This generation

Hammster said:

I agree that Christ didn’t return in 70AD. However, He is on His throne, ruling and reigning. And His kingdom is growing, just as He said it would.

Click to expand...

Then you yourself reject the Preterism of a single generation. You apply the OD to all generations.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Nice theory but you have to ignore the fact that in the last 2,000 years of the slow cooking you are talking about, the meat is still raw and the stench thereof is as great as ever. This process is not going to go on slow-cooking for eternity,

Click to expand...

Congratulations. You have recognized the universal problem of human depravity. No matter what environment fallen mankind is put into, it will inevitably find a way to corrupt it, even if they are occupying the NHNE conditions that we are currently in. That is exactly the painful lesson God wants all of mankind to learn. This is where God's ability to step in makes all the difference. It is HIS Spirit working in the hearts of mankind that is able to cleanse them and use them for His kingdom purposes.

And you are correct that this "slow-cooking" process will NOT go on for eternity. God will set a final judgment when all remaining elements of human evil in this planet will be expunged from it.

If you don't like my microwave versus crock-pot analogy, then we should look at Christ's cooking example. He said the kingdom of heaven was like leaven, which a woman mixed into bread dough until the whole was leavened.

Ever made bread? It's a sloooow process to make a good loaf of bread, suitable for the oven. Several hours of a sloooow swelling of the yeast within the dough until it doubles in bulk. The problem is that it is full of huge, unsightly air holes inside. So the dough is punched completely flat in a vigorous kneading process. To all appearances, all the work of the yeast is ruined. Not so. The kneading process gives the dough strength and elasticity while it is sloooowly rising again in bulk to make the perfectly-shaped loaf in the pan. At the peak time of development for the yeast, (not too long, or the dough will collapse of its own swelling weight), the yeast process is halted by baking that loaf. This bread-making process hasn't changed at all since Christ's days.

Guess what? This leaven-development process is a perfect picture of all of human history. In the first sloooow rising stage of human history, the kingdom of God was concentrated only in certain areas of the world; not well-distributed exposure to God and His laws, except for the patriarchs and the nation of Israel (like the huge air pockets in the dough at the beginning.)

The punch-down process of the kingdom of God took place in the first century. There were widespread persecutions that almost "wore out the saints" in periods of vigorous persecution (just like the kneading process). To all appearances, at the end of AD 70, Christian martyrdom had claimed vast numbers, and the church had fled into the mountains of Israel, and appeared to have disintegrated. Not so. The gospel was merely given further strength and elasticity to continue spreading into every corner and pocket of the world's peoples. For this second period, there are no unsightly, huge concentrations of the gospel in just a few places, but the entire world is affected (just like the fine-grained texture of a good loaf of bread). The final judgment at the end of the world is "baking day", once the "loaf" has reached peak development, and not a moment sooner.

Don't rush the process. Yeast develops silently and invisibly, and very slowly over time. But it is an inexorable, inevitable process over which God is in perfect control.

JosephZ said:

The Old Covenant and New ran parallel to one another until the temple was destroyed.

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Hebrews 8:13)

The temple, the sacrificial system, and the priesthood, were done away in 70AD and the Jews could no longer look to them for redemption or atonement. From that day forward forgiveness and mercy could only be found through Jesus Christ and His work on the cross alone.

“The coming of Christ in A.D.70 was a coming in judgment on the Jewish nation, indicating the end of the Jewish age and the fulfillment of a day of the Lord. Jesus really did come in judgment at this time, fulfilling his prophecy in the Olivet Discourse...

The most significant, redemptive, historical action that takes place outside the New Testament, is the judgment that falls on Jerusalem, and by which judgment the Christian Church now emerges as The Body of Christ" -- R.C. Sproul

Click to expand...

This is simply not true.

Hebrews 8:13: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete). Now that which decayeth (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old (gerasko) is ready to vanish away.”

After Christ’s death and the ripping of the curtain in two, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was rendered wholly redundant. Its usefulness was over. It was obsolete. It remaining standing up until AD70 did not mean it had any further earthly purpose, or that the old covenant remained in effect. It was just like a human corpse awaiting burial. It had no vitality, no relevance and no purpose. Once Christ died, the old covenant died. Degeneration immediately set in, just like the decay that kicks in when a human gives up the ghost.

