This generation

[Hammster]

How so? What basis is there for thinking that any time Jesus referred to "the end of the age" He was not speaking of the same age each time? Otherwise, how can anyone know which age He was talking about?

When it came to ages, He always had 2 in mind: this temporal age and the eternal age to come (Luke 20:34-36). I believe our understanding of the end of the age should be based on that and not based on doctrinal bias that makes any given reference by Jesus to "the end of the age" to be the end of whatever age fits your doctrine.

Like I said before, there are many ages mentioned in scripture. Your bias led you to one conclusion.

Even by your own statement, He had two in mind. My view also has two in mind.

 

[Hammster]

Can you explain exactly how you think this passage talks about the way that all of Christ's enemies will be defeated?

All nations will be discipled and baptized. That doesn’t leave room for enemies.

 

[DavidPT]

They were often mistaken about the future at that time, as evidenced by things like the question they asked in Acts 1:6.

What exactly were they mistaken about? I don't recall Jesus telling them they were mistaken about anything, then correcting their mistake. If that is basically the way you reason a lot of things the way you do at times, no wonder some of us can't get get onboard with some of your interpretations. It makes no sense for them to ask Jesus that, then Jesus answering them like such---It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

What are you going to argue? That verse 8 is pertaining to verse 7? If it is, this means Jesus just contradicted Himself since He just said it wasn't for them to know the times or the seasons. Obviously, verse 8 is pertaining to events during their lifetimes. And as a matter of fact, though they might not have realized at the time, in verse 8 Jesus was meaning mere days from the time He was addressing them. That makes it even more preposterous to apply verse 7 to verse 8, in the event you are doing that. As if it makes sense that times and seasons can fit within mere days somehow.

But this doesn't mean I'm siding with claninja in this case rather than you, it just means I find it questionable that you use Acts 1:6 to make your point. Why not use an example that actually fits the point you were hoping to make? An example that might not be disputable.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Like I said before, there are many ages mentioned in scripture. Your bias led you to one conclusion.

Even by your own statement, He had two in mind. My view also has two in mind.

There's no bias when I base my view on other things that Jesus said about the end of the age in passages like Luke 20:34-36, Matthew 13:36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50. Instead of acknowledging that He was talking about the end of the same age in each of those passages and in the Olivet Discourse, you try to claim that He was speaking of the ends of different ages in these passages. To me, THAT is doctrinal bias. I see no basis whatsoever for concluding that the references to the end of the age in the passages I mentioned are referring to the end of some other age than what is described in the Olivet Discourse.

 

[DavidPT]

Those aren't reasons as to why Matthew and Mark would think it was not worthwhile for them to record His answer to the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. I'm asking why you think Matthew and Mark decided to not record His answer to that question. So far, you have not answered that question.

All you're doing is telling me how you interpret Matthew 24, but you're not telling me why you think Matthew didn't record Jesus's answer to the question of when the temple buildings would be destroyed.

I already know how you interpret Matthew 24 and Luke 21, so I am not asking you to tell me that.

Because of the way I interpret Matthew 24:15-51, and in the event I'm correct to interpret it in that manner, I guess only God really knows, how can none of this not explain why Jesus didn't answer the question concerning the destruction of the city and temple in Matthew 24 nor Mark 13? It's because only the Luke 21 account focused on that aspect. What happened in 70 AD wasn't the main focus of the OD. Preterists certainly think it is, except you are not a Preterist, though.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

All nations will be discipled and baptized. That doesn’t leave room for enemies.

Are you saying that you believe literally all people in the world will one day be discipled and baptized?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because of the way I interpret Matthew 24:15-51, and in the event I'm correct to interpret it in that manner, I guess only God really knows, how can none of this not explain why Jesus didn't answer the question concerning the destruction of the city and temple in Matthew 24 nor Mark 13? It's because only the Luke 17 account focused on that aspect. What happened in 70 AD wasn't the main focus of the OD. Preterists certainly think it is, except you are not a Preterist, though.

So, you don't know why they would not have recorded His answer. You could have just said that in the first place since that's all I was asking about. I don't find it to be reasonable at all that they would have not recorded His answer and there's nothing you can say to change my mind about that.

 

[Timtofly]

I don't see the biblical proof I ask you to supply for the opinion that man will be able to make a choice after the thousand years have ended.

