Days Of Noah

Hämmster said:

Right. But that’s the end of the old covenant.

Click to expand...

You keep saying that it is about the end of the Old Covenant. That seems the be the foundational piece of your argument. Regrading specific statements like "End of the Age" and "this age" vs "the age to come," what evidence do you have that these terms are about the Christian vs the Jewish age rather than the the current age of the millennium vs the eternal state age. Since this is so foundational, I would like to hear your case for it.

Love First said:

Are you a partial preterist?

Click to expand...

All Christians are Preterists.
We only vary by degree.

BuildingApologetics said:

You keep saying that it is about the end of the Old Covenant. That seems the be the foundational piece of your argument. Regrading specific statements like "End of the Age" and "this age" vs "the age to come," what evidence do you have that these terms are about the Christian vs the Jewish age rather than the the current age of the millennium vs the eternal state age. Since this is so foundational, I would like to hear your case for it.

Click to expand...

I'll take a stab at it... But I'm not going to address your presupposition that we are in "the current age of the millennium" until and unless you supply your evidence for that claim first. Then I will respond.

Per your query, Here's my reasoning for understanding the "this age" in scripture is the Jewish age, and the "age to come" the Christian Age:

The Bible teaches clearly that Jesus and His apostles were living in the "Last Days" and the "End of the Age". (Acts 2:14-21,Hebrews 1:1-2,Hebrews 9:26,1 Corinthians 10:11,Jude 1:17-18, 1 John 2:18 to name but a few examples)
This fact does not seem to be in dispute in this thread.

Many today teach that we too are living in the "Last Days" and the "End of the age" and have been for 2000 years.

To test this teaching against scripture, we must first ascertain if indeed we today are living in the same "age" as Jesus and the apostles were.

The NT speaks of only 2 specific ages. "This age" and the "Age to come".

"This Age" was the age Jesus and His apostles lived in, the "age to come" or more precisely "the age ABOUT to come", was an age future to the apostles. As of the penning of scripture, it had yet to arrive, but, according to Jesus and the Apostles, it was, quite literally, "about to be".

All references to the "time of the End, end of the age, Last Days, Last hour, etc.." refer to the end of the age described in scripture as "This age". "The age to come" (which is the only age that follows "this age") is an age without end. It is Everlasting, and therefore can have no "Last Days".

It's quite simple to show that we today are living in an age beyond the "this age" of scripture, and since the only age that follows the "this age" of scripture is the "Age to come", that must be the age we reside in.

Scripture knows nothing of any "Age between" "this age" and the "age to come".

William Bell put it this way:

According to some, the present age of scripture is the Christian age. Many writers express this viewpoint largely because they see the "age to come" as heaven. Their futuristic view of the return of Christ is the basis for viewing the scriptures per above.

We believe that there are serious exegetical problems with making the "present age" of scripture the Christian age. The difficulties of such a view only multiply when the "age to come" is viewed as a yet future entrance into heaven at an alleged future return of Christ.

In the Galatian letter, Paul, speaking of Christ writes, "Who gave himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (Galatians 1:4). Of primary importance is the fact that Christ died for "our" [the Jews] sins. Secondly, he died to deliver the saints from the "present age." Third, the apostle describes the present age as "evil."

First, if the "present age" is the Christian age as alleged by the futurists, then it is the age ushered in by Christ's death and resurrection. The present age would find its beginning on Pentecost and belong to the gospel dispensation. It is here that we must raise the first red flag. If the present age is the Christian age, then Christ died to deliver the saints from the age which he came to establish.

Further, this means that the age which Christ came to establish (the Christian age) was no more effective than the Jewish age in which men previously lived. Consider this. Paul writes, "Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not. For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law" (Galatians 3:21). So, life could not be achieved in the Jewish age, hence the need to deliver the Jews from it (Romans 7:6).

However, since it is argued by some that life is not achieved in the Christian age, then Paul should likewise have written the following: Is the gospel then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a gospel given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the gospel. According to the futurists, they were in the gospel age. According to Paul, they were yet through the Spirit eagerly awaiting the hope of righteousness (Galatians 5:5). Therefore, there was no advantage of the gospel (Christian age) over the law with respect to achieving the hope of life/righteousness.

