Are you preterist or merely 'modified post-trib'?

[Locutus]

Yes in the OT it is all dealing with the "physical" but the promise of the kingdom etc were all fulfilled in the spiritual.

Physical people -----> spiritual people (by grace not race)
Physical country -----> spiritual country
Physical temple -------> spiritual temple (not made with hands)
Physical kingdom -------> spiritual kingdom
Physical Adam --------> second "spiritual" Adam

 

[iamsoandso]

Yes in the OT it is all dealing with the "physical" but the promise of the kingdom etc were all fulfilled in the spiritual.

Physical people -----> spiritual people (by grace not race)
Physical country -----> spiritual country
Physical temple -------> spiritual temple (not made with hands)
Physical kingdom -------> spiritual kingdom
Physical Adam --------> second "spiritual" Adam

When Jesus came in the flesh Those Jews denied he was come and looked for another and it is believed by most that they met their judgement in ad70 because they did not believe he had come in the flesh. The very definition of an Antichrist in scripture is that they denied he had come in the flesh. In what you say they were to never to have expected an physical kingdom but should have always expected it to be spiritual.

Now in another scripture they were blinded in part for if they would have known they would not have crucified him. So then these who were blinded in part did not realize he had come and this led to them denying him and then because of them not receiving him as the Messiah nor understanding the time of his visitation they were displayed around the moat that Titus dug around the city.

That's a curious thing though when compared to the disciples in Acts 1:6 asking if the kingdom would be restored to Israel at that time. So there then are two groups one is about to receive power in Acts 2 and they think the kingdom would be restored to Israel but are not punished for it. And then there is the group that also thinks it would be restored to Israel physically and who were blinded in part by God and punished.

I'm just trying to reason through the many things I hear people say and so isn’t it odd that one is blinded but guilty and the other not when they both expected the same thing a physical kingdom?

 

[Bookends]

To me after hearing all the different ideas of the various different groups of Christianity across my life debate as to whether all these things were either fulfilled or they were waiting for them to be fulfilled afterwards is pretty simple. If the first century Church began and were taught that these events were future in nature concerning the AoD,mark,image ect. then after the death of those who were the original Church leaders (apostles,disciples,elders ect.) then in the very next generation of Church elders/leaders if these events had occurred between the transition between the two it would be reflected by the things written by those who immediately were set in charge over the Church after the apostles.

The thing about it is that in the letters we do have that are written by the second generation of the Church they all seem to have no idea that these things had all been fulfilled and were still looking for them to be fulfilled. In the letters written before say 250-300ad but especially the ones written in the first 100 years of the Church (up to about ad175) none of them considered these things as being fulfilled in (their) past but wrote about them not only as future events but also as if all of the readers of their letters were of the common understanding that they were still future.

It's an amazing thing to see that in the past and now the current opinion of many is that those who lived between ad71-ad250-300 had no knowledge of these things being fulfilled and as if totally ignorant of Church matters wrote in their letters as if the remaining heads and the ten horns,the beast the mark ect. had not already been fulfilled. This in it's self would mean that the apostles who first began the various Churches had chosen men to afterwards be the leaders of the newly formed Churches who were inadequate in mind to recognize the things taking place from ad70 onward in prophecy.

After about 300ad some trying to reason through what had happened then began to look back at the things that had happened and came to the conclusion that those Church leaders who were given authority by the apostles were of a simple minded nature in regards to understanding the difference between an actual 1000 year reign verses symbolic fulfilments of these events and determined that an a-mill stance was more probable. As if it were the trumping of the apostles opinions by those elders who lived in the third and fourth generation Church they made the decision that they were greater in understanding than those apostles who first chose from among the Churches it's leaders and viewed their opinions as child like,without the ability to grasp the events in front of themselves.

What makes you think the 1st century Church taught these events were future? Some events might have been their future, but our past. Since most of or all of the NT was written before 70AD. All the events in Revelation was being fulfilled or was soon to be fulfilled very soon, in respects to the 1st century Christian.