It is right there in Revelation 20. There is no other precedent besides Revelation 20. Up until the 7th Trumpet sin reigns on the earth, and death because of that sin. When the 7th Trumpet stops, sin stops. There is no sin, nor a choice in belief systems during the 1,000 year reign. If you need a verse that declares Jesus reigns on earth, with an iron rod for 1,000 years, you will not find one. If there was such a verse in Revelation 20, Amil would have been removed from the table, before it even started.


Pre-mill are just as wrong about Revelation 20 as Amil. They claim sin is in the Millennium. They claim belief or unbelief. They claim a choice between sin or not sinning. Tell me where they actually made a choice in:

"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Are you implying, they became robots? People do not come from all over the earth to the camp of the saints, without making a choice to do so. Now point out in the same verse where they were forced, coerced, or lost their mind and were robots.

The closest example of a choice prior to sin is Eve in the Garden and the serpent. Certainly Genesis 3 is not the same period of time as Revelation 20 by any stretch of the imagination. But the conditions were the same as there was literally no sin in the world in either case. If you don't accept that about the 1,000 years, then there is no verse to prove otherwise. It is figuring from Scripture when certain conditions will happen and not necessarily a direct description in the chapter itself. Genesis 3 does not talk about sin. Genesis 4 does. Paul states sin entered the world with Adam. Do you hold Paul to the same standard as having to quote Scripture for you to accept that point? I quote Paul to state sin was not in the world prior to Adam's disobedience. Sin was not even in the world for however many minutes between when Eve ate and when Adam ate.

I would go so far as to state Eve did not disobey God. There is no verse that the commandment was given to Eve. In fact, Adam more than likely told her not to touch it. Obviously nothing happened when Eve touched it, nor when Eve ate. Do you think Adam thought Eve was a science experiment to see if God was telling the truth? Paul said that Adam brought sin into the world, not Eve. I agree with Paul. I agree with Gabriel in Daniel 9 that the end of the 70th week will remove sin, just as sudden as Adam brought sin into the world. I conclude the 7th Trumpet per Revelation 10:6-7 is the end of the 70th week. We are told to compare Scripture with Scripture. I tend to grow weary of people asking for a single verse to prove a point, when that is not what we are even instructed to do.

 

[DavidPT]

So, you don't know why they would not have recorded His answer. You could have just said that in the first place since that's all I was asking about. I don't find it to be reasonable at all that they would have not recorded His answer and there's nothing you can say to change my mind about that.

Does this mean you take the elect in Matthew 24 to be meaning the Jews, unbelieving Jews in this case? The text says those days are shortened for the sake of the elect. Whoever we have the elect meaning in this context, we have to have the elect meaning these same ones in these other verses in Matthew 24, otherwise it equals cherry picking.

I'm trying to determine things logically, I don't know what you are doing in this case?

 

[Hammster]

There's no bias when I base my view on other things that Jesus said about the end of the age in passages like Luke 20:34-36, Matthew 13:36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50. Instead of acknowledging that He was talking about the end of the same age in each of those passages and in the Olivet Discourse, you try to claim that He was speaking of the ends of different ages in these passages. To me, THAT is doctrinal bias. I see no basis whatsoever for concluding that the references to the end of the age in the passages I mentioned are referring to the end of some other age than what is described in the Olivet Discourse.

I’m not surprised that you see no basis.

 

[Hammster]

Are you saying that you believe literally all people in the world will one day be discipled and baptized?

I think enough will be saved that we can say that He’s put His enemies under His feet. Enough leaven hid in the flour so that it’s all leavened.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What exactly were they mistaken about? I don't recall Jesus telling them they were mistaken about anything, then correcting their mistake.

They asked Jesus if He was going to establish an earthly kingdom in Israel at that time. That was a mistaken understanding of the kingdom which Jesus said does not come with observation (Luke 17:20) and is not of this world (John 18:36). Paul said the kingdom "is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17). It seems that you are making the same mistake they did by thinking that Christ's kingdom is an earthly kingdom that will be based in Israel when scripture very clearly teaches otherwise. What Jesus said in Acts 1:8 describes the real nature of His kingdom, which is a spiritual kingdom. That is obviously not what they had in mind, so they were mistaken.

How can you not know that they were mistaken about some things before the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost and started expanding their understanding of the deeper things of God? Jesus told them that would happen when He talked about the Comforter/Holy Spirit coming to dwell in them and teach them the proper understanding of what He talked to them about.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

If you think they already had the correct understanding of everything even before the Holy Spirit came to dwell in them then what Jesus said in the passage above would make no sense.

