When You See Jerusalem Surrounded.....

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper

First of all, there is no need to constantly write in giant font. It actually makes your posts difficult to read, and does not make it more convincing.

When I paste a quote from an outside source or a verse from a Bible software program it comes out that size. I don't need to intentionally do it to be convincing.

Second, I don't know Greek, and I imagine most who post here do not know Greek. You may consider yourself an authority or expert on Greek, and not knowing Greek I have no way of knowing if that is true or not.

I know nothing of greek. I do know the NT was written in greek and not english. I also know that greek words just like english words can have multiple meanings therefore it is necessary to look them up.

Someone who is an expert on Greek might come on here and say you are not skillful at all in this language, I don't know.

All you need is a Bible software program. Try it, it's free: http://www.e-sword.net/ Not that difficult.

But the point is, you are not going to get anywhere with someone like me arguing from the Greek.

If you wish to remain in ignorance that is your choice.

I believe God preserved the scriptures. I believe God intended the scriptures to be written in English for all the English speaking peoples. I believe the English version infallable. Now, I know you will probably disagree, and that is another subject altogether. But you aren't going to persuade me of anything arguing from the Greek. So, if you are going to answer me, I prefer you just stick to English.

Unbelievable ignorance. Let me show you. Here is how your infallible KJV uses the word world.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mat 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?

Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

All 3 use different greek words with different meanings. Using your limited definition you must say they all mean the same thing. They don't! Thus you remain in ignorance."Love", "generation" and many such words have numerous meanings, Thats why you look them up in the original language to see what is meant.

See how the font changes by me just pasting from e-sword? I could take the time to change it but I don't want to.

How am I defeating my own argument? My argument was that the word generation does not always mean the generation alive at the time. You confirmed my argument. You agreed that I was correct.

Yes, but one only knows that by looking at which greek word is used. You can't know that by just seeing it in english. Anyone on this board could tell you that...... except perhaps some on the Fundamentalist Board, they would agree with you.

I simply disagree with you here. The scriptures are clear that the heavens and earth that are now will be destroyed and there will be a new heavens and earth.

I agree. Tell me, what world perished according to this verse:

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

What does "world" mean?

2 Pet 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

This is hardly an idiom.

Why? Because you say so?

This verse is very specific and shows it will be a real, physical event. You may not believe this, but I do.

How does it show that?

Perhaps the apostle Peter was not as knowledgeable as you and did not understand the Lord was using an idiom.

Peter was saying this, not the Lord. Peter also said this:

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

And yes, I think Peter understood Hebrew idioms.

Zech 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

This actually sounds very similar to the effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This hardly happened in 70 A.D.

Still going to insist you never read the works of men? That is straight out of Hal Lindey's books.

The saved will be brought through this destruction, just as Noah was brought through the flood that destroyed the whole earth. And this is exactly what Jesus compared his coming to.

Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

As I said before, this proves Jesus was not speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. It would be misleading of the Lord to compare the destruction of Jerusalem with Noah's flood. The people he spoke this to clearly understood this to be speaking of a worldwide destruction.

Which brings me back to my question you never answered. Why flee to the mountains if the entire heavens and earth are going to be dissolved?

In Luke 17 the Lord says that it will both be day and night when he comes, showing he is speaking of a worldwide event.

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33
Jesus said he will come suddenly like lightning. It will be both day and night. Some people will be on their housetops, others working in the field. Women will be grinding. This is daytime. Other men will be in bed, it will be night where they are.

Notice:

Luk 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Why does he tell them not to get their stuff? Why would it matter if the entire world is getting ready to be destroyed? Why does it matter if the man in the field returns back or not? He's dead either way. Unless of course this is speaking of the coming Romans to destroy the city of Jerusalem.

Albert Barnes

Mat 24:17
Him which is on the house-top - The roofs of the houses in Eastern countries were made flat, so that they were favorable places for walking and retirement. See the notes at Mat_9:1-8. The meaning here is, that He who should be on the house-top when this calamity came upon the city "should flee without delay;" He should not even take time to secure any article of apparel from his house. So sudden would be the calamity, that by attempting to do this He would endanger his life.

Mat 24:18
Return back to take his clothes - His clothes which, in "working," He had laid aside, or which, in fleeing, he should throw off as an encumbrance. "Clothes" here means the "outer" garment, commonly laid aside when men worked or ran. See the notes at Mat_5:40.
These directions were followed. It is said that the Christians, warned by these predictions, fled from Jerusalem to Pella, and other places beyond the Jordan; so that there is not evidence that a single "Christian" perished in Jerusalem - Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., lib. 3 chapter 6.

Do you also disdain History as much as you do the Greek language?

