Understanding "the beginning" and "the end"

[sovereigngrace]

This post made me realize that I forgot to mention the souls of the dead in Christ leaving heaven at that point as well. So, I edited my post to include them.

Personally, I would not ignore Timtofly if I were you. His continued avoidance and false charges only serves to expose the weakness of Premil, reinforce Amil and help adherents run to the Premil exit door. That is the only reason why I persist.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Personally, I would not ignore Timtofly if I were you. His continued avoidance and false charges only serve to expose Premil, reinforce Amil and help adherents run to the Premil exit door. That is the only reason why I persist.

I understand what you're saying, but I've run out of patience with dealing with his private interpretations and false accusations along with his constant misrepresentations of Amil.

Maybe I'll respond to him again at some point, but I just need a break from his nonsense for now.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I understand what you're saying, but I've run out of patience with dealing with his private interpretations and false accusations along with his constant misrepresentations of Amil.

Maybe I'll respond to him again at some point, but I just need a break from his nonsense for now.

Totally understand.

 

[Timtofly]

Exactly. The glorified saints empty heaven and inhabit the new incorruptible new earth.

Why?

Paradise and the New Jerusalem is their eternal home. The Garden of Eden complete. No more offspring period. We are now like the angels in all aspects. No more free will. Revelation 7:15-17

“Day and night they serve him in his Temple;
and the One who sits on the throne
will put his Sh’khinah upon them.

“They will never again be hungry,
they will never again be thirsty,
the sun will not beat down on them,
nor will any burning heat.

“For the Lamb at the center of the throne
will shepherd them, will lead them
to springs of living water,
and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.”

 

[sovereigngrace]

Why?

Paradise and the New Jerusalem is their eternal home. The Garden of Eden complete. No more offspring period. We are now like the angels in all aspects. No more free will. Revelation 7:15-17

“Day and night they serve him in his Temple;
and the One who sits on the throne
will put his Sh’khinah upon them.

“They will never again be hungry,
they will never again be thirsty,
the sun will not beat down on them,
nor will any burning heat.

“For the Lamb at the center of the throne
will shepherd them, will lead them
to springs of living water,
and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.”

The New Jerusalem arrives with the coming of Christ and adorns the new earth.

The “prepared” city is repeatedly described in Scripture as the New Jerusalem – the heavenly city. In a parallel passage in Revelation 3:11-12, Christ promises His people, while also speaking of His glorious all-consummating Second Advent, “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

This Second Coming passage confirms our notion. The heavenly city comes down from heaven with Christ when He returns.

This reading informs us that this “place,” which Christ spoke of has a name; being described as the New Jerusalem and that it “cometh down out of heaven” at His appearing. This truth should help those who struggle with the meaning and timing of Revelation 20, because Revelation 21:1-2 (which all commentators agree) appears immediately after the happenings of Revelation 20. Therefore, it places its appearing, which we have already established coincides with the second coming of the Lord, at the end of the millennium thus revealing a postmillennial appearing of Christ. Christ connects the appearance of the New Jerusalem at His Coming, declaring, “Behold, I come quickly.” It is at this all-consummating event that the New Jerusalem comes “down out of heaven from my God.”

Note that the exact detail described as occurring at the second coming – namely:

The “new Jerusalem” appears.
The “new Jerusalem … cometh down”
The “new Jerusalem … cometh down out of heaven.”
The “new Jerusalem … cometh down out of heaven … from God.”

Further evidence that the prepared New Jerusalem is coming down to the new earth is found in Revelation 21:1-4. It declares, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.”

The New Jerusalem does not stay in heaven. At the end of the millennium it descends to the new earth. We should not overlook: the detail described elsewhere in Scripture as occurring at the second coming of the Lord carefully matches that which takes place at the end of the millennium (definitely not the beginning). It is the “holy city, new Jerusalem” that is figuratively “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” and which corresponds with the Lord’s teaching in John 14. This city is the only “prepared place” alluded to in the whole of the New Testament. This city, which appears with Christ at His Coming, is undoubtedly a heavenly “place” and is the single focus of every true saint of God – the place of eternal peace and rest from sin, the effects of sin (including death), and all sinners forever.

