Which of these eschatology houses will get washed away suddenly?

parousia70 said:

Scripture is abundantly clear that the Mosaic Law was still in effect long after the crusifixion and resurrection:

Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The writer of Hebrews is clear. The Old covenant, the Law of Moses, was at the time the book was penned several decades AFTER the cross, was in a state of "Growing old" and "Becoming obsolete", but had not yet vanished as you assert.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is abundantly clear that the old covenant was NOT still in effect after the crucifixion and resurrection. It is also abundantly clear that the new covenant was put into effect by the blood of Christ. Don't even try to deny that unless you want me to call you a heretic. So, since Christ's blood established the new covenant and put it into effect, how in the world could the old covenant still be in effect at the same time as the new covenant? That's utter nonsense.

Did you read the verse you quoted carefully? It's actually a bad translation of the verse because it first says "He has made the first obsolete", with "the first" obviously referring to the old covenant but then it says "Now what is becoming obsolete". Huh? Make up your mind, Bible translator. Was it made obsolete or becoming obsolete? I think this translation of the verse is more accurate:

Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Notice how this version of the verse doesn't contradict itself like the translation you quoted does. This says that the old covenant was made obsolete. If something is obsolete it is not still in effect. When it says it would soon disappear that just means any traces of it, such as the temple buildings that were still standing at the time, were soon to disappear.

The following passage makes it abundantly clear that the old covenant ceremonial laws were no longer in effect after Christ's death.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

How much more clear can this be? The "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" is an obvious reference to the cumbersome old covenant ceremonial Mosaic laws.

Also, it seems that you don't understand the significance of the veil of the temple tearing in two. That symbolized that the old covenant and its animal sacrifices and rituals had come to an end. Right then and there.

1 Corinthians 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Paul is also clear that in the 50's AD, there were still Jews who were "under the Law", which poses a real problem for folks who would say no one was under the law at that time.

Click to expand...

They foolishly put themselves under the law, but that doesn't mean the law was still in effect. They were wrong for thinking so, just like you are wrong for thinking it was still in effect at that time. Read Galatians 3 where Paul skewers believers who were still performing works of the law and called them foolish for doing that.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Does that look like something that a person who thought the old covenant law was still in effect would say? No way! Not a chance.

The Temple being destroyed was physical confirmation of the spiritual reality of Jews being excommunicated out of Covenant with God, but it's destruction was punishment metered out by the provisions of the Mosaic Law, (Deuteronomy 18) therefore the Mosaic Law was required to be in effect and functioning, otherwise God is shown to be unjust because He would be metering out a covenantal punishment upon people who are not bound by the terms of the covenant.

Thankfully, God is Just, and the Jews of 66-70AD were under the Law and thus subject to it's consiquences for not following it. The Law ended with the temple's destruction, not at the cross.

Click to expand...

That is false as I have already shown. You are undermining the work of Christ on the cross by saying this! His blood established the new covenant and put an end to the old covenant. The idea of both covenant being in effect at the same time is completely ludicrous.

Finally, If you Believe the Law is over, you must also believe this is now fulfilled, and Sin has no power today:
1 Cor 15:54-56
"then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up -- to victory; Where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O HADES is thy victory?' And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW

Indeed, All those who have a healthy appreciation for the cost of the New Covenant bought by Christ in His blood ought agree.

Click to expand...

More nonsense. That is not talking about the old covenant ceremonial laws. You're not differentiating between God's eternal moral law, which is summed up by the two greatest commandments (love God and love your neighbor) and the old covenant ceremonial law, which is what was done away with at the cross.

Spiritual Jew said:

This verse shows that the context of Genesis 8:21 is that God would never destroy the earth again with a flood and not that He would never destroy the earth again at all.

Click to expand...

I've said this to you before, but apparently it needs repeating.

So you claim God is a manufacturer of loopholes and get-arounds?
I vehemently disagree.
I believe God is deliberate and trustworthy and does not mislead his people by placing little loopholes in His promises so He can later do exactly the opposite of what He promised..

God said, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake”
“Never again curse the ground...”

Do You simply spiritualize that away into meaningless Arglebargle?
Or, can God be trusted to mean what he says?

Wasn't that supposed to be a COMFORTING promise?

Are we Human beings supposed to find Comfort in the fact that God would never again destroy the world "with a flood", and instead he'll do it with an unquenchable Fire?

