END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE

Religions > Bible > END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 7

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Pastor Dave"
Date:	02 Jun 2005 10:55:40 AM
Object:	END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:26:09 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:

I am truly sorry for this level of formality. It is
not a reflection on you personally. It's just that, as
I said, I do not wish for this to degenerate into a ill
willed argument. Please understand that. I am
being sincere...

One last thing. Which group are you posting from,
so that I don't accidentally exclude it when starting
the new thread, should you consent?

I'm posting from alt.messianic. I used to post on
last-days, so I'm used to discussing some eschatology.
I'll try to observe good manners, but that's expected
anyway. Why don't you just fire away, and see how
things go?

I will take this as your agreement to the guidelines.
If that is not correct, please say so.
Please state what your beliefs are, as I do not wish
to attribute a belief to you, that you do not hold.

Regardless, I'm still not sure what your position is.
You say that all prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st
century. But how does that leave room for Christ's
return?

I would suggest that we start with Jesus' with
discourse. What is your impression of what
is found in Matthew 24:1-3, for example?
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.

User: "randy"
Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE	02 Jun 2005 07:14:30 PM

"Pastor Dave"
"randy"

Regardless, I'm still not sure what your position is.
You say that all prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st
century. But how does that leave room for Christ's
return?

I would suggest that we start with Jesus' with
discourse. What is your impression of what
is found in Matthew 24:1-3, for example?

1 ś And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came
to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto
you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be
thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be
the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
My "impression?" I think Jesus' disciples thought he would be impressed with
the God's temple. They knew he was very religious! ;)
Then Jesus turned the tables on them, and really disappointed them. He said
essentially, "You have me all wrong. I don't love this temple. It's going to
be torn down! God doesn't love it. It represents Israeli rebellion against
God!
So the disciples quickly repositioned themselves by accepting Jesus' word
for the situation, and wanted to know the time frame for this coming temple
destruction. Jesus answers by telling them it's in the immediate forecast,
within the immediate "generation." But now I'm getting a bit beyond the
first 3 verses.
The question was asked "What will be the sign of thy coming?" My thought is
that this event Jesus spoke of, the destruction of the temple, was a kind of
"sign" of Messiah's coming. They wanted to know what it consisted of, when
it will take place, and how it relates to Messiah and the end of the current
age.
This brings up a number of issues. What did the disciples mean by "end of
the age?" I think they were referring to an era that leads up to the Kingdom
of Messiah. And what did they mean by the "coming of Messiah?" I think they
associated Messiah's coming with the initiation of his Kingdom.
It's clear to me that the disciples did not realize there would be a big gap
between Jesus' time on earth and his future Kingdom. A big portion of Jesus'
discussion with his disciples concerned emphasizing how God's Kingdom
affects people now--not just in the Kingdom to come. Jesus made it plain
that God's Kingdom was always in existence and that we must relate with God
now--not just when the Kingdom comes. And even if Israel hasn't attained to
all of its national promises, God's Kingdom is just as accessable as always.
So Jesus goes on to encourage his disciples to remain true to God, even in
the face of unfulfilled promises. Israel would be desolated, and the Kingdom
would not yet bring peace to God's people. But the Kingdom would come in
God's own good time. Until then it would be utter foolishness to rely on the
Jewish system of worship, the Law, because it had been utterly rejected by
God. It's time was rapidly coming to a close, in other words.
randy
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE	02 Jun 2005 08:48:48 PM

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:14:30 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
Please read this entire message before responding.
I wish for you to see what I'm saying in its natural
flow of thought.
Also, I know you understand that the temple is to be
destroyed. I am just making the point clear and it is
for a reason that you will see later in this message
and I wish to set the context of what I believe, for
future messages.

Regardless, I'm still not sure what your position is.
You say that all prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st
century. But how does that leave room for Christ's
return?

I would suggest that we start with Jesus' with
discourse. What is your impression of what
is found in Matthew 24:1-3, for example?

You have talked about the coming destruction of the
temple and the Old Covenant system. Now where do
you get all of the other stuff you believe, when
nothing in Jesus' discourse said anything beyond it
being a local event, when He returned?
Where did Jesus say, "I am going to talk about two
things. The temple destruction and then the rest of
what will happen much much later"?
You talk about getting into later verses. Well, let's
look at some later verses...
Luke 21:20-22
20) And when you see Jerusalem compassed with armies,
then know that its destruction has come.
21) And let those in Judea flee to the mountains. And
those in its midst, let them go out. And those in the
open spaces, let them not go into her.
22) For these are the days of vengeance, that all
things which are written may be fulfilled.
Note: It is a local event, so that ALL THINGS WHICH
ARE WRITTEN MAY BE FULFILLED.
Not, "All except what end timers believe". :)

The question was asked "What will be the sign
of thy coming?" My thought is that this event
Jesus spoke of, the destruction of the temple,
was a kind of "sign" of Messiah's coming. They
wanted to know what it consisted of, when it
will take place, and how it relates to Messiah
and the end of the current age.

It doesn't say that the destruction of the temple
is a sign of His coming after that. They asked
when He was coming to do exactly that. I deal
with this further down in this message.

This brings up a number of issues. What did
the disciples mean by "end of the age?" I think
they were referring to an era that leads up to
the Kingdom of Messiah. And what did they
mean by the "coming of Messiah?" I think they
associated Messiah's coming with the initiation
of his Kingdom.