Regarding the 70 prophetic years, Paul had taught that it was already fulfilled, and Jesus they would be fulfilled by Him soon, via His death and resurrection:

[FONT=&quot]“Seventy weeks are determined[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For your people and for your holy city,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To finish the transgression, [Matthew 23:29-32; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To make an end of sins, [Hebrews 9:15; Colossians 2:13; John 1:29; Romans 5:21; Hebrews 10:17-18; Romans 6:14; Luke 24:46-48][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To make reconciliation for iniquity, [2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 5:11][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To bring in everlasting righteousness, [1 Corinthians 1:30; Romans 3:21-22][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To seal up vision and prophecy, [Luke 24:44; Luke 21:21-23; 2 Corinthians 1:20][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And to anoint the Most Holy. [Hebrews 9]

[/FONT]Paul taught the 70 prophetic weeks as fulfilled, Jesus taught these things would be fulfilled at His death and resurrection and John taught Jesus was the lamb of God that will take away the sins of the world.

 

[Locutus]

Even though the disciples asked about the kingdom restoration there is no evidence that they viewed the restoration as a physical kingdom.

On Pentecost the kingdom was being "restored" with the outpouring of the Spirit.

They had heard Jesus speak of the nature of the kingdom:

Luk 17:20 (NASB) Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;

As the two sticks became one stick Israel was restored to the kingdom, but it was not to be an observable one.

Dispensationlists here are in direct contradiction to the scripture (as usual) in claiming a future physical kingdom that can be observed.

 

[Bookends]

When Jesus came in the flesh Those Jews denied he was come and looked for another and it is believed by most that they met their judgement in ad70 because they did not believe he had come in the flesh. The very definition of an Antichrist in scripture is that they denied he had come in the flesh. In what you say they were to never to have expected an physical kingdom but should have always expected it to be spiritual.

Now in another scripture they were blinded in part for if they would have known they would not have crucified him. So then these who were blinded in part did not realize he had come and this led to them denying him and then because of them not receiving him as the Messiah nor understanding the time of his visitation they were displayed around the moat that Titus dug around the city.

That's a curious thing though when compared to the disciples in Acts 1:6 asking if the kingdom would be restored to Israel at that time. So there then are two groups one is about to receive power in Acts 2 and they think the kingdom would be restored to Israel but are not punished for it. And then there is the group that also thinks it would be restored to Israel physically and who were blinded in part by God and punished.

I'm just trying to reason through the many things I hear people say and so isn’t it odd that one is blinded but guilty and the other not when they both expected the same thing a physical kingdom?

When the disciples asked "when the kingdom of Israel will be restored", I think we should assume that they had the New ORDER, the Church in mind. The kingdom went from being physical to being spiritual as Locutus pointed out..Jesus' answer didn't point the disciples inward toward the physical land/Jerusalem/physical Israel, but started there and went outward toward the ends of the earth. The kingdom is in process of being restored and will not be complete until Christ second coming (in which Jesus alludded to in His answer in Acts 1:7).

 

[iamsoandso]

What makes you think the 1st century Church taught these events were future? Some events might have been their future, but our past. Since most of or all of the NT was written before 70AD. All the events in Revelation was being fulfilled or was soon to be fulfilled very soon, in respects to the 1st century Christian.

Regarding the 70 prophetic years, Paul had taught that it was already fulfilled, and Jesus they would be fulfilled by Him soon, via His death and resurrection:

“Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression, [Matthew 23:29-32; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16]
To make an end of sins, [Hebrews 9:15; Colossians 2:13; John 1:29; Romans 5:21; Hebrews 10:17-18; Romans 6:14; Luke 24:46-48]
To make reconciliation for iniquity, [2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 5:11]
To bring in everlasting righteousness, [1 Corinthians 1:30; Romans 3:21-22]
To seal up vision and prophecy, [Luke 24:44; Luke 21:21-23; 2 Corinthians 1:20]
And to anoint the Most Holy. [Hebrews 9]

Paul taught the 70 prophetic weeks as fulfilled, Jesus taught these things would be fulfilled at His death and resurrection and John taught Jesus was the lamb of God that will take away the sins of the world.