This is a worldwide event Jesus is speaking of, not a local event.

No, it is quite clear from the context it is a local judgment. But for one who ignores the Greek when words like world and earth are used, it is no wonder you are constantly in error.

 

[Winman]

When I paste a quote from an outside source or a verse from a Bible software program it comes out that size. I don't need to intentionally do it to be convincing.

No, you need to post something scriptural.

If you wish to remain in ignorance that is your choice.

I could easily say the same of you.

Yes, but one only knows that by looking at which greek word is used. You can't know that by just seeing it in english. Anyone on this board could tell you that...... except perhaps some on the Fundamentalist Board, they would agree with you.

Wrong. I can tell by the context. When Jesus said this generation would be held accountable for the blood of Abel, I knew he was speaking of more than those currently alive at the time. They didn't kill Abel. And the Jews aren't even descended from Cain, they are descended from Seth.

So words having more than one meaning is not a problem for me. I didn't need a Greek dictionary to understand Jesus was speaking of men that lived thousands of years before the time that he spoke.

Still going to insist you never read the works of men? That is straight out of Hal Lindey's books.

What? You mean it was Hal Lindsey that came up with the atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You mean that is just fiction and really didn't happen? Wow, I guess I am ignorant after all.

I rarely read fiction. The atomic bombs at Hiroshima vaporized men. Men's flesh literally vaporized leaving skeletons. Eyes were burned out of sockets.

Initial Explosive Conditions
Maximum temperature at burst point: several million degrees centigrade. A fireball of 15-meters radius formed in 0.1 millisecond, with a temperature of 300,000 degrees centigrade, and expanded to its huge maximum size in one second. The top of the atomic cloud reached an altitude of 17,000 meters.

Those are facts are near as can be determined. I took a great deal of interest in atomic bombs when I was young, my father was at the atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll in July 1946. So, I always took a great interest in them.

And I was not saying their will be nuclear warfare when Jesus comes. But if man can split the atom, Jesus can do the same easily.

Which brings me back to my question you never answered. Why flee to the mountains if the entire heavens and earth are going to be dissolved?

Why did God tell Noah to enter the ark? The whole world was destroyed then as well.

The burning of the world and elements is at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ. The fleeing from Judea is when he first comes and sets foot on the Mount of Olives. Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies, and Jesus will make a great valley for them to escape as I have shown several times from Zechariah.

Zech 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

This is when those in Judea will flee. Did the Mt. of Olives divide in half back in 70 A.D.?

I am tired, and need to go. I would answer more, but you'll won't listen no matter what. You just keep on listening to those men of yours and ridiculing the scriptures as you did. We will all find out who is right some day.

 

[Grasshopper]

No, you need to post something scriptural.

So now I haven't quoted scripture? Someone is getting desperate.

I could easily say the same of you.

I'm not the one who ignores the original language because it's not English.

Wrong. I can tell by the context. When Jesus said this generation would be held accountable for the blood of Abel, I knew he was speaking of more than those currently alive at the time.

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 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.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Where to start? I guess first we start with to whom was Jesus speaking. Pretty clear it was the scribes and Pharisees.(verse 29) Who are the children of those that killed the prophets? (See verse 31) Who is going to be held responsible for those sins? (See verse 32) What greek word for generation is used in verse 33? (gennēma). Who is associated with synagogues? (Verse 34) (Compare to Matthew 10:23). Who is the "you" of verse 35? Do you remember grade school grammer? Why does Jesus now, in verse 36, use a different greek word for generation(genea) than He used in verse 33? You think He might be trying to convey a different meaning?

Anyone with an ounce of objectivity understands Jesus is speaking to and about 1st century Jews. Even John MacArthur understands this is speaking of the AD70 judgment. You don't get any more futurist than John MacArthur. But if you have your own private interpretation, more power to you.

They didn't kill Abel.

Cain killed Abel, yet the text is clear, those of that generation would be held accountable for those sins. Anyone still future to us didn't kill Abel either, so who do you think this is referring to?

And the Jews aren't even descended from Cain, they are descended from Seth.

And that's relevant how?

So words having more than one meaning is not a problem for me. I didn't need a Greek dictionary to understand Jesus was speaking of men that lived thousands of years before the time that he spoke.

Yet you insisted according to Matthew 24:3 that the disciples were asking about the end of the physical world. This in spite of the fact you were told numerous times the word was age(aiōn) not world(kosmos). However I wouldn't expect a KJVonlyist to understand the difference. World is world no matter what. So yes, it is a problem for you and your interpretation.

Why did God tell Noah to enter the ark? The whole world was destroyed then as well.