Secondly, it means that Christ died to deliver the church from an age which did not then exist at the time of his death. As a matter of fact, not even the church existed. Christ had to die to bring the church into existence. Then he had to create an age in which to place the church so he could immediately begin to deliver them out of it! He allegedly takes them out of the Jewish age at his death, only to place them in an age from which they yet must be delivered. No doubt this was a great tribulation for the church. All that slinging around and movement from age to age made them quite dizzy to say the least!

A further complication to this matter is the fact that Christ taught through inspiration that their deliverance from the "present age" was "at hand" and "coming in a little while" (James 5:7-9; Hebrews 10:37). This must be the case since deliverance from the age is accomplished at the return of Christ. However since the traditionalist futuristic viewpoint alleges that these time statements are "elastic" and "relative," then Christ was merely "pulling their leg" with those "I come quickly" rubberband time statements. Generations have come and gone and are still going and going like the Duracell battery and yet there is no deliverance from the "present evil age."

A more ridiculous picture of scripture trifling and chicanery could not be made of the redemptive-historic, glorious work of Christ. Consider this scenario. A bodyshop repairman offers to replace your broken windshield. The only problem is that the windshield is not broken. Advising the repairman of this fact, he then responds by smashing the windshield with a hammer and saying, "It is now"!

This corresponds somewhat with the plight of the new covenant saints. Christ died, per the traditionalists, and ended the law (Jewish age) at the cross. Therefore, on their terms, no one was in it. According to Galatians, Christ also died to deliver them from the present evil age, an age which he had to create, place the saints into, then like the repairman above, offer to deliver them out of it. Would it not have been easier for the repairman never to have broken the windshield? Would it also not have been easier for Christ never to have made an age from which the saints immediately needed deliverance?

A third problem in making the "present age" the Christian age, is the absurdity it makes of the defection of Demas. "For Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present age, and has departed for Thessalonica-Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia," (2 Timothy 4:10). What was so evil about the "present age" (if in fact it is the Christian age) that loving it can be termed as apostasy? Is Christ the minister of Sin? God Forbid! If Demas forsook Paul for the present age (alleged Christian age) then in what age did that leave Paul? Not the Jewish age if it passed away at the cross. Not the "age to come," since it is argued to be yet future.

Can we attribute the present age to which Demas apostatized as the age which Christ came to establish? Does not this passage show clearly that the gospel which Paul held firmly till his death (2 Timothy 4:6-8) did not belong to the "present age" of scripture? What a bind we all are in today if loving the Christian age is apostasy.

Fourth, if the "present age" is the gospel dispensation, then the apostles did not speak the wisdom that belonged to the gospel age. "However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing" (1 Corinthians 2:6). Not only could they not speak the wisdom of this age, but God apparently gave the authority to the gospel age to some other than the apostles.

Who are these "rulers" of "this age"? Paul clearly identifies them as those who in ignorance crucified the Lord of glory. Compare this with Peter's words in Acts. "Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers" (Acts 3:17). See also v.14. Peter calls those who crucified the Lord of glory his Jewish brethren and their rulers. These are the Jews. The rulers were none other than the chief priests, elders, and sanhedrin council. Did Christ die to deliver the Jews from the law, only to create a new age subjecting it to the law-zealous rulers of the old age? Perhaps now we can understand why Judaism was such a problem in the church. God cut off the Jewish age at the cross only to make the Jewish rulers who crucified Christ the rulers of the gospel age.

Now how can any man believe that these Jewish rulers who crucified Christ were rulers of the Christian age? They were yet ruling the age at the time of Paul's writing for he says they were coming to nothing. I suppose they would come to nothing when their age no longer existed. They would no longer have any realm in which to rule. If the Jewish age ended at the cross, why are they yet ruling the age?

Apparently there was quite a conflict, for Paul and the church wrestled with these rulers. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). "This age" is characterized as both "evil" and "darkness." That does not sound like the age Christ came to establish. Such is the self-contradictory and unwarranted consequences of making the "present age" of scripture the Christian age.

I agree with Bell, and since The "present age" of scripture came before the "Christian age", then the Christian age can only be the "age to come" of scripture, for according to scripture the "age to come" is the only age that follows "this age".

The Gospel is everlasting, so is the Gospel age.

We are living beyond the Biblical end times.

jeffweedaman said:

What is in view is a global event not a localized one.

