America in Bible Prophecy

[steaver]

Interesting, this was the best you could do in dealing with what I posted.

Kinda stumped you I see!

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Looks like the quote button is acting up! :jesus:

 

[Grasshopper]

Kinda stumped you I see!

:jesus:

Exactly how did you stump me?

You failed to answer this question:

By the way, what would "not at hand" mean?

You were unable to do this:

Suppose you show us the proof that the timing of the events of Revelation are tied to your interpretation of 2 Peter.

You ignored this:

Let scripture interpret scripture as John Gill does:


Luk 18:8 - I tell you that he will avenge them speedily,.... As he did in a few years after the death of Christ, when God's elect among the Jews were singled out, and gathered in from them, and were delivered from their persecutors, and saved from temporal ruin and destruction, whilst the Roman army made sad havoc of their enemies; and so will he do in the end of the world.

You clearly avoided commenting on the use of en tachei in these verses:

Act 12:7 And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.


Acts 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.


Act 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.


You also ignored the uses of eggus.

And finally you chose not to comment on these verses that put the event in a context of time:

Mat 16:28 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.

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


1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

Your only response was to ask me if I hated my family. Yea, you really stumped me.

 

[BobRyan]

In 2Thess 2 Paul argues emphatically for believers NOT to be "deceived" by those who would suggest that the rapture has "happened". Paul then indicates a long list of events that must come FIRST.

1. The falling away -- the apostacy of the Christian church into the dark ages of the RCC.

2. The man of sin revealed -

3. Signs and wonders -- assocated with the working of Satan that would appear in the future.

-------------

John -- the Gospel writer - then goes into a great bit of detail on these points about future events that preceed the appearing of Christ. He reveals that information under the pattern of The 7 seals, the 7 trumpets the 7 churches.

He also shows where in that future timeline the 1260 years of dark ages persecution takes place.

A point that the RCC has tried for centuries to misdirect so as not to expose the historic significance of her actions and the fact that God warned of that very thing when speaking to John.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Marcia]

The phrase "at hand" in scripture doesn't mean it's near. It means it has arrived and is within that person's grabbing distance (hence the phrase "at hand'). When John saw Jesus and said "The Kingdom of God is at hand", he was saying "The Kingdom of God is here" it has arrived and is withing the grasp of anyone who wishes to experience it.

I should clarify that what I am thinking of are passages saying "the time is near" for the return of the Lord, such as

The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer 1 Pet. 4:7

You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. James 5:8

It is always near until He comes back.

 

[Marcia]

So if those words mean imminent as you suggest, then that means everything that must happen before the imminent event (His coming) had to have happened by the writing of Revelation. Therefore nothing that has happened since the writing of Revelation was a sign or a fulfilled prophetic event. You just sold out modern dispinsationalism.

No, because much of Revelation is about the future. And it's not linear, either. Other books of the Bible are not linear in time, either. Also, I believe it's possible that some of the events in Rev are both about things that happened shortly after its writing and things yet to happen. Like many parts of the OT, prophecies could be fulfilled in an immediate future and a distant future (Is. 7:14 comes to mind). Rev is very much an OT type book although it's in the NT.

God had no problem telling His people events were far off:

Dan 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Yes, because that is the OT. They were not really expecting the return of the Messiah; they were still waiting for the first coming of the Messiah, so until that happened, of course the 2nd coming would be later.

What's confusing is to deny all the clear time indicators of the NT and pretend they don't mean what they say. For if they mean what they say futuristic eschatology crumbles.

I don't think so. Waiting expectantly for the return of Christ but not knowing when He is coming back, does make the time of His return always "near."

Right out of the dispie playbook but not Biblical.

Let's see how consistent you are:


Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

So draweth nigh simply means it could happen at anytime perhaps another 2000 years? So when those signs occur you still have no clue as to when He comes. Then that passage is really useless as a time indicator. Again, LaHaye and Lindsey and numerous others have sold alot of books saying just the opposite.

This statement is given in the context of other events which are given, and Jesus says it comes after those events. This is not the same context I was speaking of in James and 1 Peter.

