I didn't say Jesus said that has anything to do with their return. I said the fig tree is symbolic of Israel. So if you don't think the fig tree is Israel, than what is The Parable of the Fig Tree all about that Jesus spoke of?
Lemme get this straight. Jesus said in His discourse to His disciples that His return will occur at a time when the Jews return to their homeland as a nation symbolic of the Fig Tree, and you're saying that has been fulfilled 500 years before Jesus was born?
Is that what you're telling me?
In the following passage we are told to suffer tribulation up to the time when Christ shall come to be glorified in His saints.
That no man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto. For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know. So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: [Which is] a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Do I need to remind people what day, "in that day," refers to?
Yes, these are things that have happened and been happening since the beginning of civilization and recorded history. I don't believe these are the signs that people were to look for concerning Jerusalem and the Temple's ruin.
And with that I disagree completely. The establishment of modern Israel and Palestine by the United Nations from the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine isn't prophetic. It was simply something that happened in recent history.
There is nothing significant about it. The prophecies concerning the Jewish return to the Land were fulfilled with Cyrus' decree when the Jews were allowed to return back to Judah following the Babylonian Captivity, returning from the Exile. The return of the Jews to the Land fulfilled those promises from God nearly five hundred years before Christ. They are not left unfulfilled, they have been fulfilled for the last 2500 years. All the prophecies of the pre-Exilic prophets concerning the Jewish return and retaking the land has been fulfilled with their return to the land following Cyrus' decree and the ending of the Captivity--the city and Temple rebuilt.
-CryptoLutheran
ViaCrucis said in post 56:
The fig tree doesn't have anything to do with the return of the Jews to the Land.
interpreter said in post 57:
I see that you cannot name one verse where Jesus talks about a rapture.
WW II
You said,
I responded by saying that Jesus says nothing about the return of the Jews to the Land.
Jesus does not say that His return will "occur at a time when the Jews return to their homeland as a nation symbolic of the Fig Tree", Jesus says--using the fig tree as an example--that the signs of Jerusalem's destruction will be understood, when the season of that happening draws near, Jesus' followers should be able to know it, and respond as He said--to flee from the city. And historically that is exactly what happened, Eusebius recounts for us that the Christians of Jerusalem had received a vision, and thus fled to Perea of Pella (modern Jordan), thereby escaping the destruction and ruin that beset Jerusalem.
The example of the fig tree isn't about the Parousia, but about the events that unfold surrounding Jerusalem's destruction. The Parousia, Jesus says, comes without warning, suddenly. He says He comes at a time when no one expects, He compares it to the flood that caught the wicked unaware, it will be as though two were in a field and one will be taken and the other left. It will be as a thief in the night.
There are no signs by which to predict Christ's Parousia. When He comes, it will be suddenly, without warning, at a time we do not expect--and we are therefore called to vigilance. To hammer in that point Jesus gives two parables: The Parable of the Ten Virgins, and the Parable of the Talents. The first is exceedingly clear: Remain watchful, the Bridegroom comes at a time we do not know; the latter is also clear: Be mindful and faithful, for the Master can come at any time, how have we been while He was away?
We are called to be watchful, vigilant, faithful, and fruitful in this time between the Lord's ascension and His future Parousia, His appearing and coming in glory on the Last Day. There won't be signs to help us predict the timing of His coming, for He comes unexpectantly, without warning.
But that's the difference between Jesus talking about the destruction of Jerusalem--there will be signs, and it took place in 70 AD--and Jesus talking about His coming again on the Last Day--there will be no signs, therefore we are to be always watchful, faithful, and about the Master's work.
-CryptoLutheran
Wrong. Mat. 24:30-31 was fulfilled in the 4th century when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. And he sent his messengers with a trumpet and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea.Note that Jesus does talk about the rapture, for it's the gathering together of the church to Jesus at his 2nd coming (2 Thessalonians 2:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), which he talks about in Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-27, and John 14:3.
The English word "rapture" is derived from the root of the Latin word "rapiemur", which is how the old Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible translated the original Greek word (harpazo) translated as "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. So the "rapture" is the church's being "caught up together" to Jesus at his 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), which is the same as the church's being "gathered together" to Jesus at his 2nd coming (2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:30-31, John 14:3), which will occur immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).
Christians need to be wary of the mistaken idea that no rapture will occur at Jesus' 2nd coming. For such an idea could be employed in our future by the Antichrist's False Prophet (of Revelation 19:20, Revelation 13:13-15) to fool some Christians into thinking that Jesus' 2nd coming has happened (Matthew 24:23-26) without Jesus having to have raptured (caught up together/gathered together) the church to hold a meeting in the sky with him at his 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:30-31, John 14:3).
