Day of the Lord

[keras]

Actually, that is not relevant since what is relevant is chronology in this case. But to answer your question anyway, I'm assuming it's not meaning in a literal sense. Especially the fact it involves stars falling. Why would literal stars be falling out of the sky but the earth wouldn't be as well? How could there even be an earth remaining if it is getting bombarded with literal stars falling out of the sky? With things like that in mind, it is highly unlikely that these events are involving literal events, such as the sun literally going dark. Yet, it wouldn't surprise me if some Amils take those things literally, though. Based on how they take 2 Peter 3:10 to be involving the earth literally being engulfed in literal flames of fire during the day of the Lord.

The Greek word translated 'stars', is 'asters'. Meaning any cosmic object - stars, planets, asteroids and meteors. ALSO, our satellites.
If actual stars was meant, they would have had to start moving towards us 4 1/2 light years ago, for even the nearest one!
Our thousands of satellites and space objects circling the earth, will crash when forced down by the massive explosion of the suns surface which the Lord will instigate on His Day of fiery wrath.
It will cause the sun to go dark, [after the initial flash; Isaiah 30:26a] and the moon to glow bright red. [by the thermolumiscient reaction, Joel 2:31, Revelation 6:12]
And the earth effects will be as so graphically described. Why not? He reset our civilization by a flood, and we are today; once again as in the days of Noah.

Seems that many prefer to avoid any unpalatable facts.
This is not wise, as God has given us plenty of information about His plans, to ignore or push aside the many warnings, may result in hardship later.

 

[DavidPT]

Well maybe I was misunderstanding you. As a postmillenial I would basically say the same thing as you. Don't believe it to be literal either.

Since we are now on the same page, in regards to some of this, here's a question then. Why is it that Matthew 24:29 doesn't have to be involving literal events, but that verses 15-26 have to be? Because, after all, if those who interpret verses 15-26 to be involving the first century and what happened in 70 AD, obviously, that involved literal events and a literal temple.

The holy place mentioned in this passage, I do take to be meaning a temple. A literal temple, though? Especially if it is involving the one recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, which I myself take it to be involving, and that I don't take that temple to be meaning a literal temple, such as the 2nd temple, nor a rebuilt one in the future.

 

[wonderkins]

I have read many historical books and studies. The fact is that very little of Bible prophecy has been fulfilled.

It is obvious the Josephs Dream was allegorical; it was a dream!
But the many mentions of changes to the actual sun and moon, are not.

I view the avoidance of clearly stated Prophesies, as a serious mistake, which simply leaves one in the dark about forthcoming dramatic events. 1 Thessalonians 5:4

So when Jesus says something is going to happen, and then that thing happens in history, then it doesn't count?

The point about the sun is that it's not literal.

You've already discredited yourself as far as I'm concerned. In the other thread you and I were discussing things, you essentially said Jesus was wrong in what he told his disciples. You never refuted that, but tried to back it up. Even though what Jesus said about those people still being around when he comes in his kingdom was plainly stated, you ignored your own rule. Why?

You asked me above if there's a chance of my eschatology being wrong. I answered it's possible. I would ask you the same. Is it possible your eschatology is wrong? I only ever see you pushing your own teaching as what's right on here. Always correcting and barely discussing.

 

[DavidPT]

The Greek word translated 'stars', is 'asters'. Meaning any cosmic object - stars, planets, asteroids and meteors. ALSO, our satellites.

Speaking of satellites then, here's an interesting article, below. How much of it, if any, that might be based on fact, that I couldn't tell you. Here's something from that article.

-------------------------

If 20,000 satellites were falling to Earth, it wouldn’t happen instantly. That’s because the satellites’ speed and positions in space could make some of them take longer to come crashing down. If a satellite was 1,000 km (621 mi) above the Earth’s atmosphere, it might take over 100 years before it finally fell to the ground.

So all these satellites falling to Earth would be a long, drawn-out process. Luckily for us, when they do finally fall on Earth, a lot of them will get burned up by our atmosphere. But that still doesn’t mean we’d be completely safe.
What If Every Satellite Fell to Earth? | What If Show

------------------------------------

 

[keras]

Always correcting and barely discussing.

I correct wrong teachings with scriptural truths. Why pick apart the plain statements of the Prophets?

The point about the sun is that it's not literal.

But it is; Literally mentioned many times, that it will suddenly shine 7 times brighter, Isaiah 30:26a, the Lord will use the sun to punish His enemies, Psalms 50:1-4.
Then several Prophesies say how the sun will be darkened; on the Day of fiery wrath, and again when Jesus Returns.