Lk 21
34 “Be on guard, so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap; 35 for it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth. 36 But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”


Matt 24
21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. What Jesus was prophesying about in Matthew 24:35-39 is the same thing Peter prophesied about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 and the scope of the destruction that will accompany Christ's future second coming is clearly global. While Jesus did prophesy about events that ended up occurring in 70 AD, He also prophesied about His future second coming and events related to that event as well. Both futurists and preterists miss this.

Spiritual Jew said:

Absolutely agree. What Jesus was prophesying about in Matthew 24:35-39 is the same thing Peter prophesied about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 and the scope of the destruction that will accompany Christ's future second coming is clearly global.

Click to expand...

Was this Past fulfilled Judgment coming of God at the Battlefield victory of David over Saul, and accompanying destruction, clearly Global or clearly Local?

God Comes to End Saul's Kingdom - 1000 BC
Then the earth shook and quaked, the foundations of heaven were trembling and were shaken, because He was angry. Smoke went up out of His nostrils, fire from His mouth devoured; coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. And He rode on a cherub and flew; And He appeared on the wings of the wind. And He made darkness canopies around Him, a mass of waters, thick clouds of the sky. From the brightness before Him coals of fire were kindled. The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered His voice. And He sent out arrows, and scattered them, Lightning, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were laid bare by the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of His nostrils. (2 Sam 22:8-16)

Clearly Global or Clearly Local?

jeffweedaman said:

What is in view is a global event not a localized one.

Click to expand...

And what is in view in my post #72 Above ?

A Global or Localized event?

Lk 21
34 “Be on guard, so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap; 35 for it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth. 36 But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

Click to expand...

So based on how you view that, you would also say every human on earth were eyewitnesses to this event:
Isaiah 52:10 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations;

I wonder if you might give us the date and time that God's Physical Arm was seen be every eye of every human in every nation on earth, as Isaiah claims it was.

Surely such a monumental, globally observable event of the actual arm of God being witnessed by every eye of every human in every nation would be recorded in ALL the history books, letters and writings from every civilization from around the entire world during that time period, no?

27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Click to expand...

I've always found this to be the absolute strangest "proof text" that gets trotted out in support of a global, not local event, since Lightning is always localized, and Christ himself testifies that the coming of the son of man would be "just as" lightning, which again, is always a localized atmospheric phenomenon.

parousia70 said:

I'll take a stab at it... But I'm not going to address your presupposition that we are in "the current age of the millennium" until and unless you supply your evidence for that claim first. Then I will respond.

Click to expand...

I should say for the record that I agree with a good amount of things that you stated. I mentioned the millennium because most preterists I know believe we are in the millennium. Either way, it is tangential to the discussion, so Il save that for another time.

Regarding this age and the age to come, I would not say that "this age" started at pentacost or anywhere in the first century. It traces all the way back to the fall. That's why it can be described as the present evil age. I agree with you that there is no in-between period between "this age" and "the age to come".
I take the last days to include the last days of "this age", namely the church age portion of "this age". I also take End of the Age to probably refer to the extreme edge of the "this age," right before Christ returns.

parousia70 said:

"This Age" was the age Jesus and His apostles lived in, the "age to come" or more precisely "the age ABOUT to come", was an age future to the apostles. As of the penning of scripture, it had yet to arrive, but, according to Jesus ad the Apostles, it was "about to be".

Click to expand...

I don't know about the term "age about to come". That's not the terminology Jesus uses, so I think we should stick with "age to come". As of both the preaching of Jesus and the writing of the NT, the "age to come" was not here. Agreed

parousia70 said:

All references to the "time of the End, end of the age, Last Days, Last hour, etc.." refer to the end of the age described in scripture as "This age". "The age to come" (which is the only age that follows "this age") is an age without end. It is Everlasting, and therefore can have no "Last Days".

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily see these as being equated in scripture. I don't want to hand wave over this sort of thing, so maybe you could provide your evidence that the last days = the Time of the End = End of the Age.

parousia70 said:

It's quite simple to show that we today are living in an age beyond the "this age" of scripture, and since the only age that follows the "this age" of scripture is the "Age to come", that must be the age we reside in.

Click to expand...

This is the key point of disagreement. I don't think "this age" has ended yet.

parousia70 said:

According to some, the present age of scripture is the Christian age. Many writers express this viewpoint largely because they see the "age to come" as heaven. Their futuristic view of the return of Christ is the basis for viewing the scriptures per above.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as heaven; I see it as a new earth. The eternal state.

parousia70 said:

We believe that there are serious exegetical problems with making the "present age" of scripture the Christian age.

