"Have The End times Already Came?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Davy do not use no good grammar no more.

Reply to article by: Pastor Dave <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com>
Date written: Tue, 09 May 2006 00:17:01 GMT
MsgID:<i6kv52lkto9lr90hn53h79h99fvt7nhdtu@4ax.com>

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

I hope you realize, many an atheist would see this
as proof that the prophecy was false.

Yes, I do. But that's because of the futurist doctrine
that they're exposed to, as well as the ignorance of
history that both the futurists and the atheists
choose to remain in.

Calling it a fact does not make it a fact,
it makes it an assertion without substantiation.

Pastor Dave schreef:

On 8 May 2006 12:13:31 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> spake thusly:


I changed the groups that this is going out to,
because frankly, I don't understand why you
would add "misc.survivalism", for example. (:

And frankly, I think it is rude and ridiculous
of you to change the groups in that way. (:

You may claim that you didn't do it, but I started
this thread and you responded directly to my
message and since I didn't put those groups in
there, that leaves you. Unless of course, you can
explain to me how these other groups could have
gotten added in? Maybe you responded to someone's
response to me and just trimmed it down, in order
to respond to me, because you did not see my
original message?

It is not however, worth arguing about and it is
a side issue anyway.

Regardless, I have restored the original groups
that I sent my message out to, but I have left
alt.messianic in.

I do not know for sure that you are an atheist,
but it seems that's where your response is
meant to come from (that belief) and so,
I have responded to you as if you are one.
Please correct me, if that is an incorrect
assumption.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

I hope you realize, many an atheist would see this
as proof that the prophecy was false.

Yes, I do. But that's because of the futurist doctrine
that they're exposed to, as well as the ignorance of
history that both the futurists and the atheists
choose to remain in. That was not meant as an
insult toward atheists, but just what I believe to
be a statement of fact, with no ill will intended.

And how is it proof, with zero investigation?
And why is that lack of investigation acceptable
to atheists, while they claim that Christians
don't accept evolution, due to lack of education
about it? That is, frankly, a hypocrisy!

Anyway... :)

I am very well versed in the history involved.
And it is this ignored history, that proves to
us that Jesus *DID* FULFILL His promises! :)

I am also intimately familiar with the OT and
that is *THE* KEY to understanding the NT!!!

I am not bragging, but just FYI, I have also
spent years studying the way that the "Jews",
through various points in history, spoke, lived,
wrote and thought. I have also extensively
studied other cultures that were involved in
Biblical history. So my point is, that I, unlike
the futurists, do not view the NT as if it were
just written the day before I opened a Bible
for the first time. :) And I also do not view it
as if it is supposed to be viewed with 21st century
Gentile glasses on. :) Nor do I pretend that Jesus
came in the first century, just so He could
intentionally ignore those whom He spoke
to and talk right past them, just to talk to us
today, as the futurists would have you believe.

The first thing to understand, is that while the
English doesn't bring it out, in the original Greek,
what Jesus is saying in the above verse, which
is translated as either "verily", or "assuredly",
depending on which translation one is using,
does bring out the fact that this is an emphatic
statement! It is of the utmost surety, is what
Jesus is saying! Thus, if this statement fails,
then He is a false prophet, period!!! And it is
the Old Testament that tell us this!

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD,
if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that
is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the
prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall
not be afraid of him." - Deuteronomy 18:22

Surely if you grant for the sake of argument that
God is real and that the Bible is His written word
to mankind, that this certainly does mean that
either Jesus' words were fulfilled, or He was a
false prophet! A LIAR! Can we agree on that
and for the sake of this discussion, can we just
(again, for the sake of this discussion), assume
that the Bible is the word of God, at least as far
as the Old Testament is concerned and then
examine Jesus' claims and see if He did indeed
live up to the prophecies that are stated in the
Old Testament? Can we do that, to make the
flow of this discussion easier?

Let me help you understand why...

You see, the New Testament does not make new
claims. It simply purports to fulfill that which
was already stated in the Old Testament and
even the claims of Jesus were not new claims.
They were His statement of confirmation of
what the Old Testament says. Most people
do not realize this and almost all Christians
almost completely ignore the Old Testament
in this regard. It is sad, but it is true. (:

Thus, it may help you to look at what Jesus
said in regard to His death, resurrection
and His return, as Him teaching the disciples
what the Old Testament says and expounding
on it for them.

Therefore, nothing Jesus said, as far as the
major points of fulfillment, should be obscure,
if one knows the Old Testament, at least nearly
as well as they do the New Testament. But how
many Christians do? Not many, unfortunately.

Anyway, my point is, that we must examine Jesus
under the light of the OT, because if He fails there,
then nothing else matters. He has failed to be the
Messiah at that point, has He not?

