The Book of Acts isn't just for Dispensationalists!!!
- Thread starter Grip Docility
- Start date
Dorothy Mae
Well-Known Member
- May 26, 2018
- 5,657
- 1,017
- Country
- Switzerland
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Where does it mention rebuilding it? It is mentioned because it’s destruction is pivotal and was still standing when both pieces were written.
It is a past event.
Already happened long ago.
That is the theology the Pharisees held. The disciples thought this too until after the resurrection.
How do you know this? Are there descriptions in detail of both?
I know that theology pretty well. I believe it all happened in the first century and is now over.
Upvote
0
It keeps the context focused on the twelve tribes prior to the ministry of Paul to the world. James, the brother of Jesus, took control of the Jerusalem saints from Peter. James, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law"
The James who was the brother of Jesus was about building a church based in Jerusalem. The apostle James was about preparing the nation of Israel for the return of Messiah to establish the long promised millennial Kingdom. This as you can see has been put on hold.
Rom 11:25-27 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
I'm sorry if this does not line up with those sources you have read so far.
Upvote
0
Guojing
Well-Known Member
I was always fascinated by how Peter was chosen by Jesus as the rock in which the church in Acts is supposed to be build upon.
Yet, by the time Acts 15 came about, Peter turn out to be a glorified bystander with one important role of supporting Paul in his gospel of grace. But James is the one that made the final decision in the end.
And when Paul returned back to Jerusalem in Acts 21, Peter has vanished from the HQ completely, and James become the overall in charge.
One way to understand this is thru adopting dispensationalism.
Upvote
0
The teaching of Peter will be used to build the foundation of the Millennial Kingdom at the return of Jesus in bodily form on the mound of Olivet. The teaching of James was used to build the current church in Rome. I think the half brother of Jesus named James was as crafty as Judas Iscariot.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Upvote
0
- May 13, 2019
- 2,615
- 370
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The earliest copies for the Gospel of Matthew, whether in part or whole, are dated back before the destruction of the Jewish temple, but John’s Revelation may have be written after its destruction since the earliest evidences of its existence is dated somewhere between 80 and 90 A.D. Historically, John was exiled to Patmos where he received what is now called the book of Revelation, but his exile to that Island did not take place until after 70 A.D.
But that even John foretells of another temple to come in the last days makes it pretty obvious that one has to be rebuilt in order for that prophecy to be fulfilled.
And that Christ has ascended into Heaven does not do damage to the belief that He will return again and reign from Jerusalem and from within a temple where He will rule the earth as both King and High Priest, for as it is written, He will return again to reign.
There is no historical evidence whatsoever that our Lord’s foretelling of the abomination that causes desolation has been fulfilled.
Though the temple of that generation was destroyed, there is no record of any man standing within that temple demanding that the Jews worship him as God before its destruction as the Bible foretells. But that the Anti-Christ is foretold to declare himself to be God in the temple of God also indicates that he will attempt to rule the world from there. The same is not recorded of any of the Roman emperors. Even the Roman emperors who declared themselves to be divine always ruled from the seat of Rome. There is no record of any them ever attempting to establish their throne or capital in Jerusalem. If there is no record in history of a prophecy being fulfilled as described in scripture, then the conclusion is simple. That prophecy has not yet come to pass.
There is a detailed description the temple that Solomon built in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles and while there is no detailed description of the second temple that was built after the Jews after the end of their 70 year captivity, even historical descriptions of that temple do not match that which Ezekiel describes in chapters 40-47. It is very clear that the temple he describes is a vast premises with features not described in the previous two temples.
This forthcoming temple as described in Ezekiel is clearly a temple to come in an age that is yet to come and that is the one in which the throne of our Lord will be.
Upvote
0
Dorothy Mae
Well-Known Member
- May 26, 2018
- 5,657
- 1,017
- Country
- Switzerland
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
The most reliable evidence, the internal, puts it before the destruction of Jerusalem.
That date is actually not known although one ancient author mentioned under Nero. The common thought of 90 AD is unlikely since Jesus told him he still had a mission. It’s unlikely it was written when he was 80 or 90. And the temple was still standing when he wrote it makes the most sense.