How can it be "initiating His kingdom", when according
to you, it's always been here? That doesn't make
sense.
As I said, the text does not say that the destruction
of the temple would be a sign of His coming and the
end of the age simply refers to the end of the old
system.
It is important to note what exactly is being discussed
in Matthew 24. After all, if someone asks you a
question about when something will be, then it is
important to answer regarding that particular something
and how they will know it is coming. So let's take a
look at Matthew 24 and see if we can glean some clues
as to exactly what is being discussed there, between
Jesus and the disciples.
So what initiated this conversation? If we read
Matthew 23, we see that Jesus was in the temple,
blasting the Pharisees. The most important part of
this conversation, is found starting at v29 and ending
at v38.
Note especially the words in capital letters (caps
mine). All text taken from the MKJV.
Matthew 23:29-38
29) Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
Because YOU build the tombs of the prophets, and
decorate the tombs of the righteous,
30) and say, If WE had been in the days of OUR fathers,
WE would not have been partakers with them in the blood
of the prophets.
31) Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that YOU
are the sons of those who killed the prophets;
32) and YOU fill up the measure of YOUR fathers.
33) Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can YOU escape
the condemnation of hell?
Note that Jesus is speaking to THEM and NOT some
generation thousands of years away. THEY are the
ones who will FILL UP the measure of their fathers.
THEY will be the ones upon whom the judgment will
come. Jesus tells THEM that THEY can not escape
the damnation of Hell.
34) Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men
and scribes to YOU. And YOU will kill and crucify some
of them. And some of them YOU will scourge in YOUR
SYNAGOGUES and persecute from city to city;
Note here that Jesus says that He will send THEM
prophets and wise men and that they will kill them in
their SYNAGOGUES. This is not a statement about
Gentiles. And don't let the "crucify" statement throw
you. The Bible clearly teaches that the Jews crucified
Jesus (Acts 5:30).
35) so that on YOU may come all the righteous blood
shed on the earth, FROM the blood of righteous Abel TO
the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom YOU
killed between the temple and the altar.
Now here Jesus sets the time line for the event. It
starts with Abel and goes up until Zechariah, whom
THEY killed in THAT generation. That is the final
generation before the judgment comes.
36) Truly I say to YOU, All these things shall come
on THIS GENERATION.
Jesus here confirms it. ALL THESE THINGS will
come upon that generation, not some of it on a
generation thousands of years away.
37) O JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, the one killing the
prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how
often would I have gathered YOUR children together,
even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and
YOU would not!
Note that Jesus specifies Jerusalem here. It is not
the whole world that He is discussing here.
38) Behold, YOUR HOUSE is left to YOU desolate.
And here is where He pronounces what that judgment will
entail. Their "house" is the temple.
We now proceed to Mathew 24, to take a look at it and
see exactly what is being discussed, between Jesus and
His disciples.
Matthew 24:1-4a
1) And Jesus went out and departed from the temple.
And His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings
of the temple.
Note that the disciples came to Him, to show Him the
buildings of the temple. Not the whole world. That is
not under discussion anywhere in Matthew 24, nor in
Mark 13, nor Luke 21.
2) And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all ? Truly I
say to you, There shall not be left HERE one stone on
another that shall not be thrown down.
Note: Do you not see all THESE THINGS? Jesus is not
pointing to the planet Earth. He is responding to
their action of pointing out the beauty of the temple
buildings to Him. At that point, they are up on the
mount, overlooking the temple buildings. Jesus then
says that not one stone HERE would be left together.
3) And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples
came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall
these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your
coming, and of the end of the world?
Now what is it that they're asking about here? Well,
what did Jesus JUST SAY? They are asking when the
temple buildings would be destroyed and they asked
three questions about it.
Q1) When shall these things be?
This is an obvious question.
Q2) What will be the sign of Your coming?
Now while people right away start thinking of all the
things different books teach about the coming of Jesus,
don't let them brainwash you. The disciples asked this
question IN REGARD TO JESUS' STATEMENT ABOUT
THE TEMPLE. What would be the signs showing that
THE TEMPLE was about to be destroyed? That is what he
was "coming" to do.
You see, the disciples understood the symbolic language
of the Old Testament.
Here's a fulfilled prophecy about the conquering
of Egypt...
"The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon
a SWIFT CLOUD, and shall come into Egypt: and
the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence,
and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it."
- Isaiah 19:1
Did they literally see the Lord riding on a cloud?
Did the idols literally move?
Did the heart of Egypt literally melt?
How about this fulfilled prophecy, in which God fought
for Israel and it says THAT HE CAME DOWN and is
from a Psalm of David, AFTER God delivered him
from his enemies?
Psalm 18:9,14
9) He bowed the heavens also, and CAME DOWN:
and darkness was under his feet.
14) Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them;
and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.
Note again that God fought for Israel and it says that
God came down.
Now, the following questions...
Did God literally "bow the heavens"?
Did He literally have "darkness under His feet"?
Did God literally "send out arrows"?
Did God literally "shoot out lightnings" to defeat
David's enemies?
Neither of these prophecies (and there are more)
are literal statements and yet, you wish to take
Matthew 24:27-30 literally. That doesn't make sense.
The Apostles took what Jesus said as any Jew familiar
with the Old Testament would. As symbolic language
of a coming judgment upon the land.
Q3) When will the end of the age be?
Note that the word "world" there is a bad translation.
The Greek has a word for the planet Earth, which is
"kosmos". Here the word used, is "aion" and means
simply, "an age". When will the end of "the age" be?
Now while people like to imagine up all sorts of things
for that phrase, the reality is, that it's a very
simple term. There was more than one age that had
passed already. The age of the fathers, like Abraham.
The age of the patriarchs. And a major one, the age of
the Old Covenant system and that is what the disciples
were asking about.
Could this be any simpler? They point at the temple.
Jesus says it will be destroyed. No temple, no Old
Covenant temple sacrifices. The end of the age. So
they ask when this will be. And yet, we are somehow
supposed to think that what is being discussed, is the
end of the world, some thousands of years away?
Really? Is that why Jesus specified the temple?
Because it was something that would happen thousands
of years from then? And on some "third temple" that
people imagine up? Did Jesus say, "But hey, not THIS
temple. Skip this one, even though my words will be
fulfilled to the letter in 70 A.D.. I really mean
another temple.". Can anyone show me the passage
that says that? I didn't think so.
I know you see that, but you do associate other parts
of His discourse with the future and yet, the Apostles
tied it all together. You claim they just didn't
realize it. But tell me, who was in a better position
to realize what Jesus was actually saying? You?
Or first century Jews, who were very familiar with the
Scriptures and who were walking with the Messiah
Himself? You don't have to be a believer to know
whether or not someone says that they are returning
within your generation.
And you may say that they just didn't know at that
time, because they had not received the Holy Spirit
yet. But that doesn't wash either, because even after
they received the Holy Spirit, they still taught an
imminent return of Christ. And no, imminent does not
mean thousands of years later. Nor does it mean
imminent to the time of the signs. Jesus said He would
return within that generation. They taught this
throughout their ministries.
4a) And Jesus answered and said to them...
Now note here, that after their questions, it says that
Jesus ANSWERED THEM. Guess what dude? He
answered THEIR QUESTIONS! It says so, right there. :)
We should not expect that what Jesus says after that,
deals with anything other than their questions. After
all, that is what He was answering. It is OUR
IMAGINATION that adds anything else to it.
So now let's look at some more and see what Jesus'
answer was...
Matthew 24:4-7a (just to make a few more points)
4) And Jesus answered and said to them, Take heed that
no man deceive you.
As I said, Jesus is now answering their questions.
5) For many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ,
and will deceive many.
The Lord here warns about those who would pretend to be
the Messiah. Now while people today demand that
someone come claiming to be "Jesus Christ", that isn't
what Jesus said would happen. He said that they would
say, "I am Christ". That is a title, not a personal
name. Saying you are the Christ, is another way of
saying that you are the Messiah.
Now here is where people like to assume that people are
supposed to come, claiming to be Jesus returned. But
again, that is not what Jesus is saying here. Anyone
who came and claimed to be the Messiah, would qualify
under His statement. They would be falsely claiming
the title and authority that belonged to Jesus.
The fact is, there were many pretenders who claimed the
power of God and tried to gain a following. Read Acts
5:36-37; 8:9-10, for a couple of examples.
There are many historical examples. In fact, when we
look at the writings of Josephus about that time, we
can see this.
"In Judea matters were constantly going from bad to
worse. For the country was again infested with bands
of brigands and imposters who deceived the mob...
Moreover, imposters and deceivers called upon the mob
to follow them into the desert. For they said that
they would show them unmistakable marvels and signs
that would be wrought in harmony with God's design." -
Antiquities 20:5:5-6
Does anybody remember Jesus' statement about the
desert? Does this sound familiar?
"Therefore if they shall say to you, Behold, He is in
the desert! Do not go out. Behold, He is in the secret
rooms! Do not believe it." - Matthew 24:26
"Deceivers and imposters, under the pretense of divine
inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they
persuaded the multitude to act like madmen and led them
out into the desert under the belief that God would
there give them tokens of deliverance." - Wars 2:13:4
6) And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See
that you are not troubled, for all these things must
occur; but the end is not yet.
7a) For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom.
While people look today for wars, they forget, wars
have been fought in the past. People are so eager to
blind themselves to anything that doesn't make the
Bible all about them, that they completely ignore
history.
First of all, a warning of wars and rumors of wars,
would be meaningless, if it weren't a time of peace
when that warning is given.
A little lesson in history is in order here. Julius
Caesar one can say, planted the seed that would become
the Roman Empire, when he defeated Pompey and Marc
Antony and became the dictator of Rome. After he died,
a short civil war took place and resulted in the formal
establishment of the Roman Empire by Augustus Caesar.
He enforced peace throughout the Empire. This began
the "Pax Romana", or, "peace of Rome" and it began with
his establishment of the "Age of Peace" in 17 B.C. and
it eventually covered the entire Mediterranean. Origen
talks about, "the abundance of peace that began at the
birth of Christ" - Against Celsus 2:30. This peace
lasted until the time of Nero.
In February of 67 A.D., Nero commissioned Roman general
Flavius Vespasian to squash a revolt in Israel, which
of course, resulted in the destruction of the temple in
August of 70 A.D. (3 1/2 years later). His strategy in
the Jewish War, was to, as Josephus said (words in
parenthesis mine)...
"...first overthrow what remained elsewhere (Judea,
etc.) and to leave nothing outside of Jerusalem behind
him that might interrupt in the siege." - Wars 4:7:3
Josephus also records for us that Vespasian, "went and
burnt Galilee and the neighboring parts (as he made his
way toward Jerusalem)." - Wars 6:6:2
Thus, there would be numerous battles in Judea and the
surrounding area before the siege of Jerusalem and the
temple.
Also during this campaign (67 - 70 AD), Rome erupted in
civil war, which almost brought down the city and the
empire (fatal wound of the beast, folks). Tacitus
writes, regarding the time just after Nero's death
(during the campaign)...
"The history on which I am entering is that of a period
rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil
struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors
failed by the sword; there were three civil wars, more
foreign wars and often both at the same time." -
Histories 1:2
Josephus wrote...
"Now at the time when this great concussion of affairs
happened (namely the Jewish War), the affairs of the
Romans themselves were in great disorder. Those Jews
also, who were for innovations, then arose when the
times were disturbed; they were also in a flourishing
condition for strength and riches, insomuch that the
affairs of the east were then exceeding tumultuous,
while some hoped for gain and others were afraid of
loss in such troubles; for the Jews hoped that all of
their nation which were beyond Euphrates would have
raised an insurrection together with them. The Gauls
also, in the neighborhood of the Romans, were in motion
and the Celtae were not quiet; but all was in disorder
after the death of Nero." - Wars 1:1:2
Both subjects of Rome and enemies alike, thought that
Rome was in its death throes. Tacitus wrote regarding
this...
"This was the condition of the Roman state when Serius
Galba, chosen consul for the second time and his
colleague Titus Vinius entered upon the year that was
to be for Galba his last and for the state almost the
end." - Histories 1:11
Also, prior to the mid sixties, there were other local
battles and riots, that I haven't even brought up, that
came some years before that, which were based in the
wilderness of Judea. Josephus wrote of a succession of
"deceivers and imposters", who "fomented revolutionary
changes under the pretext of divine inspiration". He
also noted battles between the Jews and others, such as
the Syrians, the Askelonians, the Alexandrians, etc..
This is probably the "nation against nation" that Jesus
spoke of.
These things are surely a fulfillment of what Jesus
said. They would hear of "wars and rumors of wars", as
these local battles began to crop up and later, as
Vespasian made his way toward Jerusalem. These are
significant, in that they started after there was a
time of peace. The Jews even had a victory during this
time. They defeated Cestius Gallus and the Roman
Twelfth Legion in November of 66 A.D. This, of course,
made them hungry for independence from Rome and it was
that uprising that spelled their doom in 70 A.D..
7b) And there will be famines and pestilences and
earthquakes in different places.
Acts 11:27-29
27) And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto
Antioch.
28) And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and
signified by the spirit that there should be great
dearth throughout all the world: WHICH CAME TO PASS in
the days of Claudius Caesar.
29) Then the disciples, every man according to his
ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren
which dwelt in Judea:
Josephus said "...a famine did oppress them at that
time and many people died for want of what was
necessary to procure food withal." - Antiquities 20:2:5
He later called it, "the great famine" - Antiquities
20:5:2
He also mentions others. Antiquities 20:2:6; 20:4:2.
Tacitus, who lived from 55 - 117 AD, wrote of the
events in 51 AD... "This year witnessed many
prodigies... Further portents were seen in a shortage
of corn, resulting in famine... It was established that
there was no more than fifteen days' supply of food in
the city (Rome)."
Tacitus also mentions earthquakes in Crete, Rome,
Apamea, Phrygia, Campania, Laodecia and Pompeii during
the time just before Jerusalem's destruction.He wrote
of one series of quakes under Claudius' rule, "Houses
were flattened by repeated earthquakes and as terror
spread, the weak were trampled to death by the panic
stricken." - Annals 12:58
Severe earthquakes plagued the reigns of Caligula
(37-41 AD) and Claudius (41-54 AD).
According to Seneca, who lived from 4 BC - 65 AD,
earthquakes occurred in Asia, Achaia, Syria and
Macedonia. - Senica, Epistles 91
Ellicott's commentary states, "Perhaps no period in the
world's history has ever been so marked by these
convulsions as that which intervenes between the
Crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem.".
We should also remember, that in the first part of the
Jewish War with Rome, a massive earthquake struck
Jerusalem itself. Josephus said regarding this
event... "There broke out a prodigious storm in the
night, with the utmost violence and very strong winds,
with the largest showers of rain and continual
lightnings, terrible thunderings and amazing
concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an
earthquake.... These things were a manifest indication
that some destruction was coming upon men, when the
system of the world was put into this disorder; and
anyone would guess that these wonders foreshadowed some
grand calamities that were coming." - Wars 4:4:5
It seems Josephus could read the signs of the times.