Paul shows us that the old covenant was decaying and ready to vanish away after the cross. Of course, anything that is decaying is already dead. From then on it is just rotting and in urgent need of a decent burial.

A corpse does not normally vanish from sight immediately upon death until it is put into the grave and buried. But corruption, decay, degeneration has already kicked in. It is lifeless. It is powerless. It simply needs a decent burial. That is how the old covenant was between AD30 and AD70. A corpse can still be visible but it is lifeless and has no ability to function. That is what happened to the old covenant between AD30-70.

Even though a corpse may look asleep, it is lifeless. All you have is rotting flesh. Decomposition has set in immediately. It is gradually decaying, and will ultimately vanish away. But that entity has no further earthly use. Its time is up.

Preterists can do their best to beautify this deceased corpse, they can try their best to raise its lifeless carcass from the dead, and they can attribute life to it all they want, but it is all in vain, it is still a dead corpse.

2 Corinthians 3:11: “For if that which is done away (katargeo or rendered entirely idle, useless) was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”

As Clement said in his Recognitions (Chapter 64): “For we have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed.”

There cannot be 2 covenants ongoing at the one time. That is absurd! One terminated the other. There cannot be 2 competing priesthoods. One replaced the other.

The book of Hebrews destroys any notion of the continuation of the old covenant priests. It is quite inconceivable that this defunct priesthood would be needed after the commencement of God's true eternal priesthood. Hebrews 7:19 tells us: “the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Christ owns the only priestly office that God recognises for all eternity. Hebrews 7:22 confirms, “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” For “he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6).

Remember, Hebrews was written in-between the cross and AD70!

We have entered into a new divine arrangement that supersedes the shadow, type and figure. Man has one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. For you to argue for two competing priesthood underlines the dangers of your teaching.

Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us, “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

The priesthood has been changed; and having been changed there was a change triggered in the law (“there is made of necessity a change also of the law”). Whilst the written law is still active, the whole old covenant ceremonial system was superseded by a new better covenant.

The Greek word for “changed” here is metatithemi which actually means transferred or exchanged. This shows that old temporal imperfect priesthood has been exchanged for the new perfect eternal priesthood in Christ. The deficient shadow and type has been replaced by Israel’s eternal high priest the Messiah and will never again be changed, undone or rivaled by a parallel priesthood. It is an eternal transfer of influence. Christ will not (or cannot) share this office with another, neither can He hand the baton over to others. He holds it firm and alone as of right and by way of an everlasting oath. Those that purport to steal this sacred title enter into the dangerous arena of heresy.

The problem with the Old Testament priestly administration was: it was inadequate. It involved men who by nature were prone to sin and who therefore fell short of what God required of them. Time after time, the high priest failed in God’s requirements through sin or compromise and consequently God judged the whole nation. Corruption eventually took a hold of the office and brought it into complete disrepute. This opened the door to idol worship and apostasy. What is more, with the blight of sin in man came death. This meant the office was continually passed from one to another.

JulieB67 said:

Lucifer is definitely Satan. Lucifer in the Hebrew is heylel (in the sense of brightness), the morning star.

Click to expand...

But Christ is also called "the morning star" in 2 Peter 1:19. And that "morning star" is also given to the saints in Revelation 2:28.

JulieB67 said:

The Assyrian and King of Tyrus also have double meanings and point to Satan. We know this because of the Garden of Eden references among others.

Click to expand...

You're right about the "King of Tyre" having a double meaning. Satan was working behind the scenes of the human King of Tyre, instigating evil in that city as the angelic "King of Tyre" who had once been the anointed cherub. Yet this cherub who became Satan was destined to be burned up and turned into ashes upon the earth, so that "never shalt thou exist anymore" in Ezekiel 28:19. God was going to "slay" that "dragon that is in the sea" with "His sore and great and strong sword" in Isaiah 27:1.