Where does John say “another temple?”
He will return when his enemies are all made “a footstool for his feet.” He is reigning now. The kingdoms of this have become the kingdoms of our Lord. Slowly but surely Christianity is spreading over the world.
There certainly is. He said no stone of the temple would be left upon one another and no stone was left upon another in 70 AD.
Caesear demanded he be worshipped as God. Where do you read he needs to stand in the temple?
The Antichrist isnt mentioned in Revelation. Look it up. He’s never mentioned. So that description cannot be him.
Since Revelation doesn’t mention the Antichrist, that is not something associated with his behavior. Antichrist is mentioned only im John’s letters.
You didn’t mention the opulent temple Herod built. That’s the one spoke of by Jesus in Matt 24. They who saw it were very impressed. That’s the one whose destruction fulfilled the prophesy.
I know the theology but do not believe any of it. The events in the 1st century match the description in my view. But one has to read about the history. The christians living in the first century thought it was being fulfilled and all left Jerusalem. The abomination that caused desolation happened and they left Jerusalem as Jesus suggested. That warning by Jesus to flee made sense to them. Makes no sense to us. We don’t live there to flee from, most of us.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Dorothy Mae
Well-Known Member
- May 26, 2018
- 5,657
- 1,017
- Country
- Switzerland
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- May 13, 2019
- 2,615
- 370
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
There is no internal evidence suggesting that the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation before destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans; not for those who take the text at its word. Revelation itself does not even mention anything about the destruction of the Jewish temple or Jerusalem as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke foretold and which had happened, which means the book of Revelation foretells of a temple that is not the one that was destroyed.
The temple that John is commanded to measure and all events pertaining to the city of Jerusalem mentioned in the book of Revelation can only be dealing with events that are yet to come because there are events foretold in association with the temple John is commanded to measure that were not recorded to have happened in that first generation. For instance, a time is foretold when the Gentiles will occupy Jerusalem for forty-two months (3 and a half years) (Rev. 11:2) but Jerusalem and the entire land of Israel for that matter from the days of the Roman empire until 1948 had been under Gentile control; a span of time obviously immensely longer than 42 months. It was not until 1948, when Israel had been reestablished as a nation in their homeland that Jerusalem was placed back in Jewish hands. The 42 months during which the Gentiles tread Jerusalem underfoot has not yet happened.
There is also no historical record of the two witnesses foretold in the book of Revelation who are set to prophesy for three and a half years and who are killed by the beast who ascends out of the bottomless pit but who are then resurrected after a few days and are taken up to Heaven, which means they too are yet to come. Much more could be said.
In order for the book of Revelation to have been written before that time, John would have had to have been exiled to the Island of Patmos by the Emperor Nero and before the destruction of the Jewish temple, but this does not appear to be historically the case. The earliest accounts of the timeframe in which John was exiled to the Island of Patmos where he wrote the book of Revelation is placed within the reign of the Caesar Domitian who came to power sometime after Nero.
The generation of first believers can be forgiven for thinking that when the destruction of Jerusalem commenced that the end of the age was near. They believed in the imminency of our Lord’s return which scripture clearly teaches, but unlike many within the Body of Christ today, they clearly understood that there was to be great tribulation of the likes not ever seen even though they were mistaken to think that the time of the end was at hand when the armies of Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. Nevertheless, they did well to heed our Lord’s warning.
Jesus is reigning from Heaven, but the reign for which the disciples were told to expect as well as all other believers, is the day when Christ descends from Heaven to reign on the earth. His ascent into Heaven in no way changed their thinking on this for as it is written, the disciples were told that Jesus would return to earth the same way He was taken up to Heaven (Acts 1:11) and this had been the expectation of that generation of Christians and is the expectation of many Christians today because that is what the Bible repeatedly teaches.