The "whole world" was destroyed? You mean we are living on a different earth than what Noah lived on? Apparently so because you insist what 2 Peter 3 teaches is the same that happened to Noah.

The burning of the world and elements is at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ.

Two questions (we'll see if I get an answer)

1. Is there sin or death in the New Heavens and New Earth?

2. What are the days of Noah compared to, the time of the second coming or the time of the New H&E at the end of the 1000 years?

The fleeing from Judea is when he first comes and sets foot on the Mount of Olives. Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies, and Jesus will make a great valley for them to escape as I have shown several times from Zechariah.

They were to flee to the Mountains. Secondly you have already stated this is a worldwide event. What are we poor saps in America to do? Will we also get a valley? I have no mountains where I live. Which is it, local to Jerusalem or worldwide?

Zech 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

This is when those in Judea will flee. Did the Mt. of Olives divide in half back in 70 A.D.?

I addressed this earlier of which you never responded. (suprise suprise)

So I'll ask again, did the mountains melt and valleys split apart when judgment came down on Samaria and Jerusalem according to Micah?

Judgment Against Samaria and Jerusalem

3Look! The Lord is coming from his dwelling place;
he comes down and treads the high places of the earth.
4The mountains melt beneath him
and the valleys split apart,
like wax before the fire,
like water rushing down a slope.

I am tired, and need to go. I would answer more, but you'll won't listen no matter what.

I've addressed every point you've made. It is you who "hit and run" and won't interact with what I've written. Matthew 16:27 for one example.

You just keep on listening to those men of yours and ridiculing the scriptures as you did.

Where have i ridiculed scripture? Or are you losing this debate so bad you feel the need to lie? And you go ahead and keep relying on your own interpretation. Even though we all know you did not come to your view all by yourself.

Congrats, I try to convince people to take a hard look at the preterist view, but you with your answers, you have probably convinced more people I'm right than I have. Keep up the good work.

 

[Winman]

Grasshopper, you and I simply disagree. Now, I don't usually do this, but I am going to quote someone else. Here is an article that shows ten things have to take place when Jesus returns, and shows it did not happen in 70 A.D.. I doubt it will convince you, your mind is already made up, but it makes for interesting reading.

1. When Christ comes in His kingdom, He will return to earth and be seen by every eye (Matthew 24:25-30 and Revelation 1:7).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. In 70 A.D. Christ was not seen by anyone.

2. When Christ comes in His kingdom, the Jewish people will be regathered from every country on earth and brought into their promised land (Matthew 24:31; Jeremiah 16:14-15; Isaiah 43:5-7; Jeremiah 23:7-8; Jeremiah 31:7-10; Ezekiel 11:14-18; Ezekiel 36:24).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. Instead of being regathered, the Jews were killed and scattered.

3. When Christ comes in His kingdom, there will be no wars on earth (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3; Psalm 46:9; Zech. 9:10).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. 70 A.D. was a time of fierce warfare carried out by the powerful Roman army.

4. When Christ comes in His kingdom, the kingdom will be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6) and the Messiah will sit on the throne of David which will be located in Jerusalem (Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 17:25; 23:5-6; 33:15; Hosea 3:4-5; Amos 9:11-15; Luke 1:32-33).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. In 70 A.D. Jerusalem was destroyed, the temple destroyed and no King from the line of David was reigning on the throne!

5. When Christ comes in His kingdom it will be a time of great deliverance and great blessing for the Jewish people (Jeremiah 30:7-9; Ezekiel 34:25-31).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. which was a time of great judgment upon the Jewish people who decades earlier had crucified their Messiah and rejected Him (although some Jews did believe on Him).

6. When Christ comes in His kingdom, God's sanctuary (His temple) will be in the midst of His people (Ezekiel 37:26-28; Ezekiel 40:5-43:27).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. because it was then that the Jewish temple was destroyed resulting in the Jews having no temple at all.

7. When Christ comes in His kingdom, there will be a priesthood operating in the temple and animal sacrifices will be offered (Ezekiel 44:1-46:24).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. because when the Romans destroyed the temple they put an end to a functioning priesthood and they put an end to animal sacrifices.

8. When Christ comes in His kingdom, "the Jews will possess and settle in all of the promised land, and it will again be subdivided into the twelve tribal divisions. But these tribal divisions will be different than those described in the book of Joshua" (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Footprints of the Messiah, p. 328). The description of the location of all of the 12 tribes during the kingdom is described in Ezekiel 47:13-48:29. Seven tribes will be situated to the north of the temple (Ezekiel 48:1-7) and five tribes will be situated to the south of the temple (Ezekiel 48:23-29).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. After the Roman destruction of Jerusalem the surviving Jews were scattered throughout the world until the 20th century when a small remnant returned to the land of Israel and a Jewish state was established.