Making categorical statements, saying the Prophesies mean something other than what they actually say, without any valid reason for doing so; is serious error.
The thing is; people who have chosen to believe false teachings, will have difficulty in comprehending the truth. That is the way God wants it; He has blinded and deafened people to His Plans for our future, because what will happen will surprise and shock everyone. It will be our great test of faith. 1 Peter 4:12

 

[keras]

Speaking of satellites then

There was an article in the Nat Geo, a few years ago; that said how the pressure wave from Coronal Mass Ejections does cause satellites to lose altitude and to burn and crash back to earth.
The danger of a big CME to our satellites is well documented. As is the danger to all of our modern infrastructure.
It IS what will happen and our world will never be the same again.

A Catastrophic Threat:
A nuclear Electro-Magnetic Pulse attack or a great geomagnetic storm would be a catastrophe unprecedented in scale and scope across the United States and in the case of a huge magnitude Coronal Mass Ejection, the entire planet would be devastated.
It would collapse the technological and industrial foundations of our modern society that sustains hundreds of millions of people.

We cannot guess whether terrorists or a rogue State will make an EMP attack, but no doubt this threat exists. But as for a natural EMP event, generated by an explosion of the Suns surface, there is scientific consensus that such an event is inevitable and could happen at any time. Indeed, most people who look into this issue, agree that a CME is overdue and will probably occur in the near future.

NASA estimates in its July 2014 report, that the likelihood of a CME superstorm is 12% per decade. This virtually guarantees that we should experience one in our lifetime.
If the 1856 Carrington event happened today, this would be the result:

The high intensity EMP would not only cause a national loss of all electricity supplies and the failure of most critical infrastructures, but famine, panic and loss of law and order will kill millions of Americans. The EMP Commission estimates that within 12 months of an EMP event, two thirds of Americans would be dead.

We have had many near misses, in July 2012 one narrowly missed the earth and even the small ones that have affected us, causing blackouts and damage to electronic systems.
Ref: Electric Armageddon, Dr. P.V. Fry.

The Bible’s Prophetic Word is the source for reliable information about this forthcoming worldwide disaster. In over 100 prophesies, we are told all we need to know about it.

Be aware and be prepared!

 

[Strong in Him]

Joel 2:28-29 refers to the people of God after the terrible Day of cosmic events and earthly disasters.
The Lord will pour His Spirit upon those people who have stood firm in their faith during that day.

That prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost; Peter testified to it.
Before Pentecost, the Spirit was with certain people only and only for a limited time. After Pentecost, believers were filled with the Spirit, baptised in the Spirit, led by the Spirit and given the gifts of the Spirit. Paul wrote about life in the Spirit, and said that the Spirit was a deposit, guaranteeing our future inheritance.

As I've said before, whenever OT prophecy was fulfilled in Scripture, we were told about it.
No one eve said that we were to try to work out prophecies on our own.

 

[Strong in Him]

That was a partial fulfilment, a demonstration of how it will be in the future.
Proved by how that amazing outpouring of the Spirit did not last.

It didn't?
The Spirit inspired Scripture to be written and still speaks to us through it today.
The Spirit is still available to us and can, and should, live in us. People are still baptised in the Holy Spirit, speak in tongues and have the gifts that the Spirit gives.
Christians are strengthened, led, comforted, challenged and inspired by the Spirit. We are encouraged to show the fruits of the Spirit - which we cannot do unless we have received the Spirit. The Spirit still convicts both Christians and non Christians of sin and points us to Jesus. The Spirit helps us in our every day lives and witness.

Believers are still being baptised in the Spirit - therefore he is still being poured out on people.

 

[wonderkins]

Since we are now on the same page, in regards to some of this, here's a question then. Why is it that Matthew 24:29 doesn't have to be involving literal events, but that verses 15-26 have to be? Because, after all, if those who interpret verses 15-26 to be involving the first century and what happened in 70 AD, obviously, that involved literal events and a literal temple.

The holy place mentioned in this passage, I do take to be meaning a temple. A literal temple, though? Especially if it is involving the one recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, which I myself take it to be involving, and that I don't take that temple to be meaning a literal temple, such as the 2nd temple, nor a rebuilt one in the future.

Matthew 24 begins with the disciples pointing out the actual temple to Jesus, which leads to the rest of the chapter. He goes on in 24:1-14 to explain the destruction of the temple and the signs to look for before it happens. 24:15-26 he's referring to Daniel who told about the coming destruction of the temple in Daniel 9:24-27. That's why I believe 15-26 to be literal, because the whole thing was still about the temple. Matthew 24:29 is just referring back to a number of old testament writers who used the same language when speaking of a nation.

But those are just my thoughts on it. And that developed after my eschatology changed.