When Jesus foretold the temple’s destruction, His disciples asked Him three questions: When would the destruction of the temple be? What signs would proceed His return? And what signs would signal the end of this present world? In the accounts of Matthew (Mt. 24:4-44) and Mark (Mk. 13:5-37) it is very clear that Jesus was foretelling of things that had not yet come to pass in that day, but yet have come to pass at a much more prevalent rate than in their day, also of things that have yet to come to pass.
But when we read Luke’s account of the foretelling of last days events, (Lk. 21:8-36) there is a notable difference between the account of Luke and the accounts of Matthew and Mark and that notable difference is that there is no mention of the abomination that causes desolation in the Gospel of Luke. That figure is only mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, but yet Luke explains in detail events that were to befall Jerusalem that are consistent with what happened in 70 A.D., but what there is no historical record of is of any man going into the temple and demanding that he be worshipped as God before it was destroyed.
Therefore, it only makes sense to believe that another temple must be present at some point in the future in order for there to be a place in Jerusalem for the Anti-Christ come and demand that the Jews worship him as God. Without a temple in place, that cannot happen as the scripture has foretold. And it can only be that temple which the Apostle John was commanded to measure in the book of Revelation (Rev. 11) and that very temple the Anti-Christ is foretold to defile.
“Caesear demanded he be worshipped as God. Where do you read he needs to stand in the temple?”
Have you not read the following scriptures? (Mt. 24:15, Mk 13:14, 2 Thess. 2:3-4) Yes, there were Roman emperors who claimed divine status, but they did not attempt to set their throne in Jerusalem. They always ruled from Rome.
But in order to prove that the cited passages concerning the Anti-Christ have already been fulfilled, there would have to be an actual account of a man, a ruler, standing in the temple of God and demanding that he be worshipped as God as written in the scriptures. I’ve yet to see a written record of such a man who did this in the temple of God as the scriptures say will happen.
The Beast described in the books of Daniel and Revelation is that coming Anti-Christ whom John mentioned in his epistles (1 Jn. 2:18) and the reason why the title of Anti-Christ is applied to the Beast described in Daniel (Dan. 7:7-11, 20-26) and Revelation is because it represents the very empire of that man whom the scripture says will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God. The Beast that both the prophet Daniel and the Apostle John saw cannot be representative of anything else. It’s behavior is very much consistent with the Anti-Christ.
“You didn’t mention the opulent temple Herod built.”
I did mention that temple, but Herod did not build it. It was built by the Jews who returned from exile during the Persian empire. Herod only renovated, remodeled, and made additions to it. The work that he had done on the temple is what made it that magnificent structure it was reputed to have been. Not much is known scripturally about the description of this particular temple and nothing is said about its dimensions, but it certainly is not the one described in Ezekiel chapters 40-47 and it was not the one the Apostle John was commanded to measure.
It is hard to picture the sort of temple Ezekiel described, but the description he gave of it is a magnificence that supersedes that of either Solomon’s temple or the temple in the days of Herod. And as for the temple the Apostle John was commanded to measure in his vision, we don’t even know what those measurements are.
Upvote
0
Dorothy Mae
Well-Known Member
- May 26, 2018
- 5,657
- 1,017
- Country
- Switzerland
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
There is a lot to deal with so I will break it up.
"Other sources during the first several centuries after Christ also refer to an earlier date for the writing of Revelation, even explicitly. Krejcir (2009 [2]) cites statements from three sources: [1] The ‘Muratorian Fragment,’ dating back to 170-190 A.D., overtly states that the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Nero (who reigned from 54-68 AD). [2] The ancient ‘Syriac version’ of the New Testament, dated in the sixth century or earlier, echoes this statement that “Revelation was written during the reign of Nero.” [3] “The ‘Aramaic Peshitta’ version [which had become the standard Aramaic/Syriac translation by the early 5th century] has a remark that places its date prior to 70 A.D.”
Tertullian, an early church father who lived from 145-220 AD, seems to place John’s banishment to Patmos at the same time as the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, who we know were killed during the reign of Nero prior to his own death in 68 AD. In his writing, “Exclusion of Heretics,” speaking of the history of Rome, he had this to say (Dennis Todd [6], 2009): “…on which the Apostles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood: where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul bath for his crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterwards banished to an island.”