Remember, Jesus specifically told His disciples that He was going to die and be raised from the dead three days later and they still didn't get it. After He died they thought He was gone forever. They didn't even visit his tomb because they didn't believe He was going to be resurrected. So, if you think they weren't mistaken about anything at the time Jesus gave His Olivet Discourse then I don't know what to tell you.

If that is basically the way you reason a lot of things the way you do at times, no wonder some of us can't get get onboard with some of your interpretations. It makes no sense for them to ask Jesus that, then Jesus answering them like such---It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Why did you stop there? His answer extended into verse 8.

What are you going to argue? That verse 8 is pertaining to verse 7?

Of course! Where is your discernment? How many times does scripture have to say that His kingdom is spiritual and heavenly in nature rather than earthly for you to understand that?

If it is, this means Jesus just contradicted Himself since He just said it wasn't for them to know the times or the seasons. Obviously, verse 8 is pertaining to events during their lifetimes. And as a matter of fact, though they might not have realized at the time, in verse 8 Jesus was meaning mere days from the time He was aTddressing them.

So what? His point was that He wasn't interested in talking about when it would happen, He was interested in telling them how they would recognize when the kingdom had come.

What makes it even more preposterous to apply verse 7 to verse 8, in the event you are doing that. As if it makes sense that times and seasons can fit within mere days somehow.

I honestly don't care what you find to make sense or not. I can't help that. I believe you are very lacking in spiritual discernment on some things and this is one of them. If you insist on thinking from a carnal, earthly and temporal perspective instead of in a spiritual, heavenly and eternal perspective like I believe we should, then that's your choice.

But this doesn't mean I'm siding with claninja in this case rather than you, it just means I find it questionable that you use Acts 1:6 to make your point. Why not use an example that actually fits the point you were hoping to make?

I did.

An example that might not be disputable.

Oh, I didn't realize that everything I say has to cater to you and your understanding of things. I'll try to remember that next time. But, I did give another example of them being mistaken in this post that is not disputable. They clearly were mistaken in thinking that He wasn't going to rise from the dead after He died and no one here would dispute that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I’m not surprised that you see no basis.

And I'm not surprised that you're not surprised. Do you see bias in your own view? Of course not. So, why would you be surprised that I don't see bias in mine?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I think enough will be saved that we can say that He’s put His enemies under His feet. Enough leaven hid in the flour so that it’s all leavened.

So, what will happen to those who are not saved when Jesus returns?

Also, how do you think the removal of all wicked things on the earth be accomplished?

 

[Timtofly]

There is some part of mankind at birth that is apparently dead in trespasses and sins, what part of mankind is Paul referring to?

Ephesians 2:1 (KJV) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:5 (KJV) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

Colossians 2:13 (KJV) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Romans 6:13 (KJV) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Ephesians 5:14 (KJV) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

1 Timothy 5:6 (KJV) But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

From conception until the resurrection for some, or the LOF for others.

 

[Hammster]

And I'm not surprised that you're not surprised. Do you see bias in your own view? Of course not. So, why would you be surprised that I don't see bias in mine?

Exactly. That was my point.

 

[Hammster]

So, what will happen to those who are not saved when Jesus returns?

Also, how do you think the removal of all wicked things on the earth be accomplished?

Those who are not saved will be judged.

The removal of wicked things will happen as more and more come to Christ. Probably a lot of Josiah moments.

 

[rwb]

That's not what Paul taught. He taught that the dead in Christ will be raised and that we will all be changed to have a spiritual body at the last trumpet which is when Christ returns. Our natural, mortal body will be resurrected at that time and changed into a spiritual, immortal body.

Our natural body will become immortal on the last day, it will not become a spiritual body. Our eternal spirit will be re-united with our new immortal body to make us complete living souls as in the beginning, without death and without sin. Paul clearly tells us the spiritual body and the natural body are not the same, Paul says there is a spiritual body and a natural body.

I disagree. I think you're missing what Paul was teaching there about the timing of believers having a spiritual body. That does not occur upon death, it will occur when Christ returns at the last trumpet in the future.

It is because our spirit has been made eternally alive that we go to heaven as spirit body when our natural body dies. It is our natural mortal body that is raised and changed (given immorality & incorruptible) when Christ comes again at the sounding of the last trumpet.