It's clear to me that the disciples did not realize
there would be a big gap between Jesus' time
on earth and his future Kingdom. A big portion
of Jesus' discussion with his disciples concerned
emphasizing how God's Kingdom affects people
now--not just in the Kingdom to come. Jesus
made it plain that God's Kingdom was always in
existence and that we must relate with God now
--not just when the Kingdom comes. And even if
Israel hasn't attained to all of its national promises,
God's Kingdom is just as accessable as always.

Where did Jesus say, "national"? His Kingdom was to be
expanded to the Gentiles.
It is not a national thing anymore. That is part of
what Jesus was trying to say. And you forget, He
DID fulfill the national promise. The Messiah came
to the Jews.
"But He answered and said, I am not sent except to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel." - Matthew 15:24
They rejected Him.
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly
that God made this same Jesus, whom you crucified,
both Lord and Christ." - Acts 2:36
Thus, THEY broke the Covenant, not God. God lived
up to it. They rejected His fulfilled promise.
As for the Kingdom...
Acts 2:36-38
36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know
assuredly that God made this same Jesus,
whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37) And hearing this, they were stabbed in the heart,
and said to Peter and to the other apostles, Men,
brothers, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent and be
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit.
There it is. :)
Luke 17:20-21
20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the
kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said,
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Note that the Pharisees wanted to know when the Kingdom
of God would come to the Earth.
Now what was Jesus' response???
"The Kingdom of God cometh NOT WITH OBSERVATION".
I.e., YOU WON'T SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES! :)
21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,
behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
They WON'T say, "look here, or look there"!
The Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU. It is NOT a new
literal, physical kingdom set up after the destruction
of heaven and earth.

So Jesus goes on to encourage his disciples
to remain true to God, even in the face of
unfulfilled promises. Israel would be desolated,
and the Kingdom would not yet bring peace to
God's people. But the Kingdom would come in
God's own good time. Until then it would be utter
foolishness to rely on the Jewish system of worship,
the Law, because it had been utterly rejected by
God. It's time was rapidly coming to a close, in
other words.

randy

See above. You are assuming God's promise wasn't
already being fulfilled.
It is clear that the Apostles taught a soon return of
Jesus, throughout their ministries. The question is,
if they had it wrong about that (which they must have,
if what you believe is true), and they wrote the NT and
wrote THAT in the NT, how can we trust anything else
they said, if they were wrong about such a huge event
in the Gospels and in their letters? Does this not
open the Bible up to questioning even Jesus' words,
since they match with the Apostles' words?
How can you say that Jesus stated a return within that
generation and then say that the Apostles had it wrong,
when they believed He was returning within that
generation?
And very important, where did Jesus say that they
should be encouraged, "in the face of unfulfilled
promises"? Now you are saying that even though
He wouldn't do what He said He would, within the
time He said He would, that He told them to be
encouraged anyway.
Also, where did Jesus disagree with their conclusion?
Did He not Himself state that He was returning within
that generation? And since He did, who is anyone to
add another return on top of the one He proclaimed,
dividing up events? How can His RETURN be past
and future?
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.

User: "randy"
Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE	03 Jun 2005 12:22:52 AM

"Pastor Dave"
"randy"

Where did Jesus say, "I am going to talk about two
things. The temple destruction and then the rest of
what will happen much much later"?...
Luke 21:20-22...
Note: It is a local event, so that ALL THINGS WHICH
ARE WRITTEN MAY BE FULFILLED....

I believe that everything was fulfilled about the temple (not Jesus'
coming). Daniel had written about it (chapter 9). So Jesus was just saying,
everything Daniel spoke of is going to be fulfilled in this generation.
Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary...
I don't believe that Jesus meant to be exhaustive in this matter. He wasn't
saying, everything in eternity will happen in this generation. Nor was he
even saying he would "return" in that generation. His primary emphasis was
on the temple's destruction. According to Daniel, this would bring prophecy
to a fulfillment. In other words, prophecy did not determine the eternity of
the temple. Rather, prophecy determined the failure of Israel under the
temple system.
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy
city...to seal up the vision and prophecy...

It doesn't say that the destruction of the temple
is a sign of His coming after that...

Yes it does.
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came
unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
When Jesus answered that question he indicated the major sign of his coming
was in fact the destruction of the temple. But he also pointed out how he
himself was an important sign. In other words, Jesus didn't see his coming
as a purely spiritual phenomenon. He saw himself as physically descending
from heaven to the earth.

How can it be "initiating His kingdom", when according
to you, it's always been here? That doesn't make
sense.

Of course it makes sense. God's Kingdom is as old as heaven itself. It
predates man. When Israel became a theocracy, God's Kingdom became one with
the Kingdom of Israel. But as we know, this has a checkered history.
Sometimes God's reign overlapped with the kings of Israel. Sometimes it did
not. It depended on whether the king followed God or not.
And this was Jesus' entire point. The Kingdom is not just something to be
anticipated in the far-off future. God wants to indwell us now, and rule
through us. By our obedience we let God enter the picture.

Now here Jesus sets the time line for the event. It
starts with Abel and goes up until Zechariah, whom
THEY killed in THAT generation. That is the final
generation before the judgment comes.

Jesus never indicated the end of the age was the end of the Law and the
temple. On the contrary, he saw an extended period of tribulation for the
Jews before the end could come. That is, the end of the temple would itself
be the *beginning" of the endtimes. The endtimes would extend as long as
Israel remained in a state of tribulation.

37) O JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, the one killing the
prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how
often would I have gathered YOUR children together,
even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and
YOU would not!
Note that Jesus specifies Jerusalem here. It is not
the whole world that He is discussing here.

Jesus spoke of the Gentile oppression of Jerusalem. Until that comes to an
end the end of the age is not yet here.

It seems Josephus could read the signs of the times.

All the signs of the times (earthquakes, familes, wars, etc.) began with the
destruction of Jerusalem. But the end was not yet. The end of the age did
not concern the temple destruction, but the coming of Christ himself. The
end of the temple merely *began* the endtimes, the age of Jerusalem's
tribulation. Jesus will come to *end* this suffering of Jerusalem.