"Hey, Noah...Let me send your Dove back with a nice olive branch, and oh, by the way, here's a lovely, beautiful Rainbow to remind you that I Promise to SCORCH the earth into pile of smoke and ashes next time I wipe everyone out...since, you know, The Flood was a one time deal."

... Really?

There is no comfort in hearing you'll burn instead of drown..

I believe the promise to never again destroy the world was not simply a promise, caveat, loophole and get around, to just use a different, more heinous method of destruction "next time", rather I maintain it was indeed a promise of COMFORT, truly, to "NEVER AGAIN Curse the ground for Man's Sake" - which rules out a future global Fire from God... (IF we have faith that God is a trustworthy Promise KEEPER that is)

In order to make scripture fit your view you have to redact, cut out or completely disregard the myriad of scripture that teaches the earth and material cosmos will exist forever (Ecc 1:4; Ps 78:69; 89:36-37; 104:5; 148:4-6; Eph 3:21) and that human generations are unending and perpetual (Ps 145:13; Dan 4:3,34; Dan 7:14,18,27; Lk 1:33) and that God PROMISED to NEVER AGAIN Curse the Ground for the sake of Man. (Genesis 8:21)

I need no such gymnastics... I let scripture conform my view.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

As for the rest below, I'm sure God has a million times a million times infinity ways He is able to do things, but the fact of the matter is, He has chosen to do this the way Peter has told us He is going to do things.

Click to expand...

I understand that and certainly agree that God could do it any number of ways if He wanted. But, it does seem to me that scripture would tell us how He will do it. And I don't see any other place in scripture where it tells us how He will do that (rid the earth of wicked things once and for all) except for passages like 2 Peter 3 where it says He will burn it all up. I'd like to know how people who don't take 2 Peter 3 literally think God will do that.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

copy @sovereigngrace

You flatly ignore the fact that in Matthew 24 the whole passage is joined together from verse Matthew 24:9 onward by the words (translated from the Greek words correctly) "and", "but", "wherefore/therefore", "because", "for" etc,

which makes it absolutely impossible for the reader who is being intellectually honest with himself to view Matthew 24:9 and the verses following, as talking about the same tribulation of the Jews that Luke is talking about clearly and unambiguously in Luke 21:20-24, where Luke uses the words distress and wrath, making it 100% clear that the distress of the people he is talking about is coming upon them as a result of God's wrath coming upon them. Luke does not even use the word tribulation in those verses.

But Matthew opens his record of the Lord's Olivet Discourse by talking about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:9, and joining the entire passage together using the words I mentioned above, so that the context of Matthew 24:32-39 is the tribulation to be experienced by the disciples of Jesus at the time of the coming of the Son of Man.

Just as the reader of Luke 21:20-24, knowing the history, has to be totally intellectually dishonest with himself in order to assume that Luke is talking about any other group other than the Jews who would be around in Judea and Jerusalem in A.D 70, so the reader of Matthew 24:9-39 has to be totally intellectually dishonest with himself in order to assume that Matthew's record of the Olivet Discourse is talking about any other group other than the disciples of Jesus that were to face the tribulation being mentioned in Matthew's record of the Olivet Discourse.

Click to expand...

I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts anymore?

Lying to get your point across not a good look, and does your position no favors in the eyes of our readers.

You might benefit from blocking me, so you will no longer be tempted to go back on your word, which demonstrably, is not much of a bond.

parousia70 said:

I've said this to you before, but apparently it needs repeating.

So you claim God is a manufacturer of loopholes and get-arounds?
I vehemently disagree.
I believe God is deliberate and trustworthy and does not mislead his people by placing little loopholes in His promises so He can later do exactly the opposite of what He promised..

Click to expand...

You are trying to get around the context with your nonsensical loopholes and get-arounds argument. Genesis 9:11 gives us the context of Genesis 8:21. It's as simple as that. If you want to make things convoluted and ignore the context, that's your choice.

God said, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake”
“Never again curse the ground...”

Do You simply spiritualize that away into meaningless Arglebargle?
Or, can God be trusted to mean what he says?

Click to expand...

He meant what He said and Genesis 9:11 gives us the context of what He was saying in Genesis 8:21. You choose to ignore that because of doctrinal bias. So be it.

Wasn't that supposed to be a COMFORTING promise?

