A Challenge to Futurists

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70


Your doing a great job so far Mike.  As a matter of fact you have also pionted out something I had never thought of. 

Click to expand...

 

Really?  What was that?

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


 

Really?  What was that?

Click to expand...

It will take a little time to go into it so I will tell you about it when I get back home.  It has to do with the chruch today and how it believes its the church at Pentecost which is most of its problems.  

Originally posted by verizon1
In short, we have gone over the apocalyptic literature in Scripture and can see a close comparison and parallels between of the Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature.
Understanding that Jesus was a Jew we can see how he would used this same Middle Eastern apocalyptic literature from the Old Testament. We are not says that Jesus is God, at this time mind you.

Our next question to you preterist would be this then. If the Christians church, indeed believes that Jesus is the same God, in the Old Testament who rides the clouds of heaven in judgement by other nations. And we do agree that the Old Testament languages was not to be taken literally.
Why do they turn right around and make Jesus into a false prophet when he told the high priest that he would see his return as the people did in the Old Testament? (Matt. 26:62-64) Something just does not sit right here.


Why would they make Jesus a false prophet according
to his own words Deu. 18:21-22 . Also where were the preterist Christians all this time?

Thank you

Click to expand...

There were a number of early writers who made significant preterist statements (i.e. Eusebius, Athanasius, Origen, Melito, and Odes of Solomon). One doesn’t have to look too closely to find some real gems. They have been there all along. We just didn’t recognize them as preterist statements. We just know they weren’t what we have "traditionally been taught. Here are a few examples of preterist statements found in their writings.

Think deeply on these things. Eusebius records the statement that James (brother of Jesus, writer of the book of James) made just before (c. 63 A.D.) he was pushed off the temple to the pavement below when he was being martyred for his faith in Jerusalem: "Why do ye ask me respecting Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of great Power, and "is about to come on the clouds of heaven."( Eusebius’ Esslesiastical History, Book 2, Ch.23; cf James 5:8,9)

Eusebius says that the abomination of desolation (i.e the antichrist, man of sin and beast of Revelation) occurred at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D."... these facts, as well as the whole tenor of the war, and each particular of its progress, when finally "the abomination of desolation, according to the prophetic declaration, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, but which now was approaching its total downfall and final destruction by fire; all this, I say, any one that wishes may see accurately stated in the history written by Josephus." (Eusebius; Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch.5). After quoting sections of Matt. 24:19-21; Lk. 19:41ff and Lk. 21:20, 23, 24,

Eusebius says this about the destruction of Jerusalem: "All this occurred" in this manner, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian (70 A.D.), according to the predictions of our Christ...On comparing the declarations of our Saviour which the other parts of Josephus work, where he describes the whole war, "how can one fail to acknowledge" and wonder at the truth divine and extraordinary foreknowledge and prediction of our Saviour?" (Eusebius’ Esslesiastical History, Book 3. Ch.7)

Eusebius declares that the Great Commission had been accomplished by the time Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 (cf. Matt. 24:14): "Of who (Christ), indeed "at this very time, "the sound of the holy apostles went throughout all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.’ " (Eusebius Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8; cf. Rom. 10:18; Col. 1:6,23)

Athanasius declares "For now that "He has come" to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind in checked, and "the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away." For the race of men had gone to ruin had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet "the end of death." (Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 9 Verse 4; cf. 1 Cor. 15:21-26)

In reference to the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Massiah and their interpertation of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, Athanasius has this to say: "Perhaps with regard to the other "prophecies" they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ refrred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and "Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel." (Athanasius; On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 39 Verse 3; cf. Dan. 9:24ff).

I hope this helps as you can see there were preterist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

There were a number of early writers who made significant preterist statements (i.e. Eusebius, Athanasius, Origen, Melito, and Odes of Solomon).

Click to expand...

As for the quotes you provided from Athanasius, I hope you are not intentionally misrepresenting Athanasius and "On the Incarnation of the Word," but are simply unfamiliar with the whole work. I could put your quotes in the proper context, but it's easier to cite from the CONCLUSION of "On the Incarnation of the Word":

Here, then, Macarius, is our offering to you who love Christ, a brief statement of the faith of Christ and of the manifestation of His Godhead to us. This will give you a beginning, and you must go on to prove its truth by the study of the Scriptures. They were written and inspired by God; and we, who have learned from inspired teachers who read the Scriptures and became martyrs for the Godhead of Christ, make further contribution to your eagerness to learn. From the Scriptures you will learn also of His second manifestation to us, glorious and divine indeed, when He shall come not in lowliness but in His proper glory, no longer in humiliation but in majesty, no longer to suffer but to bestow on us all the fruit of His cross the resurrection and incorruptibility. No longer will He then be judged, but rather will Himself be Judge, judging each and all according to their deeds done in the body, whether good or ill. Then for the good is laid up the heavenly kingdom, but for those that practice evil outer darkness and the eternal fire. So also the Lord Himself says, "I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man seated on the right hand of power, coming on the clouds of heaven in the glory of the Father." For that Day we have one of His own sayings to prepare us, "Get ready and watch, for ye know not the hour in which He cometh"

Click to expand...