 

[Timtofly]

The New Jerusalem arrives with the coming of Christ and adorns the new earth.

The “prepared” city is repeatedly described in Scripture as the New Jerusalem – the heavenly city. In a parallel passage in Revelation 3:11-12, Christ promises His people, while also speaking of His glorious all-consummating Second Advent, “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

This Second Coming passage confirms our notion. The heavenly city comes down from heaven with Christ when He returns.

This reading informs us that this “place,” which Christ spoke of has a name; being described as the New Jerusalem and that it “cometh down out of heaven” at His appearing. This truth should help those who struggle with the meaning and timing of Revelation 20, because Revelation 21:1-2 (which all commentators agree) appears immediately after the happenings of Revelation 20. Therefore, it places its appearing, which we have already established coincides with the second coming of the Lord, at the end of the millennium thus revealing a postmillennial appearing of Christ. Christ connects the appearance of the New Jerusalem at His Coming, declaring, “Behold, I come quickly.” It is at this all-consummating event that the New Jerusalem comes “down out of heaven from my God.”

Note that the exact detail described as occurring at the second coming – namely:

The “new Jerusalem” appears.
The “new Jerusalem … cometh down”
The “new Jerusalem … cometh down out of heaven.”
The “new Jerusalem … cometh down out of heaven … from God.”

Further evidence that the prepared New Jerusalem is coming down to the new earth is found in Revelation 21:1-4. It declares, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.”

The New Jerusalem does not stay in heaven. At the end of the millennium it descends to the new earth. We should not overlook: the detail described elsewhere in Scripture as occurring at the second coming of the Lord carefully matches that which takes place at the end of the millennium (definitely not the beginning). It is the “holy city, new Jerusalem” that is figuratively “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” and which corresponds with the Lord’s teaching in John 14. This city is the only “prepared place” alluded to in the whole of the New Testament. This city, which appears with Christ at His Coming, is undoubtedly a heavenly “place” and is the single focus of every true saint of God – the place of eternal peace and rest from sin, the effects of sin (including death), and all sinners forever.

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out

So you accept that once in, there is no leaving? It is after a millennium of 1000 years. Not the sin infested current age, but the one described as after the 7th Trumpet where sin is eradicated. God places the church in Paradise. God places the Nation of Israel as the rule on earth. The 144k will reign with Christ in Jerusalem. There will be a Nation of Israelites. There will also be other Nations and Egypt is named in the OT. Other than that there will be tens of billions of humanity on earth, while the church is in Paradise. They will all have incorruptible bodies. The original generation were resurrected out of Adam's sinful flesh and changed. That is per Paul. There is only one type of first resurrection and it is bodily.

The earth is regenerated is your claim, no?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out

So you accept that once in, there is no leaving? It is after a millennium of 1000 years. Not the sin infested current age, but the one described as after the 7th Trumpet where sin is eradicated. God places the church in Paradise. God places the Nation of Israel as the rule on earth. The 144k will reign with Christ in Jerusalem. There will be a Nation of Israelites. There will also be other Nations and Egypt is named in the OT. Other than that there will be tens of billions of humanity on earth, while the church is in Paradise. They will all have incorruptible bodies. The original generation were resurrected out of Adam's sinful flesh and changed. That is per Paul. There is only one type of first resurrection and it is bodily.

The earth is regenerated is your claim, no?

Why do you keep insisting on no sin or sinners when your millennium is overrun with billions of sinners sinning who are Satanists, who hate Christ and His people? How do they have "incorruptible bodies" when they are hell-bent on overthrowing Christ and His Church, and following their leader Satan?

 

[Timtofly]

Why do you keep insisting on no sin or sinners when your millennium is overrun with billions of sinners sinning who are Satanists, who hate Christ and His people? How do they have "incorruptible bodies" when they are hell-bent on overthrowing Christ and His Church, and following their leader Satan?

You avoid the definition of sin like the plague. Did or did not God create Adam sinless without sin?

 

[sovereigngrace]

You avoid the definition of sin like the plague. Did or did not God create Adam sinless without sin?

Another false charge. And what has this to do with your billions of millennial phonies who follow Satan and overrun your supposed future millennium?