Are we Human beings supposed to find Comfort in the fact that God would never again destroy the world "with a flood", and instead he'll do it with an unquenchable Fire?

"Hey, Noah...Let me send your Dove back with a nice olive branch, and oh, by the way, here's a lovely, beautiful Rainbow to remind you that I Promise to SCORCH the earth into pile of smoke and ashes next time I wipe everyone out...since, you know, The Flood was a one time deal."

... Really?

There is no comfort in hearing you'll burn instead of drown..

I believe the promise to never again destroy the world was not simply a promise, caveat, loophole and get around, to just use a different, more heinous method of destruction "next time", rather I maintain it was indeed a promise of COMFORT, truly, to "NEVER AGAIN Curse the ground for Man's Sake" - which rules out a future global Fire from God... (IF we have faith that God is a trustworthy Promise KEEPER that is)

In order to make scripture fit your view you have to redact, cut out or completely disregard the myriad of scripture that teaches the earth and material cosmos will exist forever (Ecc 1:4; Ps 78:69; 89:36-37; 104:5; 148:4-6; Eph 3:21) and that human generations are unending and perpetual (Ps 145:13; Dan 4:3,34; Dan 7:14,18,27; Lk 1:33) and that God PROMISED to NEVER AGAIN Curse the Ground for the sake of Man. (Genesis 8:21)
I
I need no such gymnastics... I let scripture conform my view.

Click to expand...

You are talking to me as if I believe that God will annihilate the earth. No, that isn't what I believe and I'm pretty sure I have told you this before, so I'm not the only one who is forgetting what the other has said before. I believe the entire SURFACE of the earth will be burned up and renewed just as the entire surface of the earth was affected by the flood. When scripture talks about the meek inheriting the earth I believe it's saying they will inherit the (new, renewed) earth forever.

Spiritual Jew said:

I'd like to know how people who don't take 2 Peter 3 literally think God will do that.

Click to expand...

It's because scripture testifies the opposite.
Scripture tis clear that Sin and Death exist forever. They are NEVER eradicated. The Unrepentant will NEVER be free from Sin and Death. They will NEVER share in Christ's Victory.

Victory over Sin and Death is only and ever for those IN CHRIST.

Since we who are in Christ have Already come into the New Jerusalem City (Hebrews 12:22), and the as yet unrepentant are already here on earth, "outside the gates of the city, practicing their Lies", we can know Revelation 22:14 is describing a present reality.

As is Revelation 22:2
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

If we say this is describing a time when all things have already been made anew, then there would be no nation still in need of "healing", however the text is clear, the nations, at this point, are in need of healing and the leaves of the tree are here for that purpose, which again cements this as a present reality. The leaves of the tree are, at this moment, healing the nations. And they can not fail (Matthew 16:18)

Likewise Revelation 22:17
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

The only people who thirst are the as yet unsaved, who have yet to drink the water of life, for "one drink and ye shall never thirst again" (John 4:14, John 6:35)
Again, this is clearly a PRESENT REALITY.

sovereigngrace said:

Preterists make much of phrases like “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near.” They use these to support their belief that Jesus has already come, the last day has already occurred and that we are now living in the new heavens and new earth.

The mistake they make is that they always interpret these from man’s standpoint and thus get confused as to their meaning. Of course, from man’s outlook these terms would normally suggest that something is just around the corner. But such terms are totally relative. We should always remember, the Bible speaks in God’s time. God’s near, quickly or shortly are completely different from man’s perspective. God’s soon is not always our soon. Our knowledge of biblical truth, our awareness of the context in question, a study of the meaning and usage of the original Greek words, and our ascertaining whether something is being explained from man’s finite viewpoint or God’s eternal perspective, aid us in understanding the time and event in view.

On this matter, a basic understanding of “time” and “eternity” will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” or “near” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It is not time-specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word. In fact, it carries the exact same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely right. I don't know if you've seen the discussion relating to the Greek word "mello" in this thread, but that is another word that refers to things that will happen without giving any indication of the timing. Yes, the word is normally used in reference to things that would happen soon, but it's also used in reference to things that did not happen soon. Preterists don't get that. They want to insist that words like that have to always refer to things that will happen literally soon and that's why they end up misinterpreting so much scripture.

parousia70 said:

It's because scripture testifies the opposite.
Scripture tis clear that Sin and Death exist forever. They are NEVER eradicated. The Unrepentant will NEVER be free from Sin and Death. They will NEVER share in Christ's Victory.