Jerome (340-420 AD) and others confirmed in their writings that it was Nero who had John plunged into boiling oil."
It was around the same time Paul and Peter were arrested and killed which makes sense. It was also the time of greatest persecution.
There are many "comings" told of in the Bible and they do not all mean the bodily return of Christ, which will happen but will not be a forceful takeover.
This is not correct. The earliest accounts place the timeframe under Nero.
"Other sources during the first several centuries after Christ also refer to an earlier date for the writing of Revelation, even explicitly. Krejcir (2009 [2]) cites statements from three sources: [1] The ‘Muratorian Fragment,’ dating back to 170-190 A.D., overtly states that the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Nero (who reigned from 54-68 AD). [2] The ancient ‘Syriac version’ of the New Testament, dated in the sixth century or earlier, echoes this statement that “Revelation was written during the reign of Nero.” [3] “The ‘Aramaic Peshitta’ version [which had become the standard Aramaic/Syriac translation by the early 5th century] has a remark that places its date prior to 70 A.D.”
Tertullian, an early church father who lived from 145-220 AD, seems to place John’s banishment to Patmos at the same time as the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, who we know were killed during the reign of Nero prior to his own death in 68 AD. In his writing, “Exclusion of Heretics,” speaking of the history of Rome, he had this to say (Dennis Todd [6], 2009): “…on which the Apostles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood: where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul bath for his crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterwards banished to an island.”
Jerome (340-420 AD) and others confirmed in their writings that it was Nero who had John plunged into boiling oil."
It was around the same time Paul and Peter were arrested and killed which makes sense. It was also the time of greatest persecution.
The return was his coming in wrath and destroying those who pierced him. That is what he told the Sanhedrin and that is exactly what he did. That is what they knew. The disciples had long since ceased to teach about his coming to set up a kingdom where he rules from Jerusalem and the Jews rule the world. That is what the thought before the Resurrection. You will not find this teaching in their gospels and letters as they no longer believed it.
There are many "comings" told of in the Bible and they do not all mean the bodily return of Christ, which will happen but will not be a forceful takeover.
Actually he reigns from Heaven until all enemies are footstools for his feet at which time he turns the kingdom over to the Father. He is reigning through his church, the new Jerusalem.
Why do you think the abomination of desolation is a man entering the temple to be worshipped? It does not say this.
The antichrist was Nero. There will never be another jewish temple built and a seal is placed on the land to prevent this. Nero was actually called "a beast" by his own people. He was given power over the holy people to defeat them for the exact time mentioned in the text. It was the worst time the church ever faced or will face. It only makes sense to believe when Jesus said it will happen soon, and he said it many times, it happened soon. When Jesus said that generation will not pass away until these events take place, it makes sense to see that he was telling the truth.
Why do you think this is what the text says in Revelation or Matt 24?
Where does the text say the antichrist will stand in the temple? Why does it have to be cesaer?
But John who wrote Revelation never uses the word "anti-christ" but talks of many anti-christs when he talks of anti-christ at all. Daniel also does not talk of anti-christ.
Only if we forget John mentions many anti-christs. There isn't just one really evil man. There was one who was worst than allt he rest put together though.
Well, everyone else calls is "Herod's temple" so I see no reason to change that name. Since you admit not much is known about the description of that temple, it cannot be logically eliminated from being the temple John was talking about. Interestingly enough, both men measured it. I see no reason to think this was not the temple Ezekiel saw as well. The measurements of Herods temple are not known according to you and the statment by Ezekiel regarding the people fits the beginning of the church. That was the goal, that men would walk with God.
Can you please provide the descriptions that are magnificence? I only read mostly of measurements and while those are grand, they are in the end, just large. Again, since we do not know the measurments of Herod's temple, we cannot rule it out logically. But what are the magnificant descriptions you read?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
timtams
Well-Known Member
This is poor scholarship. The Muratorian Canon places the writing of Revelation before the earliest of Paul's letters, which began to be written in the reign of Claudius. It does not "overtly" mention Nero or place Revelation in his reign.