 

[Timtofly]

Another false charge. And what has this to do with your billions of millennial phonies who follow Satan and overrun your supposed future millennium?

You claim sin, but do not define it. Adam disobeyed God. WHY? According to you it was impossible for Adam to disobey God.

You really cannot see that sin is not the reason for rebellion, but rebellion is what brought sin into the world? Do you think people should be killed just for premeditated thought to prevent sin in the world?

People can think without sinning, except God said sin was just thinking. You are literally declaring no one can think. It could be sin the second it pops into one's head, killing them instantly.

Do you think that no sin equals no thought. Or thought without sin is no sin. Adam could have thought about eating 24 hours a day, and still be safe, no?

You cannot even answer a yes or no question about God creating Adam a sinner or not. It has everything to do with no sin, and thinking about something.

Why do you keep goading me, by calling it my sin infested millennium? I keep saying sin does not exist in the millennium. The population was just fine, until Satan started placing thoughts into their heads. These thoughts did not change all. It changed many and the rest let them pass to get to the "camp of the saints" The 144k would be those saints. Your trying to paint this tremendous rebellion is just avoiding the truth, that the millennium exists after sin is eradicated.

No where does any prophecy claim billions as in most of people today, heads towards the Middle East and fire comes down from heaven and devours them. No city today will ever be described as the "camp of the saints". Do you have one in mind to fit your theory it will happen at any time?

 

[Andrewn]

Further evidence that the prepared New Jerusalem is coming down to the new earth is found in Revelation 21:1-4. It declares, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

The books of Revelation and Hebrews have a New Jerusalem and a Heavenly Temple. To me, it seems that both are descriptions of the Victorious Church in heaven. Do you see the City and the Temple as one and the same or is there a better interpretation? In other words, what is your geography of heaven and paradise? And when does the Temple disappear?

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.”

This is another unfortunate translation from KJV. The word translated "tabernacle" is "skene" and it most likely refers to "God's Shekinah." Modern translations render this phrase "God's dwelling," which is better. It really refers to "God's presence" not his tabernacle / temple.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The books of Revelation and Hebrews have a New Jerusalem and a Heavenly Temple. To me, it seems that both are descriptions of the Victorious Church in heaven. Do you see the City and the Temple as one and the same or is there a better interpretation? In other words, what is your geography of heaven and paradise? And when does the Temple disappear?


This is another unfortunate translation from KJV. The word translated "tabernacle" is "skene" and it most likely refers to "God's Shekinah." Modern translations render this phrase "God's dwelling," which is better. It really refers to "God's presence" not his tabernacle / temple.

There is no doubt that the New Jerusalem and the heavenly temple/tabernacle could be figurative descriptions of the victorious Church in heaven. They could also be synonymous terms. The new Jerusalem is always depicted as a prepared place in heaven/paradise. So, there is a definite heavenly aspect to these depictions. Could there be a literal physical aspect to this? Of course!

I totally agree that this might have a metaphorical or spiritual sense. The skēnē may well refer to God’s Shekinah glory. But the KJV is not off on its interpreting of this as tabernacle. In Thayer's Greek Lexicon the meaning is:

· tent, tabernacle, (made of green boughs, or skins or other materials).
· of that well-known movable temple of God after the pattern of which the temple at Jerusalem was built.

Hebrews 6:1-2: “We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle [Gr. skēnē], which the Lord pitched, and not man.”

Hebrews 9:11: “Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle [Gr. skēnē], not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.”

Hebrews 13:9-10: “Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle [Gr. skēnē].”

Revelation 13:6 records: “he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle [Gr. skēnē], and them that dwell in heaven.”

Revelation 15:5 records: “And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple [Gr. naos] of the tabernacle [Gr. skēnē] of the testimony in heaven was opened.”

Revelation 21:1-4 declares, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle [Gr. skēnē] of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.”

 

[Freedm]

Mark of the beast, resurrection of the dead, a judgment, and new heaven and earth; would you explain how all this took place in 70 AD?

Keeping in mind that I'm open to correction and further learning, I'll tell you what I've learned so far.