Victory over Sin and Death is only and ever for those IN CHRIST.

Since we who are in Christ have Already come into the New Jerusalem City (Hebrews 12:22), and the as yet unrepentant are already here on earth, "outside the gates of the city, practicing their Lies", we can know Revelation 22:14 is describing a present reality.

As is Revelation 22:2
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

If we say this is describing a time when all things have already been made anew, then there would be no nation still in need of "healing", however the text is clear, the nations, at this point, are in need of healing and the leaves of the tree are here for that purpose, which again cements this as a present reality. The leaves of the tree are, at this moment, healing the nations. And they can not fail (Matthew 16:18)

Likewise Revelation 22:17
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

The only people who thirst are the as yet unsaved, who have yet to drink the water of life, for "one drink and ye shall never thirst again" (John 4:14, John 6:35)
Again, this is clearly a PRESENT REALITY.

Click to expand...

This is such unbelievable nonsense. No, people will not continue sinning for eternity. Give me a break. Why would God want to allow sin to continue forever? That is ludicrous. As for Revelation 22:2 you are misinterpreting that verse (and all the others as well). That is not talking about anyone literally needing to be healed, that is figuratively referring to the ongoing health and perfection of the new heavens and new earth.

Spiritual Jew said:

This is absolutely right. I don't know if you've seen the discussion relating to the Greek word "mello" in this thread, but that is another word that refers to things that will happen without giving any indication of the timing. Yes, the word is normally used in reference to things that would happen soon, but it's also used in reference to things that did not happen soon. Preterists don't get that. They want to insist that words like that have to always refer to things that will happen literally soon and that's why they end up misinterpreting so much scripture.

Click to expand...

Exactly. They imagine the Holy Ghost is as obsessed as they are with the coming of Titus in AD70 when in reality the Holy Spirit is obsessed with glorifying Jesus and pointing us to His glorious climactic return to usher in the general resurrection / judgment and the beginning of eternity. They always want to talk about the coming of Titus and AD70. It is hard and grievous to read. They undermine the person, glory and reality of His concluding return.

Spiritual Jew said:

This is such unbelievable nonsense. No, people will not continue sinning for eternity. Give me a break. Why would God want to allow sin to continue forever? That is ludicrous. As for Revelation 22:2 you are misinterpreting that verse (and all the others as well). That is not talking about anyone literally needing to be healed, that is figuratively referring to the ongoing health and perfection of the new heavens and new earth.

Click to expand...

Preterists interpret phrases like “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near" as imminent or suddenly yet conveniently stretch their coming out 40 years to support their false teaching. Whatever way you look at their theology, there is no objectivity or consistency in their beliefs.

sovereigngrace said:

Preterists interpret phrases like “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near" as imminent or suddenly yet conviently stretch their coming out 40 years to support their false teaching.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Just try to think of something that happened in your life from 40 years ago. Does it seem like a literally short amount of time has passed since then? I'm sure it doesn't.

Whatever way you look at their theology, there is no objectivity or consistency in their beliefs.

Click to expand...

I agree. I very much dislike how they don't acknowledge that Christ's death and resurrection put an end to the old covenant. By doing that, they are not fully acknowledging what Christ accomplished on the cross. That doesn't sit well with me at all. And their belief that the new covenant and old covenant both being in effect at the same time is incredibly ridiculous.

And, of course, many (most?) of them think more about what happened in the past in 70 AD and don't seem to have any excitement about the future glorious appearing of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. That is sad.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

I can't imagine being a Christian and thinking that Titus 2:13 is already fulfilled (in fairness, not all partial preterists believe that). That is what keeps me going every day. That future blessed hope. We should all be excited about the future "glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" when we will see Him as He is (1 John 3:2).

Spiritual Jew said:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

I can't imagine being a Christian and thinking that Titus 2:13 is already fulfilled (in fairness, not all partial preterists believe that). That is what keeps me going every day. That future blessed hope. We should all be excited about the future "glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" when we will see Him as He is (1 John 3:2).

Click to expand...

Is that only involving the raptured church then? Wouldn't one that has already died, thus presently in heaven, already see Him as He is? Yet, that passage says one doesn't do that until until His glorious appearing, and that you conclude this is yet to be fulfilled. I don't disagree that it's yet to be fulfilled, but at the same time, how do we reasonably square some of this with the fact that some would already see Him as He is, but that this passage says that doesn't happen until His glorious appearing, thus why I asked, is that only meaning in regards to the raptured church?