At that meeting, Jesus will judge everyone in the church (Psalms 50:3-5, cf. Mark 13:27) by their works (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:6-8, Luke 12:45-48, Matthew 25:19-30). And then Jesus will marry in the clouds the obedient part of the church (Revelation 19:7-8, Matthew 25:1-12), those in the church (of all times) who "overcame" to the end (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 2:26). They will then mount white horses and come back down from the sky (the 1st heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:14) as he defeats the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") and the world's armies (Revelation 19:15-21). Jesus will then make the marriage supper of Revelation 19:9 for the resurrected and married obedient part of the church in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 25:6-9; 1 Corinthians 15:54). Jesus and the obedient part of the church will then reign on the earth for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29).
What does that have to do with a rapture?LOL. Well, I'll give you credit for being consistent. So here's your answer. Matthew 22:1-14 "The Parable of the Wedding Feast."
So what about things and events written in Revelation pertaining to His second coming like the Antichrist, Mark of the Beast, Abomination of Desolation, Mystery Babylon, a false prophect, etc? Wouldn't things like those be enough hints of His soon return?
I suppose that's to be expected from Luther.. a Jew hater if there ever was one..
Let me get this straight. Instead of actually engaging in civilized discourse you feel it necessary to imply that because I'm Lutheran that I must be--as Luther was--a antisemitic bigot; all because I don't believe modern Israel is prophetically significant?
I want to thank you for demonstrating to me your unwillingness to actually engage in conversation without degenerating into slander, insult, and mouth-frothing vitriol.
But to humor you, I'm not Martin Luther, I don't have any ill feelings toward the Jewish people. I happen to have perfectly healthy relationships with my Jewish friends, and we are perfectly capable of having inter-religious conversations like civilized adults.
-CryptoLutheran
What does that have to do with a rapture?
If those were about the "end times", maybe.
But St. John of Patmos isn't writing about the end times, he's writing an apocalyptic letter to the seven churches in Asia who were, in that time, suffering persecution at the hands of Rome. The Revelation isn't about the end of the world, but is an apocalypse, an unveiling, of the antagonism between Rome and the Church, the Church facing Rome's oppressive power, a call to endure in faith in the midst of suffering in light of the victory of God in Jesus Christ, who will, most certainly, come again as Judge with a sword coming out of His mouth.
God's victory for His people in and through Christ is certain, even in the midst of suffering as the churches John writes to are suffering.
There isn't going to be a literal army of locusts swarming upon the earth at some future time. That's not what the Revelation is about. It's about the God who, in Christ, has won the victory, and no matter how the powers of this world may rage, no matter how vicious the dragon's anger might be, the victory belongs to our God. He who died, is now risen, having the keys to death and Hades is the Lamb seated upon the throne; and He will come again as Judge, and put to end the violence and machinations of the nations.
The Beast of the Apocalypse is Caesar, the scarlet beast Rome's imperial power and the harlot is herself Rome, the city on seven hills. The Beast's number is six hundred and sixty-six, a reference to Nero, who suffered a fatal wound but comes revived again to war against the Saints--that is, during the reign of Domitian the persecutions came back, as though Nero himself had come back from the dead.
When John is told to write concerning what must "shortly come to pass" it does not mean, "thousands of years from now", but really does mean what must shortly come to pass. John was told to write concerning the things that are and shortly coming. John writes about the times and events of his own time, of the context of his era, not about far flung "end times" events. The Revelation isn't a chronology of the future, but an apocalyptic unfolding of the things that are. Even as Daniel had written apocalyptically about the events surrounding the Maccabean era, concerning Antiochus, the Syrian Wars, and the abomination of that causes desolation--when an altar to Zeus was placed in the Holy of Holies and swine were offered as sacrifice upon it.
-CryptoLutheran
Not at all.. Just a simple observation on my part.. Whatever you read into it your business.
If that's not the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard..
As you continue to ignore the simple truth concerning Israel being blinded in part and remain wise in your own conceits.
Perhaps you could explain what you felt Martin Luther has to do with anything in this thread. The only connection Luther could have is the fact that I'm a Lutheran, and you clearly felt it desirous to impugn my character by my denominational association.
Perhaps you could point me to one of my posts where I attacked another poster's character on here. If I have done so, by all means, address it. And I will happily apologize for any slander I've spread against another.
Our theological disagreements does not engender you to make claims about how I think or feel about the Jewish people. I have offered no indication that I hold ill will or negative feelings toward Jewish persons.
I also don't believe Canada is prophetically significant, but that doesn't mean I hate Canada, that I hate Canadians, or hold disdain for those of Canadian heritage.
I am perfectly capable of treating my Jewish neighbors with dignity, compassion, respect, and love without believing that a secular democratic state in the Levant is divinely ordained as a sign that the end of the world is just around the corner.
If you want to engage my theological and eschatological views, then do so. But don't engage in pointless ad hominem attacks and then pretend you didn't and that you were just "making an observation". You're not fooling anyone.
-CryptoLutheran