1. "Heaven and earth" refers to the temple, not the literal heaven and earth. Earth refers to the outer court because that is where the people walk and heaven refers to the inner court because that is where God walks. Furthermore, the word used by Christ in Matthew 5:18 is "gē" which means not the globe, but rather the land. It's a local reference. If he had meant the entire globe he would've used the word "kosmos".
2. The mark of the beast is difficult to nail down, but there are several known facts of history that could align with it.
   1. Entry into a Roman market, where one could buy and sell, first required the acknowledgement of Caesar's divinity, which when given would prompt the guard to place soot on one's hand or forehead granting them access.
   2. Similar accounts of access to the Roman market tell of the requirement of a document which also declares the divinity of Caesar.
   3. The zealots during the revolt of 66 to 70 AD also minted their own coins with the word Jerusalem on one side and Holy Israel on the other. Only these coins were allowed to be used for buying and selling during the zealot revolt.
3. The resurrection of the dead is described in Daniel chapter 12. The reason I say this happened in 70 AD is because Daniel saw visions of four kingdoms, the fourth of which was either Rome or Zealot led Israel, and the angel clearly explains that "at that time" there will be a resurrection which means that resurrection can not be in our future. Also given the clear descriptions of sleeping in the dust of the earth by all the dead during the entirety of the old testament, and the various clues in the new testament that things are now different, it makes sense that something changed at that time. This is the first resurrection. Note that I believe this to be an invisible resurrection, as those who were resurrected would've received spiritual bodies and ascended up to heaven immediately, not necessarily visible to those still alive on the earth.
4. The wrath of God was poured out in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD, and all those resurrected at that time faced their own personal judgments before the throne of Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

1. "Heaven and earth" refers to the temple, not the literal heaven and earth. Earth refers to the outer court because that is where the people walk and heaven refers to the inner court because that is where God walks. Furthermore, the word used by Christ in Matthew 5:18 is "gē" which means not the globe, but rather the land. It's a local reference. If he had meant the entire globe he would've used the word "kosmos".

I totally disagree. The Preterist fixation with 70AD and the coming of Titus is wrong, unhealthy, dangerous and unbiblical. Their skewed and faulty mode of interpretation colors their vision of God's truth. The doctrine itself requires the rejection of the real, clear and obvious meaning of repeated Scripture, and its replacement with something that is more fitting and palatable to the obscure Preterist thinking. This is not normal or acceptable biblical hermeneutics.

You need to undertake a deeper and broader study of this to get the proper biblical perspective. In the 59 references in the New Testament where “heaven” and “earth” are found together in the same passage, they are always 100% describing what we would all commonly know as “heaven” and “earth.” What is more, in the 6 references to “heavens” (plural) and “earth” the word "earth (or gē) is exclusively referring to the place we humans live. To argue otherwise, is changing truth a facilitate the teaching of man.

When Jesus wanted to talk about this planet that we live on He called it gē. To Him, it described where we as humans live. It is always used in contrast to heaven where God lives. The bliss and perfect of heaven (ouranos) is often compared in Christ's teaching to the corruption and trials of earth (gē). Here are some examples:

There are no grounds to spiritualize these away apart from justify false doctrine.

Jesus prayed to the Father in Matthew 11:25: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772) and earth (or gē Strong’s 1093), because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Jesus promised in Matthew 16:19: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772): and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth (or gē Strong’s 1093) shall be bound in heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772): and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth (or gē Strong’s 1093) shall be loosed in heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772).”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Jesus says in Matthew 18:19: “That if two of you shall agree on earth (or gē Strong’s 1093) as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772).”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Matthew 28:18 records: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772) and in earth (or gē Strong’s 1093).”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Jesus says in Luke 16:17: “And it is easier for heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772) and earth (or gē Strong’s 1093) to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Acts 4:24 says, “And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772), and earth (or gē Strong’s 1093), and the sea, and all that in them is.”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Acts 7:49 declares: “Heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772) is my throne, and earth (or gē Strong’s 1093) is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Acts 14:15 tells us: “We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772), and earth (or gē Strong’s 1093), and the sea, and all things that are therein.”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Ephesians 3:14-15 records, “I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772) and earth (or gē Strong’s 1093) is named.”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772), and that are in earth (or gē Strong’s 1093), visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Hebrews 12:26 says, “Whose voice then shook the earth (or gē Strong’s 1093): but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772).”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Revelation 5:3 declares: “And no man in heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772), nor in earth, neither under the earth (or gē Strong’s 1093), was able to open the book, neither to look thereon."

