-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
has Jude 1 14:15 happened yet or Future Event To Come?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
preacher4truth
Active Member
I believe this is future, rejecting the tendency of those in the last 200 years to bow to higher criticism and say that it was already fulfilled, to protect the meaning of Matthew 24:34. All of this theology is basically reactionary to those within the church and without who attack Gods Word.
Some believe all has been fulfilled and in so believing, say the resurrection too is past, the judgment is past, all is fulfilled, and with this belief much of the NT doesn't apply to any of us.
As I've said earlier, I believe this is a newer form of Hymenaeus and Philetus doctrine. Nothing new under the sun. New packaging.
Many have read Josephus account of 70 a.d. and conclude the entire thing is all fulfilled. I'm not buying it.
- Peace
You've read Josephus?
preacher4truth
Active Member
You mean the one who took the Roman last name of Flavius?
The assuredness with which you say this, "I'm not buying it". Surely you have actually taken the time to read Joephus and make your own judgement in the matter. Surely you're not just parroting what others say. Right?
preacher4truth
Active Member
I am assured and have read his account. Not just now, but also in Bible College this was hammered out and read.
One thing we know about history is there can be bias, correct, or not correct? I wouldn't sell all out on the accounts of Josephus who took a Roman last name, nor any other historian. :thumbsup:
To me, to believe all fulfilled, the judgment and resurrection is all over, that most of the NT has nothing to do with us is a hopeless miserable Christianity. I reject it and don't embrace Josephus' account as "gospel."
Is the resurrection all over and done kyredneck, and only a "spiritual" thing and not bodily and literal? Was Jesus' resurrection only "spiritual" or was it bodily and literal? That is what is at stake here.
Also, some scholars who are affected by this also throw in post-millenial belief, showing to me they aren't completely sold on this either. Sproul would be one who doesn't believe all is fulfilled here. I empathize with his position.
Were there many "types" of things in the Bible? Are there many "types" of antichrist throughout history? Of course there are. I don't buy that 70 A.D. is it. I won't apologize for being assured. It disappoints you for one to be assured against your belief system. I contend that many things are mysteriously veiled purposely by Him.
- Peace
First understand we shall all stand before the "Judgement Seat of Christ". The word seat is Bema:
Strong's Number: 968 bh=ma
Original Word Word Origin
bh=ma from the base of (939)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Bema bay'-ma
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Neuter None
Definition
a step, pace, the space which a foot covers, a foot-breath
a raised place mounted by steps
a platform, tribune
of the official seat of a judge
of the judgment seat of Christ
Herod built a structure resembling a throne at Caesarea, from which he viewed the games and made speeches to the people
This is not the Great white throne seen in Revelation:
The word for Throne is actually Thronos.
Strong's Number: 2362 qro/nov
Original Word Word Origin
qro/nov from thrao (to sit), a stately seat ("throne")
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Thronos thron'-os
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Masculine 3:160,338
Definition
a throne seat
a chair of state having a footstool
assigned in the NT to kings, hence, kingly power or royalty
metaph. to God, the governor of the world
to the Messiah, Christ, the partner and assistant in the divine administration 1b
hence divine power belonging to Christ
to judges i.e. tribunal or bench
to elders
When we see that we know there is a seperate judgement for Believers of this age. When does it occur?
1 Corithians 3: 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Paul shows us what will take place at teh BEMA seat judgement, we as believers will receive our rewards.
Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Paul says it will happen we believers will face the Judgement seat of Christ.
But then notice Revelation 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
This would be the Saints that will come with Him as seen in Jude.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him
This was Enoch's prophecy. Notice the Saints come with Him not meet Him in the air they were in Heaven and come with Him when He executes judgement first at the end of Tribulation and before the Great Whit Throne at the end of the Millinial reign. So that we believers of the Chruch have been snatched out prior to Revelelation 19:14 and have been rewarded as seen in 1 Corinthians 3.
I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
After God the Father has but down all rule and all authority and power, he will send Jesus the firstfruits from the dead and being those that are still alive shall not precede the dead in Christ, in inheriting the kingdom of God, I would say they will be resurrected as was Jesus thus death not prevailing over them and they will all enter/inherit the kingdom together with Christ, and thus Jesus will deliver up the kingdom to God even the Father.
Derived from 1 Cor 15:23,24,50 - 1 Thess 4:14,15 - Matt 16:18
Is this not accurate? If so where is it not?
Josephus was an unsaved Jewish historian. Why would you look to him to interpret the books of the NT?
Josephus was an unsaved Jewish historian. Why would you look to him to interpret the books of the NT?
Another insidious tactic from DHK. Just how much interpretation of Bible prophecy do you suppose that you knowingly or unknowingly rely on secular historians for?
The mere fact alone that he was not a professing believer adds much credence to his eyewitness account of what transpired because so much of what he recorded closely follows Christ's Olivet Discourse and many other prophecies. I can't help but wonder that even if he were saved there would be those bullheaded premil dispys who would accuse him of following the script of Mt 24, Lu 21, etc..