Our current physical bodies are natural, corruptible and mortal. When the dead in Christ are raised at the future return of Christ they will be resurrected, and along with those who are still alive at the time, will be changed to have spiritual, incorruptible and immortal bodies. Our bodies will be considered to be spiritual rather than natural at that point because only spiritual bodies can be immortal while natural bodies are mortal.

Yes, it is our natural corruptible, mortal bodies that will be resurrected and changed on the last day. Our natural bodies are not our spirit, and will not become spiritual. Our spirit is God breathed life, our mental disposition that became eternal when we believed. Our spirit can never die if we believe in Christ. There is a difference between the natural body and the spiritual body. This is what Paul shows us in great detail. Our spiritual life in Christ is already eternal, but our natual body cannot re-unite with our eternal spirit until it too becomes immortal and incorruptible.

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

First Paul tells us what becomes of those who die in Christ physically. He says they become as the angels, and Christ; i.e. spiritual body. Then when the last trumpet sounds Paul tells us our natural body too will be raised and fashioned immortal, and incorrupt, and then our eternal spirit, with our natural immortal body becomes a complete living soul. To be complete man is both body and spirit with the breath of life from God, and then God pronounces man a living soul. Paul understood this very well, and that is why he longed for the day when he would physically die, so he could go to heaven to be with the Lord through his eternal spirit.

Notice in the passage above that Paul is contrasting our current bodies with the kind of bodies we will have in the future. We will not have another type of body until the resurrection of the dead that occurs when Christ returns at the last trumpet. Notice that the natural body is raised a spiritual body.

Only our spirit goes to heaven, and our body remains in death until the last trumpet sounds. You are missing Paul describing not only what happens to believers at death, but also what happens to our natural body when the last trumpet blows.

There is no bodily resurrection that occurs upon death. That will occur in the future when Christ returns. So, what Paul was saying in the passage above is that the corruptible, dishonorable, weak and natural bodies of the dead in Christ will be raised in the future as incorruptible, glorious, powerful and spiritual bodies. That has not yet occurred for any of the dead in Christ. The idea that anyone besides Christ yet has a spiritual body is not taught in 1 Corinthians 15.

There is no physical bodily resurrection upon death. Our natural bodies are of the earth and fashioned like the first Adam, earthy. They were not created to dwell in heaven, because heaven is a spiritual habitation, not a physical one. That's why Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

We all will be changed at the same time when Christ returns at the last trumpet and it is not until then that we will have spiritual, incorruptible, immortal, glorious and powerful bodies.

I agree, we will all be bodily resurrected and changed at the last trumpet. And at that time when Jesus returns He brings with Him all who have died in Him. Those He brings back with Him are believers who have physically died and are with Him in heaven a spiritual body. Our natural body is raised from the dead, and re-united with the spiritual body that comes back with Christ, and having natural body of flesh, with spirit we once again become a complete living soul.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 (KJV) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Genesis 2:7 (KJV) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; (spirit) and man became a living soul.

There is a reason why John says that he saw the souls of the dead in Christ in passages like Revelation 6:9-11 and Revelation 20:4. And that is because their bodies have not yet been raised and changed. If they already had spiritual bodies, as you're saying, then why would John have said he saw their souls?

John sees souls of the righteous dead because they are living spirits. The martyred souls in Rev 20 are alive in heaven after Christ defeated death by His cross and resurrection. Those in Rev 6 have not yet gone to heaven but are still living soul/spirit because they died in faith before Christ defeated death. They are believers who died for the Word of God and the testimony they held. So they wait in Abraham's bosom, or under the altar dying believing Christ would come to set them free.

Soul - 5590. ψυχή psyche (psychḗ): breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit

 

[rwb]

The first resurrection was Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20;22, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). So, Revelation 20:4-6 is not talking specifically about a spiritual resurrection, but rather is talking about spiritually having part in Christ's bodily resurrection (the first resurrection), which plenty of scripture talks about, such as Romans 6 and Ephesians 2:1-6.

This is true, we must partake of the first resurrection that is Christ's resurrection to have spiritual life that will never die. In Rev 20 John sees alive in heaven those who have part in the first resurrection in life. They are living soul/spirit body by grace through faith. They didn't have to be resurrected to life again, because they were already spiritually alive through the Spirit in them.

 

[rwb]

It is right there in Revelation 20. There is no other precedent besides Revelation 20. Up until the 7th Trumpet sin reigns on the earth, and death because of that sin. When the 7th Trumpet stops, sin stops. There is no sin, nor a choice in belief systems during the 1,000 year reign. If you need a verse that declares Jesus reigns on earth, with an iron rod for 1,000 years, you will not find one. If there was such a verse in Revelation 20, Amil would have been removed from the table, before it even started.