The Millennial Voice of the Early Church Fathers

in their letters they spoke as though the ten horns,beast ect. were still to come. In our day many say one thing or another about when these things happened or were going to happen,that’s one thing. So several years back I wondered how those who lived after ad70 believed on the same matters and searched through their writings to see if they spoke of these issues as if they had happened or if they thought they were still going to happen,just to have another opinion other than the last several generations.

 

[Bookends]

Even though the disciples asked about the kingdom restoration there is no evidence that they viewed the restoration as a physical kingdom.

On Pentecost the kingdom was being "restored" with the outpouring of the Spirit.

They had heard Jesus speak of the nature of the kingdom:

Luk 17:20 (NASB) Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;

As the two sticks became one stick Israel was restored to the kingdom, but it was not to be an observable one.

Dispensationlists here are in direct contradiction to the scripture (as usual) in claiming a future physical kingdom that can be observed.

You're a breath of fresh air. Hopefully some Christians here will have understanding and realize the nature of the whole Israel of God.

 

[Bookends]

The Millennial Voice of the Early Church Fathers

in their letters they spoke as though the ten horns,beast ect. were still to come. In our day many say one thing or another about when these things happened or were going to happen,that’s one thing. So several years back I wondered how those who lived after ad70 believed on the same matters and searched through their writings to see if they spoke of these issues as if they had happened or if they thought they were still going to happen,just to have another opinion other than the last several generations.

OIC,seems to be that God left some things unclear, so that we might dig deeper into His word. More light is given over time, as more evidence, discussion and writings emerge.

 

[iamsoandso]

Even though the disciples asked about the kingdom restoration there is no evidence that they viewed the restoration as a physical kingdom.

On Pentecost the kingdom was being "restored" with the outpouring of the Spirit.

They had heard Jesus speak of the nature of the kingdom:

Luk 17:20 (NASB) Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;

As the two sticks became one stick Israel was restored to the kingdom, but it was not to be an observable one.

Dispensationlists here are in direct contradiction to the scripture (as usual) in claiming a future physical kingdom that can be observed.

I'm not sure if you consider me an Dispensationist or Preterist myself I have listened to the both of them but the common idea is that everyone is either one or the other as if their are only the two choices. I suppose you may see me as in opposition to you but I assure you that if there arise any questions that I have about what someone who is Dispensationist says I will also ask.

In the spirit of the thread title It would seem that seeing the two have debated for years over the same issues and have not convinced the other and then afterwards set out and taught it worldwide those who are neither of the two who had listened to them both would be who will ask the things that they have not yet ask each other. There are those who sit and watch for years,reading along and scratching their heads trying to figure out how these two groups come to some of the conclusions they do. So I mean no offence to either of the two but I am one of the many who are not convinced either are correct,yea they both start off making sense but then end up in foggy grey areas on certain issues. Again no offence is meant to either.

 

[Locutus]

What are these "foggy" issues?

 

[iamsoandso]

What are these "foggy" issues?

In Rev.13 those who receive the mark of the beast buy and sell ect. why is because they worship the image and take the mark. In ad66-70 the Jews who revolted refused to bow down to Rome’s authority and minted their own coins to keep from using money with pagan gods on them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish_Revolt_coinage

At the same time Romans 13,1Peter 2, Hebrews 13:17 are being taught to the Christians by the apostles. so if Rev.13 is fulfilled by ad70 then the image,beast ect. are in the world in that day. Now if it is Rome then the Jews did not receive their mark nor see them as God and the Christians are being told to see them as ordained by God and to render them tithes. So if all things work out as some explain the mark of God and the mark of the beast are on the wrong foreheads.

 

[Locutus]

Firstly the KEY to revelation is identifying the whore of Babylon and the actual city involved in the judgments therein:

Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her.

Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

In the above we have the refrain "rejoice" to the prophets and the apostles for the judgement of the whore for the blood of the servants.

Who was guilty of killing the prophets:

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.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

So what event in history would fulfill Jesus' and John's statements - the war of 66-70 AD.

So when we have correctly identified the whore then this allows us to make sense of ALL of scripture and especially John's revelation.

The blame for killing the prophets can be laid at no other door step than the apostate Jews of the 1st century AD.