The Syriac Version is the Peshitta, and yes, it does claim that John was exiled in Nero's reign, though this version is not dated to the second century. It's from the early fourth century at the earliest.
He "seems" to yes, though it's not entirely clear.
Yes.
When did Nero make everyone take a mark if they wanted to buy or sell? When did he set up an image which spoke?
I think you are thinking of one or two later historians.
No, Ezekiel's temple was so large it would not have fit on the temple site. John couldn't have seen the temple in Jerusalem because that temple was completely destroyed, whereas John said that the inner court would be preserved and only the outer court given to the gentiles.
Upvote
0
- May 13, 2019
- 2,615
- 370
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
“There is a lot to deal with so I will break it up.”
I don’t mind. You’ve been doing that in your replies to my posts any way. I have to do the same thing sometimes with other posts I reply to.
The internal I said was lacking evidence that was lacking for your preterist position was in reference to scriptural evidence.
As for the sources you provided, you provided reference numbers but no actual links or venues to which I could go to investigate those sources.
But even if the sources you provided in defense of your position did check out, that still does not mean that the temple that John saw in his vision and was commanded to measure was necessarily the temple that was destroyed. We still do not know how long after John was exiled to Patmos that he received the visions that became the book of Revelation. Therefore, no one can really say for a certainty that the temple John saw in his vision was the temple the Romans destroyed.
This is still highly unlikely anyway since the temple John was commanded to measure was also associated with events also mentioned in the book of Revelation that have not yet come to pass.
“The return was his coming in wrath and destroying those who pierced him. That is what he told the Sanhedrin and that is exactly what he did. That is what they knew.”
No, this is completely wrong as far as the return of Christ is concerned. The scriptures are very specific about the manner of His return and all the signs preceding it. Christ did foretell of the coming judgment they suffered at the hands of the Roman empire due to their rejection of Him, but that was not the return the Bible teaches; it was a judgment upon Israel, but not the return of Christ. When Jesus does return again, He will not come to destroy Jerusalem or punish the Jews, but He will deliver them from their enemies who at that time will be trying to destroy them. (Zech. 12:7-14 14:1-20) and when that day comes and the deliverer of the Jews is beheld, it is then that they will know who their Messiah is all along and it is in that day that they all will mourn for the one whom they pierced. (Zech. 12:10-14
“The disciples had long since ceased to teach about his coming to set up a kingdom where he rules from Jerusalem and the Jews rule the world. That is what the thought before the Resurrection. You will not find this teaching in their gospels and letters as they no longer believed it.”
No they didn’t. They continued to teach the imminent return of Christ just as Jesus taught them.
It is found in their Gospels and in their letters. I do not see how anyone could possibly miss the following scripture passages which clearly state that His return to us is anything but metaphorical or figurative: (Dan. 7:7-28, Zech. 14:1-20, Mt. 24:30-36, and chapter 25, Mk 13:26, 27, 32-37, Lk. 21:27, 34, Acts 1:6-7, 11, 1 Cor. 15:51-55, 1 Thess. 4:15-5:5, 2 Thess. 2:1-12, 2 Pet. 3:9-14, Rev. 19:11-21)
“There are many "comings" told of in the Bible and they do not all mean the bodily return of Christ, which will happen but will not be a forceful takeover.”
The Bible does not talk of many “comings” of Christ. It only speaks of three: His first coming, which has already happened, His return for His bride before the wrath of God is poured out on the earth (1 Cor. 15:51-55, 1 Thess. 4:15-17, Rev. 3:10) but another study and subject in and of itself, and then there is the second coming of Christ which will indeed be a forceful takeover and the following passages could not make that any more clear: (Dan. 7:7-28, Zech. 14:1-20, Mt. 24:22, 25:31-46, Rev. 19:11-21)
“Actually he reigns from Heaven until all enemies are footstools for his feet at which time he turns the kingdom over to the Father.”
That will be when this present universe passes away and when the new Heaven and earth are created as described in the book of Revelation: (Rev. 21-22)
“He is reigning through his church, the new Jerusalem.”