Melito? This is attributed to him, but I couldn't find the context to confirm whether or not it's accurate: "For with all his strength did the adversary assail us, even then giving a foretaste of his activity among us [during the Great Tribulation] which is to be without restraint..." (Discourse on the Resurrection, i, 8).

Obviously, if this is an accurate quote, Melito puts the great tribulation in the future.

Eusebius avoided the whole issue of prophecy, but he seems to have been an amillenialist. He had a conflict of interest, so to speak. He was working with Constantine to establish the kingdom of God through Constanine's government, so he was not inclined to think that there would be a future fulfillment of the kingdom of God. That's not to say he didn't believe what you say, but it wasn't exactly from an objective point of view.

Origen tried to turn the whole Bible into allegory and harmonize it with the works of Plato! Origen doubted the authenticity of 2 Peter, which I can certainly understand since it contradicts his conclusions.

Originally posted by verizon1
. Also where were the preterist Christians all this time?

Thank you

Click to expand...

Here are more good ones verizon1 I hope these help

Early Preterist Statements

All it takes is going to the writings of the early church fathers and doing a little research to learn the truth of the matter. The church fathers back that far did not write much about Jerusalem, but some of them did. Here is a sample of a few of the earliest:

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-193-217), in The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1 page 329, in The Ante- Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, placed the abomination of desolation of Daniel's 70th week prophecy, in the time of Nero. He said: ' in the one week; was He Lord. The half of the week Nero and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Gaiba, and Vitallus. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the Holy place."

Earlier ever that Clement of Alexandria, was Clement of Rome, who wrote to James and told him what Peter had to the Jews, thusly: " ' For we; said I, '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, and the abomination of desolation shall stand in the holy place; and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles for a testimony against you....; "When I had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple...;' (Clement, p 94, vol. 8, The Ante-Nicene Fathers).

Even earlier that Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (145-220) told of how the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem was a fulfillment of predictions that had been made in Daniel 9:26. He said: Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that 'both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin; And so the times of the coming Christ, the leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

"In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning Him, as to show both when and in what time He was to set the nations free; and how, after the passion of the Christ, that city had to be exterminated;, (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 158).

Tertullian was also a preterist in his interpretations of Zechariah 14:4. He said, " 'But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives; For thus had Zechariah pointed out: 'And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives; " (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 417).

Eusebius says that the abomination of desolation (i.e.the antichrist, man of sin and beast of Revelation) occurred at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D "...(Eusebius' Esslesiastical History, Book 3, Ch5).

As one can easily see, the preterist position was taught by various writer clear back to the time of the apostles. They originally understood rightly that the time of fulfillment was to be imminent until the middle of the second century when they began to abandon that and suggest the delay/ postponement ideas. When the remaining fulfillment's associated with Christ's parousia did not occur in the physical-literal way they had expected, they assumed they had not been fulfilled at all. The same problem persists today, and can be solved by following correct Biblical interpretation methods. We need to get back to the study of Biblical Judaism.

 

Originally posted by npetreley


As for the quotes you provided from Athanasius, I hope you are not intentionally misrepresenting Athanasius and "On the Incarnation of the Word," but are simply unfamiliar with the whole work. I could put your quotes in the proper context, but it's easier to cite from the CONCLUSION of "On the Incarnation of the Word":

Click to expand...

I am very familiar with Athanasius and my copy if his works reads as flows.  "Perhaps with regard to the other "prophecies" they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ refrred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and "Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel." (Athanasius; On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 39 Verse 3; cf. Dan. 9:24ff). 
 

Would you mind show this contex in the Section and verse from your copy.

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

I am very familiar with Athanasius and my copy if his works reads as flows.  "Perhaps with regard to the other "prophecies" they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ refrred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and "Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel." (Athanasius; On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 39 Verse 3; cf. Dan. 9:24ff). 
 