Where did Jesus say, "national"? His Kingdom was to be
expanded to the Gentiles.

God specifically promised a "nation" to Abraham, consisting of his natural
descendants. But Abraham was *also* promised an international adopted
family. You must have both elements to find God faithful to His promises.
There must be national Israel, and there must be godly nations.

Luke 17:20-21
20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the
kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said,
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation...

Jesus was explaining how the Kingdom of God would *initially* be introduced.
It would come in some mysterious fashion. In the past it had be revealed in
part through the Davidic Kingdom. But Jesus brought a rule of God to earth
in the form of a brand new people. Ultimately there would be a brand new
Israel. The Kingdom would come to rule in people, who submit not to the Law,
but to God alone!
Jesus clearly indicated that in the end the Kingdom would be visible. They
will "see" the Son of Man coming from heaven. The coming of God's rule
through Messiah will be a *visible event!*

It is clear that the Apostles taught a soon return of
Jesus, throughout their ministries. The question is,
if they had it wrong about that (which they must have,
if what you believe is true), and they wrote the NT and
wrote THAT in the NT, how can we trust anything else
they said, if they were wrong about such a huge event
in the Gospels and in their letters? Does this not
open the Bible up to questioning even Jesus' words,
since they match with the Apostles' words?
How can you say that Jesus stated a return within that
generation and then say that the Apostles had it wrong,
when they believed He was returning within that
generation?

Jesus never said he was coming in that generation. He made it clear the
"sign" of the end of temple was the gathering of Gentiles against it. The
sign of Jesus' coming remained future. Later, Jesus made it clear that he
had not yet come. And it was his angel who said:
"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus,
which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye
have seen him go into heaven."
The idea of Jesus coming soon has more to do with the end of life here on
earth than it does on the literal time element. For mankind we should be
aware that things are going to inevitably pass away. So we are to treat them
as if they're *soon* to end!
randy
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE	03 Jun 2005 02:09:48 PM

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:22:52 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
I just wanted to start by noting that I appreciate the
polite tone with which this discussion is progressing.
I do not feel however, that you dealt with specific the
points I made to your post, but rather, have simple
restated what was in your original post in this thread,
that I responded to.
Thus, I have reposted some of what I did in my previous
message, but many of the statements have changed
somewhat, so please don't fly past them. :) Let us
take the time to thoughtfully consider all of what the
other person is saying.
In other words, let us read and consider each point
made by the other person carefully and respond
specifically. Thank you in advance. :)

Where did Jesus say, "I am going to talk about two
things. The temple destruction and then the rest of
what will happen much much later"?...

Luke 21:20-22...

Note: It is a local event, so that ALL THINGS WHICH
ARE WRITTEN MAY BE FULFILLED....

Jesus didn't say, "Daniel". He said, "all things
written". How does that specify one book?

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary...

I believe that the prince is Christ.

I don't believe that Jesus meant to be exhaustive in this matter. He wasn't
saying, everything in eternity will happen in this generation. Nor was he
even saying he would "return" in that generation. His primary emphasis was
on the temple's destruction.

The temple destruction was His return. Can you please
show me where JESUS HIMSELF made a difference?
As for whether or not He was saying He would return
in that generation, Jesus mentions His coming in
vs 29-30 and then in v34, says...
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
Now let's look at what He said prior to that. Please
read the following parable and ask yourself one
question...
"Who does the lord of the vineyard come back and
execute his wrath upon? Those that killed his son?
Or a generation thousands of years later?"
Matthew 21:33-43
33) Hear another parable: There was a certain
householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it
round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a
tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a
far country:
34) And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent
his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive
the fruits of it.
35) And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one,
and killed another, and stoned another.
36) Again, he sent other servants more than the first:
and they did unto them likewise.
37) But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying,
They will reverence my son.
38) But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said
among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill
him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39) And they caught him, and cast him out of the
vineyard, and slew him.
40) When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh,
what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41) They say unto him, He will miserably destroy
*_THOSE_* wicked men, and will let out his vineyard
unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the
fruits in their seasons.
42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the
Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the
same is become the head of the corner: this is the
Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?
43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall
be taken from *_YOU_*, and given to a nation bringing
forth the fruits thereof.
Again, who did the lord of the vineyard come back and
destroy?
What greater sin could anyone have committed in denying
the Son, than killing the Son?
Jesus said His return would be before all of the
disciples died. Read Matthew 16:24-28. He starts by
talking about a man losing his soul. He then goes on
to talk about Him "coming" and "rewarding" every man
according to his works. That's a return and judgment.
Matthew 16:24-28
24) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will
come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me.
25) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and
whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man
give in exchange for his soul?
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD EVERY
MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
28) Verily I say unto you, There be SOME STANDING HERE,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of man COMING in his kingdom.
Note: He said SOME of His disciples would be alive when
it happened. That means at least one, but not most.
Note: It isn't discussing the Transfiguration. That
was six days later and they were all still alive. And
there was no "coming with the Father's angels"
and there was no, "rewarding every man according
to his works".
Note: It isn't talking about Pentecost. All but one
were alive and there was no "coming with the Father's
angels" and no, "rewarding every man according to his
works".
Now read Revelation 22:12, when He is in Heaven and see
if the wording doesn't match. :)
"And, behold, I COME quickly; and my REWARD is with me,
to give EVERY MAN ACCORDING AS HIS WORK SHALL BE."
- Revelation 22:12
If Jesus did not come within the time frame He stated,
then he was a failed prophet. That, no one can deny.

According to Daniel, this would bring prophecy
to a fulfillment. In other words, prophecy did not
determine the eternity of the temple. Rather,
prophecy determined the failure of Israel under
the temple system.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon
thy people and upon thy holy city...to seal up the
vision and prophecy...

We're discussing Jesus' words however and He did not
say, "I am limiting my statements to what Daniel
wrote", although I would agree that Daniel covered it.
The difference here, is that I see Daniel's writing as
also covering Jesus' return, but not covering any
details specific to His return event, other than to say
there will be "desolations". I.e., Daniel says that
"desolations are determined". The desolations don't
happen within the 70 weeks, but they are "determined",
or "decreed" by God to happen.

It doesn't say that the destruction of the temple
is a sign of His coming after that...

Yes it does.
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount
of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately,
saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?
and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and
of the end of the world?

When Jesus answered that question he indicated
the major sign of his coming was in fact the
destruction of the temple. But he also pointed out
how he himself was an important sign.