9. When Christ comes in His kingdom, there will be a message of good news that will be declared to Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:7-10). This message will consist of the following elements: 1) The good news of peace; 2) The good news that Messiah will reign in Zion; 3) The good news that God has comforted His people; 4) The good news that God has redeemed Jerusalem.

This did not take place in 70 A.D. In 70 A.D. there was only bad news for the Jewish people. It was the bad news of judgment and destruction and ruin and death, not the good news of comfort and peace.

10. When Christ comes in His kingdom there will be joy and gladness (Isaiah chapter 35). This joy and gladness will result from the following conditions: 1) the desert will become fertile (verses1-2,6-7); 2) Messiah will come to deliver Israel (v.3-4); 3) Those who are lame or blind or deaf will be healed (v.5-6); 4) Wild vicious animals will no longer be a problem (v.9); 5) It will be a time of great rejoicing (v.10).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. In 70 A.D. the Jews who were fortunate enough to survive the Roman invasion did not have joy and gladness, but only sorrow and sighing (compare Isaiah 35:10).

 

[David Michael Harris]

In His Olivet Discourse to His disciples, The Prophet gave them an unmistakably clear sign whereby they were to be warned that it was time to move, with explicit directions on how to secure their safety from the wrath that was to come during the 66-70 A.D. war with the Romans:

“But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.” Lu 21:20-23
[the corresponding passages in Mt & Mk reads ' the abomination of desolation' in lieu of 'armies']

To paraphrase: “When Jerusalem gets surrounded by armies, run for the hills. Leave the country, get out of the city, and don't go back.”

How do you get out of a city that's surrounded by armies?

By divine providence, that's how.

History: Sometime late in the year 66 A.D., Cestius Gallus, [Roman] Governor of Syria and Commander of Roman forces, marched his army into Judea in an attempt to quell the revolts. Read Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book II, Chapter 19; excerpts:

“But now Cestius, observing that the disturbances that were begun among the Jews afforded him a proper opportunity to attack them, took his whole army along with him, and put the Jews to flight, and pursued them to Jerusalem. He then pitched his camp upon the elevation called Scopus, [or watch-tower,] which was distant seven furlongs from the city; yet did not he assault them in three days' time, out of expectation that those within might perhaps yield a little;..........when Cestius was come into the city, he set the part called Bezetha, which is called Cenopolis, [or the new city,] on fire; as he did also to the timber market; after which he came into the upper city, and pitched his camp over against the royal palace; and had he but at this very time attempted to get within the walls by force, he had won the city presently, and the war had been put an end to at once;.... a great number of the officers of the horse, had been corrupted by Florus, and diverted him from that his attempt; and that was the occasion that this war lasted so very long, and thereby the Jews were involved in such incurable calamities....... had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.....he recalled his soldiers from the place,..... without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.”

Note by translator of the history, William Whiston:

"There may be another very important and very providential reason assigned for this strange and foolish retreat of Cestius, which, if Josephus had been at the time of writing his history a Christian, he might probably have taken notice of also; and that is the opportunity afforded the Jewish Christians in the city, of calling to mind the prediction and caution given them by Christ that 'when they should see the abomination of desolation' (the idolatrous Roman armies, with the images of their idols in their ensigns) ready to lay Jerusalem desolate, 'stand where it ought not,' or 'in the holy place'; or 'when they should see Jerusalem encompassed with armies,' they should then 'flee to the mountains.' By complying with which, those Jewish Christians fled to the mountains of Perea, and escaped this destruction. Nor was there perhaps any one instance of a more unpolitic, but more providential conduct, than this retreat of Cestius visible during this whole siege of Jerusalem, which (siege) was providentially such a 'great tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the world to that time; no, nor ever should be'.”

John Gill, on Matthew 24:16:

"...it is remarked by several interpreters, and which Josephus takes notice of with surprise, that Cestius Gallus having advanced with his army to Jerusalem, and besieged it, on a sudden without any cause, raised the siege, and withdrew his army, when the city might have been easily taken; by which means a signal was made, and an opportunity given to the Christians, to make their escape: which they accordingly did, and went over to Jordan, as Eusebius says, to a place called Pella; so that when Titus came a few months after, there was not a Christian in the city . . "

The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.

Love your signature here.

 

[Winman]

The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.

Love your signature here.

That's a nice quote, but who are you applying it to?

 

[Grasshopper]

Part 1

Grasshopper, you and I simply disagree. Now, I don't usually do this, but I am going to quote someone else.

Well, well, well, so now you finally admit you do read the "works of man". You realize how some might now think you are a hypocrite if not a liar after you previously said this:

"I prefer the scriptures. And I am not really interested in what Gill or any other commentator says, why can't you argue for yourself?"

