Hal Lindsey Report

[holdon]

Ah, but no Son of Man in sight anywhere. That settles it,
I think.

I wasnt' there to see the clouds and the images in the sky, but Josephus records them and that they caused GREAT fear and trembling in all the cities of Judea.

And I read somewhere the charge that the Dispensationalists interpret the bible through events. ...

Did Jesus 'touch down' when the old world was judged by water? Did it say that Jesus would come to earth and fight?

Per Mt 24, they should have seen Him: "they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" but alas nobody did. Josephus can tell you all he wants, but not this. Nor was there the "abomination of desolation". Per Zech 14, He would have come on the Mount of Olives, nothing of the kind in 70AD.

Or that he would be seen coming in the clouds and great glory. The symbolism is simple.... the Roman armies were God's vengence on the evil and adultrous generation.

No doubt that there was great fear and such in 70AD. 70AD is perfectly predicted in Luke 21:20-24, but not in Mt 24.

A very simple word search for genea will show the fallacy of your statement. Although there are times when 'kind' can be interjected into the meaning and it would be meaningful, most often in is referring to a generation of 30-50 years.

So, who decides what is when? That's the question.

And since the wandering in the wilderness after the giving of the law set the standard at 40 years, that standard is repeated as Joshua/Jesus slays his enemies who crucified him..(the unbelieving religious leaders and jews).

This is how you would say to interpret this verse.
So all the KINDS from Abraham to David [are] fourteen KINDS; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen KINDS; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen KINDS. Perhaps these should be the new dispensations??? Is that what this is referring to?

I didn't say that it was "kinds" there.

But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this (KIND)generation.

Here it can certainly be "this kind".

The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this KIND and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here.

Here it can certainly be "this kind".

Just as the flood of Roman soldiers came and destroyed all who stayed in the city.

That would be the preterist position then.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No doubt that there was great fear and such in 70AD. 70AD is perfectly predicted in Luke 21:20-24, but not in Mt 24.

When the enemy comes in like a flood,
(this would refer to Jesus' enemies, not the Roman armies)
The Spirit of the LORD will lift up a standard against him.
I'm not sure if this would be referring to the cross, or to the Roman standards, but it could be either.

Hi. I agree.
I like to use an interlinear to study on how each word is used in the NT.
This word for "surround" in Luke 21 is used 1 time in revelation and what I was pondering is if it is the enemies of Christ/OC Jewish Saints, the OC Jewish Priesthood, or enemies of the Jews that fire comes down from heaven on. Pretty interesting.

http://www.scripture4all.org/
EXCELLENT greek/hebrew interlinear. Best to download to use the advanced features.

Luke 21:20 `Whenever yet ye may be seeing being surrounded/kukloumenhn<2944> by war-feet/stratopedwn<4760>, Jerusalem, then be ye knowing! that has neared the desolating of her

Reve 20:9 And they did ascend/anebhsan <305> over the breadth of the land, and did surround/ekuklwsan <2944> the camp/parembolhn <3925> of the saints, and the city, the one having been loved, and there came down fire from God out of the heaven, and devoured them;

Acts 23:10 Of yet a great dissension/standing becoming. Being afraid, the thousand-chief, lest the Paul be being pulled to pieces by them, commands the war-troop/strateuma <4753> descending to snatch-him/arpasai <726> (5658) out of midst of them to be leading besides into the camp/parembolhn <3925>.

 

[Easystreet]

10. "Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst," declares the LORD. 11. "Many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. 12. "The LORD will possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem. 13. "Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD; for He is aroused from His holy habitation."​

This has not happen yet. What a great God we serve. He loves all people of all nations. He is the Righteous One. His ways are higher and lifted up and we are as filthy rags. Glory be to the Lord on High for His saving mercy and Grace, Blessed be the Name of Jesus the savior of the Elect, all who freely believe in Him.

 

[Easystreet]

24. 'As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings. 25. 'He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.


The EU against Israel and post Rapture Christians.

The Lord is Merciful and Longsuffering, not willing that any should perish. What a wonderful God we serve.

Blessed Be The Name of Jesus

Gordon

 

[thereselittleflower]

Don't be so condescending please. Well, by the rule of all languages the "it" refers back to the closest noun that matches: Summer. Jesus "jumps back and forth a little"???? It is pretty chronological: then, after, when, then. etc. Ah, the preterist view, I guess. But the Son of Man never showed up, did He? So how can she say "all of this happened in 70AD"?????