I disagree completely and I dealt with whether or not
the destruction of the temple was a sign of His coming.
Where does Jesus specifically call the destruction of
the temple a sign of His coming? Where did He say
that His answer was a sign for a much later event?
You seem to be reading that into the text, based
on what you have been taught.
Please read the following text and please answer
the questions that I will ask, keeping your answers
limited only to the four verses quoted. While some
of it is the same as the last post, much of it is
different and you have not addressed the specific
statements that I made.
Matthew 24:1-4a
1) And Jesus went out and departed from the temple.
And His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings
of the temple.
Note that the disciples came to Him, to show Him the
buildings of the temple. Not the whole world. That is
not under discussion anywhere in Matthew 24, nor in
Mark 13, nor Luke 21. Their focus was on THE TEMPLE.
I realize that you agree with that much.
2) And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all these
things? Truly I say to you, There shall not be left
HERE one stone on another that shall not be
thrown down.
Note: Do you not see all THESE THINGS? Jesus
is not pointing to the planet Earth, nor is He making
any mention of a "coming" that is way off into the
future. He is responding ONLY to their action of
pointing out the beauty of the temple buildings to
Him and that's all.
I.e., He is dealing with what happens to the temple.
3) And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples
came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall
these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your
coming, and of the end of the world?
Now where did the Apostles state that they were asking
about more than His coming to destroy the temple?
In what verse of the three, did Jesus say anything more
than what was going to happen to the temple, for the
disciples to want to ask about a separate coming, that
would maybe be thousands of years away? Where was
any indication given of anything other than the temple?
What is it that they're asking about here? Well, what
did Jesus JUST SAY? They are asking when the
temple buildings would be destroyed and they asked
three questions about it.
Q1) When shall these things be?
This is an obvious question. But what are "these
things"? The very things that Jesus just mentioned
and ALL He mentioned, was the destruction of the
temple.
You must bear in mind, that maybe the destruction
of the temple held a lot more significance that you
think. To the Jews, that was where heaven and earth
literally met. It was the actual seat of God on Earth
to them. Have you not seen the Jews gathering all
the time, to pray at the "wailing wall"? What do you
think they're wailing about? :)
Q2) What will be the sign of Your coming?
Now while people right away start thinking of all the
things different books teach about the coming of Jesus,
don't let them brainwash you. The disciples asked this
question IN REGARD TO JESUS' STATEMENT ABOUT
THE TEMPLE. What would be the signs showing that
THE TEMPLE was about to be destroyed? Of His
"coming" to destroy the temple and to physically remove
the Old Covenant system. That is what he was "coming"
to do and it holds a lot more significance than you
give it credit for. The end of "the age" is the end of
the system. God's Kingdom would be established
as the New Covenant way. And bear in mind, that
THE ONLY THING that is mentioned in the verses
above, is the end of the age, NOT the end of the world.
Q3) When will the end of the age be?
Now while people like to imagine up all sorts of things
for that phrase, the reality is, that it's a very
simple term. There was more than one age that had
passed already. The age of the fathers, like Abraham.
The age of the patriarchs. And a major one, the age of
the Old Covenant system and that is what the disciples
were asking about.
Could this be any simpler? They point at the temple.
Jesus says it will be destroyed. No temple, no Old
Covenant temple sacrifices. The end of the age. So
they ask when this will be.
I know you see that, but you do associate other parts
of His discourse with the future and yet, the Apostles
tied it all together. You claim they just didn't
realize it. But tell me, who was in a better position
to realize what Jesus was actually saying? You?
Or first century Jews, who were very familiar with the
Scriptures and who were walking with the Messiah
Himself? You don't have to be a believer to know
whether or not someone says that they are returning
within your generation.
And you may say that they just didn't know at that
time, because they had not received the Holy Spirit
yet. But that doesn't wash either, because even after
they received the Holy Spirit, they still taught an
imminent return of Christ. And no, imminent does not
mean thousands of years later. Nor does it mean
imminent to the time of the signs. Jesus said He would
return within that generation. They taught this
throughout their ministries.
My question to you is, if they were still confused
about this and still taught a return within their
generation even after receiving the Holy Ghost,
how can we trust anything they said, if they were wrong
about such an important matter, especially considering
that the return of Jesus and the resurrection, was
their hope? See the following passages...
"But when Paul perceived that the one part were
Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out
in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee,
the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection
of the dead I am called in question." - Acts 23:6
Acts 24:14-15
14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way
which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my
fathers, believing all things which are written in the
law and in the prophets:
15) And have hope toward God, which they themselves
also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the
dead, both of the just and unjust.
Also note that Paul said that he believed, "all things
which are written in the Law and the prophets".
Also note that Jesus said... "that ALL THINGS
WRITTEN will be fulfilled". He did not say, "Only
what is written in Daniel. With all due respect,
you're putting a limitation on Jesus words, that
He did not place there.
Again I ask, if the Apostles were still confused about
this and still taught a return within their generation
even after receiving the Holy Ghost, how can we trust
anything they said, if they were wrong about such an
important matter, especially considering that the
return of Jesus and the resurrection, was their hope?
4a) And Jesus answered and said to them...
Now note here, that after their questions, it says that
Jesus ANSWERED THEM. Guess what dude? He
answered THEIR QUESTIONS! It says so, right there. :)
We should not expect that what Jesus says after that,
deals with anything other than their questions. After
all, that is what He was answering. It is OUR
IMAGINATION that adds anything else to it.

In other words, Jesus didn't see his coming as
a purely spiritual phenomenon. He saw himself
as physically descending from heaven to the earth.

The disciples understood the symbolic language
of the Old Testament. I ask you to please respond
to the following passage quotes and note the
questions that are asked.
Here's a fulfilled prophecy about the conquering
of Egypt...
"The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon
a SWIFT CLOUD, and shall come into Egypt: and
the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence,
and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it."
- Isaiah 19:1
Did they literally see the Lord riding on a cloud?
Did the idols literally move?
Did the heart of Egypt literally melt?
How about this fulfilled prophecy, in which God fought
for Israel and it says THAT HE CAME DOWN and is
from a Psalm of David, AFTER God delivered him
from his enemies?
Psalm 18:9,14
9) He bowed the heavens also, and CAME DOWN:
and darkness was under his feet.
14) Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them;
and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.
Note again that God fought for Israel and it says that
God came down.
Now, the following questions...
Did God literally "bow the heavens"?
Did He literally have "darkness under His feet"?
Did God literally "send out arrows"?
Did God literally "shoot out lightnings" to defeat
David's enemies?
Neither of these prophecies (and there are more)
are literal statements and yet, you wish to take
Matthew 24:27-30 literally. That doesn't make
sense to me.
The Apostles took what Jesus said as any Jew familiar
with the Old Testament would. As symbolic language
of a coming judgment upon the land. And it is
important to note, that the statements in the Bible
about the "earth" and the "world" are not statements
about the planet Earth. The word for the planet Earth
is "kosmos" and Jesus and the writers of the NT knew
the different words and knew the word that is used to
denote the entire planet, as is evidenced by the
following passage...
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I
will utter things which have been kept secret from the
foundation of the world (kosmos)." - Matthew 13:35
Note the creation of the planet is being discussed
there and the word used, was "kosmos".

How can it be "initiating His kingdom", when according
to you, it's always been here? That doesn't make
sense.

Huh? Where does the Bible teach all of this? The
Kingdom Jesus spoke of, was the indwelling of God
in ones heart. Jesus did not mention a physical
national kingdom on Earth. You seem to be trying to
mix everything together, to avoid answering specifics.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that is
intentional on your part.

And this was Jesus' entire point. The Kingdom is not just
something to be anticipated in the far-off future. God
wants to indwell us now, and rule through us. By our
obedience we let God enter the picture.

How can you say that "this was Jesus' entire point",
when Jesus did not say that was His entire point?
The fact is, Jesus said that the Kingdom of God
is within. He did not say, "within and without".
Nor did Jesus say it is to be "anticipated in the far
off future" at all, let alone say that plus something
else on top of it. Again, this is YOUR BELIEF. I
am interested in what he actually said. I.e., let us
not confuse our personal beliefs of what this and
that means and what we think His points are, with
the actual words written.
We CAN say, for example, that Jesus said that the
Kingdom of God is within us and say that that was
His point, because he specifically said that exact
thing. We cannot however, say that his point was
that "The kingdom of God is within and this is in
addition to the national Kingdom and the kings,
as to whether or not they adhered to God's rules",
etc., when Jesus did not say any of that in His
statement. I deal with what He actually said.
Not with what a personal conclusion is. :)

Now here Jesus sets the time line for the event. It
starts with Abel and goes up until Zechariah, whom
THEY killed in THAT generation. That is the final
generation before the judgment comes.

Jesus never indicated the end of the age was the end
of the Law and the temple. On the contrary, he saw an
extended period of tribulation for the Jews before the
end could come. That is, the end of the temple would
itself be the *beginning" of the endtimes. The endtimes
would extend as long as Israel remained in a state of
tribulation.

You have made some claims. I will ask you some
questions.
1) Why are you mixing other things in here?
In other words, we are supposed to be dealing with
Matthew 24:1-4a at most. My post was designed
to have a discussion about what those passages
actually say.
2) I have already dealt with the "end of the age"
statement. Why haven't you responded specifically
to that?
3) How can you claim to know what "Jesus saw"?
Isn't that quite a bit of ego? :)
4) Where did Jesus say, "extended tribulation
for the Jews"?
5) Where did Jesus say that the destruction of the
temple was "the beginning of the end times"?
6) Where did Jesus say that the end times, "would
extend as long as Israel remained in a state of
tribulation"?
7) Where did Jesus limit His kingdom to the Jews?

Note that Jesus specifies Jerusalem here. It is not
the whole world that He is discussing here.

Jesus spoke of the Gentile oppression of Jerusalem.
Until that comes to an end the end of the age is not
yet here.

The Gentiles were to trample it down for forty two
months, according to Scripture.

It seems Josephus could read the signs of the times.

All the signs of the times (earthquakes, familes, wars, etc.)
began with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Actually, that is not true and I quoted specific
Scriptures showing that it started before that.
you have ignored those passages and frankly,
you are telling me what your personal beliefs
are. That is fine, but what you just said is not found
in Scripture and is in fact, contradicted by Scripture.

But the end was not yet.

According to YOU. But where did Jesus address
anything more than the destruction of the temple
in Matthew 24:1-4a? See earlier in message.

The end of the age did not concern the temple
destruction, but the coming of Christ himself.
The end of the temple merely *began* the
endtimes, the age of Jerusalem's tribulation.
Jesus will come to *end* this suffering of Jerusalem.

Again, you are making claims that are not supported
by Scripture. Jesus did not say the things you are
claiming He said. His actual words do not bear out
your claims.
And you forget, you are supposed to support your claims
with Scripture AND tell us in your own words what they
mean (referring to THAT SPECIFIC Scripture passage)
AND tell us why they mean what you claim they mean.
You have not done that. You have only made claims
and have not shown Jesus Himself saying what you claim
He is saying.

Where did Jesus say, "national"? His Kingdom was
to be expanded to the Gentiles.