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

The ones being addressed at the time, they would all be long gone and dead by now, and that He never appeared during their lifetimes. Were they lied to then? Meaning since they already see Him as He is if they are presently in heaven, they won't see Him as He is when He appears, because they already do that before He appears. You always bring up objectivity, so let's see you how objective you can be here since this particular topic is not about Premil vs Amil.

DavidPT said:

Is that only involving the raptured church then?

Click to expand...

Yes, if by "raptured church" you're referring to all believers from all-time.

Wouldn't one that has already died, thus presently in heaven, already see Him as He is?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure since we're not given a lot of information for what it's like for the dead in Christ in heaven. It depends on what seeing Him as He is means exactly, but the context of 1 John 3:2 seems to be in relation to seeing Him in His glorified immortal body. Can the dead in Christ see Him in heaven that way now? I would tend to think so, so maybe 1 John 3:2 is only referring to those who are alive when He returns as far as seeing Him as He is for the first time.

Yet, that passage says one doesn't do that until until His glorious appearing, and that you conclude this is yet to be fulfilled. I don't disagree that it's yet to be fulfilled,

Click to expand...

Isn't that enough for you to believe that it's not yet fulfilled? What is the reason that you're asking me about this? Are you unsure of whether or not it's talking about a future appearing of Christ?

but at the same time, how do we reasonably square some of this with the fact that some would already see Him as He is, but that this passage says that doesn't happen until His glorious appearing, thus why I asked, is that only meaning in regards to the raptured church?

Click to expand...

Oh, so by "raptured church" you are apparently talking about those who are alive and remain until His second coming and not about the dead in Christ. I see what you're getting at now. Yeah, maybe 1 John 3:2 is only talking about people who are still alive when He appears and it's not implying that no one will have yet seen Him as He is at that point. That's possible.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

The ones being addressed at the time, they would all be long gone and dead by now, and that He never appeared during their lifetimes. Were they lied to then?

Click to expand...

Is that a serious question? You don't seriously think it's possible that John would have lied to his readers, do you? Especially considering that He was inspired by the Holy Spirit, which would then imply that the Holy Spirit was lying to them. God forbid.

What I think was promised to them is that when He does appear then the ones being addressed at the time (as well as all other believers) will be like Him, which I take to be talking about having an immortal, glorified body like Him. They don't need to be alive at His appearing in order for that to be true. We know that all believers, incuding the dead in Christ, will be changed when He returns at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:50-54).

As far as seeing Him as He is, I wouldn't say that this verse necessarily implies that no one will see Him as He is until His appearing. Obviously, if that was the case then He will appear in some way at that time differently than how He appears in heaven now and I'm not sure if that makes sense. But, again, that's not really a concern for me. Just knowing that we will see Him as He is is enough for me.

Meaning since they already see Him as He is if they are presently in heaven, they won't see Him as He is when He appears, because they already do that before He appears. You always bring up objectivity, so let's see you how objective you can be here since this particular topic is not about Premil vs Amil.

Click to expand...

You are clearly implying here that you don't think I'm objective when discussing Premil vs Amil, but I already knew that. Even though I used to be a Premil. If I wasn't objective, how exactly did I change my view? Anyway, I always try to be objective and I feel like I've been objective in this post.

The main thing to me is that we will see Him as He is. His future appearing is glorious not just because of seeing Him as He is, but also that we finally will experience the redemption of our bodies and have a body like His and the world will finally be rid of sin and death (I know you disagree with that as a Premil, but that's how I look at it) which is something to celebrate and look forward to in relation to His appearing as well.

So, now that I've answered your questions, how do you interpret Titus 2:13 and 1 John 3:2?

Timtofly said:

Are you not trying to make local prophecy global, so you can turn around and make global prophecy only local, and thus your own interpretation, instead of what is actually described as global?

Click to expand...

Yet below even you assert What the prophets described as global, is actually local… Weird.

Comparing the judgment of the whole earth to the destruction of Israel or Egypt, is misleading. Was not Israel destroyed and held captive for 70 years? Are you saying that did not happen? Was Egypt decimated by the Babylonians? The symbolic language did have an historical and literal event attached. It did literally happen.

Click to expand...

