What did the Early Church Fathers write about the return of Christ during 70 AD?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just posted.
Why is something controversial, not Christian teachings, not in the controversial section ?

The whole Bible is controversial in case you haven't noticed........Just because others don't agree with your doctrine and view and vice versa?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

oops wrong section

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think the forum rules state that non-Christian teachings must be posted in the controversial section.
That's the point.

Then take it up with staff, and quite derailing the thread with your rants and raves....

 

[mkgal1]

AUTHOR OF:
The Parousia
A careful look at the New Testament doctrine of our Lord's Second Coming

The only part I disagree with is Russell's language of "our Lord's Second Coming". I think it's better described as "the Coming of the Son of Man" since that's the actual language used in the biblical text. I've yet to read through all of Russell's The Parousia, but I'm glad you shared it here.

There were many "comings of the Lord" as this article explains (I believe I've already shared it - but much of this thread is redundant anyway):

The following is an excerpt from J. Preston Eby's LOOKING FOR HIS APPEARING
Kindgdom Bible Studies
which unfolds something similar from Scripture.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

THE COMINGS OF THE LORD


We have been led to think in terms of the first coming and the second coming, whereas the Bible speaks in terms of the progressive revelation of Jesus Christ. Our God does not talk about the "first coming" and the "second coming" - He talks about the progressive revelation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For example, let us take a look at that thought in Micah 5:2, "But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall He come forth unto Me who is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting."

Notice, His "goings forth." The plural is used. The goings forth of the Lord speak about the Lord Jesus Christ! Now, the idea of "goings" has to do with the onward marching of God - the unfolding of the purpose of God, step by step. This is what is indicated here. This is what history is all about, the progressive revelation of Jesus Christ, the marching forward of God, the ever-increasing unveiling of Himself to man. The unfolding of end-time events and God's order for the ages to come, which are the main contents of the last book of the Bible, are called "the Revelation of Jesus Christ."

The term "second coming" is as unfortunate as it is unscriptural. It implies there has been only one coming of Christ thus far. This is not true. It may surprise you to learn that the scripture does not treat His coming at Bethlehem as an isolated event. Although it is important, it is not considered out of proportion to other and comparable events. His coming as a man was a step in the development of God's plan for redemption of the world.. Actually, Bethlehem is one in a series of appearances of Christ into the world. By the same token, it is not His last coming to the earth. In order to get the importance of His birth, let's withdraw from Bethlehem and consider His coming there as just one event in the panorama of the ages. Let us consider this theme under the following divisions: (1) Before Bethlehem (2) Beginning at Bethlehem (3) Because of Bethlehem.

An abundance of scripture supports the fact that Christ was before Bethlehem. He is just as real in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. The great difference, of course, is that HE BECAME FLESH. He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM.." Also He said, Is my Father works hitherto and I work." He and the Father were working long before Bethlehem. John opened his matchless Gospel with this majestic statement: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God" (Jn. 1:1-2). The prophet Isaiah had made a very careful distinction about His birth at Bethlehem: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given." Micah, the contemporary of Isaiah, had said, as I have pointed out, that He would come forth from Bethlehem but that "His goings forth have been FROM OF OLD, FROM EVERLASTING." His footprints were manifested in this world before the prints were made in His hands.

The pages of the Old Testament are literally sprinkled with the accounts of the Lord's comings, beginning in Eden's blest Garden and continuing through all generations of old. On the very day that man sinned he "heard the voice of the Lord God WALKING IN THE GARDEN in the cool of the day" (Gen. 3:8). The casual way in which this is stated indicates that this was a normal event, perhaps a daily appointed time at which the Lord manifested His presence to communicate with the man He had placed on this planet. The Lord still walked among men even after Adam was banished from the Garden, for Cain, after he slew Abel, "went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod" (Gen. 4:16). (more of article here)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The only part I disagree with is Russell's language of "our Lord's Second Coming". I think it's better described as "the Coming of the Son of Man" since that's the actual language used in the biblical text. I've yet to read through all of Russell's The Parousia, but I'm glad you shared it here.