God specifically promised a "nation" to Abraham,
consisting of his natural descendants. But Abraham
was *also* promised an international adopted
family. You must have both elements to find God
faithful to His promises. There must be national
Israel, and there must be godly nations.

I asked you where JESUS said, "national".
And where does the Bible say, "international adopted
family" (or similar), when god is speaking to Abraham?

Luke 17:20-21

20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the
kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said,
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation...

Jesus was explaining how the Kingdom of God would
*initially* be introduced.

Where does the passage say, "initially"? Once again,
you are giving me YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF.
Again, that's fine, but.... (see above).

It would come in some mysterious fashion. In the past
it had be revealed in part through the Davidic Kingdom.
But Jesus brought a rule of God to earth in the form of
a brand new people. Ultimately there would be a brand
new Israel. The Kingdom would come to rule in people,
who submit not to the Law, but to God alone!

Jesus clearly indicated that in the end the Kingdom
would be visible. They will "see" the Son of Man coming
from heaven. The coming of God's rule through Messiah
will be a *visible event!*

Once again, that is a claim. Where does Scripture
support that?

How can you say that Jesus stated a return within that
generation and then say that the Apostles had it wrong,
when they believed He was returning within that
generation?

Jesus never said he was coming in that generation.

Yes, He did and you ignored the passages I quoted that
stated exactly that and snipped them. Again I quote...
Jesus said His return would be before all of the
disciples died. Read Matthew 16:24-28. He starts by
talking about a man losing his soul. He then goes on
to talk about Him "coming" and "rewarding" every man
according to his works. That's a return and judgment.
Matthew 16:24-28
24) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will
come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me.
25) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and
whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man
give in exchange for his soul?
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD EVERY
MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
28) Verily I say unto you, There be SOME STANDING HERE,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of man COMING in his kingdom.
Note: He said SOME of His disciples would be alive when
it happened. That means at least one, but not most.
Note: It isn't discussing the Transfiguration. That
was six days later and they were all still alive. And
there was no "coming with the Father's angels"
and there was no, "rewarding every man according
to his works".
Note: It isn't talking about Pentecost. All but one
were alive and there was no "coming with the Father's
angels" and no, "rewarding every man according to his
works".
Now read Revelation 22:12, when He is in Heaven and see
if the wording doesn't match. :)
"And, behold, I COME quickly; and my REWARD is with me,
to give EVERY MAN ACCORDING AS HIS WORK SHALL BE."
- Revelation 22:12
If Jesus did not come within the time frame He stated,
then he was a failed prophet. That, no one can deny.

He made it clear the sign" of the end of temple was
the gathering of Gentiles against it. The sign of Jesus'
coming remained future. Later, Jesus made it clear
that he had not yet come. And it was his angel who said:

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into
heaven."

First of all, we aren't supposed to be hopping around
the Bible. :)
Secondly, Acts 1:11 says nothing about seeing
a physical, visible Jesus return.
Acts 1:9-11
9) And saying these things, as they looked on, He was
taken up, and a cloud received Him from their sight.
10) And as they were intently looking into the heaven,
He having gone, even behold, two men in white clothing
stood by them,
11) who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand
looking up to the heaven? This Jesus, the One being
taken from you into the heaven, will come in the way
you saw Him going into the heaven.
Acts 1:11 says nothing about Jesus returning "in the
flesh". Those words aren't there. You added them.
"In like manner" is discussing Jesus coming in the
clouds. Note v9. They symbolize God's presence.
A first century Jew would know that. Stop reading
the Bible as if it were written just yesterday, just
for you.
There is not one word in v11, that describes
THE BODY of Christ, physical or otherwise.
The teaching of His body returning, is believed
by you, from inference only.
You should also take this passage IN CONTEXT and IN
CONTEXT, these passages tell us only two things about
Christ's return.
1) A cloud received Him. Where was He? On the ground.
This means, since you claim literalism in this passage,
that you have some problems.
a) If He returns like manner literally and visibly,
that means that He must come and appear in exactly the
same way and that He must descend straight down in a
cloud and then be dropped off in the same exact spot,
which was in Bethany (Luke 24:50-51). He cannot be
"riding the clouds". If you try to claim anything
else, you are leaving the literalism that you claim
about this passage and you are adding your own
beliefs to it.
b) You also cannot claim that the whole world will see
Him, because He was not visible to the whole world when
He ascended and you claim that, "in like manner" is
speaking literally. Therefore, only those standing in
that same spot, in Bethany, will be able to see Him.
2) He was "out of their sight". Thus, since He was
"out of their sight", how could His return be VISIBLE,
when they couldn't SEE Him? He was not visible in the
cloud, yet you demand that He be visible, riding the
clouds, when He returns. That doesn't make sense.
Remember, YOU brought Acts 1:11 into it.
Those who believe in a future return, also like
to quote Zechariah 14:4.
"And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of
Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east; and the
Mount of Olives shall divide from its middle, from the
east even to the west, a very great valley. And half of
the mountain shall move toward the north, and half of
it toward the south." - Zechariah 14:4
But then they are preaching a giant Jesus. If that
passage is to be taken literally, then that is what
will be required, for His feet to stay planted, one on
each half of the mountain. Are you now preaching a
giant Jesus?
They also run into trouble, with the quote from Acts,
when trying to combine it with this one. The fact is,
that Acts says that He won't be seen coming down,
since the cloud hid Him from their view and according
to you, He must return in exactly the same way,
PHYSICALLY.

The idea of Jesus coming soon has more to do with
the end of life here on earth than it does on the literal
time element. For mankind we should be aware that
things are going to inevitably pass away. So we are to
treat them as if they're *soon* to end!

Wait a second...
Where did Jesus say that "soon" means, "the end of life
on Earth"? And if life on Earth ends, who will be here
to see Him return?
You are taking the statement "soon" that was said to
people standing there, to mean, "thousands of years
into the future". Jesus did not say, nor imply that.
That is YOUR CLAIM, not a Scripture quote. :)
You are also completely ignoring the fact that Jesus
said He was coming and would judge, before all of
the Apostles died.
You are taking your personal doctrinal beliefs and you
are making claims, but you are not showing me where
in the Bible it says any of what you claim.
Again, the idea here was to quote the exact Scripture,
state what you think it means and why, in your own
words after that. That does not mean, most of the time
don't quote a Scripture and even when you do, tell us
your personal beliefs, which are not found within that
Scripture. I can understand how you took Acts 1:11
the way you did, but other than that, all you have
given me is conjecture and claims.
Please deal with the specific Scripture. And don't
forget, we are supposed to discuss each Scripture
and point THOROUGHLY and not just hop around
the Bible. How does ignoring the points I made about
Matthew 24:1-4a and the quote of Matthew 16:24-28,
which is directly related, equate to discussing each
specific point thoroughly?
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.

User: "randy"
Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE	03 Jun 2005 06:16:51 PM

"Pastor Dave"
"randy"

In other words, let us read and consider each point
made by the other person carefully and respond
specifically. Thank you in advance. :)

OK.

Jesus didn't say, "Daniel". He said, "all things
written". How does that specify one book?

Matthew 24:15 "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,'
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads,
let him understand)...
This specifies "one book," the book of Daniel. The subject in mind is the
fate of the temple, specifically it's destruction. Jesus said that every
stone will be "thrown down." So I believe Jesus is referring specifically to
*all* of what had to do with the temple's destruction--not the coming of
Messiah.
Note that the disciples made a perfectly-clear distinction between the
temple's destruction and the coming of Messiah...
Matthew 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to
Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be
the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
"All these things" referred to the temple's destruction. But the further
question was, "And what will be the sign of your coming?"

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary...

I believe that the prince is Christ.

It's a very controversial passage. My preference is the "prince" represents
Titus of the Romans. It was the Romans who came under General Titus, and
destroyed the temple. I believe this is repeated in Daniel 9: "And on the
wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate..."
This refers to Titus. I believe Jesus in his Olives Discourse identifies the
"abominable one making desolate" as a Roman leader as well. We now know that
he was Titus, a Roman general. Of course, not every interpretation should
rest on one isolated passage. But the destruction of the temple by the
enemies of Israel is a very common theme in the Prophets.

The temple destruction was His return. Can you please
show me where JESUS HIMSELF made a difference?

Yes, Jesus distinguished himself from the temple's destruction. I already
pointed out why I believe this. This is what Matthew had earlier stated
about Jesus' return...
Matthew 13:41 "The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will
gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice
lawlessness,
42 "and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and
gnashing of teeth.
43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their
Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"
Matthew includes this comment in the Olivest Discourse...
Matthew 25:31 ś "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them
one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
The destruction of the temple, and the scattering of Israel did not coincide
with Messiah's coming. The coming of Messiah is concerned with the
regathering of Israel, with times of "refreshing," with restoring the nation
to an eternal glory.
Acts 3:19 "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
20 "and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things,
which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world
began.