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

Revelation 10:5-7 says speaking about the end, “And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth (or gē Strong’s 1093) lifted up his hand to heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772), And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven (or ouranos Strong’s 3772), and the things that therein are, and the earth (or gē Strong’s 1093), and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.”

Is Christ making a reference to the earth as most people understand it (and which we humans live on) or is He speaking of the temple in Jerusalem?

 

[sovereigngrace]

The opening post is pure science. Time began when the Sun and Moon began.



Sovereigngrace then develops his arguments to show how time as we know it will have an end. It will end when the sun and moon ends!



The more I read this, the more I think you are on to something very significant. Thanks SG, for thinking it out so thoroughly. It will certainly have an impact on how we interpret the Olivet discourse. Futurists and Preterists will face serious implications when they consider Jesus’ description of the collapse of sun, moon, star and solar system.

I hope I haven’t gone off topic here, but it occurred to me that “the waves and seas roaring” (Luke 21:25) must be related to the collapse of the moon.

I do not know how I missed this bro. Sorry.

Very true. I expanded a bit on this above.

 

[Freedm]

I totally disagree. The Preterist fixation with 70AD and the coming of Titus is wrong, unhealthy, dangerous and unbiblical. Their skewed and faulty mode of interpretation colors their vision of God's truth. The doctrine itself requires the rejection of the real, clear and obvious meaning of repeated Scripture, and its replacement with something that is more fitting and palatable to the obscure Preterist thinking. This is not normal or acceptable biblical hermeneutics.

You need to undertake a deeper and broader study of this to get the proper biblical perspective. In the 59 references in the New Testament where “heaven” and “earth” are found together in the same passage, they are always 100% describing what we would all commonly know as “heaven” and “earth.” What is more, in the 6 references to “heavens” (plural) and “earth” the word "earth (or gē) is exclusively referring to the place we humans live. To argue otherwise, is changing truth a facilitate the teaching of man.

First of all, saying that understanding the word gē as a symbol is "changing truth to facilitate the teaching of man", or that a preterists position on Titus is a "fixation" or that it's "wrong, unhealthy, dangerous and unbiblical" are all really very useless statements. They mean nothing to me.

And just to be clear, I'm not contending that every use of the word gē refers to the temple. Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that it does not refer to the entire globe and in some cases it does refer to the temple as a symbol. The Bible is full of symbolism so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the phrase "heaven and earth" might also be used as such, and so to dismiss it outright without any reason other than that it's not what you believe is frankly immature.

If you truly believe I'm wrong, feel free to try to convince me. I enjoy being challenged, and to learn new things is the reason I'm here, but accusing me of changing truth to facilitate the teaching of man, or that my understanding of scripture is dangerous and unbiblical, those kinds of accusations are simply not going to help your case.

 

[sovereigngrace]

First of all, saying that understanding the word gē as a symbol is "changing truth to facilitate the teaching of man", or that a preterists position on Titus is a "fixation" or that it's "wrong, unhealthy, dangerous and unbiblical" are all really very useless statements. They mean nothing to me.

And just to be clear, I'm not contending that every use of the word gē refers to the temple. Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that it does not refer to the entire globe and in some cases it does refer to the temple as a symbol. The Bible is full of symbolism so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the phrase "heaven and earth" might also be used as such, and so to dismiss it outright without any reason other than that it's not what you believe is frankly immature.

If you truly believe I'm wrong, feel free to try to convince me. I enjoy being challenged, and to learn new things is the reason I'm here, but accusing me of changing truth to facilitate the teaching of man, or that my understanding of scripture is dangerous and unbiblical, those kinds of accusations are simply not going to help your case.

You have to be open to be challenged, especially when you come out with far-fetched statements.

I presented strong biblical evidence that shows that when “heaven” and “earth” are used together throughout the Word they mean exactly that. There are no exceptions. I showed you the proof. You have not addressed the evidence. I have seen no rebuttal apart from you sidestepping the topic and you complaining about me refuting Preterism. The burden of proof is in your court to respond.

