus Purposely misled His followers to believe a falsehood?
That's your position?

So, you want to base history on a song? It thought you wanted to level the playing field.

You do realize that this is a song, right?

So?
Where does scripture teach you to interpret it any differently?
The apostles use the same language as David (and the rest of the OT prophets) did, and it's not by accident!

Scripture nowhere teaches us to interpret the way apostles use this language any differently from the way the OT prophets used it.

The book of revelations is not about a song. It is reality.

It's classic Jewish apocalyptic language that us used consistently throughout scripture.
Oh, and the Book of RevelatioN has no "S" as the end.

Very difficult to be taken seriously in a debate about a book whose title you consistantly misspell.

Yes that is odd. I wonder why Ezekiel didn't mention the F-15's with "daisy Cutters".

Maybe due to the fact that he had no words to describe them?

Proving, once again, you are no literalist. you pick and choose which scriptures to take literally and which to apply elastic spiritual metaphor to as much as anybody.

Anyway. I have read enough, in researching responses to your views, to understand and reinforce my belief that we are indeed close, these events are real and the scriptures clearly indicate it...... if you take the time to study them along with current events.

So you claim to know more than the apostles.
Got it.

 

[parousia70]

Well now, I don't think Paul put a time on the rapture of the church!

He certainly expected to be alive when it happened!

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

We are not discussing the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

 

[parousia70]

You guys need to start a thread for your discussion and not take this OP off track.

This current line of debate is fully in line with the OP.

"The Magnitude of the end of the age" can not be discussed without discussing what was meant by "the end of the age" in the first place.

 

[parousia70]

We are not discussing the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Since that was "the end of the Age" that Jesus and the Apostles spoke of as soon coming, at hand & about to take place, we most certainly are discussing that.

No point in discussing the end of the "everlasting gospel" age because, well, everlasting means everlasting.