The events that were described - according to them
- never heppened. Do you have any evidence that
they did?

Yes. But that depends on your meaning of,
"as described" (remind me to later note Isaiah
and remember what I said above). I would bet
that it is the same as the futurists claim, which
is what atheists base their conclusions on.

That's not an insult to atheists. Rather, it is
the absolute responsibility of Christians to
educate the atheists and therefore, the blame
falls on the Christians, not the atheists.

To answer your question...

I will give you two pieces of evidence. You
do with them what you will, but please do
not try to shuck and jive around them. I'm
not saying that you would. I'm saying don't,
because (no threat intended), I will just
shut off the conversation at that very second
and kill file you. Again, I am not trying to
threaten you. After all, what power do I have
to execute a threat, in a news group? <lol>

I am merely saying that I am not interested
in arguing with fools. I am not saying that
you are a fool. I am saying that a fool would
be someone who asks such questions, when
he/she has no intent of acknowledging the
answers, if they happen to prove the point.
Rather, a fool in this context, is someone
who is hoping that I can't provide some
reasonable answers and then, if I do, tries
to ridicule and distract attention away
from that fact.

But I am proceeding in a conversation with
you, hoping that this is not the case here.
You seem polite enough, but politeness, as
you well know, can be used as a disguise
and even as a weapon, so that the person
can feign being sincere, distracting people
by how polite they are, so how could they
have ill will, all the while, they are seeking
every opportunity to ridicule the other person.

I have learned to be leery of any atheist.
In fact, I have only run across one that
has earned my respect as an honest person.
He asked honest questions and responded
with honesty. He and I still disagree on
the idea of God, but we do it with respect
for each other and genuine kindness.

So I am not saying you cannot give reasons
why you disagree, or ask more questions,
without yet making a final decision on what
my points are. I am saying that if you know
that I have indeed shown the fulfillment of
His words and then intentionally try to find
some way to avoid admitting it, then I have
no interest in discussing this any further
with you.

And this is VERY IMPORTANT! The explanation
DOES NOT have to fit YOUR notion of what said
fulfillment must be.

NO! Rather, it must fulfill what SCRIPTURE shows
that the fulfillment should be. After all, it is the
Bible that we are discussing and whether or not
Jesus' Biblical claims were fulfilled, in light of
THAT context, is it not? Fair enough? :)

And one last thing...

If you see that I have shown the fulfillment
and then try to claim that it was written after
the fact, then say so now and we will part
company. That would be what I described
above, which is an attempt to dodge admitting
that I have shown what I said I would. (:

Besides this, those "later dates" idea is not
longer mainstream and is an old view, that
serious scholars do not hold to, at least not
any longer.

And please, let me apologize now for going on
so long about this. I just felt that if you are
an atheist, that some ground rules needed
to be set up front and then we wouldn't have
to mention it again and it wouldn't be a
surprise subject, that we argue about later. :)

So as we continue, let us note that Matthew 24
and Luke 21, are parallel accounts of Jesus'
discourse on "the end". And no, I won't entertain
comments about supposed contradictions.

We will (I say it again), stick with the specific
topic at hand. But again, Matthew 24 and
Luke 21 are parallel accounts of Jesus' discourse
on "the end".


Anyway.... :)


Proof 1: Temple destroyed, just as Jesus said.

Comments attached between verses.

Matthew 23:36-38; 24:1-3

36) Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will
come upon this generation.

Note here... "THIS generation". And as I said,
that means the one alive when Jesus said it.

Jesus gave a list of items in Matthew 23 (you
should read Matthew 23:29-38) and then said
the above (v36).

37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills
the prophets and stones those who are sent to
her! How often I wanted to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her
wings, but you were not willing!

Note that Jesus specifically speaks of Jerusalem
here and not "the whole planet", as the futurists
try to claim the Bible is speaking of, regarding
His return in relation to the destruction.

38) See! Your house is left to you desolate;

Note: "Your house". Jesus told the Jewish
scribes and Pharisees, while He was standing
in the Temple, that their "house" would be
left desolate. So you know... "House = Temple".


Next chapter, as listed above... :)

Jesus now walks out of the Temple with His disciples
and goes up the Mount and then proceeds to talk to
His disciples. Now remember, what would be sticking
in their minds, would be the discussion that He just
had in the Temple, about the destruction of the Temple.

1) Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple,
and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings
of the temple.