"Don't you know the scriptures? Or do you just rely on the interpretations of others? "

"We don't need the writings of men to explain the scriptures to us. I would not trust another man when it comes to my very soul, I want to find out for myself."

I hope everyone also notices how you completely ignored the questions posed to you in my last post. Instead of addressing the topics in question you keep hopping from one topic to another. Why? I know why, because you can't answer my questions without inflicting fatal blows to your own view so you switch to a different topic.

So now you identify who your guru is and decide to use his arguments instead of your own. So let's start being honest and identify your guru: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/matt16.htm

I notice that is where you also got your Matthew 16:28 information. I also notice he ignores verse 27 just as you did. What is funny is his statement regarding Matthew 23, he says this:

"We would certainly agree with you that the Lord came in judgment in 70 A.D".

Your own guru disagrees with you on Matthew 23! He acknowledges "the Lord came" and "judgment" was rendered in AD70! HELLO......Matthew 23 flows right into Matthew 24!

Here is an article that shows ten things have to take place when Jesus returns, and shows it did not happen in 70 A.D.. I doubt it will convince you, your mind is already made up, but it makes for interesting reading.

Is your mind already made up? Yes, I think it is. Despite how many holes I knock in your view you keep holding on to it and jumping to other topics hoping to finally find an argument you can win. I used to be a dispie. Born and raise in that system. So I have and will change if scripture leads me to do so. It did.

 

[Grasshopper]

Part 2

Here is what your Guru says:

"When Christ comes in His kingdom there are at least ten things that must take place at or around that time. Consider the following":

Notice anything missing? How about WHEN the Kingdom was to come! Why does he ignore the prophecies concerning that? Daniel 2 told when the Kingdom wold come, it would come during the Roman Empire. John the Baptist comes on the scence and says what? Here is what he says:

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


John announces the Kingdom is now at hand! He says "the time is fulfilled"! What time is fulfilled? The time the Kingdom was prophesied to come as found in Daniel. So your Guru's 10 reasons are now a moot point because he ignores the most important aspect of the Kingdom, the timing. But that is the modus operandi of dispies, everything is literal except the time statements which are just ignored or redefined. By the way, how can a literal, physical Kingdom come without observation?

Luk 17:20 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:

1. When Christ comes in His kingdom, He will return to earth and be seen by every eye (Matthew 24:25-30 and Revelation 1:7).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. In 70 A.D. Christ was not seen by anyone.

"Tribes of the Earth" refer to the 12 tribes of Israel. The 12 Tribes no longer exist.

Gill:
And then shall the tribes of the earth, or land,
mourn; that is, the land of Judea; for other lands, and countries, were not usually divided into tribes, as that was; neither were they affected with the calamities and desolations of it, and the vengeance of the son of man upon it; at least not so as to mourn on that account, but rather were glad and rejoiced:

2. When Christ comes in His kingdom, the Jewish people will be regathered from every country on earth and brought into their promised land (Matthew 24:31; Jeremiah 16:14-15; Isaiah 43:5-7; Jeremiah 23:7-8; Jeremiah 31:7-10; Ezekiel 11:14-18; Ezekiel 36:24).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. Instead of being regathered, the Jews were killed and scattered.

Joh 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Joh 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Joh 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Joh 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

3. When Christ comes in His kingdom, there will be no wars on earth (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3; Psalm 46:9; Zech. 9:10).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. 70 A.D. was a time of fierce warfare carried out by the powerful Roman army.

Isa 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
Isa 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

The "last days" were in the 1st century. See Hebrews 1:1-2 , Acts 2:17

4. When Christ comes in His kingdom, the kingdom will be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6) and the Messiah will sit on the throne of David which will be located in Jerusalem (Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 17:25; 23:5-6; 33:15; Hosea 3:4-5; Amos 9:11-15; Luke 1:32-33).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. In 70 A.D. Jerusalem was destroyed, the temple destroyed and no King from the line of David was reigning on the throne!

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

5. When Christ comes in His kingdom it will be a time of great deliverance and great blessing for the Jewish people (Jeremiah 30:7-9; Ezekiel 34:25-31).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. which was a time of great judgment upon the Jewish people who decades earlier had crucified their Messiah and rejected Him (although some Jews did believe on Him).

There can be no greater blessing or deliverance for His people than His coming as their Messiah and forgiving their sins.

 

[Winman]

Part 1



Well, well, well, so now you finally admit you do read the "works of man". You realize how some might now think you are a hypocrite if not a liar after you previously said this:

"I prefer the scriptures. And I am not really interested in what Gill or any other commentator says, why can't you argue for yourself?"