 

[Johnv]

I should clarify that what I am thinking of are passages saying "the time is near"

Peter was referring to the first century. It is in that context which such verses need to be read. If one can translate Peter referring to 2000+ years later, then there's no reason to translate that as being 10,000+ years later, or 100,000+ years later.

I don't think that Peter was referring to it being near us, I believe he was referring to it being near him.

 

[Grasshopper]

Also, I believe it's possible that some of the events in Rev are both about things that happened shortly after its writing and things yet to happen.

Why would you think some of the events were to happen shortly after the writing of Revelation? You have already dismissed and redefined the time statements found in the book. Are you now acknowledging "shortly come to pass" might actually mean that?

Like many parts of the OT, prophecies could be fulfilled in an immediate future and a distant future (Is. 7:14 comes to mind). Rev is very much an OT type book although it's in the NT.

Go back to the OT and find God "coming in the clouds" and see if it was literal/physical.

I don't think so. Waiting expectantly for the return of Christ but not knowing when He is coming back, does make the time of His return always "near."

You have an unbiblical definition of "near". Does "shortly" also not mean near in time? Your eschatology drives your redifining of time statements.

This statement is given in the context of other events which are given, and Jesus says it comes after those events. This is not the same context I was speaking of in James and 1 Peter.

You said Christ could return at any moment based on "near" and "at hand" statements. Yet now you say Christ couldn't return until the events of the Olivet Discourse occured. So have the events of Matt 24 been fulfilled? If they have not then you cannot say that an event that follows those signs is imminent. Secondly, if those events have not occured then you have falsley defined "near" and "at hand" as meaning imminent.

What does Jesus mean by this statment:

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

And what does "near" mean in this verse:


Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

 

[steaver]

Exactly how did you stump me?

I answered your first question to see if you could see the falacy in your bible interpreting methods.

"Why do you need supportive scripture when God was quite clear on the matter?"


If you can't see how this question in itself is an example of poor understanding of bible exegesis then there is no point in me going through all the other things you posted because it signifies you don't care about hermeneutics.

I showed you why supportive scripture must always be considered and you did not see my simple point (ironic though how you then post scripture from various places to refute what I posted after telling me to stay put in revelation for your pov). So why would you consider any other points? I would just be wasting my time when you are very set on your view and have no desire to question it.

Carry on with the others, i have limited time and this subject is very low on my list of things to debate about.

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

Peter was referring to the first century. It is in that context which such verses need to be read. If one can translate Peter referring to 2000+ years later, then there's no reason to translate that as being 10,000+ years later, or 100,000+ years later.

I don't think that Peter was referring to it being near us, I believe he was referring to it being near him.

You mean he's saying his end is near?

The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer 1 Pet. 4:7

Doesn't sound like it.What about James 5:8?

You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. James 5:8

 

[Marcia]

Why would you think some of the events were to happen shortly after the writing of Revelation? You have already dismissed and redefined the time statements found in the book. Are you now acknowledging "shortly come to pass" might actually mean that?

I thought I explained - there can be double prophecies- things that will happen in both the near future and then later. Like Is. 7:14 (and others).

Go back to the OT and find God "coming in the clouds" and see if it was literal/physical.

So you are saying Jesus is not physically returning?

You have an unbiblical definition of "near".

Why?

You said Christ could return at any moment based on "near" and "at hand" statements. Yet now you say Christ couldn't return until the events of the Olivet Discourse occured. So have the events of Matt 24 been fulfilled? If they have not then you cannot say that an event that follows those signs is imminent. Secondly, if those events have not occured then you have falsley defined "near" and "at hand" as meaning imminent.

I think our way of defining near is not the same as what was meant in some of the NT passages. We have to let the Bible define it (just as we let the Bible define death). Anyway, I'm talking about books beyond the gospels. The Olivet Discourse is a different context and talks about the destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd coming of Christ. That is not what I"m talking about.

What does Jesus mean by this statment:

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

This race shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.

And what does "near" mean in this verse:


Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

We're back to Matthew. When they see those things, the end is near.

What about James 5:8?