There were many "comings of the Lord" as this article explains (I believe I've already shared it - but much of this thread is redundant anyway):

The following is an excerpt from J. Preston Eby's LOOKING FOR HIS APPEARING
Kindgdom Bible Studies
which unfolds something similar from Scripture.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

THE COMINGS OF THE LORD


We have been led to think in terms of the first coming and the second coming, whereas the Bible speaks in terms of the progressive revelation of Jesus Christ. Our God does not talk about the "first coming" and the "second coming" - He talks about the progressive revelation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For example, let us take a look at that thought in Micah 5:2, "But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall He come forth unto Me who is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting."

Notice, His "goings forth." The plural is used. The goings forth of the Lord speak about the Lord Jesus Christ! Now, the idea of "goings" has to do with the onward marching of God - the unfolding of the purpose of God, step by step. This is what is indicated here. This is what history is all about, the progressive revelation of Jesus Christ, the marching forward of God, the ever-increasing unveiling of Himself to man. The unfolding of end-time events and God's order for the ages to come, which are the main contents of the last book of the Bible, are called "the Revelation of Jesus Christ."

The term "second coming" is as unfortunate as it is unscriptural. It implies there has been only one coming of Christ thus far. This is not true. It may surprise you to learn that the scripture does not treat His coming at Bethlehem as an isolated event. Although it is important, it is not considered out of proportion to other and comparable events. His coming as a man was a step in the development of God's plan for redemption of the world.. Actually, Bethlehem is one in a series of appearances of Christ into the world. By the same token, it is not His last coming to the earth. In order to get the importance of His birth, let's withdraw from Bethlehem and consider His coming there as just one event in the panorama of the ages. Let us consider this theme under the following divisions: (1) Before Bethlehem (2) Beginning at Bethlehem (3) Because of Bethlehem.

An abundance of scripture supports the fact that Christ was before Bethlehem. He is just as real in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. The great difference, of course, is that HE BECAME FLESH. He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM.." Also He said, Is my Father works hitherto and I work." He and the Father were working long before Bethlehem. John opened his matchless Gospel with this majestic statement: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God" (Jn. 1:1-2). The prophet Isaiah had made a very careful distinction about His birth at Bethlehem: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given." Micah, the contemporary of Isaiah, had said, as I have pointed out, that He would come forth from Bethlehem but that "His goings forth have been FROM OF OLD, FROM EVERLASTING." His footprints were manifested in this world before the prints were made in His hands.

The pages of the Old Testament are literally sprinkled with the accounts of the Lord's comings, beginning in Eden's blest Garden and continuing through all generations of old. On the very day that man sinned he "heard the voice of the Lord God WALKING IN THE GARDEN in the cool of the day" (Gen. 3:8). The casual way in which this is stated indicates that this was a normal event, perhaps a daily appointed time at which the Lord manifested His presence to communicate with the man He had placed on this planet. The Lord still walked among men even after Adam was banished from the Garden, for Cain, after he slew Abel, "went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod" (Gen. 4:16). (more of article here)

Preston Eby is one of my favorite commentators and has been for over decade.

Here is an article concerning a third option that is between partial and full preterism.......
I am still studying on the Amill view.........

J.S. Russell's Position on the Millennium, the Neglected Third Way of Preterism
By Duncan McKenzie, Ph.D.

Duncan McKenzie Study Archive | The Covenant Judgments of Revelation | The Antichrist Chronicles: vol. II | J.S. Russell's Position on the Millennium, the Neglected Third Way of Preterism | A New Preterist Perspective | Was All The Prophecy in the Bible Fulfilled by A.D.70? | Revelation: The Book of Fulfillment of the Covenant Curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy | Babylon in Not Jerusalem | Premillennial Preterism | The Serious Error of the Literal Hermeneutic in the Interpretation of the Book of Revelation | A Preterist Book on the Antichrist is Coming | Revelation Chapter 12

The position of James Stuart Russell offers a third option that is different from full preterism and traditional partial preterism. Russell’s position is essentially like the full preterist position (i.e. the one and only Second Coming, the judgment and the resurrection happened at AD 70, the resurrection having an ongoing fulfillment since AD 70.