"Don't you know the scriptures? Or do you just rely on the interpretations of others? "

"We don't need the writings of men to explain the scriptures to us. I would not trust another man when it comes to my very soul, I want to find out for myself."

I hope everyone also notices how you completely ignored the questions posed to you in my last post. Instead of addressing the topics in question you keep hopping from one topic to another. Why? I know why, because you can't answer my questions without inflicting fatal blows to your own view so you switch to a different topic.

So now you identify who your guru is and decide to use his arguments instead of your own. So let's start being honest and identify your guru: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/matt16.htm

I notice that is where you also got your Matthew 16:28 information. I also notice he ignores verse 27 just as you did. What is funny is his statement regarding Matthew 23, he says this:

"We would certainly agree with you that the Lord came in judgment in 70 A.D".

Your own guru disagrees with you on Matthew 23! He acknowledges "the Lord came" and "judgment" was rendered in AD70! HELLO......Matthew 23 flows right into Matthew 24!



Is your mind already made up? Yes, I think it is. Despite how many holes I knock in your view you keep holding on to it and jumping to other topics hoping to finally find an argument you can win. I used to be a dispie. Born and raise in that system. So I have and will change if scripture leads me to do so. It did.

I don't usually study the writings of other men. As I wrote before, I have owned one commentary in my life, and that was a present. And I have heard plenty of very good and knowledgeable preachers in my life. So, I don't live in a vacuum.

That post was exceptional for me and you know it. I almost always make my own arguments and post scripture. I go into great detail as to how I understand the scripture I present as evidence. If anything, this makes me an easy target. But go back and read the answers of Calvinists. You will see many, many, copy and paste articles from commentaries written by famous Calvinists. And if I find an error, you can always say it was not your mistake but theirs.

To tell you the truth, I got a little lazy. Oh, I could have spent half an hour writting another long post to you. But you aren't going to listen to me whether I am correct or not. So, I looked at that article and liked the way the writer presented his argument. It was quick, easy, and puts forth a very good argument against your position.

Trust me, you don't want me to go to other writers to present evidence against your doctrine. There are volumes out there that you couldn't possibly answer.

 

[Grasshopper]

Part 3

6. When Christ comes in His kingdom, God's sanctuary (His temple) will be in the midst of His people (Ezekiel 37:26-28; Ezekiel 40:5-43:27).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. because it was then that the Jewish temple was destroyed resulting in the Jews having no temple at all.

2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said , (Eze 37:27) I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

</I>7. When Christ comes in His kingdom, there will be a priesthood operating in the temple and animal sacrifices will be offered (Ezekiel 44:1-46:24).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. because when the Romans destroyed the temple they put an end to a functioning priesthood and they put an end to animal sacrifices.

No mention of a Kingdom in Ezekiel 44. But there are sin offerings:

Eze 44:27 And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.
Eze 44:28 And it shall be unto them for an inheritance: I am their inheritance: and ye shall give them no possession in Israel: I am their possession.
Eze 44:29 They shall eat the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; and every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs.

Back to Old Covenant sin offerings? Is that the blessings and deliverance you have in mind for the Jews in thier Kingdom?

8. When Christ comes in His kingdom, "the Jews will possess and settle in all of the promised land, and it will again be subdivided into the twelve tribal divisions. But these tribal divisions will be different than those described in the book of Joshua" (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Footprints of the Messiah, p. 328). The description of the location of all of the 12 tribes during the kingdom is described in Ezekiel 47:13-48:29. Seven tribes will be situated to the north of the temple (Ezekiel 48:1-7) and five tribes will be situated to the south of the temple (Ezekiel 48:23-29).

This did not take place in 70 A.D. After the Roman destruction of Jerusalem the surviving Jews were scattered throughout the world until the 20th century when a small remnant returned to the land of Israel and a Jewish state was established.

Still no mention of a Kingdom in those passages. The promise of the land was already fulfilled in their history:

Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Jos 21:44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

9. When Christ comes in His kingdom, there will be a message of good news that will be declared to Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:7-10). This message will consist of the following elements: 1) The good news of peace; 2) The good news that Messiah will reign in Zion; 3) The good news that God has comforted His people; 4) The good news that God has redeemed Jerusalem.

This did not take place in 70 A.D. In 70 A.D. there was only bad news for the Jewish people. It was the bad news of judgment and destruction and ruin and death, not the good news of comfort and peace.