 

[Grasshopper]

I answered your first question to see if you could see the falacy in your bible interpreting methods.

"Why do you need supportive scripture when God was quite clear on the matter?"


If you can't see how this question in itself is an example of poor understanding of bible exegesis then there is no point in me going through all the other things you posted because it signifies you don't care about hermeneutics.

So let me get this straight, running to 2 Peter 3:8 is the proper hermeneutic method to interpret the time passages of Revelation 1:1,3? Is that what the marginal note in your LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible says?

I showed you why supportive scripture must always be considered and you did not see my simple point (ironic though how you then post scripture from various places to refute what I posted after telling me to stay put in revelation for your pov). So why would you consider any other points? I would just be wasting my time when you are very set on your view and have no desire to question it.

You only tried to throw out your "en tachei" theory. So I gave you "supportive scripture" to show how the phrase is used in other passages that refute your position. Your argument against my scriptures was...........silence. You tried to use the passage in Luke but that also refutes your position.

Carry on with the others, i have limited time and this subject is very low on my list of things to debate about.

Yes, you seem to be in over your head.

 

[Grasshopper]

I thought I explained - there can be double prophecies- things that will happen in both the near future and then later. Like Is. 7:14 (and others).

But what makes you think the events of Revelation follow that pattern?

So you are saying Jesus is not physically returning?

How does the OT use "coming on the clouds" and do the NT Prophets use it in the same manner or differently?

Why?

Becuse near doesn't mean 2000 years later and the 1st century readers of Revelation understood that.

Albert Barnes

For the time is at hand - See Rev_1:1. The word used here - ἐγγύςengus - has the same signification substantially as the word "shortly" in Rev_1:1. It would apply to any event whose beginning was soon to occur, though the end might be remote, for the series of events might stretch far into the future. It cannot be doubted, however, that the writer meant to press upon them the importance of attending to these things, from the fact that either entirely or in part these things were soon to happen. It may be inferred from this verse, that it is possible so to "understand" this book, as that it may convey useful instruction. This is the only book in the Bible of which a special blessing is pronounced on him who reads it; but assuredly a blessing would not be pronounced on the perusal of a book which is entirely unintelligible.

I think our way of defining near is not the same as what was meant in some of the NT passages. We have to let the Bible define it (just as we let the Bible define death).

So are there examples of the usage of "at hand" that fit with your view?

G1451
ἐγγύς
eggus
Total KJV Occurrences: 38
nigh, 18
Mat_24:32, Mar_13:29, Luk_19:11, Luk_21:30-31 (2), Joh_6:4, Joh_6:19, Joh_6:23, Joh_11:18, Joh_11:55, Joh_19:20, Joh_19:42, Act_9:38, Rom_10:8 (2), Eph_2:13, Eph_2:17, Heb_6:8
at, 9
Mat_26:18, Luk_21:30-31 (2), Joh_2:13, Joh_7:2, Joh_11:55, Joh_19:42, Phi_4:5, Rev_22:10
hand, 6
Mat_26:18, Joh_2:13, Joh_7:2, Phi_4:5, Rev_1:3, Rev_22:10
near, 4
Mat_24:33, Mar_13:28, Joh_3:23, Joh_11:54
ready, 1
Heb_8:13

Anyway, I'm talking about books beyond the gospels. The Olivet Discourse is a different context and talks about the destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd coming of Christ. That is not what I"m talking about.

So you agree the destruction of Jerusalem is in view in the Olivet Discourse. So where does Jesus stop talking about Jerusalems destruction and picks up commenting the second coming in Matthew 24?

This race shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.

The phraes "this generation" always refers to contemporaries of Jesus.
I like what DeMar says in his book "Last Days Madness":

"First, "this generation" always means the generation to whom Jesus is speaking. It is the contemporary generation, the generation alive at the hearing of Jesus' words... Those who deny that 'this generation' refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking in the Matthew 24 context must maintain that "this generation" means something different from the way it is used in other places in Matthew and the rest of the New Testament!" (Last Days Madness, p. 33)


"There is a logical problem if genea is translated “race.” Since “race” is a reference to the Jewish race, Matthew 24:34 would read this way: “This Jewish race will not pass away until all these things take place. When all these things take place, then Jewish race will pass away.” This doesn’t make any sense, especially for a premillennialist like Geisler who believes the Jews will reign with Jesus for a thousand years after the period described by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse."