Russell’s position sees us as currently in the new heaven and earth, a symbol of the post AD 70 new covenant order). Where Russell position is different from full preterism is that it does not hold that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Full preterism can be traced back to the 1970’s and Max King. It was a fundamental shift away from Russell’s position that has never been adequately discussed; in fact it is rarely even mentioned.
Russell saw the millennium as beginning at AD 70 not ending at that time as full preterism necessitates. I believe that Russell was right and a wrong turn took place with the advent of full preterism. I say this because of my study of Daniel 7; I believe it lends support to Russell’s position.

It should be noted that in Russell’s system there will be a future end to evil at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:7-10). In my mind this is an improvement over full preterist paradigm which sees evil as existing into eternity (in men’s hearts). Also Russell’s position does not necessitate the hypothesis of two millenniums. There is much more to be said. I will be saying it in my forthcoming book, The Antichrist and the Second Coming. (800 pages double spaced, see contents below).

 

[mkgal1]

Preston Eby is one of my favorite commentators and has been for over decade.

I really want to read more of his studies. I've only read little bits here and there.

 

[mkgal1]

Here is an article concerning a third option that is between partial and full preterism.......
I am still studying on the Amill view.........

Me too. That article (or just what you quoted there) would be a great thread starter in the Amill safe house.

 

[BABerean2]

Do you have anything constructive to contribute to the OP instead of ranting and raving about everyone else that doesn't support your own man made doctrine.........

Great question...

Have you shown us any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which say Christ returned in 70 AD?

"What did the Early Church Fathers write about the return of Christ during 70 AD?"

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Another excerpt from the Vladimir Moss article:

Through His Incarnation as a man, His blameless life and Sacrificial Death on the Cross and Resurrection from the dead, He had truly given all men who believe in Him the possibility of remission of their sins, deliverance from hell and death, and eternal life with God in the age to come. The rest of history to this day has consisted in the self-determination of every nation and every individual in relation to this central, supremely important fact… The eternal destiny of every man in every age depends on his sincerely believing this good news and fulfilling the commandments of Christ.

yeshuaslavejeff said: ↑
No.
This depends , apparently, not on correctly knowing Scripture as Yahuweh Reveals His Own Meaning,
but on man's ideas or doctrines trying to fit with Scripture, different from Yahuweh's Meaning and Plan and Purpose.

yeshuaslavejeff said: ↑
Daly appears to be wrong. Seriously wrong.

Maybe Clarke also.

.......because.....?
You know that's how discussion (and the rules of the forum) work, right? There needs to be some sort of support for your assertions not just "no......that's wrong".

yeshuaslavejeff said: ↑
Well, to be simple here, it looks like some teachers/ teachings/ who are wrong are being used deviously (subtly?) to try to support something else that is in error, as often happens on forums.
It is not something to delve deep into at this point, (the false teachers, if they are false, do not need to be even discussed yet) ,
until IF the false teaching comes to light, then they are identified as false teachers.

Do you have anything constructive to contribute to the OP instead of ranting and raving about everyone else that doesn't support your own man made doctrine.........

Great question...
Have you shown us any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which say Christ returned in 70 AD?

"What did the Early Church Fathers write about the return of Christ during 70 AD?

I will have to look back at my posts......
So far, I have only found Josephus as an actual eyewitness to the 70AD destruction, as shown in Revelation 18.....

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
Proof that Matthew 24 was fully fulfilled in 70 AD!
Also see: Rapture refuted

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LittleLambofJesus said: ↑
Here is an article concerning a third option that is between partial and full preterism.......
I am still studying on the Amill view.........

Me too. That article (or just what you quoted there) would be a great thread starter in the Amill safe house.

He also disagrees with the full preterist view.......
I am going to take some time to read thru his works.........

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Modern/2006_mckenzie_russell-neglected.html