But it was never there in 70AD​

Not only in Gordon's paradigm, it is the biblical paradigm because the "then" of verse 21 matches the "when" of verse 15. Well yeah, hold it right there. I guess you can't read right. Because that's in the middle of the great tribulation BEFORE Christ comes back. Otherwise why the warning for the false christs. Plus read the chronology: Jesus' coming is only spoken of in verses 27 and 30. Not before verse 23. See how she upsets the whole chronology by making Jesus' jump? See how she twists this around Gordon. Not to worry: where does it say "after the tribulation of those days"? Right: in verse 29. Where do we read about the false christs? Right: in verse 24. See that's what you get when you make Jesus jump.... Quite a mess.

1

 

[Easystreet]

29. "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30. "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.


It is not rocket science. Just plain straight forward truth.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Don't be so condescending please.

Hi holdon . . wasn't trying or intending to be. . simply wanted to stress that I wanted Gordon to give it more attention than usual.

Well, by the rule of all languages the "it" refers back to the closest noun that matches: Summer.

In a manner of speaking. Since "summer" was used in a parable, then "it" refers to what "summer" symbolized in the parable, so it refers to whatever that is.

So, what does "it" and "summer" refer to here?

Jesus "jumps back and forth a little"???? It is pretty chronological: then, after, when, then. etc.

I don't have time right now, but we can focus on this if you like and I will draw it out for you.

Ah, the preterist view, I guess. But the Son of Man never showed up, did He? So how can she say "all of this happened in 70AD"?????

You keept trying to peg me for a preterist I am an amillenialist. Amillenialism and preterims share many views in common. But A millenialists do nto believe Jesus has come back yet, so you are mistaken here.

But it was never there in 70AD​

Yes it was. Later I will bring out the history of the time and what happened.

​

Not only in Gordon's paradigm, it is the biblical paradigm because the "then" of verse 21 matches the "when" of verse 15.

That is simply an interpretation. We are examining such interpretations. I don't see that interpretation being biblical especially given the underlying Greek. It doesn't support your statements as I demonstrated already.

Well yeah, hold it right there. I guess you can't read right. Because that's in the middle of the great tribulation BEFORE Christ comes back.

That's your interpretation. I am showing that such an interpretation doesn't fit the actual text when taken as it is given.

Otherwise why the warning for the false christs.

That's it right there holdon!

Why the warning of the false christ's?

That is what I am focusing on!

There is no reason for such a warning unless they come AFTER the tribulation and that tribulation happened long ago.

Plus read the chronology: Jesus' coming is only spoken of in verses 27 and 30. Not before verse 23. See how she upsets the whole chronology by making Jesus' jump? See how she twists this around Gordon. Not to worry: where does it say "after the tribulation of those days"? Right: in verse 29. Where do we read about the false christs? Right: in verse 24. See that's what you get when you make Jesus jump.... Quite a mess.

I will draw it out later when I have more time.

.

 

[holdon]

A millenialism and preterims share many views in common. But A millenialists do nto believe Jesus has come back yet, so you are mistaken here.

That may well be. But when I read Mt 24 for instance, I see that the coming of the Son of Man is closely linked to certain events described. See if you make everything else apply to 70AD then it is reasonable to expect that Jesus came back in 70AD also.

That is simply an interpretation. We are examining such interpretations. I don't see that interpretation being biblical especially given the underlying Greek. It doesn't support your statements as I demonstrated already.

I'll wait till you come with your schedule for the chapter.

That's your interpretation. I am showing that such an interpretation doesn't fit the actual text when taken as it is given..

I'll wait till you come with your schedule for the chapter.

That's it right there holdon!

Why the warning of the false christ's?

That is what I am focusing on!

There is no reason for such a warning unless they come AFTER the tribulation and that tribulation happened long ago.

??? I don't understand one iota I'am afraid. It says clearly they come before the great tribulation and Christ's coming.

 

[Easystreet]

32. "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near;
33. so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, {right} at the door.


These two verse are simple and easy to understand. Jesus uses the cycle of a fig tree to illustrate the previous discussion. When this about a fig tree (leaves grow out) then something is immanent (summer). It is not rocket science. It is not a mystery. It is what it is, a real fig tree of which the leaves are out before summer starts, but the fact that the leave are out is a sure indication that summer is immanent. Now that is simple and easy.