 

[claninja]

Acts 2, quoting from the prophet Joel says in the last days the Spirit will pour out upon all flesh. Since this has been on-going since the day of Pentecost the last days obviously began with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.

Acts 2:17 (KJV) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Again, Luke quoting from the prophet Joel says before "that great and notable day of the Lord come AND it shall come to pass! What shall come to pass? Is it the same time period as Pentecost? No! It is not, because here Luke writes this is the time when whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. I hope you would agree that man calls upon the name of the Lord to be saved as they hear the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit and turn to Christ in repentance believing.

We've established that Joel's prophesy, being fulfilled at Pentecost according to Luke is the Day of the Lord the prophets of old foretell would come, and the "last days" according to Luke. Since the Day of the Lord is also when men call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, it is clearly the Gospel age/time/era.

We know this Day of the Lord covers the whole age/era/time for the Gospel to be sent unto all the world, because Luke also quotes Joel saying the Day of the Lord that will come will not only be when men call upon the name of the Lord for salvation, but the Day of the Lord will also encompass the end of this Gospel age, when the sun turns dark and moon into blood when the Day (ONE) of the Lord is finished with the second coming of Christ to make everything new again and usher in eternity on the new earth.

Acts 2:20-21 (KJV) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Joel 2:1 (KJV) Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

Joel 2:31-32 (KJV) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

sorry, rwb, I’m having a hard time following the dots your attempting to connect. I don’t see where the “day of the lord” refers to believers accepting the gospel. I’m not seeing anything in your argument that connects the day of the Lord to the gospel age. All NT references to the “day of the lord” refer to a future event, not one they were currently living in.

 

[wonderkins]

sorry, rwb, I’m having a hard time following the dots your attempting to connect. I don’t see where the “day of the lord” refers to believers accepting the gospel. I’m not seeing anything in your argument that connects the day of the Lord to the gospel age. All NT references to the “day of the lord” refer to a future event, not one they were currently living in.

40 years later would have been future to them. Wouldn't what Jesus said to them be useless information if he meant 2000+ years in the future? Jesus said that generation wouldn't pass away until all those things took place. He also told them before that some standing in front of him would not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

 

[rwb]

sorry, rwb, I’m having a hard time following the dots your attempting to connect. I don’t see where the “day of the lord” refers to believers accepting the gospel. I’m not seeing anything in your argument that connects the day of the Lord to the gospel age. All NT references to the “day of the lord” refer to a future event, not one they were currently living in.

The Day of the Lord refers to the whole Gospel era when all that is prophesied regarding this age has been, is being, and will be fulfilled. The Day of the Lord is connected to the Gospel era and the last days. Which is time given the Church to proclaim the Gospel unto all the nations of the earth, and whosoever believes by grace through faith has eternal life through Christ. We can only have eternal life through the Gospel because Christ came in His day, or as the prophets say the appointed Day of the Lord. The only future event for the Day of the Lord is when Christ comes again on the final or last Day of the Lord when time for proclaiming the Gospel on earth is finished.

The prophets of Old foretell of the time when the promised Messiah would come. This time of the Messiah they call the Day of the Lord. For those of us living after Christ's first advent, we look for the Day of the Lord to come AGAIN! Why? Because His Day/age/time/era has already come since He came to earth a man and redeemed believers from their sins and conquered death.

 

[rwb]

40 years later would have been future to them. Wouldn't what Jesus said to them be useless information if he meant 2000+ years in the future? Jesus said that generation wouldn't pass away until all those things took place. He also told them before that some standing in front of him would not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Remember in His discourse Christ was speaking to Messianic Jews. Telling them not only what would become of Jerusalem of old and the temple, but also telling them and
"(whoso readeth, let him understand" about the epic battle unfolding upon this earth as the forces of good battle against the forces of evil in this age of the Gospel, called the Day of the Lord.

The Olivet Discourse like the Revelation is written about what is coming to pass on this earth against Christ and His Church as the Kingdom of Heaven is being built through the proclamation of the Gospel in the power of the Spirit. The prophesy that this time would be great tribulation such as has never before been and will never be again. The Discourse and the Revelation would be of no value at all to the Church on earth if Christ is only giving us a history lesson of an ethnic nation.

 

[parousia70]

The Discourse and the Revelation would be of no value at all to the Church on earth if Christ is only giving us a history lesson of an ethnic nation.

So the 6 Day Creation narrative in Genesis is of NO VALUE to all the Church on earth because its merely a history lesson?

 

[parousia70]

40 years later would have been future to them. Wouldn't what Jesus said to them be useless information if he meant 2000+ years in the future? Jesus said that generation wouldn't pass away until all those things took place. He also told them before that some standing in front of him would not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Pretty Sure @claninja meant "future to them" not "future to us".