The Antichrist and the Second Coming

A Preterist Examination
Duncan McKenzie, Ph. D.
Contents

1. Introduction
   
   
2. The Coming of the Kingdom of God (Daniel 2)
   
   
3. The Little Horn of the Daniel’s Fourth Beast (Daniel 7)
   
   
4. The King of the North and the Time of the End (Daniel 11:36-12:13)
   
   
5. The Day of the Lord
   
   
6. The Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2)
   
   
7. Introduction to the Book of Revelation
   
   
8. The Beast and the False Prophet (Revelation 13)
   
   
9. The Beast and the Harlot (Revelation 17)
   
   
10. The Beast and the Fall of Babylon (Revelation 18)
    
    
11. The Second Coming (Revelation 19)
    
    
12. The Millennium and New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 20-22)
    
    
13. Where Are We Now?

Appendix A: Why I disagree with the Full Preterist Paradigm

A question that relates to the sequence of the millennium in Revelation is that of the temporal relationship of the judgment committed to those who come alive for the millennium in Revelation 20:4 (And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them…”) and the judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 (Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it…and the dead were judged, vv 11-12). I refer to these two visions of thrones and judgment in Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-15 as the throne scene judgments of Revelation 20. At first glance the sequence appears clear; the setting up of thrones and judgment in Revelation 20:4 happens at the beginning of the millennium and the setting up of the great white throne and judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 happens at the end of the millennium.

There is another theory on the sequence of Revelation 20:4 and 11-15, however, that is rarely discussed in the literature on Revelation; i it was proposed by James Stuart Russell. Russell’s position is that what is being shown in Revelation 20 is not two separate throne scenes and judgments (one in Rev. 20:4 and one in 20:11-15) separated by the millennium, but one throne scene and judgment (composed of Revelation 20:4 and 11-15) with a digression of what will happen at the end of the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10) in between. Russell’s position is that John begins describing a throne scene judgment at the beginning of the millennium in Revelation 20:4.
At 20:7-10 John digresses about what would happen at the end of the millennium, and then at 20:11 he takes up again the subject of the throne scene judgment he started in 20:4. Russell thus saw the description of the throne scene and judgment that is begun in Revelation 20:4 as being continued in Revelation 20:11. The two sections (Rev. 20:4 and 11-15) are thus describing one throne scene judgment (which happens at the beginning of the millennium) not two throne scene judgments (one at the beginning of the millennium and one at its end). Russell wrote the following on this.

 

[mkgal1]

Great question...

Have you shown us any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which say Christ returned in 70 AD?

"What did the Early Church Fathers write about the return of Christ during 70 AD?"

You're insistent on using that phrase "the return of Christ" in 70 A.D. which skews things a bit, I believe, because you are (as I've posted already) setting up this false scenario where you'd need Jesus in the flesh to have appeared in 70 A.D. to satisfy your challenge (and that's not what happened - nor do I believe anyone in this thread is asserting that).

I'm not sure how you reconcile your belief of a future fulfillment with this passage:

Matthew 10:23 ~ "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.​

 

[mkgal1]

Some quotes for you:

• 90AD Clement of Rome (On the Last Days) "the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us. (Chap. XIV.-- The Second Epistle to the Corinthians)

• 130AD Barnabus (On the demise of the Temple in the last days) "Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God. . . . So it cometh to pass; for because they went to war it was pulled down by their enemies. . . . Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed. For the scripture saith; and it shall be in the last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the fold and the tower thereof to destruction. And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. " Epistle of Barnabus16:1 ff.)

• 130AD Barnabus (On the fulfillment of prophecy) "Moreover understand this also, my brothers. When ye see that after so many signs and wonders wrought in Israel, even then they were abandoned, let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture saith, many called but few chosen. . ." (4:14, Epistle of Barnabus)

• 130AD Barnabus (On the fulfillment of prophecy) "Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh to this end, that He might sum up the complete tale of their sins against those who persecuted and slew His prophets." (5:11, Epistle of Barnabus)

 

[BABerean2]

I'm not sure how you reconcile your belief of a future fulfillment with this passage:

Matthew 10:23 ~ "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.

Nothing in your quotes from Barnabus say Jesus came back to earth during 70 AD.
.............................

Mat_12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Did He cast out devils during His earthly ministry?


He came as the "Son of Man" (Messiah) during His earthly ministry, as proven by the verse above. It was completed by His sacrifice at Calvary, instead of during 70 AD. It was a fulfillment of the promise made in Genesis 3:15, that the seed of the woman would defeat Satan. He was both the Son of God, and the Son of man.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


Did His disciples carry the Gospel to all the cities of Israel, before His sacrifice as the Son of God?


.

 

[mkgal1]

Mat_12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Did He cast out devils during His earthly ministry?

Yes, He did. He demonstrated His power over darkness.