As for whether or not He was saying He would return
in that generation, Jesus mentions His coming in
vs 29-30 and then in v34, says...
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

Yes, Jesus had just mentioned his return. But again, the context of the
entire passage distinguishes between the Lord's return and the temple's
destruction. This was implicit in the original questions that were asked of
Jesus. And it can be understood as an accepted distinction in Jesus'
answers.
The phrase "all these things" then take on a particular contextual meaning,
being identified with the destruction of the temple. Jesus said he would
return. But then he said "all these things would take place first," actually
only the "beginning of sorrows." Then the end would come, at which time
Messiah would come. Jesus made no effort to position a length of time
between the temple's destruction and his ultimate return. He always left the
time and sequence in the Father's hands. He said as such in Acts...
Acts 1:6 ś Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying,
"Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which
the Father has put in His own authority.
There are, however, some indications that Jesus believed he would not return
for a "long time." You can see this implied in Matthew as well...
Matthew 24:48 "But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is
delaying his coming'...25:5 "But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all
slumbered and slept...19 "After a long time the lord of those servants came
and settled accounts with them.

"Who does the lord of the vineyard come back and
execute his wrath upon? Those that killed his son?
Or a generation thousands of years later?"
Matthew 21:33-43
Again, who did the lord of the vineyard come back and
destroy?

The Jews who had murdered Jesus were judged. This could be interpreted a
number of ways. Jesus is the "Son" in the parable who is murdered. That was
his first coming. So his first coming could not have been for purposes of
judging those who murdered him.
So who is the Lord who comes later on with vengeance, to execute judgment
against those who murdered Jesus? It was God Himself! It is not the son but
the father who comes back! It's a reference not to Messiah's first coming,
but to the time when God will judge all men, both dead and living. Those who
murdered Jesus will be raised up to a resurrection of judgment!
Matthew himself said this.
Matthew 13:40 "Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire,
so it will be at the end of this age.
41 "The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of
His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 "and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and
gnashing of teeth.
Notice that this great coming of God the Father to take vengeance on behalf
of His Son actually is referred to as the coming of Messiah.

Jesus said His return would be before all of the
disciples died. Read Matthew 16:24-28...
28) Verily I say unto you, There be SOME STANDING HERE,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of man COMING in his kingdom.

I believe this is reference to the resurrection. Jesus said he would take
the throne of God after his death. He would both be resurrected and ascend
into heaven, to sit on the right hand of deity. There were a good number of
disciples who saw for a fact Jesus was raised from the dead. And a good
number saw Jesus ascending into heaven as well.
This is to be distinguished with Jesus' return *from* heaven. In the
instance you're citing it talks about Jesus' obtaining his Kingdom. This
happened immediately after the resurrection. But it's different when you're
talking about Jesus coming back to impose the dictates of his Kingdom.
As I said God has always had a Kingdom. But Israel's history with this
Kingdom has been checkered. At times the Kingdom of God coincided with the
Israeli Kingdom, and sometimes it did not. Jesus went through these
gyrations as well, on our behalf. He always had owned the Kingdom of God.
But he acknowledged God had trusted his Kingdom on earth in the hands of the
Israelites. In crucifying Messiah Israel gave up right to that Kingdom, and
it seemed that Jesus had lost his Kingdom on earth. Israel would be
devastated, and the temple would be destroyed. But ultimately, after Jesus'
death the Kingdom was restored to Jesus in heaven. He will bring that
Kingdom back to earth when he returns.

Note: He said SOME of His disciples would be alive when
it happened. That means at least one, but not most.
Note: It isn't discussing the Transfiguration. That
was six days later and they were all still alive. And
there was no "coming with the Father's angels"
and there was no, "rewarding every man according
to his works".

I believe the Transfiguration was a kind of "prolepsis." It was a foretaste
of what would happen to Jesus in the resurrection. It was a vision of Jesus
actually possessing the Kingdom of heaven, to assure his disciples that his
Kingdom would not be lost--not even in the event of the crucifixion.

We're discussing Jesus' words however and He did not
say, "I am limiting my statements to what Daniel
wrote", although I would agree that Daniel covered it....

Jesus specifically cited Daniel. So Daniel is of great importance here and
merits our careful attention.

The difference here, is that I see Daniel's writing as
also covering Jesus' return, but not covering any
details specific to His return event, other than to say
there will be "desolations". I.e., Daniel says that
"desolations are determined". The desolations don't
happen within the 70 weeks, but they are "determined",
or "decreed" by God to happen.

I agree. But I think it possible that Jesus was the one making a covenant
for the last 7 years. (I actually think he may have completed this final
week as a half-week.) Daniel indicated all prophecy is preoccupied with the
fate of Israel. If the temple went, so went the people of Israel. So for
Daniel, the end of the temple is the end of Jewish hope. This is great
desolation, from the prophet's perspective.
It would not be known until much later in history that the end of the temple
was not the end of Jewish hope. Messiah died, yes, but he also was raised
from the dead and ascended into heaven, to share the throne of God. Thus,
the Kingdom is held in trust until the day Israel is once again made worthy
of it.

I disagree completely and I dealt with whether or not
the destruction of the temple was a sign of His coming.
Where does Jesus specifically call the destruction of
the temple a sign of His coming?...

I told you (though you may disagree). The questions were framed, showing a
relationship between the sign of the temple destruction and the sign of
Jesus' own physical return. The end of the temple began an era of desolation
for the Jews until Jesus physically returned.

...Where did He say
that His answer was a sign for a much later event?
You seem to be reading that into the text, based
on what you have been taught.

No, Jesus said the temple destruction specifically "began" the long period
of desolations, which lead *far off* into the future. Luke provides details
that Matthew didn't include.
Luke 21:24 "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away
captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until
the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
My assumption is that the "times of the Gentiles" can represent a long
period of time. And as I already showed, Jesus expected that he wouldn't
return for a "long time," or after a "long delay."
The important thing, I believe, is to note that the temple destruction
represents an important outlook in determing the character of the entire
age. The nations will not let God's Kingdom coincide with the Israeli nation
again until the end of Jewish disasters. So the sign of the Jewish diaspora,
and their struggle against Gentile persecutors, is the *primary sign* that
we are in the endtimes, and that Jesus will ultimately come to end this era.

Please read the following text and please answer
the questions that I will ask, keeping your answers
limited only to the four verses quoted. While some
of it is the same as the last post, much of it is
different and you have not addressed the specific
statements that I made.
Now where did the Apostles state that they were asking
about more than His coming to destroy the temple?
In what verse of the three, did Jesus say anything more
than what was going to happen to the temple, for the
disciples to want to ask about a separate coming, that
would maybe be thousands of years away? Where was
any indication given of anything other than the temple?

It was implicit in the disciples' questions themselves. They apparently
*already understood* the distinction. I think they associated Messiah with
the coming eternal Kingdom of God and with the salvation of national Israel.
Here Jesus is telling them the temple will be destroyed, and that presents a
dillemma to the disciples. If Israel is to be thus destroyed, when will the
Messiah return to restore Israel and bring in the eternal Kingdom of God?

....Of His
"coming" to destroy the temple and to physically remove
the Old Covenant system. That is what he was "coming"
to do and it holds a lot more significance than you
give it credit for....

Well, you've probably put your finger on where we disagree. I don't believe
Messiah was to come primarily to end the Old Covenant system and destroy the
temple. The Jews understood that Messiah was coming to *save* Israel, and to
restore the nation to an eternal inheritance.
When Jesus came to earth he did so with the knowledge that it was not yet
time to save Israel. In order for this to happen he understood that the Old
Covenant system had to come to an end. The Law could not work with lawless
unfaithful Jews in the mix. So the Law had to be replaced with a system that
redefined Israel strictly as a people consisting of those who are righteous.

...The end of "the age" is the end of
the system....

That's not what I believe it says. Matthew defined the end of the age or
"last day" as a day of judgment for all the world--not just Israel. Compare
the following:
Matthew 13:39 "The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the
end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40 "Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will
be at the end of this age.
41 "The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of
His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 "and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and
gnashing of teeth.
43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their
Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Matthew 25:31 ś "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them
one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

...God's Kingdom would be established
as the New Covenant way....

God's Kingdom, as I said, has a present reality, which is more or less
mysterious to the world. It has a tangible reality in our lives, in a
spiritual sense. But the Kingdom is to become physically present on earth in
the future, just as it took root on earth during the reign of the Davidic
kings.

...And bear in mind, that
THE ONLY THING that is mentioned in the verses
above, is the end of the age, NOT the end of the world.

I haven't said a thing about the end of the "world."

I know you see that, but you do associate other parts
of His discourse with the future and yet, the Apostles
tied it all together. You claim they just didn't
realize it. But tell me, who was in a better position
to realize what Jesus was actually saying? You?
Or first century Jews, who were very familiar with the
Scriptures and who were walking with the Messiah
Himself? You don't have to be a believer to know
whether or not someone says that they are returning
within your generation.