Would you mind show this contex in the Section and verse from your copy.

Click to expand...

My copy isn't going to be any different than your copy unless your copy is simply a few selected quotes from a preterist web site.

I also don't see why it is necessary to provide the context, since I already demonstrated by quoting from the CONCLUSION of the work to show that Athanasius believed Jesus would return IN THE FUTURE in glory. But since you asked, here it is:

At the beginning oif the chapter, Athanasius states his purpose for writing it.

We have dealt thus far with the Incarnation of our Savior, and have found clear proof of the resurrection of His Body and His victory over death. Let us now go further and investigate the unbelief and the ridicule with which Jews and Gentiles respectively regard these same facts.

Click to expand...

Then he says he'll consider the objections of the Jews first, and goes on to show that OT prophecy supports the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah.

First, then, we will consider the Jews. Their unbelief has its refutation in the Scriptures which even themselves read; for from cover to cover the inspired Book clearly teaches these things both in its entirety and in its actual words. Prophets foretold the marvel of the Virgin and of the Birth from her, saying, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which means God is with us." ... Again, does Scripture tell of anyone [else] who was pierced in hands and feet or hung upon a tree at all, and by means of a cross perfected his sacrifice for the salvation of all?

Click to expand...

That's the thrust of the whole chapter. It exists only to prove from OT prophecy that Jesus is clearly the Messiah.

And now let's look at your quote with the surrounding context.

But surely they cannot fight against plain facts. So it may be that, without denying what is written, they will maintain that they are still waiting for these things to happen, and that the Word of God is yet to come, for that is a theme on which they are always harping most brazenly, in spite of all the evidence against them. But they shall be refuted on this supreme point more clearly than on any, and that not by ourselves but by the mostwise Daniel, for he signifies the actual date of the Savior's coming as well as His Divine sojourn in our midst. "Seventy weeks," he says, "are cut short upon thy people and upon the holy city, to make a complete end of sin and for sins to be sealed up and iniquities blotted out, and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint a Holy One of holies. And thou shalt know and understand from the going forth of the Word to answer, and to build Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince." In regard to the other prophecies, they may possibly be able to find excuses for deferring their reference to a future time, but what can they say to this one?

Click to expand...

In other words, Athanasius is CLEARLY refuting the Jewish belief that the Messiah had not yet come at all. He was not in any way refuting a second coming of the Messiah.

That's all you should need, but here's the remaining context, and why you have taken the destruction of Jerusalem out of context.

How can they face it at all? Not only does it expressly mention the Anointed One, that is the Christ, it even declares that He Who is to be anointed is not man only, but the Holy One of holies! And it says that Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and that after it prophet and vision shall cease in Israel! David was anointed of old, and Solomon, and Hezekiah; but then Jerusalem and the place stood, and prophets were prophesying, Gad and Asaph and Nathan, and later Isaiah and Hosea and Amos and others. Moreover, those men who were anointed were called holy certainly, but none of them was called the Holy of holies. Nor is it any use for the Jews to take refuge in the Captivity, and say that Jerusalem did not exist then, for what about the prophets? It is a fact that at the outset of the Exile Daniel and Jeremiah were there, and Ezekiel and Haggai and Zechariah also prophesied.

Click to expand...

He points out three of the qualifications that will identify the Messiah:

1. He is not just "anointed," He is the Holy of Holies.

2. Jerusalem would stand until He came.

3. After He came, prophecy and vision would cease.

Then he says you can disqualify everyone except Jesus from these three conditions, because at times when Jerusalem stood in the past, there was still prophecy going on. When Jerusalem didn't stand, there was STILL prophecy going on. But after Jesus (Who was the only Holy of Holies) came and Jerusalem was destroyed, there were no more prophecies or visions, so for the first time all three conditions are met.

NONE of this has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with preterism. Add to that the fact that Athanasius says VERY CLEARLY in his conclusion of the work that Jesus will return again in glory.

Great work npetreley!

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

Here are more good ones verizon1 I hope these help

Early Preterist Statements

Click to expand...

Pleas stop misrepresenting these people as though they were preterists.

Tertullian was NOT a preterist. From the same work you used:

Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution make seven martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates.

Click to expand...

He saw Antichrist as coming IN THE FUTURE.

Clement of Alexandria was practically a gnostic, so there's no telling what he thought. But Clement of Rome was not a preterist, either.

Originally posted by npetreley
Pleas stop misrepresenting these people as though they were preterists.

Click to expand...