Click to expand...

Agreed. That's why I don't believe "this age" = the church age.

parousia70 said:

In the Galatian letter, Paul, speaking of Christ writes, "Who gave himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (Galatians 1:4). Of primary importance is the fact that Christ died for "our" [the Jews] sins. Secondly, he died to deliver the saints from the "present age." Third, the apostle describes the present age as "evil."

Click to expand...

"Our" cannot be taken as [Jews] in this context. Paul is including himself and the Jewish and gentile Galatians who are falling into the hands of the unbelieving Jews. I'm interested in hearing about what "delivery" for Christians occurred in 70 AD. I would also argue he calls it evil because sin is still in our world. This is evidence that we are still in the present evil age.

parousia70 said:

First, if the "present age" is the Christian age as alleged by the futurists, then it is the age ushered in by Christ's death and resurrection. The present age would find its beginning on Pentecost and belong to the gospel dispensation. It is here that we must raise the first red flag. If the present age is the Christian age, then Christ died to deliver the saints from the age which he came to establish.

Click to expand...

Well, good thing that's not my view then. Jesus talked about the "present age" before the church was founded, so it cannot be limited to the church age. The apostles talked about the "present age" after the church was founded, so it cannot exclude the church age.
He came to deliver us from the age that started with Adam, and He will do so at His second coming.

parousia70 said:

However, since it is argued by some that life is not achieved in the Christian age, then Paul should likewise have written the following: Is the gospel then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a gospel given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the gospel. According to the futurists, they were in the gospel age. According to Paul, they were yet through the Spirit eagerly awaiting the hope of righteousness (Galatians 5:5). Therefore, there was no advantage of the gospel (Christian age) over the law with respect to achieving the hope of life/righteousness.

Click to expand...

This again assumes a view I do not have. Basically almost all of the rest of his arguments are based off of the faulty view that "this age" = the church age. Since I don't have that view, I'm going to skip all of the arguments based on that premise.

parousia70 said:

A further complication to this matter is the fact that Christ taught through inspiration that their deliverance from the "present age" was "at hand" and "coming in a little while" (James 5:7-9; Hebrews 10:37).

Click to expand...

This does not mention the ages. It only mentions the coming being at hand. We can discuss this in more detail if you would like.

parousia70 said:

However since the traditionalist futuristic viewpoint alleges that these time statements are "elastic" and "relative," then Christ was merely "pulling their leg" with those "I come quickly" rubberband time statements. Generations have come and gone and are still going and going like the Duracell battery and yet there is no deliverance from the "present evil age."

Click to expand...

This is one of the larger inconsistencies of preterism. It takes an incredibly literal stance on the time statements to make everything else figurative. Why should we reinterpret the large group in light of the small? I think it is much easier to hand wave away a few time statements as figurative than entire swaths of the Old and New Testaments.

So given the amount of space this individual spends knocking down a strawman, it seems we are left with basically two arguments thus far.
1) Time statements that Christ is about to come
2) The argument that "the age to come" should be translated as "the age about to come". You still need to provide evidence that this is the case.

Are there are any other arguments that "this age" refers to the Jewish age? If I am missing something, let me know.

parousia70 said:

More unbiblical hyper- literalization to prop up your bias.

Explain to me how it was the last days in the year 1263 please.

or 1721

or 842?

The biblical last days are not 2000 years long. And you cannot find anywhere in the text that teaches any such thing. It is a an unbiblical invention of men.

As for Daniel 11, “ever was and ever shall be” again more unbiblical hyper literalization by you that directly opposes scriptural teaching.

Scripture tells us in 1 Kings 3:12 that there was "no king like Solomon before or after him." Such statements are then repeated in 2 Kings 18:5-6 of Hezekiah and in 2 Kings 23:25 of Josiah. Obviously, they can't all be the greatest King there ever was nor ever shall be. (And, of course, Jesus Christ surpasses even Solomon -- Matthew 12:42). Furthermore, this same Old Testament idea of "never will be again" is employed of various judgments that have already been fulfilled such as locusts in Egypt (Ex. 10:12-15; cf. Joel 1:1-4), a cry in Egypt (Ex. 11:6), and judgment upon O.T. Israel (Ez. 5:9; Joel 2:2). The Ezekiel 5:9 passage is especially instructive to us, for it states that the Babylonian conquest of Israel (sixth-century BC) would be the greatest judgment God had ever brought upon a nation, past or future.