Here, after hearing what Jesus said about the Temple,
His disciples point out the buildings of the Temple.
One can only imagine what they might have been
thinking, but I think it's logical, that they were
pointing out how big and strong and beautiful
they were, as if to say, "How could these possibly
be destroyed?". But again, that is speculation. :)

The point is, that what Jesus said was still in their
minds and they pointed out the buildings of the
Temple to Him. Bear in mind, that the Temple
was considered one of the "wonders of the world"
at that time. It was an amazing sight! The doors
alone were 40 feet high and covered in gold! For
example, when the Sun hit them in the morning,
the reflected light was blinding!

Therefore, it is logical to think that what follows
is His response regarding the Temple and also
Jerusalem and Judea (see above verses and also
Luke 21:20-22) and not the whole planet, as the
futurists contend.

2) And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all these
things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall
be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown
down.

Jesus said, "Do you not see all THESE THINGS?".

What things? Well, what they just pointed out to Him!

Jesus also here made an extraordinary claim! He
didn't just say that the Temple would be destroyed.
No! He said that "not one stone shall be left upon
another". That is an incredible claim!!!

It is a historical fact (bear in mind Matthew 24:34,
which is what you responded to, right?) that in
70 AD, after the Roman army burned the Temple,
that they literally pried each and every stone apart,
to retrieve the melted gold that ran in between
the stones.

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.

Now here is the key issue! The futurists like to claim
that the disciples asked about the "end of the world".
But they didn't! The Greek word there is "aion" and
it means, "an age". The quote above shows the correct
translation of this word, but some Bibles, like the
KJV, do not.

We should also note that when the disciples asked
about His coming, they asked it in the context of
what He had already said, which was what?

That's right, you guessed it! The destruction of
THE TEMPLE! Not the whole planet! :) Therefore,
it is to be expected that His responses would deal
with THAT SUBJECT.

Summation: The Temple was not only destroyed,
but it was destroyed within the time frame that
Jesus stated and it was also destroyed in the exact
manner that He stated! :)


Proof 2: Jerusalem desolated.

Comments attached between verses.

Luke 21:20-22

20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded
by armies, then know that its desolation is near.

Note that Jesus said "Jerusalem", not the world.

Note that Jesus said that "its" desolation is near,
when you see it surrounded. But this is still
governed by the statement Jesus made, that
His credibility rests on, which is what He said
in Matthew 24:34 ("this generation"), showing
once again, that He is not speaking of the whole
planet, but just Jerusalem and as the verses
following show, Judea. And we should note
that He specifically left "Israel" out of it.
Remember that the kingdom was divided
into "Israel" and "Judea" at that time, so
this was a pretty specific prophecy and
this is important to note, as I will show
further down. :)

21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the
mountains, let those who are in the midst of her
depart, and let not those who are in the country
enter her.

Note here that Jesus mentions Judea and says
that those in Judea should not flee into Jerusalem.

We should understand that at this time, Jerusalem
was a walled city, that could provide a great defense
against an opposing army! In fact, it took the Roman
army approximately three years to take the city!
Anyway, that would make it the logical place to flee.
But here Jesus says that Jerusalem is not the place
to flee, which would seem to be a complete and total
contradiction to what people in those days would do
for safety!

22) For these are the days of vengeance, that
all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Here Jesus says that when this event happens,
that it is "the days of vengeance". In the Biblical
context of Jesus' return, that is what He is speaking
of. The judgment against the Jews, for their adultery
against the Lord and His return in said judgment
against them.

Note that Jesus said that at this point, that
"ALL THINGS" which were written, would
"BE FULFILLED".

So this is it. This is the point at which everything
that was written would be fulfilled!

History shows us that when Rome attacked the Jews,
the Roman army came up through Judea first and
took the cities and destroyed a number of them,
killing many, so that when they (the Roman army)
came to Jerusalem, they did not have to worry about
the Jewish armies coming up behind them and
ruining their attack on Jerusalem, which they knew
would take all of their concentration and efforts!
In fact, this is how they took Josephus, who was
a general in the Jewish armies. They took his city
and captured him, on their way through Judea,
while heading for Jerusalem.

Now it is a historical fact, that after Jesus said this
that the Roman armies did surround and desolate
Jerusalem. Thus, His words were fulfilled within
that generation.


So the above are two proofs that Jesus' words were
fulfilled, within the first century. And frankly, if
it did not happen within that generation, then it
wouldn't matter when they happened, because
He would already have been discredited for saying
it would be within that generation and one could
argue that it would have happened anyway (except
for the Temple being torn down, stone by stone).
But here, we have two specific prophecies and
two fulfillments. And what is as important as
the how, is the when. Not only did He say how,
but He said when and sure enough, it happened
according to both criteria of what He said. :)


So now that we have examined these two points,
are you prepared to admit, regardless of what
you believe about Jesus, or about who exactly
He was/is, that Jesus's specific prophecies were
fulfilled, in the way that He said they would be?

Can we agree on that much?