What is it exactly that allows you to accept the language of global, in fact universal, cataclysm Had “historic and literal local events attached that literally did happen“ when it comes to the sacking of Babylon and Egypt, yet prevents you from accepting the same language be attached to the local destruction of Jerusalem?

I am absolutely fascinated by this idea that one can hold these views simultaneously. Please enlighten me on how you do this.

In Noah's Day heavens and earth were literally changed and destroyed by water. It did literally happen.

Click to expand...

We know that the LITERAL substance of neither heaven or earth was destroyed, but it was the evil men that were destroyed, God brought "the flood upon the world of the ungodly" (2 Peter 2:5). The literal visible fabric of heaven and earth were the same after the flood as they were before the flood. Demonstrably, The destruction of heaven and earth refers to the civil and religious state, and the men of them.

What was it that really perished in the flood? Look at verse 6; "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." It was the world that perished, right? Now what does the word "world" mean? It is the orderly arrangement of society, it wasn't the dirt. Now how do you go from an ungodly society that was destroyed to the destruction of the entire universe?

So when Peter and John claim literal destruction of heaven and earth,

Click to expand...

But they don’t. That’s the point.
You yourself have agreed that you take this language of universal cataclysm to refer to local judgments when you see it in the old testament …one can’t help but wonder what Scripture teaches you to apply a polar opposite definition when you find the same language in the New Testament?

Where in the NT did God declare a 40 year period before Jerusalem would be destroyed?

Click to expand...

Matthew 24:34
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

A biblical generation is 40 years.

Numbers 32:13
So the Lord’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.

Psalm 95:10
For forty years I was grieved with thatgeneration, And said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.’

Do the math on this…
Matthew 1:7
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

I’ll give you a hint…. It’s 40 years for each generation.

parousia70 said:

I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts anymore?

Lying to get your point across not a good look, and does your position no favors in the eyes of our readers.

You might benefit from blocking me, so you will no longer be tempted to go back on your word, which demonstrably, is not much of a bond.

Click to expand...

Why do you have to be so nasty? Are you struggling to deal with the challenges?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

But I was only repeating what I had said to you before I stopped responding to you, and because you were continuing to flatly ignore the fact, which forced me to mention it to you again while you continued to post to others as though you had not heard or read the fact I had already mentioned.

I wasn't starting a new topic with you. I could have merely posted a reference to the post # where I had already mentioned it.

And the reason why I won't respond to anything else you say is because in ignoring the fact mentioned in the previous post, you have proved that you are only interested in hanging onto the platform you are standing on, regardless of any fact that proves your fallacy.

Click to expand...

I won’t hold my breath.

sovereigngrace said:

Why do you have to be so nasty? Are you struggling to deal with the challenges?

Click to expand...

I’m not the one calling him unChristian, friend.
And he flat out lied to me. Which I find to be quite nasty, and sinful. But that part is between him and God. It’s his sin to repent from, And I hope for his sake he does.

But to address your question, i love the challenge.
I wish He wouldn’t have decided not to respond. I believe his responses, your responses give our readers a great opportunity to see the contrast in our views.

i also enjoy learning the latest wiggle and get around your side looks to employ to prop up your non-fulfillment theories, Tho I must admit, as I enter my 20th year posting on Christian forums, I’ve pretty much seen them all so it’s rare to find a new and different one, but they do sprout up from time to time.

I also find it entertaining to watch you guys pat yourselves on the back. It’s cute.

Perhaps you might ask our friend Fullness if the Gentiles if he’s struggling to deal with the challenges and that is why he’s made the claim that he no longer wants to respond to my posts. Nothing screams “I can’t deal with the challenges you’re presenting“ any louder than ““I will not respond to your posts“

I very rarely ignore members, and when I do it’s because their attacks have turned personal, instead of challenging my views… I’m sure you can understand the correlation between someone not being able to deal with the challenges turning to attack the person making those challenges instead of addressing the challenges themselves. This is what Fullness of the Gentiles is beginning to do with me, and if he keeps it up he will definitely find himself on the business end of my ignore button. However, if he’d like to continue to engage me on the ideas, And drop the personal attacks, I would entertain accepting an apology and moving forward with the discussion.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Revelation 22
10 And he said to me, Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this Book; for the time is at hand [01451 engýs].

Click to expand...

....to hear what Jesus revealed to John of the days leading up to His Return.