God told us just when and where Satan and the "host of the high ones that are on high" would be punished. It would take place in Jerusalem, and these wicked hosts of angels would be gathered together along with the "kings of the earth" in Jerusalem, just like prisoners in a pit. After many days, the "kings of the earth" as well as all the wicked angels would all be "found wanting" in Isaiah 24:21-23. That means "gone from existence".

Satan and his wicked "host of high ones" were destroyed at the same time as the imprisoned "kings of the earth" were destroyed. These "kings of the earth" were the high priests of the land of Israel (according to Psalms 2:2 and Matthew 17:25). Since there are no longer any high priests of the land of Israel around since AD 70, that means both high priest "kings" as well as Satan and his hosts were destroyed together in that year.

In these present days, I have to stay on guard against the human evil present in this world, as well as any remaining sin coming from my own heart. This is quite enough to do battle with, even without Satan and his destroyed hosts being present.

DavidPT said:

You would then have us believe that what is being described in Isaiah 65 is not wherein dwelleth righteousness. You would then have us believe that there are 2 sets of new heavens and new earths, and that the first one is temporary.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.


You would then have us believe that the first heaven and the first earth is not meaning this same heaven and earth we are presently living in, it is meaning the new heaven and new earth in Isaiah 65 instead.

IOW, instead of this---And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the present heaven and the present earth were passed away---this instead---And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. After all, if they are not the same NHNE, that means when the one recorded in Revelation 21:1 arrives, the one in Isaiah 65 needs to pass away first, obviously. Except that doesn't agree with what is recorded in Revelation 21:1, since that is obviously meaning this same current heaven and earth we are living in now, being what has passed away.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 65 is referring to a new heaven and earth like was after the Flood. Not a new reality after current reality has fled away. Nothing in Isaiah 64 declares reality fled away. Even in Isaiah 65 up until verse 14, does not indicate a change in reality. Isaiah is talking about the same new earth and heaven promised in Daniel 9 after the 70 weeks. Even though Daniel never mentions himself a new heaven and earth. Isaiah is pointing to the time following Jacob's trouble, when Israel is restored.

Revelation 21 is about a totally different creation, not the restoration of Israel. Preterist will point out the 70AD generation experienced Revelation 21 because it is spiritual not physical. But Revelation is another creation altogether. One that has never been experienced ever by mankind. Isaiah 65 was experienced by humans prior to the Flood, where men lived as trees. Adam was supposed to live and stay in the Garden for all of time. Yet Adam was kicked out. That Garden translated into Paradise and was not even on earth at the time of the Cross. It was then called the third heaven. Paradise will only return, and then not as a Garden, but a city like no other city ever known to humans, but after a totally different creation. Not a spiritual creation at 70AD. Revelation 21 is a totally new creation after the last 1,000 years of this creation. But Isaiah was talking about a restored and different place than what we have known since the Flood. Isaiah's new earth will go back to the pre-Flood conditions. Since the Flood humans have ruled over a divided earth. Christ as Prince will rule over an earth not divided. That is why Isaiah called it a new heaven and earth.

We have no ability to even imagine the creation of heaven and earth in Revelation 21, except for the details that are given. The last 1,000 years may seem temporary compared to 6,000 years of sin and death. But even 7,000 years on earth will be temporary compared to the new creation in Revelation 21.

Jamdoc said:

So you either need to assert that Revelation was fulfilled, making you a full preterist, or assert that Revelation isn't about the second coming.
Because to claim that the Olivet Discourse isn't about the second coming, but Revelation is, is inconsistent.

Click to expand...

This is correct; it is inconsistent. The timing of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are identifiable with each other.

But the assertion that Revelation was fulfilled does not necessarily make one a Full Preterist. These are different things. One of the main tenets of Full Preterism is to deny a bodily resurrection of any kind for the saints, and at any time whatever. Many Full Preterists deny Christ's bodily resurrection also. It's how they roll. The assertion of a number of their leaders (which I will not name) is that Christ dumped that physical body, (which He displayed to the disciples inspection), somewhere behind Him at His ascension, and is currently a spirit only in heaven. This can easily be proven wrong with scripture.