After reading his autobiography I've not a doubt in my mind that God providentially preserved him in order to record the events of that day.
To record history is one thing. But you have this unsaved Jew interpreting Scripture. I trust the man to tell me who is in power during what years. But do you trust him to exegete Scripture? Come now, every word on Scripture would be biased.
Why not Tacitus? He would be just as good at hermeneutics.
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14)
--Jude wrote in ca. 70 A.D. He referred to an Apocryphal book. The verse he referred to became recorded in Scripture making this particular verse, its quotation, but not the whole book of Enoch, inspired of God.
Thus, the inspired word of God here is a prophecy of the second coming of Christ, which has not happened yet. Christ will still come with "thousands of his saints."
I have been asking the same question all along. I have been puzzled by your answers. Here is the title of the thread:
The OP was:
Yours was the third post beneath that in which you posted:
Have you read Josephus.
Why do you think Josephus is an expert on the interpretation of Jude 1:14. Everything up to that point had to do with both the Title of the thread and the OP, Jude 1:14, and the second coming of Christ.
Then you asked about reading Josephus as if he were an expert on the matter on the interpretation of the text??
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
The truth of the matter is this; preterists use the events recorded by Josephus Flavius as both an interpretation and fulfillment of Matthew 24. No need to pretend otherwise. Then at the same time they claim "Sola Scriptura" (many, but not all.)
- Peace
- Peace
The dialog goes like this:
p4t says:
...Many have read Josephus account of 70 a.d. and conclude the entire thing is all fulfilled. I'm not buying it....
I ask p4t:
“You've read Josephus?”
P4t says:
“You mean the one who took the Roman last name of Flavius? “
I clarify:
“The assuredness with which you say this, "I'm not buying it". Surely you have actually taken the time to read Joephus and make your own judgement in the matter. Surely you're not just parroting what others say. Right?”
It's a real stretch on your part to say I have him interpreting or exegeting scripture, but the scheme shouldn't surprise me coming from you.
I reiterate from my previous post:
“The mere fact alone that he was not a professing believer adds much credence to his eyewitness account of what transpired because so much of what he recorded closely follows Christ's Olivet Discourse and many other prophecies.”
preacher4truth
Active Member
So in another thread of the same cloth you lay claim that you get 70 A.D. out of the Scriptures, and list them and ask "Did Josephus write any of the above" yet here, you claim it is Josephus where you got it afterall:
- kyredneck
No. I'm not "parroting" what others say. But you certainly are. You're parroting Josephus Flavius. Sure, no bias there, from a fellow who took a Roman last name, while most of his brethren were slaughtered, while "somehow" he escaped such, and from whence a preterist theology came, and is thought by many to have originated from Rome.
Extra-biblical revelation is where you got 70 A.D., not from "the Scriptures" as you make pretense to have done by cutting and pasting many.
I'll stick to the Scriptures, not some derived from Josephus that "aha!" the resurrection is over and past, the new heavens and earth are here, the judgment is over, and Jesus is reigning "spiritually and invisibly" right now as we speak in "the milennium" along with other derived theology with Josephus as its base.
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO, this small statement was like an addendum on a much larger post which quoted Mat.24:30 and had already concentrated on the meaning of the verse. He was still on topic in his post.
Therefore with this one question, being the entirety of your post, you bring him into the conversation, implying that he has something to do with the interpretation of the passage. At least that is the way I saw it. Otherwise, why mention him at all. He is a red herring. From there the topic goes awry.
But what he says has nothing to do with this topic. Jude is quoting from an apocryphal writer "Enoch." What does Josephus have to do with that?
What is the meaning of Jude 1:14? Let's get back to the OP.
And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones Jude 14
This is referring to the same 'coming':
...And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26:63-64
The high priest here is Caiaphas, whose father-in-law and joint high priest was Annas. Josephus records that Annas was killed (by the Idumeans) during the siege of Jerusalem 70 AD. I've no doubt that Annas and many others there seen the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven' in judgment on the disobedient nation.
This is referring to the same 'coming':
...And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26:63-64
The high priest here is Caiaphas, whose father-in-law and joint high priest was Annas. Josephus records that Annas was killed (by the Idumeans) during the siege of Jerusalem 70 AD. I've no doubt that Annas and many others there seen the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven' in judgment on the disobedient nation.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Annas did not see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power.
He was an unsaved ungodly wretch responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.
2. Annas did not see Christ coming with ten thousands of his saints, for this event never happened, was never recorded, and is still future. Any person that believes it did literally happen must be reading out of a book of fantasy, unrelated to the Scriptures.
3. The reason Annas did not see any of these things is, as you say, he was killed. After his death he went to Hell. Christ and his saints had no reason to make a special visit to Annas in Hell. How ridiculous does this theology (fantasy) have to get??
It is appointed unto man once to die, and after that the judgment.
This event had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem; the book wasn't even written until 70 A.D.