1. Good news=Gospel
2. Mt Zion was established and the Hebrew were entering in:

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Get you a new Guru:

http://www.eschatology.org/index.ph...n-of-beauty&catid=30:kingdom-of-god&Itemid=61

10. When Christ comes in His kingdom there will be joy and gladness (Isaiah chapter 35). This joy and gladness will result from the following conditions: 1) the desert will become fertile (verses1-2,6-7); 2) Messiah will come to deliver Israel (v.3-4); 3) Those who are lame or blind or deaf will be healed (v.5-6); 4) Wild vicious animals will no longer be a problem (v.9); 5) It will be a time of great rejoicing (v.10).

The Ministry of Jesus.

Mat 11:4 Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:
Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.


Read and learn: http://www.eschatology.org/index.ph...id=30:kingdom-of-god&Itemid=61&layout=default

 

[Grasshopper]

I don't usually study the writings of other men. As I wrote before, I have owned one commentary in my life, and that was a present. And I have heard plenty of very good and knowledgeable preachers in my life. So, I don't live in a vacuum.

Tellme, whats the difference between reading a commentary or listening to one every sunday? The end result is the same, you are taught a system.

To tell you the truth, I got a little lazy. Oh, I could have spent half an hour writting another long post to you. But you aren't going to listen to me whether I am correct or not.

I read everything you write and address it all which is more than you do. You ignore mine and don't answer questions.

Trust me, you don't want me to go to other writers to present evidence against your doctrine. There are volumes out there that you couldn't possibly answer.

Go ahead. You certainly aren't answering my objections or questions so you might as well copy and paste. Funny, you know all these sources yet claimed you never read works of men but relied on your own study.

 

[Winman]

You are correct, listening to a preacher is not much different than reading a commentary. But I don't always agree with preachers I have heard. I can think of many instances I disagreed with them. And you don't see me posting their writings here. I do so today because I really didn't feel like putting great effort into answering you. It get's old after awhile.

Look if you want to believe Jesus came in 70 A.D., you go right on believing that. I think even unsaved people would laugh at you it is so ridiculous, but you go right on if that's what you believe. I happen to believe that when Jesus comes again, there will be no doubt about it, the whole world will see him.

Time will tell.

 

[Grasshopper]

You are correct, listening to a preacher is not much different than reading a commentary. But I don't always agree with preachers I have heard. I can think of many instances I disagreed with them. And you don't see me posting their writings here.

But you are posting their words. Their teaching is coming through you because that is what you've been taught.

I do so today because I really didn't feel like putting great effort into answering you. It get's old after awhile.

You haven't felt like it since we started. I answer each of your concerns then ask you questions but you ignore them and move on.

Look if you want to believe Jesus came in 70 A.D., you go right on believing that. I think even unsaved people would laugh at you it is so ridiculous,

I'm not concerned what lost people think. Did you laugh at your source when he said, "We would certainly agree with you that the Lord came in judgment in 70 A.D".

but you go right on if that's what you believe. I happen to believe that when Jesus comes again, there will be no doubt about it, the whole world will see him.

Time will tell.

Yet you can't address my objections to your passages. What does that say about your ability to prove your thesis? Still many questions you have yet to answer, perhaps someone who actually can address my questions will jump in and take your place.

 

[David Michael Harris]

That's a nice quote, but who are you applying it to?

The author of the part I quoted.

The point being about another post. "In thing" I guess.

 

[Robert Snow]

It is a waste of time Grasshopper to try any farther to explain anything concerning the truth about AD70 to Winman. You cannot reach someone who doesn't want to be reached.

But, in fairness to him, it is difficult to be taught a system of bible doctrine all of one's Christian life, no matter how flawed, and suddenly change when those around you remain in error. This dispensational theology has a strong foothold, especially in fundamental circles. (I am assuming Winman is in these circles based on his viewpoint concerning the "English" bible being all one needs.)

 

[Winman]

It is a waste of time Grasshopper to try any farther to explain anything concerning the truth about AD70 to Winman. You cannot reach someone who doesn't want to be reached.

But, in fairness to him, it is difficult to be taught a system of bible doctrine all of one's Christian life, no matter how flawed, and suddenly change when those around you remain in error. This dispensational theology has a strong foothold, especially in fundamental circles. (I am assuming Winman is in these circles based on his viewpoint concerning the "English" bible being all one needs.)

Nice. Look, if I had never walked in a church in my life and only heard of Jesus from people occasionally talking about him, or the way TV disparages Jesus, I still would not believe this doctrine of yours.

Look, when you make a claim, it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to me to disprove it.

I hardly believe you can make a convincing case that Jesus returned in 70 A.D.. When Jesus returns it will be the greatest event in history. It will be greater than the Civil War, or WWII, or the Kennedy Assassination.

The scriptures say Jesus will rule for a thousand years, when did that happen? How come it's not in all the history books? He will not only rule Israel, he will rule all nations. Why do none of the nations of the world have a record of this?