When the things happen that Jesus said where going to happen then the end or second coming is close in the same sense as summer is once the leaves are out on the fig tree.

These two verse alone settle the issue of interpretation. At the end of this "great tribulation" Jesus returns. Jesus did not return in 70 AD, He did not return at the end of WW2.

All Israel will be saved, All post Rapture Christians are saved, All living believers Jew and Gentiles will enter the 1000 year kingdom to rule and reign with Christ. All dead OT saints, martyred Trib saints will be resurrected at the second coming. All living none repentant sinners on the face of the earth at the Second coming are raptured to Hell. Only the saved are left to enter the earthly kingdom.

There you have it

Gordon

 

[Notrash]

32. "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near;
33. so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, {right} at the door.

These two verse are simple and easy to understand. Jesus uses the cycle of a fig tree to illustrate the previous discussion. When this about a fig tree (leaves grow out) then something is immanent (summer). It is not rocket science. It is not a mystery. It is what it is, a real fig tree of which the leaves are out before summer starts, but the fact that the leave are out is a sure indication that summer is immanent. Now that is simple and easy.


When the things happen that Jesus said where going to happen then the end or second coming is close in the same sense as summer is once the leaves are out on the fig tree.

These two verse alone settle the issue of interpretation. At the end of this "great tribulation" Jesus returns. Jesus did not return in 70 AD, He did not return at the end of WW2.

All Israel will be saved, All post Rapture Christians are saved, All living believers Jew and Gentiles will enter the 1000 year kingdom to rule and reign with Christ. All dead OT saints, martyred Trib saints will be resurrected at the second coming. All living none repentant sinners on the face of the earth at the Second coming are raptured to Hell. Only the saved are left to enter the earthly kingdom.

There you have it
Gordon

Thank your for offering your opinion and interpretation.

An authoritative opinion can reveal insecurities of the confidence of the individuals beliefs and that of others countering with a more accurate or truthful perspective and interpretation. It has the intention of creating the fear that if the hearer opposes or questions/disagrees the asserters perspective that they will be rebutted in rage or made to feel diminished, in minority or even unspiritual/unchristian. Very similar to Scofield's assertive style and very similar to the one-sided style of teaching at dispensational bible colleges.
But thanks for the opinion. Wishing you truth and Peace.

I think that there is more than enough information in the gospel accounts and epistles (Rom 16:20) to see that Jesus intended for his hearers and the readers to believe and understand that his vengence on those who killed the prophets and the desolation in Daniels prophecy would come in the people that he was talking to's lifetime. This isn't rocket science. This is basic reading and comprehension skills for that part. There is much and great information in Josephus to see that Jesus did return with vengence on his enemies by enraging the wrath of the Romans, by controling the elements of the seas and the waves, (as noted in a previous story) and the clouds, signs and wonders, etc etc. Josephus was never claimed to be a christian, so he would not have known of Jesus words. Thus he would not have said, "and every villiage saw Jesus on a glorious Chariot with soldier runing around in the clouds". But Josephus did record that men and soldiers and Chariots were seen dashing to and fro among the clouds. But I also believe that he will also come again for judgement of the whole earth. This is not a preterist position, because I dont' know what they believe... this is just what I am getting by taking Jesus at his word "This generation shall not pass till all these things happen." To not take Jesus words to mean what they say just because he didn't come in the way of a earthly kingdom like the jews wanted, (or like people want him to have said), but rather came in vengence and with the power of the elements (signs/ wonders) against those same Jews, would seem very similar in spirit and intetion to misreading and misrepresenting the intent of Daniel 9.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Thank your for offering your opinion and interpretation.

An authoritative opinion can reveal insecurities of the individuals beliefs and of others countering with a more accurate and true perspective and interpretation. It has the intention of creating the fear that if the hearer opposes or questions/disagrees with the Authoritarian perspective with truth or a better interpretation that they will rebut in rage and false accusations. Very similar to Scofield. But thanks for the opinion. Wishing you truth and Peace.
I think that there is enough information in the gospel accounts to see that Jesus intended for his hearers and the readers to believe and understand that his vengence and the desolation in Daniels prophecy would come in the people that he was talking to's lifetime. This isn't rocket science. This is basic reading and comprehension skills for that part. There is much and great information in Josephus and even in the epistles (Rom 16:20) to see that Jesus did return with vengence on his enemies by enragining the wrath of the Romans, by controling the elements of the seas and the waves, (as noted in a previous story) and the clouds, signs and wonders, etc etc. Josephus was never claimed to be a christian, so he would not have known of Jesus words. Thus he would not have said, "and every villiage saw Jesus on a glorious Chariot with soldier runing around in the clouds". But Josephus did record that men and soldiers and Chariots were seen dashing to and fro among the clouds. But I also believe that he will also come again for judgement of the whole earth. This is not a preterist position, because I dont' know what they believe... this is just what I am getting by taking Jesus at his word "This generation shall not pass till all these things happen." To not take Jesus words to mean what they say just because he didn't come in the way of a earthly kingdom like the jews wanted, but rather came in vengence and with the power of the elements (signs/ wonders) against those same Jews, is a very similar analogy to misreading and misrepresenting the intent of Daniel 9.