He came as the "Son of Man" (Messiah) during His earthly ministry, as proven by the verse above. It was completed by His sacrifice at Calvary, instead of during 70 AD.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

But He was already there, right in front of them. That doesn't make sense......

In fuller context, Jesus had said to them:

Matthew 10:16-23 ~"Behold, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. But beware of men; for they will hand you over to their councils and flog you in their synagogues. On My account, you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to respond or what to say. In that hour you will be given what to say. For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.​

 

[mkgal1]

Nothing in your quotes from Barnabus say Jesus came back to earth during 70 AD.

130AD Barnabus (On the fulfillment of prophecy) "Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh to this end, that He might sum up the complete tale of their sins against those who persecuted and slew His prophets." (5:11, Epistle of Barnabus)

We will never find that language as it's not biblical. The "son of man came" - but that's not the same thing as "Jesus came back to earth".

It wasn't complete against those who persecuted and slew His prophets until 70 A.D.

Quoting Chuck Crisco:
Jesus fulfilled the Passover at his death, then fulfilled Pentecost 50 days later by the outpouring of the Spirit. But when was the Day of Atonement fulfilled in the earth like the others? This is a question that needs an answer!

The imagery of the priest going into the tabernacle or the temple, was that though the priest entered into the Holy of Holies and placed the blood on the mercy seat, it wasn't until the priest came back out and pronounced the blessing that the PROCESS OF ATONEMENT was "finished". Of course they were forgiven, accepted, loved, etc before he came "out". But pay attention to what wasn't finished in the rest of this article.

So far, Jesus said it was finished regarding his earthly apostolic "sent" mission. Then he cried that it was finished at the cross as he died. Yet, it still wasn't finished because he had not yet applied his blood to the mercy seat of heaven, and he had not come back out of heaven separated from sin, to announce the clean slate on the Day of Atonement.

This is what the author of Hebrews is alluding to in 9:6-10,

Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the FIRST PART of the tabernacle, performing the services. But into the SECOND PART the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was SYMBOLIC for the PRESENT TIME in which both gifts and sacrifices ARE offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed UNTIL THE TIME OF REFORMATION. ~ Why "It is Finished" was Finished in AD 70 — A New Day Dawning

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You're insistent on using that phrase "the return of Christ" in 70 A.D. which skews things a bit, I believe, because you are (as I've posted already) setting up this false scenario were you'd need Jesus in the flesh to have appeared in 70 A.D. to satisfy your challenge (and that's not what happened - nor do I believe anyone in this thread is asserting that).

I'm not sure how you reconcile your belief of a future fulfillment with this passage:

Matthew 10:23 ~ "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, yonu will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.​

I have just been looking at that passage.

I am of the view that the "cities of the nation" in Reve 16 are those taken over in the 1st century Jewish Revolt. Look at some of the OT passages concerning that. [I view 70AD Jerusalem in Revelation 18]

At bottom is an excellent vid of that event showing those cities of Israel being decimated up to and including 70AD Jerusalem........
[I may start a thread on it]

Jer 4:16
“Make mention to the nations, Yes, proclaim against Jerusalem,
That watchers come from a far country And raise their voice against the cities of Judah.

Eze 36:4
‘therefore, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD! Thus says the Lord GOD to the mountains, the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken, which became plunder and mockery to the rest of the nations all around—

Hos 8:14
“For Israel has forgotten his Maker, And has built temples;[fn] Judah also has multiplied fortified cities; But I will send fire upon his cities,And it shall devour his palaces.”
=================================
Rev 16:19
Now the great city[70ad Jerusalem] was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell.
And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.
===================================
Visual Timeline of the Roman-Jewish War ARTchive @ PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterist Eschatology and Preterism
CAST OF CHARACTERS: Roman: Emperor Nero | General Vespasian | General Titus | The Roman Army || Jewish: General / Historian Josephus | Factional Leaders in Jerusalem || Administrators of Roman Judea Targets: Jerusalem | Herod's Temple // Maps of the Roman Invasion // Theological Timeline