Npetreley, you know that's not what Manifestation is doing.  He's not saying that those early church fathers were "consistent preterists" in any sense of the idea.  Rather, he's showing that the early church fathers interpreted certain passages in a preteristic manner and not a futuristic manner, and in some cases combined the two ideas in tension.

 

 

Originally posted by npetreley


My copy isn't going to be any different than your copy unless your copy is simply a few selected quotes from a preterist web site.

I also don't see why it is necessary to provide the context, since I already demonstrated by quoting from the CONCLUSION of the work to show that Athanasius believed Jesus would return IN THE FUTURE in glory. But since you asked, here it is:

At the beginning oif the chapter, Athanasius states his purpose for writing it.



Then he says he'll consider the objections of the Jews first, and goes on to show that OT prophecy supports the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah.



That's the thrust of the whole chapter. It exists only to prove from OT prophecy that Jesus is clearly the Messiah.

And now let's look at your quote with the surrounding context.



In other words, Athanasius is CLEARLY refuting the Jewish belief that the Messiah had not yet come at all. He was not in any way refuting a second coming of the Messiah.

That's all you should need, but here's the remaining context, and why you have taken the destruction of Jerusalem out of context. 

Click to expand...

My copy is not from a web site.  I have shown the context that is the in chapter and verse.  Why can you do the same.  Any one can say that Athanasius is CLEARLY refuting the Jewish belief that the Messiah had not yet come at all. He was not in any way refuting a second coming of the Messiah. Without showing the chapter and verse it comes from.

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


Npetreley, you know that's not what Manifestation is doing.  He's not saying that those early church fathers were "consistent preterists" in any sense of the idea.  Rather, he's showing that the early church fathers interpreted certain passages in a preteristic manner and not a futuristic manner, and in some cases combined the two ideas in tension.

 

 

Click to expand...

Thanks Mike.  We know how the blind lead the blind on these things.

In other words, Athanasius is CLEARLY refuting the Jewish belief that the Messiah had not yet come at all. He was not in any way refuting a second coming of the Messiah.

That's all you should need, but here's the remaining context, and why you have taken the destruction of Jerusalem out of context.

So in other words these men also have called your Jesus a false prophet by your own words Matthew 26:62-64 These men have also called Jesus a false prophet.

Originally posted by verizon1
So in other words these men also have called your Jesus a false prophet by your own words Matthew 26:62-64 These men have also called Jesus a false prophet.

Click to expand...

 

I wouldn't say that, Verizon1.  They simply reinterpret the words of Christ because they failed to recognize the historical and spiritual fulfillment of those words.

Christ was correct.  His prophecies did come true.  But certain individuals throughout church history couldn't see the forest for the trees, and choose a different National Park to go wandering in: "Futurist National Park, here I come!" 

Originally posted by verizon1

So in other words these men also have called your Jesus a false prophet by your own words Matthew 26:62-64 These men have also called Jesus a false prophet.

Click to expand...

According to you, maybe. But that doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Npetreley, you know that's not what Manifestation is doing.  He's not saying that those early church fathers were "consistent preterists" in any sense of the idea.  Rather, he's showing that the early church fathers interpreted certain passages in a preteristic manner and not a futuristic manner, and in some cases combined the two ideas in tension.

Click to expand...

If so, then I'm afraid it makes no sense to me to call these "preterist statements." How can they be preterist statements if if the person making them believes that some prophecy remains unfulfilled? All views on prophecy other than preterism believe that some prophecies were fulfilled and some prophecies have not yet been fulfilled. They simply differ on what has and hasn't. The preterist view is the only one I know of that puts everything on one side of the line.

So if you are simply looking for people who have made a statement at some time or another that agrees with the preterist view, then you could include just about ANYONE in that group. Even Jewish people who don't believe Jesus is the Messiah have made preterist statements in THAT context. At one time or another they must have said something that places some fulfillment of prophecy in the past. And since preterists put ALL prophecy in the past, their statements are preterist by that definition. But that hardly makes for evidence that preterism is true.

Originally posted by npetreley
 


Even Jewish people who don't believe Jesus is the Messiah have made preterist statements in THAT context. At one time or another they must have said something that places some fulfillment of prophecy in the past. And since preterists put ALL prophecy in the past, their statements are preterist by that definition. But that hardly makes for evidence that preterism is true.

Click to expand...

This is a false statement.  Most Jews don't even believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophets concerning Israels Messiah. Those prophets are from the Old Testament.  So how could they make preterist statements.  Where is your proof for thses kind of false statement?   Notice how various will know Jewish writer express this.