I hope so. :)

It was the sound of Trumpet posting to misc.survivalism.
I didn't change the groups in any way.
And Google says Sound of Trumpet started the post., not you
apparently the thread looks different to you than it does to me.,
for I cannot assume you are telling lies about that,
You may change the groups though if it please you,
as long as you leave alt.atheism is there,
because that is my NG.
For of course you are completely right, I am an Atheist,
and I will probably stay one,
until there has been a verifiable observation of (a) God.

I am sorry however to have to tell you I had to delete another NG
(Google only allows me to post to 5)
I chose alt.chrisinet.christianity (or something like that)

Now if the prophesy is not falls,.
you should be able to explain to me,
how it was fulfilled.
But maybe it was not meant to be fulfilled.
Jesus also said that the only sign he would give,
was the sign of Jona.
Jona was the prophet that prophesied the fall of Nineveh
Then Nineveh did not fall (yet) because it's inhabitants repented.

I read history books,
and I did not find anything
that came close to the things
Jesus was talking about.

You are talking a lot about futurists,
I wouder who these futurist are, (according to you)
but I can imagine several posters on this NG,
belong to them.

If God is real, he should be observable.
(which doesn't me he is observed)
For do long as I learn of no verifiable observation,
I keep assuming there is none,
Though for the sake of argument,
I can suppose there is,
And if your argument cannot go on without a god,
I will try to control my scepticim

As for fulfilling the OT,
that is what Jesus said he was doing,
and what Mohammed - in the Koran - also said Jesus was doing.
(Neither of which - however sincere both may have been,
necessarily means it was true)
But I suppose that - at least - that was what he was trying to do.

However we cannot for su4e tell with the OT in our hand.
Whether he was successful, unless, we tell for sure,
That we read in the OT the same things Jesus read there.

If you blame Christians for explaining the prophesy wrong,
And pardon us Atheist I thank you kindly,
but I have been a Christian before I became an Atheist,
so if you are right, that they were wrong I was guilty too:)

I do not feel threatened by you killfile,
So I will reply freely
I have never been afraid of a killfile.
I wonder whether any exists.

Neither will I mind if you would conclude I am a fool
I believe the gospel-word "Raka" is translated both as "fool and as
" godless"
So if you pick the wrong translation,
you wont make me mad:)

Of course I will stay polite,
But indeed, beware of me when I am being polite:)
I may try and trick someone.
Then again, I use tricks only
when others are impolite or hateful,
or - possibly - plain stupid.
(the latter I will find out for sure, if they fall for it)
I will try not to do that to you.
you spent to many words on me already.

I do not know whether I would earn your respect,
But you get mine for sheer diligence.

So we are discussing Matthew 24 and Luke 21
I think Marc 13 handles the same subject though.
John omits it, but that again he is supposed to have written
Revelation.

The temple is surely destroyed, we can agree on that.
As for Jerusalem in stead of the whole world,
I cannot agree, as Jesus also speaks of Judea
But I suppose that will not enlarge the prophesy
So much, that you will object to it.

As for "the end of times" I agree with your view of the meaning.
It would indeed mean the end of an age.
The end of times surely came to pass,
As time has since been counted from the supposed birth of Jesus!
OK maybe they were off by 6 years or so,
But surely the age of Jesus did arrive.
I can't argue that.

Also the temple was destroyed 70 AD.
Although there can be an argument about whether.
No stone was left on another or not.
The remaining stones, were all part of the fundament,.
eather than part of the visible building.

As for the roman army surrounding Jerusalem,
Surely Luke speaks of that.
Matthew and Marc are less clear.
They speak of a abomination (Dutch "Gruwel),
that Daniel spoke about.
I am not sure what that means,
and as long as I don't
it won't be any objection to you reasoning.

I have to stop now, because my wife demands my presence in the living
room
But I will follow up, I promise.

Peter van Velzen
May 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

PS

I can continue because I had to delete an NG anyway

Although the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple,
are correctly prophesised (Yes I won't complain about after the fact),
the part of the prophesy starting in Matthew 24:29 thru 31 has not been
fulfilled.
Not to my knowledge anyway.
This part is repeated in Marc 13:23 thru 27 and Luke 21:25 thru:28

This is troublesome.
In Luke 25 these things would have to happen after the council of Nicea
(when the times of the pagans are fullfilled), In Mark and Matthew
they might come sooner, depending on when one assumes the times of
oppression end.

So part of the prophesy is indeed fulfiled,
but part - I reckon - is not.
Unless you can show me when......

And - please - don't tell me the oppression is still going on,
for "these days will be shortened" (Matt. 24 verse 22)

Best to you,
Peter.

<snipped the Off topic part about design>
I will now return to the wife.