CHRONOLOGY IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE WAR

Stage 1: Murder of James the Just, "Opposition High Priest" ; Irrevocable Split: 62
Stage 2: General Revolt in Jerusalem ; Zealot Occupation of Masada: August-September 66
Stage 3: The Campaign of Cestius Gallus and the Defeat of the Twelfth Legion: October-November 66
Stage 4: End of Collaborative Government, Priesthood ; General Flight: November 66 - March 67
Part 6: Vespasian Subdues Northern and Western Palestine: December 66 - December 68
Part 7: Three-way Power Struggle within Jerusalem After Roman Retreat: January 68 - May 70
Part 8: Romans Breach City Walls and Leave Jerusalem Desolate: May 10 - September 10, 70
==========================

 

[BABerean2]

Yes, He did. He demonstrated His power over darkness.





But He already there, right in front of them. That doesn't make sense......

In fuller context, Jesus had said to them:

Matthew 10:16-23 ~"Behold, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. But beware of men; for they will hand you over to their councils and flog you in their synagogues. On My account, you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to respond or what to say. In that hour you will be given what to say. For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.​

You are missing the context by ignoring verses 5-7.

Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
Mat 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
Mat 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Mat 10:11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
Mat 10:12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
Mat 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Mat 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mat 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Mat 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mat 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Look back at verses 5-7.)

They would not be able to carry the Gospel to every city in Israel before He would be sacrificed as the Messiah.


Mat_18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You are missing the context by ignoring verses 5-7.
They would not be able to carry the Gospel to every city in Israel before He would be sacrificed as the Messiah.

What about after His crucifixion........

Acts 1:8
But ye will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and ye will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth/land/Israel.”

 

[BABerean2]

What about after His crucifixion........

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
.

Rom 2:9
tribulation and distress, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; [Luke 21:23 Luke 23:27 Revelation 6:16]

Luke 21:23
“But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
For there will be Great Distress in the land and wrath upon this people.'
[Revelation 6:16/Revelation 18:9]

Luke 23:27 Followed yet to Him a-vast multitude of the people, and of-women were. And grieved and wailed of-Him.28 Being-turned yet toward them, the Jesus said "Daughters of-Jerusalem no be-lamenting/klaiete <2799> (5720) over Me, moreover for yourselves be-lamenting/klaiete <2799> (5720), and upon the children of ye. [Isaiah 4:4]
30 "Then they shall be beginning to be saying to the mountains<3735> 'be falling upon us!' and to the hills 'cover us!'". [Hosea 10:8][Matthew 24:15]

Revelation 6:16
They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17For the great day of their g wrath has come, and who can withstand it?” [Hosea 10:8 Luke 23:30]

Reve 18:9 And shall be *lamenting/klausontai <2799> (5695) Her and shall be beating-breasts over Her the kings of the land, the ones with Her prostituting and indulging whenever they may be beholding the smoke of the fireing of Her.
=========================
Revelation 9:6
And in those days men shall be seeking the death, and not no shall be finding it; and shall be desiring/yearning<1937> to be dying, and the death is fleeing from them.


The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
Proof that Matthew 24 was fully fulfilled in 70 AD!
Also see: Rapture refuted

Meanwhile the horrors of famine grew still more melancholy and afflictive. The Jews, for of food were at length compelled to eat their belts, their sandals, the skins of their shields, dried grass, and even the ordure of oxen. In the depth or this horrible extremity, a Jewess of noble family urged by the intolerable cravings of hunger, slew her infant child, and prepared it for a meal ; and had actually eaten one half thereof, when the soldiers, allured by tile smell of food, threatened her with instant death if she refused to discover it. 'Intimidated by this menace, she immediately produced the remains of her son, which petrified them with horror. At the recital of this melancholy and affecting occurrence, the whole city stood aghast, and poured forth their congratulations on those whom death had hurried away from such heartrending scenes. Indeed, humanity at once shudders and sickens at the narration, nor can any one of the least sensibility reflect upon the pitiable condition to which the female part of the inhabitants of Jerusalem must at this time have been reduced, without experiencing the tenderest emotions of sympathy, or refrain from tears while he reads our SAVIOUR'S pathetic address to the women who " bewailed him" as he was led to Calvary, wherein he evidently refers to these very calamities : "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but for yourselves and fur your children ; for, behold, the days are coming in which they shall say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts that never gave suck." Luke xxiii. 29.