 

[wonderkins]

Pretty Sure @claninja meant "future to them" not "future to us".

Ok fair enough. It is sometimes hard to tell in these discussions.

 

[DavidPT]

40 years later would have been future to them. Wouldn't what Jesus said to them be useless information if he meant 2000+ years in the future? Jesus said that generation wouldn't pass away until all those things took place. He also told them before that some standing in front of him would not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Obviously, that would have to include the following taking place first, before this generation meant passes away.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


Meaning this----until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

It only stands to reason, if Jesus said that first then later said the following, this means He is including what is recorded in verse 24, that all of that has to be fulfilled first.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

It is not reasonable to argue that 'all be fulfilled' does not also include the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled. So then, were the times of the Gentiles fulfilled prior to this generation allegedly passing away 2000 years ago?

And not only that, verse 24 also involves being expelled from the land, which then means there has to be a return to this same land before this generation passes away. Most interpreters, if not all interpreters, who insist this generation already passed away 2000 years ago, disregard the fact that eventually there has to be a return to this land since that would also be included in 'all must be fulfilled' before this generation passes away. Which, BTW, last century there actually was a return to the land, except a lot of interpreters insist it wasn't an act of God, that it had nothing to do with Him wanting them back in the land. That they are basically trespassing I guess.

Therefore, based on these things alone, the fact the times of the Gentiles are still ongoing, thus not fulfilled yet, as in it is no longer the times of the Gentiles, the chances that this generation meant in the Discourse already passed away, is zero. Because if it did already pass away, but that Jesus said all things have to be fulfilled first, which obviously includes the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled first, but that if we are still in the times of the Gentiles as we speak, it's simple then, it would mean Jesus lied to us in Luke 21 if this generation already passed away before all things are fulfilled first.

 

[wonderkins]

Obviously, that would have to include the following taking place first, before this generation meant passes away.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


Meaning this----until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

It only stands to reason, if Jesus said that first then later said the following, this means He is including what is recorded in verse 24, that all of that has to be fulfilled first.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

It is not reasonable to argue that 'all be fulfilled' does not also include the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled. So then, were the times of the Gentiles fulfilled prior to this generation allegedly passing away 2000 years ago?

And not only that, verse 24 also involves being expelled from the land, which then means there has to be a return to this same land before this generation passes away. Most interpreters, if not all interpreters, who insist this generation already passed away 2000 years ago, disregard the fact that eventually there has to be a return to this land since that would also be included in 'all must be fulfilled' before this generation passes away. Which, BTW, last century there actually was a return to the land, except a lot of interpreters insist it wasn't an act of God, that it had nothing to do with Him wanting them back in the land. That they are basically trespassing I guess.

Therefore, based on these things alone, the fact the times of the Gentiles are still ongoing, thus not fulfilled yet, as in it is no longer the times of the Gentiles, the chance that this generation meant in the Discourse already passed away, is zero. Because if it did already pass away, but that Jesus said all things have to be fulfilled first, which obviously includes the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled first, but that if we are still in the times of the Gentiles as we speak, it's simple then, it would mean Jesus lied to us in Luke 21 if this generation already passed away before all things are fulfilled first.

Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24. That happened in 70ad.

Luke 21 is talking about the same thing. Verse 20 says when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize her desolation is near. That happened in the first century. So one question is, Jesus said when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies...and then it is, by Rome, is that fulfillment of what Jesus said?

The jews did fall by the sword. They were also led into captivity by Rome, who sold many of them into the Egyptian slave trade. Josephus wrote about all of this. He writes how even after all the other invasions of Jerusalem, the war in 70ad was onlu it's second desolation. The first being from Babylon.

 

[rwb]

So the 6 Day Creation narrative in Genesis is of NO VALUE to all the Church on earth because its merely a history lesson?

It's of great importance because it tells us the creation story of ALL humankind.

 

[DavidPT]

So one question is, Jesus said when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies...and then it is, by Rome, is that fulfillment of what Jesus said?

That obviously would be part of it, yet not all of it. Why are you not grasping, that if Jesus first said until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, then later says this generation shall not pass, till all be fulfilled, that this is including the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled first? What part of 'all' in Luke 21:32 is difficult to understand? How can it not be including everything He has already predicted before having said that? Did He or did He not say what He did in verse 24 before He said what He said in verse 32?

This is what He said in verse 24---till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This is what He said in verse 32---This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. If that does not also include what He said in verse 24, then Jesus lied to us in that case. Impossible that Jesus lied to us. It is one's interpretation that is making Him out to be a liar.