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Anybody notice all those people who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus who were raised from the dead?

Hey, when did the beast get here? When did everybody get his mark? Anybody got a photo or drawing of that mark? I would be very curious to see that.

So, was Jesus invisible all this time? What happened in 1070 A.D.? Where did Jesus go?

You fellows can ridicule me all you want. It is you that are suspended from reality. Prove that Jesus came back in 70 A.D., you made the claim.

 

[Grasshopper]

It is a waste of time Grasshopper to try any farther to explain anything concerning the truth about AD70 to Winman. You cannot reach someone who doesn't want to be reached.

But, in fairness to him, it is difficult to be taught a system of bible doctrine all of one's Christian life, no matter how flawed, and suddenly change when those around you remain in error. This dispensational theology has a strong foothold, especially in fundamental circles. (I am assuming Winman is in these circles based on his viewpoint concerning the "English" bible being all one needs.)

Yea, I tried to build the case from the floor up to make it easier to understand but I should have known to quit when he said he doesn't care about the Greek. Anyway Merry Chrismas to you and Winman and whoever else is reading along.

 

[Winman]

Yea, I tried to build the case from the floor up to make it easier to understand but I should have known to quit when he said he doesn't care about the Greek. Anyway Merry Chrismas to you and Winman and whoever else is reading along.

Problem is, you can't build the case. You are trying to convince me and others that Jesus, the Son of God, the Almighty came to earth in 70 A.D. and that nobody knows about it.

When Jesus came the first time, he came a poor little baby born in a manger, to poor parents. And the whole world knows about this, there have been more books written about Jesus than any person in history.

And yet when he comes in his glory as king nobody noticed.

It is your claim Jesus returned, prove it.

 

[Grasshopper]

Problem is, you can't build the case. You are trying to convince me and others that Jesus, the Son of God, the Almighty came to earth in 70 A.D. and that nobody knows about it.

When Jesus came the first time, he came a poor little baby born in a manger, to poor parents. And the whole world knows about this, there have been more books written about Jesus than any person in history.

And yet when he comes in his glory as king nobody noticed.

It is your claim Jesus returned, prove it.

Ask your own Guru. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/matt16.htm

"We would certainly agree with you that the Lord came in judgment in 70 A.D."

Next time you quote someone, you might want to find out if he agrees with me first.:laugh:

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Those poor Disciples....what a bunch of dopes. They probably thought Jesus was serious when He said that. Jesus probably laughed all the way to Golgotha thinking about how He put one over on the Disciples.

 

[Winman]

Ask your own Guru. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/matt16.htm

"We would certainly agree with you that the Lord came in judgment in 70 A.D."

Next time you quote someone, you might want to find out if he agrees with me first.:laugh:

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Those poor Disciples....what a bunch of dopes. They probably thought Jesus was serious when He said that. Jesus probably laughed all the way to Golgotha thinking about how He put one over on the Disciples.

You cannot distinguish between God's judgement and Jesus returning as King. Big difference.

If you would have asked me, I would have told you that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was a judgement, and I would have agreed that there was prophesy concerning it. I will show scripture that I have many times posted and even commented on in the past.

Matt 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

I have posted this parable of the wedding many times and explained it. The first people God called and bid to the wedding were the Jews. But they refused to come. And notice verse 7 where it says God was wroth with them and burned up their city. Go back and search my posts where I have posted this passage and you will see that numerous times I said this was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I am not denying that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans, that is a historical fact. And I agree it was a judgement by God for rejecting Jesus as shown in this passage.

But this is not Jesus returning as king. No, the Jews were scattered in 70 A.D.. But when Jesus returns he will restore the kingdom. Peter and the apostles understood this.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Peter and the other apostles clearly understood when Jesus returned he would be restoring the kingdom, not destroying it and scattering the Jews. You need to do some study.

So, your problem is you cannot discern the scriptures. You are combining the destruction of Jerusalem with Jesus's second coming as one event. They are not.

Trust me, when Jesus comes and restores his kingdom, the whole wide world will know it. It will be the greatest event in the history of mankind, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. will pale in comparison.

Matt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Jesus said immediately after the great tribulation that the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give light, and the stars fall from heaven. You may not believe that literal, I do. It says the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven. It says all the tribes of earth will mourn. Jesus said this tribulation would be the worst time ever since the world began or ever will be. Hitler killed six times as many Jews in WWII than the Romans did in 70 A.D. (one million in 70 A.D., six million during WWII). The destruction of Jerusalem was nothing compared to the Holocaust.

You haven't proved a thing. If Jesus would have came as king in 70 A.D., every man, woman, and child on earth would know it.