Both sin and physical death are part of living in this world until death and the grave are cast into the LOF. I think we agree there. Where we part ways is where you believe after the last trumpet sounds and Christ returns there will be another thousand years of literal time on this earth. You are correct there is not a single verse in all of Scripture that tells us Christ reigns ON this earth, because He reigns, not on, but OVER the earth, and has been reigning over the earth since He ascended to heaven and received the Kingdom.

Daniel 7:13-14 (KJV) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Rev 20 shows us that even in physical death believers live and reign with Christ during this period of time, likened to a thousand years. John is seeing living (spirit) souls in heaven because in life they had part in the "first resurrection". The first resurrection is the resurrection of Christ. In life we must have part in Christ's resurrection because that is the one and only way any of us will be spared the second death (LOF). I don't know what you believe the first resurrection to be, or if you agree it is the resurrection of Christ that believers partake of when we are born again of His Spirit. Nor do I know how many bodily resurrections you believe there will be, but Scripture shows us only one physical, bodily resurrection when Christ comes again on the last day.

Tell me where they actually made a choice in:

"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Are you implying, they became robots? People do not come from all over the earth to the camp of the saints, without making a choice to do so. Now point out in the same verse where they were forced, coerced, or lost their mind and were robots.

When you stop believing there will be one thousand literal years after Christ has come again, then there is no difficulty understanding this passage. It is after the thousand years, symbolizing TIME on this earth that Satan is loosed, gathers his minions, likened to Gog and Magog and hopes to finally do away with the full body of Christ (Church) still alive on the earth, when fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours them all. It is during this age of TIME that people must willingly partake of the first resurrection (the resurrection of Christ), or be counted among Gog and Magog.

Gog is a symbolic name for antichrist, and Magog symbolizing an antichristian party/group/many people. The fire coming down from heaven is universal, and will burn up not only the earth, but also all who are still alive on it.

The closest example of a choice prior to sin is Eve in the Garden and the serpent. Certainly Genesis 3 is not the same period of time as Revelation 20 by any stretch of the imagination. But the conditions were the same as there was literally no sin in the world in either case. If you don't accept that about the 1,000 years, then there is no verse to prove otherwise. It is figuring from Scripture when certain conditions will happen and not necessarily a direct description in the chapter itself. Genesis 3 does not talk about sin. Genesis 4 does. Paul states sin entered the world with Adam. Do you hold Paul to the same standard as having to quote Scripture for you to accept that point? I quote Paul to state sin was not in the world prior to Adam's disobedience. Sin was not even in the world for however many minutes between when Eve ate and when Adam ate.

I agree with your understanding of sin and death before and after Adam & Eve disobeyed God. If you weren't trying to force a literal thousand years of more time after Christ comes again, you could understand that time, which the thousand years is, is the Gospel age, and the age of salvation. After time is no more, when the seventh trumpet sounds, salvation has ended.

If we must partake of Christ in life, and that time for salvation is now, after Christ comes again, and there is no one else that can be saved, what it the purpose for another literal thousand years? Even if you believe, as some do, that it is for the Jews to come to Christ, why, since it is too late to partake of the first resurrection and be saved?

I would go so far as to state Eve did not disobey God. There is no verse that the commandment was given to Eve. In fact, Adam more than likely told her not to touch it. Obviously nothing happened when Eve touched it, nor when Eve ate. Do you think Adam thought Eve was a science experiment to see if God was telling the truth? Paul said that Adam brought sin into the world, not Eve. I agree with Paul. I agree with Gabriel in Daniel 9 that the end of the 70th week will remove sin, just as sudden as Adam brought sin into the world. I conclude the 7th Trumpet per Revelation 10:6-7 is the end of the 70th week. We are told to compare Scripture with Scripture. I tend to grow weary of people asking for a single verse to prove a point, when that is not what we are even instructed to do.

We are not far apart in our understanding of Scripture. Were it not for your misapplication of time (a thousand years), I believe we might even be able to come to full agreement. Try reading Rev 20 thousand years as this age of the Gospel, and the first resurrection as the resurrection of Christ, and see if it makes more sense than adding another literal thousand years after Christ returns, that in my opinion serves absolutely no purpose. Nor is it even possible since when Christ comes again this world, Gospel age, will be gone and the new heavens and new earth come down.