We're back to Matthew. When they see those things, the end is near.

But your definition of near is imminence not a specific time frame.

What about James 5:8?

James is speaking of the same coming that Matthew, Revelation and Peter. It was near. Look also at verse 9:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jas 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

Has the Judge been standing there for 2000 years? Or was this a warning that these events were soon to take place.

This is a constant theme throughout the NT from the very beginning:

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?


Also notice the word for generation:


gennēma


Thayer Definition:
1) that which has been born or begotten
1a) the offspring or progeny of men or animals
1b) the fruits of the earth, the produce of agriculture

That is what would have been used in Matthew 24 if "race" was in mind.

 

[Marcia]

But what makes you think the events of Revelation follow that pattern?

A study of it.

How does the OT use "coming on the clouds" and do the NT Prophets use it in the same manner or differently?

I have not studied that aspect, but I believe Acts 1:9-11:

9And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.
11They also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

Becuse near doesn't mean 2000 years later and the 1st century readers of Revelation understood that.

Albert Barnes

For the time is at hand - See Rev_1:1. The word used here - ἐγγύςengus - has the same signification substantially as the word "shortly" in Rev_1:1. It would apply to any event whose beginning was soon to occur, though the end might be remote, for the series of events might stretch far into the future. It cannot be doubted, however, that the writer meant to press upon them the importance of attending to these things, from the fact that either entirely or in part these things were soon to happen. It may be inferred from this verse, that it is possible so to "understand" this book, as that it may convey useful instruction. This is the only book in the Bible of which a special blessing is pronounced on him who reads it; but assuredly a blessing would not be pronounced on the perusal of a book which is entirely unintelligible.

Well, that is his view. I have also heard and read the view that 'near' is imminent and imminent is "at any moment."

If I wanted someone to not know when I was going to visit them but to be ready for it, I could say, "I will visit at any moment" or "my visit is near." This would keep them on their toes. I might wait 2 weeks, 2 years, or 20 years (clearly, it would have to be in my lifetime, so I'm limited - Jesus is not limited). My visit is near because for the person, it is since they don't know when it will be.

So are there examples of the usage of "at hand" that fit with your view?

I clarified earlier that I was thinking more of "near" than "at hand." "The Kingdom of heaven is at hand" is a different phrase meaning "within your grasp." It does not have to do with time (at least those phrases I'm thinking of).

So you agree the destruction of Jerusalem is in view in the Olivet Discourse. So where does Jesus stop talking about Jerusalems destruction and picks up commenting the second coming in Matthew 24?

Yes because Jesus was asked 2 questions:
"As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Verse 21 is part 2.

James is speaking of the same coming that Matthew, Revelation and Peter. It was near. Look also at verse 9:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jas 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

Has the Judge been standing there for 2000 years? Or was this a warning that these events were soon to take place.

The Judge is standing at the door; the time is imminent. This does not mean soon, in the sense of a near time frame. And what would that be? 10 yrs.? 20 yrs.? 30 yrs.? 40 yrs.?

 

[Marcia]

When James says in Verse 5:8 “the coming of the Lord is near” (or at hand) does this mean that James thought that Jesus would return in his lifetime and was wrong?

No. It means that Jesus’ coming is always, eternally at hand and that his coming back should be closer, nearer, and more real to us than any other event that we have planned for or are waiting for. It is the reality around which we should orient our lives. His coming truly has been near (or at hand) throughout Christian history.