The Church is the New Jerusalem? Far from it. The Church was established by Christ here on earth but the New Jerusalem is an actual city created by God which will descend out of Heaven. (Rev. 21:20-chpt. 22)
“Why do you think the abomination of desolation is a man entering the temple to be worshipped?
Where does the text say the antichrist will stand in the temple? Why does it have to be cesaer?”
I have given you the scripture passages that make this clear twice before: 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
But I never said that the Anti-Christ was going to be a Roman emperor. You have already made that claim yourself but history in no way supports your views on this matter for reasons I am about to mention. My point is that the passages cited describe the abomination that causes desolation to be a man and nothing other than a man.
“The antichrist was Nero.”
He was an antichrist, but he was not the Anti-Christ. Nero may have claimed to be a god and demanded to be worshipped as such, but he did not defile the Jewish temple as the coming Anti-Christ will (2 Thess. 2:3-4) In fact, the destruction of that temple took place after his death.
Nero never had a false prophet serving him that we know of who was able to work marvelous signs and wonders to deceive the entire world as the Anti-Christ will (Rev. 13:11-14 ) and neither was he himself able perform supernatural acts himself. (2 Thess. 2:9-12)
He also never had an image of himself to which life was given as coming Anti-Christ will (Rev. 13:14-15)
And Nero never ruled the entire earth as the coming Anti-Christ will. (Rev. 13:7)
And most importantly, there was no record of Nero imposing a mark to be placed on the hand or forehead of his Roman subjects. (Rev. 13:16-17)
“There will never be another jewish temple built and a seal is placed on the land to prevent this.”
The land upon which this so-called seal is placed will not stop the Jewish people from putting in place another temple. The temple mount technically belong to the Jews in the first place, and therefore, they could forcibly put a temple in place any time they want to but have not done so due to international pressure, but now that we have a President here in America who has shown himself to be very supportive of Israel, that pressure can be expected to become lighter.
“Nero was actually called "a beast" by his own people.”
As would be applied to other oppressive tyrants. Nero was rightly called a beast but he was not “The Beast” mentioned by Daniel and in Revelation for reasons already mentioned.
“He was given power over the holy people to defeat them for the exact time mentioned in the text. It was the worst time the church ever faced or will face.”
Nero’s reign lasted longer that the short amount of time that the Anti-Christ is foretold to be given power to persecute God’s people and even today, there are members of the church around the world facing persecution every bit as severe as what the Christians faced under the reign of Nero, if not worse.
“It only makes sense to believe when Jesus said it will happen soon, and he said it many times, it happened soon. When Jesus said that generation will not pass away until these events take place, it makes sense to see that he was telling the truth.”
When the scripture refers to things happening “soon” as it relates to the fulfilling of prophecy that it is not “soon” in the sense that we would understand as also explained by the Apostle Peter, also going on to further explain why this present age continues to abide. (2 Pet. 3:9)
Jesus did mention some things that did take place in the generation that He was on the earth, but not everything foretold by Him happened in His generation and in particular, the signs preceding His return. Those are yet to come.
The generation amongst whom our Lord walked, as far as history is concerned, did not see:
The famines, pestilences, and earthquakes at the rate that we have witnessed nor within the various places that we see them happening. (Mt. 24:4-8, Lk. 21:11)
They did not hear of the wars and rumors of wars at the rate we do. (Mt. 24:4-8, Mk. 13:24-25, Lk. 21:9-10)
There were false teachers, false prophets, and even false Messiahs in their day, but there is even more so in our day than in theirs. (Mt. 24:11, 23-25, Mk. 13:21-22)
Wickedness is increased more today than it did in their day. (Mt. 24:12)
The stars did not fall from the sky in their day, nor did the sun grow dark, and the moon did not stop giving its light as the scriptures foretell will happen before Christ’s return. (Mt. 24:29, Mk. 13:24)
There is no record of that generation witnessing perplexing terrifying signs in the heavens that the scriptures foretell. (Lk. 21:11, 25) or the perplexing and fearful times foretold (Lk. 21:25-26) and those times foretold won’t be perilous for just Christians, but for all people.
