The Temple Destruction-opinions sought

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
You preterists amaze me. I've NEVER seen such twisting of the scriptures, NOT EVEN by the Jehovah Witness or the Mormons!!!! You are obviously a **** of the WORST KIND. Only a **** would DENY the PHYSICAL 2nd Coming of our Savior!!!!!

Click to expand...

Hi Auntie,

Preterists believe that Revelation depicts a shift in covenant from the passing of the old covenant to the establishment of the new covenant. Passages like Gal 4:21-31, Heb 8:7-13 (particularly verse 13) make it very clear that the new covenant was to be fully established in the future.

People often ask, "Then where's the kingdom of God?" Luke 17:20-21 has a great answer to that. It's clear that the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, that would explain why the passage says, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21)

And so if the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, it makes sense to say that Jesus is an invisible king (1 Tim 1:17) The following verses indicate that Christ is no longer regarded in the flesh: John 14:19, John 16:16-19, 2 Corinthians 5:16-17, 1 Tim 6:15-16, 1 Tim 1:17. (But that's not to say he didn't die in the flesh, the idea is that he's no longer limited to his earthly body)

Anyway I'm curious to know:

Do you see a connection with the following verses: Gal 4:26, Heb 12:22, Rev 21:2?

I personally believe they're talk'n about the same thing and Heb 12:22, according to the author, says that believers have come upon the heavenly Jerusalem

God bless!

-Jason

Great post, Hoonbaba!
"The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21)

In Christ,

Act6:5

Auntie,

You continue to to miss the significance that the second coming of Jesus was to be a "DAY OF THE LORD" event.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you if you know your scripture really well, but it is a fact that jews understood the meaning and definition of this phrase, "Day of the Lord," whereas you do not seem to be understanding the term. If you understood what the Day of Yahweh was in the O.T. times then you would understand how AD 66-70 fits the description with precision. Not only, but AD 66-70 was the GREATEST Day of the Lord event to ever have taken place in history -- indeed it was nothing less than Israel's great tribluation. (Notice how Luke 21:20-22 describes AD 66-70, and notice how Luke 21:22 is Isaiah 61:2!)

Preterists say that the Day of the Lord happened LITERALLY, and that it is a verifiable event in real history that vindicates Jesus Christ as the Son of God and a true prophet. Jesus promised his holy apostles that they would see it come to pass in their generation (Matthew 24:33-34) -- and it did exactly as Jesus promised (our Lord doesn't break his promises).

The Day of Christ/Day of the Lord happened LITERALLY at AD 66-70, and the nature of that event transpired exactly as the bible teaches concerning the meaning and significance of that phrase ("The Day of the Lord"). If you don't understand this then I would recommend that you do some research into the "Day of Yahweh" and its many O.T. occurrences. Once you understand those you will understand the great and terrible Day of the Lord against Israel at AD 66-70 -- the Day of Christ.

God bless,
GW

Originally posted by Hoonbaba

I personally believe they're talk'n about the same thing and Heb 12:22, according to the author, says that believers have come upon the heavenly Jerusalem

God bless!

-Jason

Click to expand...

Jason, Heb 12:22 is an excellent verse. Hebrew 9:8-10 reinforces what you already said, that nobody could go into God's presence until the temple was destroyed, the temple which was a symbol of that time:

"The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time . Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation"

If the temple was a symbol for the present time (not our present time, but the writer's time, i.e. BEFORE AD 70), and if we know for a FACT that the temple was destroyed, then clearly, we live in a different time, the time of reformation that the writer was talking about, when we worship in a temple not of this creation. A physical return of Christ, an the rebuilding of a physical temple in Jerusalem would nullify Christ's sacrifice, and would go backwards, against what the Bible says...

This is crystal clear...