I don't think the early Christians felt it was their duty to identify
exactly when Jesus would return. But they knew they were to treat the world
as if it is already passing away. It was to be treated as a temporal thing.
In a relative sense, Jesus' coming was very soon, because in the light of
eternity all life is very transient. We are but a vapor, here today, gone
tomorrow.
I don't know that the apostles had any *doctrine* stating that Messiah must
come within their generation. They may have expected his coming was soon,
because much of what happened in their generation was reflective of the
entire age and its tribulations, right before the return of Messiah. I think
any generation that sees terrible persecution and tribulation is justified
in feeling Jesus may come in their generation. This doesn't mean it's a
doctrine to believe Jesus *must* return in a single generation. Jesus never
said that. I believe he was talking about the events of 70 AD, the
destruction of the temple, when he said that "all these things" must happen
in one generation.

....I ask you to please respond
to the following passage quotes and note the
questions that are asked...
Did they literally see the Lord riding on a cloud?...

I don't have any problem with the use of symbolism.

Note again that God fought for Israel and it says that
God came down.
Now, the following questions...
Did God literally "bow the heavens"?

I don't have a problem when the Bible uses symbolism.

Neither of these prophecies (and there are more)
are literal statements and yet, you wish to take
Matthew 24:27-30 literally. That doesn't make
sense to me.

Why not? The use of symbolism in OT prophecy doesn't mean that the prophets
foretold only a *symbolic* destruction of Jerusalem. On the contrary, they
used symbolism to convey literal, historic events!

...God's Kingdom is as old as
heaven itself. It predates man. When Israel became a
theocracy, God's Kingdom became one with the Kingdom
of Israel. But as we know, this has a checkered history.
Sometimes God's reign overlapped with the kings of Israel.
Sometimes it did not. It depended on whether the king
followed God or not.

Huh? Where does the Bible teach all of this?...

Where does it *not* teach all this? God's Kingdom is what it was all about!
God established David's Kingdom in Israel. That made it God's Kingdom.
Before Samuel, God had ruled in theocratic fashion, through the words of the
prophets. But Israel wanted a king. So God gave them His own Kingdom, the
Kingdom of David. Saul failed and was rejected. But David was accepted,
despite all his failures. God's Kingdom and David's Kingdom overlapped. God
was able to work through the reign of David to create praise for Himself.

...The
Kingdom Jesus spoke of, was the indwelling of God
in ones heart. Jesus did not mention a physical
national kingdom on Earth....

I definitely disagree with you here. Jesus constantly mentioned a literal,
physical Kingdom on earth, national Israel. He said he wept for it. He
indicated it would be restored. When Jesus' disciples asked him about this
(Acts 1), he said it would take place in God's own time.

The fact is, Jesus said that the Kingdom of God
is within. He did not say, "within and without".

Yes he did. He made it apparent that those who would literally and
physically reign in the future Kingdom of Israel had to prepare for it
spiritually in the present. Today is when we get our spiritual house in
order. Tomorrow we inherit the literal Kingdom.
Nowhere did Jesus say his Kingdom has to remain in heaven. His emphasis is
always on the coming of God's Kingdom to earth, to rule *forever.*

Nor did Jesus say it is to be "anticipated in the far
off future" at all, let alone say that plus something
else on top of it. Again, this is YOUR BELIEF. I
am interested in what he actually said. I.e., let us
not confuse our personal beliefs of what this and
that means and what we think His points are, with
the actual words written.

I stated the proofs above. I clearly quoted what Jesus *said.* He said his
time was "delayed," or far off.

Jesus never indicated the end of the age was the end
of the Law and the temple. On the contrary, he saw an
extended period of tribulation for the Jews before the
end could come. That is, the end of the temple would
itself be the *beginning" of the endtimes. The endtimes
would extend as long as Israel remained in a state of
tribulation.

You have made some claims. I will ask you some
questions.

I'll try to answer.

1) Why are you mixing other things in here?

It pertains, just as anything that is said is said *in context.*
I am proving context.

In other words, we are supposed to be dealing with
Matthew 24:1-4a at most. My post was designed
to have a discussion about what those passages
actually say.

I have not done otherwise.

2) I have already dealt with the "end of the age"
statement. Why haven't you responded specifically
to that?

I am.

3) How can you claim to know what "Jesus saw"?
Isn't that quite a bit of ego? :)

I'm stating my heartfelt and studied opinion. No big deal!

4) Where did Jesus say, "extended tribulation
for the Jews"?

Where he talked about "the end of the times of the Gentiles."

5) Where did Jesus say that the destruction of the
temple was "the beginning of the end times"?

Where he said, "all this is the beginning of sorrows."

6) Where did Jesus say that the end times, "would
extend as long as Israel remained in a state of
tribulation"?

That is the context for most Messianic prophecy. The Jews knew then and now
that Messiah comes to *save* Israel--not just to destroy their temple!

7) Where did Jesus limit His kingdom to the Jews?

That's your assumption. I don't agree with it. Jesus' Kingdom is the Kingdom
of God. When he brings its rule down to earth, his Kingdom will rule not
just over Israel, but over all nations.

Jesus spoke of the Gentile oppression of Jerusalem.
Until that comes to an end the end of the age is not
yet here.

The Gentiles were to trample it down for forty two
months, according to Scripture.

That's in the book fo Revelation, and may refer to the final 42 months of
the current age.

All the signs of the times (earthquakes, familes, wars, etc.)
began with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Actually, that is not true and I quoted specific
Scriptures showing that it started before that....

I didn't say that earthquakes and famines, etc. only began in history with
the events of 70 AD! I'm saying that *according to Jesus* these are the
signs of the endtimes, where they began. They included earthquakes, famines,
wars and...the destruction of the temple.

But the end was not yet.

According to YOU. But where did Jesus address
anything more than the destruction of the temple
in Matthew 24:1-4a? See earlier in message.

Matthew 24: And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the
age?"

Again, you are making claims that are not supported
by Scripture. Jesus did not say the things you are
claiming He said. His actual words do not bear out
your claims.

I have pretty much made my arguments above.

I asked you where JESUS said, "national".

I answer above.

And where does the Bible say, "international adopted
family" (or similar), when god is speaking to Abraham?

Genesis 12;17.

Jesus was explaining how the Kingdom of God would
*initially* be introduced.

Where does the passage say, "initially"?...

Where Jesus called it the "beginning" of sorrows.

Jesus clearly indicated that in the end the Kingdom
would be visible. They will "see" the Son of Man coming
from heaven. The coming of God's rule through Messiah
will be a *visible event!*

Once again, that is a claim. Where does Scripture
support that?

That's what it says!

Jesus never said he was coming in that generation.

I don't recall you mentioning Matthew 16 in your earlier posts...
Sorry if I missed it! But no, I don't believe Jesus said he was coming
*from* heaven. Rather, he was soon to come *into* his Kingdom, or *obtain*
it.

He made it clear the sign" of the end of temple was
the gathering of Gentiles against it. The sign of Jesus'
coming remained future. Later, Jesus made it clear
that he had not yet come. And it was his angel who said:
"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into
heaven."

First of all, we aren't supposed to be hopping around
the Bible. :)

I'm only doing what I see you doing! ;)

Secondly, Acts 1:11 says nothing about seeing
a physical, visible Jesus return.

Yes, it does. It says "just as you've *seen* Jesus go, so you'll see him
come back."
Acts 1: This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come
in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.

Wait a second...
Where did Jesus say that "soon" means, "the end of life
on Earth"? And if life on Earth ends, who will be here
to see Him return?

I'm talking about how the Bible refers to our lives as transitory and
fading. Since our gold is fading, and our very lives are deteriorating we
know that the end of life as we know it is destined to a relatively imminent
end. All of life is designed to end, and so God has in mind a new order that
is just beyond the horizon. This is the sense in which the Bible itself uses
"soon."
I think we should shorten our responses! ;)
randy
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE	03 Jun 2005 09:39:40 PM

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:16:51 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
Let it be noted, that once again, you have snipped
most of what I said and did not deal with the specific
points I made in what you left in. Why do you keep
doing that? How is any agreement ever to be reached,
if you do not acknowledge any of my points?
I have snipped some non-relevant text of yours,
this time, as it had nothing to do with the points
I actually made.
And why do you keep jumping all over the Bible,
when that is not supposed to be done?
And so you know, I am not interested in your constant
implication that you can tell us "what Jesus meant".
I am only interested in what he actually said. You
keep adding your own thoughts to His words and then
tell me that the Bible says it. Then, when I ask you
for proof, you do not quote a passage that SAYS
THOSE EXACT WORDS.

"Pastor Dave"
"randy"

In other words, let us read and consider each point <