And yet that generation, as far as history is concerned, passed away without seeing all the things taking place that Jesus said would take place that this present generation sees today. Furthermore some of the things that Jesus said would happen, this generation has not yet seen.
That being the case, the question has to be asked: What did Jesus mean by “this generation?”
The Gospel of John does provide some insight into how that generation amongst whom Jesus walked might still be preserved for the sake of fulfilling all that did not happen in their day:
“Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following…saith to Jesus, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (Jn. 21:23)
That passage does leave open the possibility that God could very well have kept a few representatives from that generation alive but in obscurity until the time comes for them to fulfill whatever purpose God has set them aside for.
That would be one way for the words of Jesus to be fulfilled who said that the generation amongst whom He lived would not pass away until all the things pertaining to this present age should come to pass. And all it would take would be just a handful of representatives from that generation to fulfill those words.
Dare to think that implausible when the passage just cited indicates such a possibility would be to say that God is of limited means to fulfill the words He has spoken.
“John who wrote Revelation never uses the word anti-christ” Daniel also does not talk of anti-christ.
But the title is still applied to the Beast seen in both the visions of Daniel and John. If you had a proper understanding of what this Beast represents and its nature, you would understand why the title of Anti-Christ is applied, though he is also called other things.
“…but talks of many anti-christs when he talks of anti-christ at all. there isn't just one really evil man.”
But there is a man of such evil to come so as to surpass the evil of all others before him.
“Well, everyone else calls is "Herod's temple" so I see no reason to change that name. Since you admit not much is known about the description of that temple, it cannot be logically eliminated from being the temple John was talking about. Interestingly enough, both men measured it. I see no reason to think this was not the temple Ezekiel saw as well. The measurements of Herods temple are not known according to you and the statement by Ezekiel regarding the people fits the beginning of the church. That was the goal that men would walk with God.
Can you please provide the descriptions that are magnificence? I only read mostly of measurements and while those are grand, they are in the end, just large. Again, since we do not know the measurments of Herod's temple, we cannot rule it out logically. But what are the magnificant descriptions you read?”
The size of the premises is not just grand, but massive and is not typical of any normal temple; not even the previous Jewish temples. The details of this temple are subject and a study in and of themselves and going into them now might take us outside the scope of this thread, but this I can gather is that what is described is not the likes of any known structure today or at any time in the past. All I can say is carefully study Ezekiel chapters 40-47 and explain how they could possibly apply to Herod's temple which was really just the post-exile temple that he renovated and remodeled.
Upvote
0
This simple quote explains it to me.
“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not
only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what
words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ”
― Miles Coverdale (1488-1569)
Upvote
0
timtams
Well-Known Member
I got into this thread late and didn't read some of the prior responses, until now.
I disagree there is no internal evidence. I just don't think the internal evidence that preterists use is good. The temple is clearly not Herod's, the beast is clearly not Nero. The visions were speaking of events in the future. So I agree with you there. But I think the descriptions of the heresies in Rev 2 and 3 describe a time in the 60s. Others are free to disagree, but that's my impression.
The evidence for Domitian seems weak to me. Irenaeus is ambiguous. Eusebius placed it late in Domitian's reign but Victorinus seems to have placed it early in his reign. And that's the evidence. But since the visions were future, nothing much hangs on it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I agree with you. There's this internal evidence (for example):
Linked article from Bible Study Tools said:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 13, 2019
- 2,615
- 370
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Understand that what I meant by internal evidence had to do with evidence from within the scriptures themselves, but when it comes down to it, whether the Apostle John was exiled to the Island of Patmos under the reign of Nero or Domitian is much ado about nothing as far as whether or not the time when he was exiled there supports the preterist position. It doesn't appear to either help or harm that doctrine.
Even if John had been exiled to Patmos before the destruction of the post-exile temple, also known as the Herod’s temple due to his involvement in its remodeling and renovations, the visions he received could have just as easily come to him sometime after the destruction of the temple as they could have shortly before.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