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/James8A.htm

coming . . . draweth nigh--The Greek expresses present time and a settled state. 1Pe 4:7 , "is at hand." We are to live in a continued state of expectancy of the Lord's coming, as an event always nigh. Nothing can more "stablish the heart" amidst present troubles than the realized expectation of His speedy coming.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...horID=7&contentID=3074&commInfo=6&topic=James

 

[Marcia]

Matthew Henry

"Think how short your waiting time may possibly be: The coming of the Lord draweth nigh, v. 8; behold, the Judge standeth before the door, v. 9. Do not be impatient, do not quarrel with one another; the great Judge, who will set all to rights, who will punish the wicked and reward the good, is at hand: he should be conceived by you to stand as near as one who is just knocking at the door.’’ The coming of the Lord to punish the wicked Jews was then very nigh, when James wrote this epistle; and, whenever the patience and other graces of his people are tried in an extraordinary manner, the certainty of Christ’s coming as Judge, and the nearness of it, should establish their hearts. The Judge is now a great deal nearer, in his coming to judge the world, than when this epistle was written, nearer by above seventeen hundred years; and therefore this should have the greater effect upon us.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...horID=4&contentID=1836&commInfo=5&topic=James

 

[Grasshopper]

A study of it.

So there are two beasts, two whores, two sets of seven vials etc........

I have not studied that aspect, but I believe Acts 1:9-11:

A common Hebrew idiom found throughout the OT.

Isa 19:1 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.

Well, that is his view. I have also heard and read the view that 'near' is imminent and imminent is "at any moment."

It was imminent to the original audience. If you are correct then it means nothing to us 2000 years later.

Again, if an event is imminent then you must believe everything that needs to precede the imminent event has already transpired.

If I wanted someone to not know when I was going to visit them but to be ready for it, I could say, "I will visit at any moment" or "my visit is near." This would keep them on their toes. I might wait 2 weeks, 2 years, or 20 years (clearly, it would have to be in my lifetime, so I'm limited - Jesus is not limited). My visit is near because for the person, it is since they don't know when it will be.

Nobody, not even you, would say such a thing. If you called your mother and told her you were coming over shortly are you trying to tell me she doesn't expect it within a specific time frame? Do you really think she believes it could be 20 years? Why do you force on the Bible interpretations of words that you yourself would never consider in normal usage.

What words would Jesus use if He wanted to convey a truth of a certain return within their lifetime? You have already eliminated "near", "at hand", "shortly" and "this generation". So what words could Jesus have used?

I clarified earlier that I was thinking more of "near" than "at hand." "The Kingdom of heaven is at hand" is a different phrase meaning "within your grasp." It does not have to do with time (at least those phrases I'm thinking of).

The problem with your interpretation is that Jesus put it in its proper context:

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

It was a time statement of when the Kingdom would come, not "within your grasp". The time was fulfilled just when Daniel 2 predicted it would be.

Yes because Jesus was asked 2 questions:
"As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Mark makes no such distinction because the question all relate to the same event:

Mar 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

What prompted the question? When Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed. The Jews associated the end of the age and His coming in judgment with the destruction of the Temple. It has nothing to do with the end of the Cosmos.

Verse 21 is part 2.

Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

You have inserted a false division that does not exist in the text. You read that in based on your escatological presuppositions. Read Luke 17 to see how this cannot be divided.

The Judge is standing at the door; the time is imminent. This does not mean soon, in the sense of a near time frame. And what would that be? 10 yrs.? 20 yrs.? 30 yrs.? 40 yrs.?

About 20 years in this case.

 

[Grasshopper]

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/James8A.htm

When James says in Verse 5:8 "the coming of the Lord is near" (or at hand) does this mean that James thought that Jesus would return in his lifetime and was wrong?

No. It means that Jesus’ coming is always, eternally at hand and that his coming back should be closer, nearer, and more real to us than any other event that we have planned for or are waiting for. It is the reality around which we should orient our lives. His coming truly has been near (or at hand) throughout Christian history.

His conclusions are based on what? Can he prove James' audience understood it that way?

coming . . . draweth nigh--The Greek expresses present time and a settled state. 1Pe 4:7 , "is at hand." We are to live in a continued state of expectancy of the Lord's coming, as an event always nigh. Nothing can more "stablish the heart" amidst present troubles than the realized expectation of His speedy coming.

More mumbo jumbo from this guy. Try explaining to the 1st century Christians that the coming of the Lord was near. History tells us it was not near to them. God decieved them in his view.