So, scripturally speaking, there have been MANY "greatest that ever was nor ever shall be" Judgment events.

That said, AD 66-70 was indeed the greatest Day-of-the-Lord event in Israel's history, and was, unquestionably, the one Christ's followers spoke of mere decades before it transpired. This was the same Day of the Lord concerning which the apostles stated they would remain alive unto its passing (1 Thessalonians 5:2-4,23; Philippians 1:6,10; Hebrews 10:25,36-39; 1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 1 Corinthians 5:5). Due to the covenantal significance of the event, that Day of the Lord's vengeance (cf. Luke 21:20-22; Isa 61:2; Jer 46:10) can never be repeated.

That bears repeating.

Due to the covenantal significance of the event, that Day of the Lord's vengeance (cf. Luke 21:20-22; Isaiah 61:2; Jeremiah 46:10) can never be repeated.

There is no equal to the level of devastation millions of Messiah-rejecting Jews endured as they were violently excommunicated out of covenant with God when He came and destroyed them, on time, as prophesied. (Matthew 21:40-45; Acts 3:22-24).

You’re reading someone else’s mail and making the mistake in believing it was written TO you.

You should be Kingdom building, sure in the belief of the unstoppable victory of the Church in this age, not retreating, believing and teaching the Church is going to fail.

Click to expand...

Revelation is not about the churches failure, nor Israel of 70AD. If God's greatest day ever of judgment against Jerusalem was by Nebuchadnezzar, then 70AD was not a judgment by God at all. Israel was already judged by God, and never completely recovered, because they ceased being a nation 500 years before Christ. That is when God set up the order of Governments until the church would overcome the 10 toes. 70AD was only as noticeable as Antiochus Epiphanies, and less so. They still celebrate Hanukkah thousands of years later. Antiochus Epiphanies is more remembered than 70AD. There is no celebration of that defeat, unless 1948 and 1967 count, because that is how long it took to recover from 70AD. Even the 70 years in Babylonian captivity was God's mercy, and a small restoration until Christ and the Cross. Yet the Cross was the Last Day of the OT. Why take the emphasis of the Cross and give it to an event that did not even make it into God's Word except, that those who heard Jesus' warning, escaped death for a few years, when the Romans approached months before 70AD?

70AD, God was building the NT church. Israel literally crucified itself in 70AD for the sins of their fathers. To apply Revelation to physical events in 70AD is taking all the glory from Christ and the Second Coming that is about to happen at the end of the church age. From the Cross until now has been God's church. If God wanted 70AD to be part of a growing church for 1991 years, it would have been clearly spelled out and it would have been noted by the church as part of the church.

All this theology is just Satan's method of getting humans to think the Second Coming was over with in the first century. The church need not prepare for the Second Coming that is about to happen. Revelation is just a dream that has no earthly application for the present church. More than 3 times now it has been declared in this thread that Revelation is not about the here and now. May as well just tell the church to go back to sleep, no need to be wise virgins prepared and ready for the coming judgment of God on an apostate church.

If you think that the first century religious people had it bad in their generation, how do you think the church of today will fair, knowing way more about God from His Word, than those in 70AD? Where much is given, much will be required.

BuildingApologetics said:

I should say for the record that I agree with a good amount of things that you stated

Click to expand...

Cool. Always good to start with the areas of agreement

1) Time statements that Christ is about to come

Click to expand...

There are over 100 of them in the New Testament. Can you point to any other Biblical teaching that is mentioned over 100 times in the NT that you likewise doubt the veracity of? or is this the only one?

The argument that "the age to come" should be translated as "the age about to come". You still need to provide evidence that this is the case.

Click to expand...

Let’s connect the dots.
These are all from young’s literal translation:

Acts 17:31
because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.'

I trust you’d agree that the judgement of of the world by Christ in inaugurates the “age to come”? And here we are told that event was “about to” happen..