Jamdoc said:

No, I'm not saying that, they probably anticipated Jesus to return then.
But it didn't happen, meaning that either God exaggerated so badly that it might as well have been a lie, Jesus outright lied, which doesn't appear to be the case because SOMETHING happened. Just not exactly what Jesus had said....
or, there is a more exact fufillment that we still need to be watching for.

Click to expand...

They didn't believe "probably", which would have left them dead.

Instead, they believed and heeded Jesus' warning, and fled, and saved their lives.

Jesus and history tell us exactly what would, and did, happen. Jesus was and is not inclined to lie.

The discernment and actions of the Judean Christians are indisputable testimony to the relevance and applicability of Jesus' discourse to their generation.

JosephZ said:

It's quite possible that those hearing/reading the words of the prophets, Jesus, Paul, or Peter saw the Temple as a symbol or representation of heaven and earth.

Click to expand...

How? They only saw the physical. No one really understood the spiritual. If they did, all of first century Israel would have left the physical Law for the Spiritual birth of the Atonement. The Romans would have had to convict Jesus as a fraud, not His own people.

It was not until resurrection Sunday that even some disciples understood. Luke 24:25-32


"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

These disciples thought it was done and over and Jesus was dead. If they did not even take Jesus at His word about His bodily temple, why would they think the Temple was heaven and earth? They were not gnostics.

Why would you imply they had thoughts about an idea that is not even mentioned once in Scripture? You gave a quote not to do that, and then turned around and implied something not found in the text.

Hammster said:

Was Isaiah wrong when he said that His government would increase? Was Daniel wrong when he said that the stone cut without hands would grow into a mountain and fill the earth? Was Jesus wrong when He said that His kingdom would start tiny and grow until it was huge?

Click to expand...

Was Jesus lying when we see even today, that kingdom still growing? Why would it have stopped in 70AD?

sovereigngrace said:

This is simply not true.

Hebrews 8:13: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete). Now that which decayeth (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old (gerasko) is ready to vanish away.”

After Christ’s death and the ripping of the curtain in two, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was rendered wholly redundant. Its usefulness was over. It was obsolete. It remaining standing up until AD70 did not mean it had any further earthly purpose, or that the old covenant remained in effect. It was just like a human corpse awaiting burial. It had no vitality, no relevance and no purpose. Once Christ died, the old covenant died. Degeneration immediately set in, just like the decay that kicks in when a human gives up the ghost.

Paul shows us that the old covenant was decaying and ready to vanish away after the cross. Of course, anything that is decaying is already dead. From then on it is just rotting and in urgent need of a decent burial.

A corpse does not normally vanish from sight immediately upon death until it is put into the grave and buried. But corruption, decay, degeneration has already kicked in. It is lifeless. It is powerless. It has no function. That is how the old covenant was between AD30 and AD70. A corpse can still be visible but it is lifeless and has no ability to function. That is what happened to the old covenant between AD30-70.

Even though a corpse may look asleep, it is lifeless. All you have is rotting flesh. Decomposition has set in immediately. It is gradually decaying, and will ultimately vanish away. But that entity has no further earthly use. Its time is up.

Preterists can do their best to beautify this deceased corpse, they can try their best to raise its lifeless carcass from the dead, and they can attribute life to it all they want, but it is all in vain, it is still a dead corpse.

2 Corinthians 3:11: “For if that which is done away (katargeo or rendered entirely idle, useless) was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”

As Clement said in his Recognitions (Chapter 64): “For we have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed.”

There cannot be 2 covenants ongoing at the one time. That is absurd! One terminated the other. There cannot be 2 competing priesthoods. One replaced the other.

The book of Hebrews destroys any notion of the continuation of the old covenant priests. It is quite inconceivable that this defunct priesthood would be needed after the commencement of God's true eternal priesthood. Hebrews 7:19 tells us: “the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Christ owns the only priestly office that God recognises for all eternity. Hebrews 7:22 confirms, “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” For “he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6).

Remember, Hebrews was written in-between the cross and AD70!

We have entered into a new divine arrangement that supersedes the shadow, type and figure. Man has one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. For you to argue for two competing priesthood underlines the dangers of your teaching.

Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us, “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

The priesthood has been changed; and having been changed there was a change triggered in the law (“there is made of necessity a change also of the law”). Whilst the written law is still active, the whole old covenant ceremonial system was superseded by a new better covenant.

The Greek word for “changed” here is metatithemi which actually means transferred or exchanged. This shows that old temporal imperfect priesthood has been exchanged for the new perfect eternal priesthood in Christ. The deficient shadow and type has been replaced by Israel’s eternal high priest the Messiah and will never again be changed, undone or rivaled by a parallel priesthood. It is an eternal transfer of influence. Christ will not (or cannot) share this office with another, neither can He hand the baton over to others. He holds it firm and alone as of right and by way of an everlasting oath. Those that purport to steal this sacred title enter into the dangerous arena of heresy.

The problem with the Old Testament priestly administration was: it was inadequate. It involved men who by nature were prone to sin and who therefore fell short of what God required of them. Time after time, the high priest failed in God’s requirements through sin or compromise and consequently God judged the whole nation. Corruption eventually took a hold of the office and brought it into complete disrepute. This opened the door to idol worship and apostasy. What is more, with the blight of sin in man came death. This meant the office was continually passed from one to another.

Click to expand...

You have stated it perfectly. There was NO OVERLAP of OC and New Covenants being viable at the same time. Once there was a change in the priesthood, there was of necessity a change in the law, as Hebrews 7:12 stated. And the OC was dead as a doornail after Christ's resurrection and the establishment of the New Covenant.

I know that many Preterists claim that an overlap of covenants existed, but I'm not one of them.

3 Resurrections said:

I have commented on this signature line of yours before with my approval. It doesn't matter to me that this ECF, St. Gregory, wrote against a theme of three resurrection events back in his day. What is interesting to me is that this theme of three resurrections must have been a commonly-contested subject in St. Gregory's experience in those years for this ECF to mention it specifically with his objections. That tells me that these three resurrections were a prevailing thought very early on in the religious world. So those who accuse me of concocting a doctrine that is solely my own opinion are incorrect. Apparently, it was considered a possible interpretation by any number of men loooong ago.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

Click to expand...

I doubt it was prevailing, or even a huge minority. Since it was spoken against, it did have a nod by some. To what extent, we cannot even know. But to paint it bigger than it was seems reaching. Even the truth was in the minority at times and almost wiped out as a heresy. Yet a remnant always carried the truth forward.

3 Resurrections said:

Not according to scripture. Just according to Hollywood.

Click to expand...

What Scripture?

3 Resurrections said:

The same NHNE is mentioned by Peter and John and Isaiah, but the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 is another subject John brought up and described for us. It is a reality in place AFTER Christ's bodily second coming and a GWT judgment seat in Revelation 20. The New Jerusalem certainly does have wickedness present and operating outside its gates, which tells us that Revelation 21 cannot be describing the final, purified condition of this world, but only a major step forward towards that end.

Click to expand...

Where in Revelation 21 is wickedness mentioned? Where in Isaiah 65 is wickedness mentioned. Where in Revelation 20 is wickedness mentioned?

3 Resurrections said:

Isaiah does not mention anywhere in his writings a specific period of a thousand years. That one thousand years of Satan's binding is only described in the Revelation 20 chapter.

Click to expand...

Isaiah does not mention the 500 years until Christ. Were there 500 years? Isaiah does not mention the 1992 years between the Cross and today. Has there been over 1990 years? To claim no period of time can exist, just because Isaiah never gave any periods of time, is not paying attention to history itself. Then when God does declare a period of time, you cry foul, because no other prophet did. Not a very good reason, to object what God's Word states.

3 Resurrections said:

Childbirth takes place in the NHNE. That means the NHNE cannot be the eternal state, because there is no marriage nor giving in marriage in the resurrected state. Unless you want to say that these are all illegitimate children born to the righteous in heaven.

Isaiah 65: 23 (LXX) "My chosen shall not toil in vain, neither shall they beget children to be cursed; for they are a seed blessed of God, and their offspring with them."

Click to expand...