Very true.

Even simply applying basic English gramar to the English translations should shed some light here . . .

"This" and "That" are used much like "here" and "there" - they are words the indicate proximity to the speaker.

If Jesus had meant a generation 2000 years removed form His present generation, then "that" would have been the correct word to use in English.

"This" in this passage refers to the generation proximal to Jesus, the immediate generation living at the time He spoke those words.

holdon, I may or may not be able to get to posting my response to you for a while. Sorry.

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by holdon
Ah, the preterist view, I guess. But the Son of Man never showed up, did He? So how can she say "all of this happened in 70AD"?????

You keept trying to peg me for a preterist I am an amillenialist. Amillenialism and preterims share many views in common. But A millenialists do nto believe Jesus has come back yet, so you are mistaken here.

Hi TLF. I felt anyone that believed any of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled was a Preterist, as that is when Jesus returns to fully Consummate all things for Israel and Judah. I can actually view the Roman army as the "Parousia" of Jesus to the Jews and Israel. Not sure though right now. Peace.

Luke 21:20 `Whenever yet ye may be seeing being surrounded/kukloumenhn<2944> by war-feet/stratopedwn<4760>, Jerusalem, then be ye knowing! that has neared the desolating of her

Reve 20:9 And they did ascend/anebhsan <305> over the breadth of the land, and did surround/ekuklwsan <2944> the camp/parembolhn <3925> of the saints, and the city, the one having been loved, and there came down fire from God out of the heaven, and devoured them;

Acts 23:10 Of yet a great dissension/standing becoming. Being afraid, the thousand-chief, lest the Paul be being pulled to pieces by them, commands the war-troop/strateuma <4753> descending to snatch-him out of midst of them to be leading besides into the camp/parembolhn <3925>.

Matthew 24:3 He is yet sitting on the Mount of the olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what the Sign of Thy ParousiaV <3952>, and the full-End/sunteleiaV <4930>of the Age?'

1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may confirms your hearts, faultless in holiness, before our God and Father, in the Parousia <3952> of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

 

[Easystreet]

Gordon, I had hoped you would take time to carefully and thoughtfully read it before responding at all.

.

We have a problem. I personally don't like to jump here and there, quoting this verse and that verse as proof for or against this or that.

I prefer dealing with one text at a time. It is too easy to divert attention form the text at hand by skating off to other areas. Once we have discussed the nuts and bolts of a passage then a support passage or counter passage would be in line to consider.

You have to understand, I totally understand your view, and I was as you are at one time. If you are trying to convince me to see it your way you are headed in the wrong direction.

I am not trying to convince you of my way, only explaining why and how I see it. There is a very big difference.

I hate lengthy post with endless quotes that may or may not be joined at the hip. It only promotes confusion on all sides and leads to more of the same.

Lets return to the Matthew passage and completely deal with that wording then once we have exhausted it, move on the next passage. How does that sound?

First cup of coffee this morning in a spell. Have cut out all carbonated drinks and almost all caffeine. I feel much better. The carbonations drags me down and once I realized that is what it does and stopped, now I have more energy.

Gordon

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

29. "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30. "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.


It is not rocket science. Just plain straight forward truth.

Hi. I started a thread on Matt 24 over here so as to focus strictly on it. Peace.

http://foru.ms/t6053725-matthew-24-and-revelation-study.html#post38590810

 

[holdon]

Very true.

Even simply applying basic English gramar to the English translations should shed some light here . . .

"This" and "That" are used much like "here" and "there" - they are words the indicate proximity to the speaker.

If Jesus had meant a generation 2000 years removed form His present generation, then "that" would have been the correct word to use in English.