The Jew refused to accept the excuse that the major prophecies concerning the Messiah will only be fulfilled in a "second coming." ( He expects the Messiah to complete his mission in his first attempt.) [The Real Messiah Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973 page 15.]

Since Jesus did not fulfill the most important Messianic prophecies, they expected him to return to complete this task in a "second coming." At first, Christians expected that this (second coming) would come very shortly...in their lifetime. When their prayer was not an answered they began to hope that it would come a thousand years after Jesus’ death. This was the millennium or thousand years kingdom. Finally after a thousand years passed and Jesus still had not returned, (they postponed his second coming to an indefinite time). We therefore see that the (early Christians were forced to radically alter the Jewish concept of the Messiah in order to explain Jesus failure). This compounded with the pagan influence in the (early church, gave birth to a Messianic concept totally alien to Judaism. [Pinchas Stolper, ed. pages 32, 33}

You will discover that when ever any really strong question [such as why Jesus hasn’t fulfilled all Messianic prophecies]..is asked [of the Christians], the (standard answer is that it refers to the second coming). It therefore becomes extremely important to ascertain the validity of this claim. The success of the Christian claim or its failure ( rest to a very large extent on the theory of the second coming).It is clearly an answer born of desperation. [Samuel Levin. You Take Jesus, I will Take God. Los Angeles 1980. Page 15

These Jews are not macking preterist statements

npetreley

According to you, maybe. But that doesn't make it true.

So why the double standard? As you, have said, Your Jesus did not fulfill all the predictions about his coming.
You same scriptures also says when a prophet speaks for God the thing must be fulfilled in time Deu. 18. So why the double standard here?

Are you telling me that we should believe some scriptures and not the rest? Are you telling me that we should (NOT] believe what God said in Deu.18? Are you telling me that God uses a double standard?

Try looking rationally at the Idol Jesus without attachment or pride of your traditions, 'cause he also failed miserably at his end time predictions and his coming back quickly. How can one look at others in haste then not see their own idols failings?

You have made Jesus into a false prophet unless you can show me from Deu 18 were God said he would use a double standard. Jesus told Caiaphas the (HE) WOULD SEE HIS RETURN. Matthew 26:62-64. Out of your own words you have said this did NOT happen which makes Jesus another false prophet according to your word of God Deu. 18.

Originally posted by npetreley
 

And since preterists put ALL prophecy in the past, their statements are preterist by that definition.

Click to expand...

Just to be absolutely clear, You are incorrect in that statement. While Preterists place the fulfillment of  all "eschatology" in the past, we affirm that "Prophesy" continues to unfold and be fulfilled on a daily basis, into the future.

The point I believe  Manifest, Mike Buy-dler, etc were making is that when you take all the different verses that individual ECF's took a 'preterist' understanding of, and put them together, you'd have full preterism.

Originally posted by Mike Beidler


 

Really?  What was that?

Click to expand...

Hi Mike. Your statement about Christ sending the Spirit of truth, to guide "them into all the truth" was a deep and true statement. Is not meant to be applied to the church as a body. In fact, it was meant only for those to whom Jesus was speaking: his disciples. The Spirit of truth, was to guide or remind (them) of the things to come. (John 16:13) These things that the Spirit of truth was to remind them of were the same things, that Jesus had already told them about before.

The error of the church today is that they believe they, are the church in the (transitional age). The believe they are living in the last days, of the Old Covenant age. The church today is stuck at Pentecost and refuses to move pass that point in time.

Their error is in believing that the Holy Scripture were only written to them. Therefor they refuse to see, that the Scripture were written for us, and not to us. This is the big problem within the church today, they believe they are the transitional church.

I never thought of that part about the Spirit of truth guiding or reminding them ONLY of the things Jesus said. The is why Stephen could say by the power of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus of Nazareth will come and destroy this place (the temple and city) and change the customs which Moses delivered to us (the Old Covenant law). Act 6:13-14.

The Spirit of Truth guided or reminded Stephen of the thing that Jesus had already said (Matthew 24:1-3) What happen a few short years after Stephen said those words? The end came! Jesus return just as Stephen said and destroyed that place and changed the customs which Moses delivered to them. Could anything be clearer, simpler, or more straight forward? No matter how the futurist deny this truth, the facts still remains in history. The temple and the customs of Moses were indeed destroyed at his return.

As you already know the church today believes its the transitional church. Buy I had never though of that part you so will pointed out about the Spirit of truth. Thank you brother for that insight into scripture.