I am not amil, who claim Revelation 20 is the here and now, and refute procreation can happen after a resurrection. Of course there is procreation on earth after the Second Coming. That is why Isaiah 65 is about Revelation 20 and definitely not about Revelation 21. The church stopped procreating once they reached Paradise. Paradise comes down over 1,000 years from now as the New Jerusalem. Why would procreation start again in Revelation 21 in the New Jerusalem?

BTW: Isaiah claims children die, not mature adults. Children are born. If they die, it is due to rebellion. It is not due to a sin nature. Mature adults have not "grown out of" a sin nature. The point is no one is born with a sin nature, not that birth stops at the Second Coming. You have totally removed the physical from Revelation 21. You have spiritualized it into 70AD. Your 1,000 years had every human born into sin. In Revelation 20, after a physical resurrection, no one can have a sin nature. The resurrection was not to Adam's sinful flesh. It was to God’s permanent incorruptible physical bodies. John did not have to repost the whole teaching on a first resurrection. Paul and Jesus already covered the point. One can either accept what Jesus and Paul already stated, or define a resurrection in their own human understanding, and thus in error.

Timtofly said:

I doubt it was prevailing, or even a huge minority. Since it was spoken against, it did have a nod by some. To what extent, we cannot even know. But to paint it bigger than it was seems reaching.

Click to expand...

Apparently St Gregory put the theme of three resurrections on a par with the millennium debate in his days, since he mentioned them in conjunction with each other. Whatever extent that millennium was debated would be on a level with the three resurrections idea, I would suppose. But the frequency or amount of debate about three resurrections is not really my point. What I'm saying is that I cannot possibly be the only one to whom this idea has occurred in all of church history, since it obviously was brought up for debate back in the AD 300's.

Timtofly said:

What Scripture?

Click to expand...

Hollywood and its lurid depictions of demon possession have biased people's viewpoints into believing that demon possession still occurs today. That and the "deliverance" ministries, which would suffer if it were proven by scripture that an enemy they are attempting to combat is no longer in existence.

This subject of the eradication of the Satanic realm really could be considered off topic, but I have already touched on it in a couple posts above. It is connected with how "THIS generation" of Jews were promised to be plagued by the 7-fold increase in demon possession in their own "last state" in Matthew 12:43-45. That limits this complete, 7-fold presence of the demonic realm to one particular generation, and one location only in the first century, and not to any other time or place. If you need a link, I have discussed it at greater length in my replies at the following website. Since posting those comments elsewhere, I have altered my stance slightly on the definition of "kings of the earth" (which are really the high priests of Israel), but have continued to find further scripture evidence of the end of demon possession:

Jerusalem, a Dwelling Place of Demons

JosephZ said:

The Old Covenant and New ran parallel to one another until the temple was destroyed.

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Hebrews 8:13)

The temple, the sacrificial system, and the priesthood, were done away in 70AD and the Jews could no longer look to them for redemption or atonement. From that day forward forgiveness and mercy could only be found through Jesus Christ and His work on the cross alone.

“The coming of Christ in A.D.70 was a coming in judgment on the Jewish nation, indicating the end of the Jewish age and the fulfillment of a day of the Lord. Jesus really did come in judgment at this time, fulfilling his prophecy in the Olivet Discourse...

The most significant, redemptive, historical action that takes place outside the New Testament, is the judgment that falls on Jerusalem, and by which judgment the Christian Church now emerges as The Body of Christ" -- R.C. Sproul

Click to expand...

Jesus said it was finished on the Cross. God rent the veil from top to bottom on the Cross. I will take God's Word over human understanding.

jgr said:

So you know more about Jewish history than the Jews know about Jewish history.

Contemporary Jewish historians rebut:

"The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe. Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

How many WW2 Jews roasted and dined on their children?

Click to expand...

How many cannibals have been reported since then? You claim cannibalism only happened in 70AD and no other time ever in human history. This is not a metric to prove your point.

jgr said:

They had swords and spears, infinitely more merciful than crucifixion.

You'd rather be crucified than gassed?

Click to expand...

So your point is that 70AD was more merciful? It was not a time of greatest trouble?

Hammster said:

It was finished, but something still had to happen, correct?

Click to expand...

No, the Atonement brought an end to the OT Law. Nothing else had to happen.