Pro 13:12 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.

AuthorID=7&contentID=3074&commInfo=6&topic=James"Think how short your waiting time may possibly be: The coming of the Lord draweth nigh, v. 8; behold, the Judge standeth before the door, v. 9. Do not be impatient, do not quarrel with one another; the great Judge, who will set all to rights, who will punish the wicked and reward the good, is at hand: he should be conceived by you to stand as near as one who is just knocking at the door.’’ The coming of the Lord to punish the wicked Jews was then very nigh, when James wrote this epistle; and, whenever the patience and other graces of his people are tried in an extraordinary manner, the certainty of Christ’s coming as Judge, and the nearness of it, should establish their hearts. The Judge is now a great deal nearer, in his coming to judge the world, than when this epistle was written, nearer by above seventeen hundred years; and therefore this should have the greater effect upon us.

You highlighted the wrong part.

The coming of the Lord to punish the wicked Jews was then very nigh, when James wrote this epistle;

See, Matthew Henry got it. He saw the 1st century fulfillment of the verse. He then makes the same mistake others make and decided to rip it out of the 1st century context and apply it to some future date.

Since you like Henry try reading his views on Matthew 24:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...rID=4&contentID=1619&commInfo=5&topic=Matthew

(1.) As to these things, the wars, seductions, and persecutions, here foretold, and especially the ruin of the Jewish nation; "This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled (v. 34); there are those now alive, that shall see Jerusalem destroyed, and the Jewish church brought to an end.’’

 

[BobRyan]

"Near at hand" is true for everyone who reads the Bible because we are to expectantly wait for Jesus - we are to be "on the alert" as though he is coming back at any moment. If the scriptures had said that his return is far away or a long time away, what would that mean? That would make it even more confusing.

We are to be ready for Jesus to come back anytime, so "near at hand" expresses that. It expresses a day by day expectancy for those in Peter's time and for Christians in 500 AD, in 1200 AD, in 1800 AD, and now (and future if Jesus tarries).

Paul always urged the church members to "eagerly" wait for and anticipate the Lord's return. In Titus 2 "looking for AND hastening" the coming of the Lord. Christ commands His followers to be as those who are watching and waiting for the return of the Master.

No NT author said "it is a long way off - way beyond our life times -- don't even think about the coming of the Lord -- it does not apply to you".

But Paul in 2Thess 2 DOES tell his readers NOT to be deceived by a letter or sermon as if from Paul - claiming that the appearing of Christ and our gathering together to him - has already happened and somehow you missed it!

He then gives a list of future events that would need to take place BEFORE the appearing of Christ and our "gathering together to Him".

Christ gave His disciples the same message as He preached "THIS Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in all the world and THEN will the end Come".

Christ Himself had COME to Israel - the long awaited Messiah.

Israel was "supposed" to accept Him. "HE came to HIS OWN but His OWN received Him not!" --

In Matt 23 "O Jerusalem Jerusalem -- how I WANTED to gather your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings - but YOU would not!".

Imagine the "Kingdom of God" scenario that could have unfolded had they chosen obedience instead of rebellion against God the Son.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So there are two beasts, two whores, two sets of seven vials etc........

wrong.


1. Unfaithful woman -- one Faithful woman.

There is one unfaithful woman in Rev 17 -- called the "whore of Babylon".

There is one pure and faithful woman in Rev 12 - the Church of God -- that gives birth to the Messiah and then flees into the wilderness for 1260 years of dark ages persecution.

This persecution is seen in Matt 24 as the "great tribulation"

It is seen in Daniel 7 as 1260 years of dark ages persecution of the church.

It is seen in Rev 11, 12 AND 13 as 1260 years of dark ages persecution.

And now that it is all "history" pretty easy for ALL to see it not just Bible scholars.


2. 7 Vials -- in Rev 16. Nowhere else in all of Revelation.

3. Four beasts -- Dragon Rev 12, Sea beast Rev 13, Lamblike Beast Rev 13, 7 headed beast sea-beast of Rev 17


in Christ,

Bob