You have so far presented nothing to show how you have the authority, warrant or direction to change the “heaven” and “earth” into a physical temple in Jerusalem in AD70, apart from your own personal opinion. Frankly, that doesn’t cut it. With this type of ad-hoc hermeneutics, what would stop anyone imposing their own private speculation on any literal reality in Scripture? That is like me insisting on “heaven” and “earth” representing Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. It is insane.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You have to be open to be challenged, especially when you come out with an outlandish statement.

I presented strong biblical evidence that shows that when “heaven” and “earth” are used together throughout the Word they mean exactly that. There are no exceptions. I showed you the proof. You have not addressed the evidence. I have seen no rebuttal apart from you sidestepping the topic and you complaining about me refuting Preterism. The burden of proof is in your court to respond.

You have so far presented nothing to show how you have the authority, warrant or direction to change the “heaven” and “earth” into a physical temple in Jerusalem in AD70, apart from your own personal opinion. Frankly, that doesn’t cut it.

I couldn't agree more. The ball is in his court now. So far he has done nothing to show that heaven and earth represent anything except for...heaven and earth.

With this type of ad-hoc hermeneutics, what would stop anyone imposing their own private speculation on any literal reality in Scripture? That is like me insisting on “heaven” and “earth” representing Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. It is insane.

LOL. Very true. For the fun of it, I thought I would apply this to a few passages and see how much sense they would make.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

Matthew 24:35 Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for a new Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory: for the first Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory was passed away; and there was no more sea.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I couldn't agree more. The ball is in his court now. So far he has done nothing to show that heaven and earth represent anything except for...heaven and earth.

LOL. Very true. For the fun of it, I thought I would apply this to a few passages and see how much sense they would make.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

Matthew 24:35 Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for a new Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory: for the first Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory was passed away; and there was no more sea.

How can anyone take this type of hermeneutics serious? They cannot. Partial Preterism is being dragged closer and closer to Full Preterism every day. Many deny it because they would be banned from Christian Discussion Forums. But if you source many of the theories today they belong in the Full Preterist camp.

 

[Freedm]

I presented strong biblical evidence that shows that when “heaven” and “earth” are used together throughout the Word they mean exactly that.

Yes, you did. Well done, and excellent point.

I don't have all the answers, but I can not refute what scripture clearly states.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This tells me that heaven and earth will indeed pass away when the law is passed away, as all was fulfilled when the old covenant was destroyed leaving only the kingdom of Christ, an everlasting kingdom. And since I believe the law has now passed away, I must logically also believe that the "heaven and earth" referenced here, have passed.

Obviously if this is the literal heaven and earth, then this makes no sense, therefore it must not mean the literal heaven and earth. Either that, or the law is still in full effect, and I can not accept that.

Furthermore, if Jesus literally meant that the earth would pass away then he would be contradicting Psalm 104:5 (He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.) and Ecclesiastes 1:4 (A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.) so that I also can not accept.

Now how does the concept of "heaven and earth" referring to the temple make sense? There are a number of examples. The following verse tells us that heaven and earth are reserved for fire on the day of judgment.

2 Peter 3:7
By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

The day of judgment was 70 AD, and the temple was destroyed by fire. This is fulfilled prophecy.

Now look at Revelation 21:1.

Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

At first glance this verse seems pretty clear, but have you ever wondered why it says "there was no longer any sea"? That never made any sense to me until now. Clearly this reference to the sea is symbolic, not literal for it wouldn't be a victory of any sort to have no more physical sea on a physical earth. Why would we want that? And why if this is no victory, would it even be mentioned? It's mentioned because it's symbolic.

The sea in this verse is a symbolic reference to the gentile nations. The reason there's no more "sea" is because there are no longer any gentile nations, that is those outside of the realm of salvation (Ephesians 2). We all now have access to salvation, since Jesus died for our sins, we are all now citizens of Israel and in this way there is now no more sea, and recognizing that this too is fulfilled prophecy we can be quite certain that the "new heaven and new earth" is a symbolic reference to the new temple, which is the body of Christ.