But He said this "generation", that is this kind of unbelieving Jew, would still be around "2000 years" from then. Same as it was already around some 2000 years before then:

Deut. 32:5They have dealt corruptly with him; Not his children's is their spot: -- A crooked and perverted generation!
32:20And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be; For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faithfulness.

Compare here too for its "duration":
Ps 12:7
Thou, Jehovah, wilt keep them, thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[thereselittleflower]

But He said this "generation", that is this kind of unbelieving Jew, would still be around "2000 years" from then. Same as it was already around some 2000 years before then:

See, that's just it. . . . if Jesus had been referring to a generation thousands of years removed from the one alive when He spoke those words, that generation would have been DISTANT to Him, not near. . . and so the word "THAT" would have been correct to use, as it refers to what is removed from oneself, distant from oneself. . . . If Jesus had meant our generation or one future to us, the the correct word to use would be "that", not "this".

"This" refers to what is immediately proximal to one . . . in this case (the case imemdiately at hand in our discussion) it refers to the generation immediate to Jesus, ie the generation living then.

Deut. 32:5They have dealt corruptly with him; Not his children's is their spot: -- A crooked and perverted generation!
32:20And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be; For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faithfulness.

Compare here too for its "duration":
Ps 12:7
Thou, Jehovah, wilt keep them, thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The above is all dealing with a generation that was alive at the time those words were spoken/penned.


Play with these two words "This" and "That" with me for a momment:

I am holding a pen in my hand, and there is a book on the table across the room.

Which sentences make most sense grammatically?

The pen in my hand:

1) "This pen is blue"

"2) That pen is blue"​

The book across the room on the table:

1) "That book is red"

2) "This book is red"​

You see, it is extremely awkward to refer to the book across the room as "this" book . .. and it is extremely awkward to refer to the pen in my hand as "that" pen.

Now, look at that verse again . . .

.

 

[holdon]

See, that's just it. . . . if Jesus had been referring to a generation thousands of years removed from the one alive when He spoke those words, that generation would have been DISTANT to Him, not near. . . and so the word "THAT" would have been correct to use, as it refers to what is removed from oneself, distant from oneself. . . . If Jesus had meant our generation or one future to us, the the correct word to use would be "that", not "this".

"This" refers to what is immediately proximal to one . . . in this case (the case imemdiately at hand in our discussion) it refers to the generation immediate to Jesus, ie the generation living then.



The above is all dealing with a generation that was alive at the time those words were spoken/penned.


Play with these two words "This" and "That" with me for a momment:

I am holding a pen in my hand, and there is a book on the table across the room.

Which sentences make most sense grammatically?

The pen in my hand:

1) "This pen is blue"​

"2) That pen is blue"​

The book across the room on the table:

1) "That book is red"​

2) "This book is red"​

You see, it is extremely awkward to refer to the book across the room as "this" book . .. and it is extremely awkward to refer to the pen in my hand as "that" pen.

Now, look at that verse again . . .

.

???? It has nothing to do with "this" or "that". There is no "that".

It's about what "generation" means in context.

 

[thereselittleflower]

???? It has nothing to do with "this" or "that". There is no "that".

It's about what "generation" means in context.

That's right! There is no "that" in the verse we are talking about . . . . instead of "that generation" it says "this generation" and the word "THIS" provides a very important contextual clue as to which generation He was referring to exactly.

The use of "THIS" in this verse instead of "THAT" means He was referring to the immediate, proximal, generation . . . not some distant generation thousands of years removed from Jesus and His audience. . .

Again, an example of the use of "this" and "that"

Take 2 pens.

Put one pen down on a table.

Walk across the room.

Hold the other pen in your hand.

Now say "This pen" . . which pen are you referring to?

Now say "That pen" . . which pen are you referring to?



.

 

[holdon]

The use of "THIS" in this verse instead of "THAT" means He was referring to the immediate, proximal, generation . . . not some distant generation thousands of years removed from Jesus and His audience. . .

No, it would be the same generation: the exact same kind. The same kind that was present in Moses' days, that was present in Jesus' days and Paul's days, would still be there at the end at Christ's second coming.

 

[thereselittleflower]

No, it would be the same generation: the exact same kind. The same kind that was present in Moses' days, that was present in Jesus' days and Paul's days, would still be there at the end at Christ's second coming.

Such an interpretation still violates the rules of grammar I have been discussing regarding the use of "this" and "that". . as well as the Greek word "de".

.