Here as well:

• Acts 24:25

• and he reasoning concerning righteousness, and temperance, and the judgment that is about to be, Felix, having become afraid, answered, `For the present be going, and having got time, I will call for thee;'

I also trust you would assert that the resurrection of the dead likewise inaugurates the age to come:
Acts 24:15
having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, [that] there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous;

There is also this passage contrasting the present suffering (in this present age) with the glory “about to be” revealed
Romans 8:18

1. For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be revealed in us;

2 Timothy 4:1
I do fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation and his reign

1 Peter 5:1

1. Elders who [are] among you, I exhort, who [am] a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of the Christ, and of the glory about to be revealed a partaker,

Revelation 3:10`Because thou didst keep the word of my endurance, I also will keep thee from the hour of the trial that is about to come upon all the world, to try those dwelling upon the earth.

All of these “about to be” texts are literal translations of the original inspired Greek texts that use the word “Mello” which means to be on the point of doing or suffering something, literally “to be about it be”.

And in all of these texts, you position is presumably that, no, none of these events were “about to” take place when the text was written, even though that’s what the text literally testifies.

Again, if you can point to any other biblical teaching used over and over and over like this one that you likewise doubt, I’d be keen to learn about it.

Hämmster said:

Second coming? No. On the clouds? Yes.

Click to expand...

So the church left in 70AD. How did the church start up again?

BuildingApologetics said:

Now I agree with you that the last days will be very evil, but I think it is a mistake to use this passage to prove it. Analogies can be only taken so far. Consider a similar example:

Matthew 12:40: For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Now, I have heard Muslim apologists argue that Jesus never died because Jonah never died. After all, Jesus said it would be "just as Jonah". So are we to infer that Jesus was alive in the tomb because Jonah was alive in the fish? No! We only take analogies as far as Jesus explains. The point of the analogy is not that everything will be the same, but that Christ would be in the tomb for 3 days. You are making the exact same error with Matthew 24.

Jesus clearly expresses his point that it will be like the days of Noah in the limited sense: the end will come unexpectedly upon people. You can't take analogy too far. Only as far as the person explains it. If "just as" the days of Noah implies everything will be the same, then "just as" Jonah implies everything will be the same.

Like I said, I agree that the world will be wicked and depraved, but this is not the verse to prove it.

Click to expand...

It was not the same as Jonah especially the sign. Nineveh repented and was spared judgment. Would that the Jews repented in sackcloth and ashes, and Jerusalem would have been the new Rome, literally. The church now, could also repent in sackcloth and ashes, and the whole world spared judgment. Yet it seems no preterist are proclaiming that message. They seem to think magic will save the world. It will all just evolve into a majority kingdom.

parousia70 said:

The Gospel is everlasting, so is the Gospel age.

We are living beyond the Biblical end times.

Click to expand...

The whole church age from the Cross until now is beyond the OT end times. There was no intermediate age between the Cross and 70AD. The claim Revelation is about 70AD, creates a false intermediate age, not the Bible itself. Revelation covers the Second Half of Messiah being cut off, because Messiah was literally cut off. The full 70th week was never realized. 70AD did not complete the 70th week, because that would also end the fullness of the Gentiles which most associate the church as being. The church is all of the OT and NT humanity who by faith accepted the Atonement as God's plan to redeem humanity from Adam's condition. The condition of being both physically and spiritually dead.

The law and the prophets addressed the OT part, until the Messiah would die on the Cross. Now that the physical was accomplished, the spiritual act would be in the office of the Holy Spirit more physically than what was allowed in the OT. All humans, even Gentiles had access to the power of the Holy Spirit, not just priest and prophets. Still many were not discipled by the church to that effect, because the church went into the direction of earthly government, just like the ancient Hebrews clamored for an earthly kingdom. The rest is history, until the Reformation shattered Daniel's image of earthly kingdoms.

The claim that the church shattered it in 70AD and the ten toes were destroyed when Jerusalem was also does not fit. The church was planted and strong in the first century, but the church had a long way to go in hindsight, that obviously was not proclaimed by the Apostles. They were not confused. They just had a burning faith that it would all be over soon. When it was not over by the 3rd century, the spiritual darkness gave way to a church that became a false government like the false kingdom of Israel stifled the ability to be a great Nation.

Some could point out that Britain though a tiny spot on a map, became a great Nation and influenced the entire world. But even that tiny kingdom would not last forever.

We have been in the church age for 1991 years, and 70AD was the judgment of and by the Jews, because they cried that day, that they and their children would bare the punishment of crucifying an innocent person. Matthew 27:25

25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”