This effectively nullifies the whole of dispensational "theology" in one swipe.

We are given the identity of the "great city" as where the Lord was crucified:

(Rev 11:8 KJV) And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

All of the next statements regarding the great city bar one is to do with the great city in Rev 11:8 - a change in identity to another city other than Jerusalem is not given although there is an assumed shift (by some "theologies") to Rome and the RC church who are not guilty of killing the prophets or the Lord.

I challenge anybody to establish where the identity of the great city changes from Jerusalem of the 1st century AD to another city excepting Rev 21:10

 

[iamsoandso]

Firstly the KEY to revelation is identifying the whore of Babylon and the actual city involved in the judgments therein:

Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her.

Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

In the above we have the refrain "rejoice" to the prophets and the apostles for the judgement of the whore for the blood of the servants.

Who was guilty of killing the prophets:

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.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

So what event in history would fulfill Jesus' and John's statements - the war of 66-70 AD.

So when we have correctly identified the whore then this allows us to make sense of ALL of scripture and especially John's revelation.

The blame for killing the prophets can be laid at no other door step than the apostate Jews of the 1st century AD.

This effectively nullifies the whole of dispensational "theology" in one swipe.

We are given the identity of the "great city" as where the Lord was crucified:

(Rev 11:8 KJV) And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

All of the next statements regarding the great city bar one is to do with the great city in Rev 11:8 - a change in identity to another city other than Jerusalem is not given although there is an assumed shift (by some "theologies") to Rome and the RC church who are not guilty of killing the prophets or the Lord.

I challenge anybody to establish where the identity of the great city changes from Jerusalem of the 1st century AD to another city excepting Rev 21:10

I don’t see how this resolves the foggy area of the misapplication of the mark I mentioned in post #271 but some of it might strike me differently than others I'll explain.

As for myself I am Christian but from information of family members,genealogy ect. I also am Jewish with a mixture of dna from Iberia. The point is though that because of this if you consider I spend a vast amount of time reading through post after post article after article and the subject is eventually going to get to Jews,Israel,Judah ect..

I don’t take any offence in this I understand that as Christians the subject is just going to come up as we try to understand the scriptures. At times some will point out that the important thing is to try to understand what was meant to those who lived in those days. They themselves would have understood the symbolic things as quickly as we today would recognize our own slang. Anyway though in Rev. 11:18 it would strike you one way and me another the difference is Sodom is a city destroyed(ad70) and Egypt is captivity(carried into slavery) but as you can see if it belongs to you it sounds different than if it does not.

 

[Locutus]

In Rev.13 those who receive the mark of the beast buy and sell ect. why is because they worship the image and take the mark. In ad66-70 the Jews who revolted refused to bow down to Rome’s authority and minted their own coins to keep from using money with pagan gods on them

At the same time Romans 13,1Peter 2, Hebrews 13:17 are being taught to the Christians by the apostles. so if Rev.13 is fulfilled by ad70 then the image,beast ect. are in the world in that day. Now if it is Rome then the Jews did not receive their mark nor see them as God and the Christians are being told to see them as ordained by God and to render them tithes. So if all things work out as some explain the mark of God and the mark of the beast are on the wrong foreheads.

You need to break this down by reference to each book otherwise I really don't know what you are addressing.

Take Romans 13 first and lets see what we can "hash" out, then when we've done that move on to Peter.

 

[Locutus]

. Anyway though in Rev. 11:18 it would strike you one way and me another the difference is Sodom is a city destroyed(ad70) and Egypt is captivity(carried into slavery) but as you can see if it belongs to you it sounds different than if it does not.

In Rev 11:8 John is claiming the city were the Lord was crucified is "figuratively" called Sodom and Egypt regardless whether they are physical entities so there is only on way for it to "strike" - the whore of Babylon was not really a whore in the physical sense, neither is "she" physical Babylon just as the Pharisees were not vipers or Christians sheep - well some are...


(Rev 11:8 KJV) And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

The Lord did not die in Sodom or Egypt but Jerusalem.

 

[Locutus]

What you need to do soandso is to put the scriptures together in a coherant way noting figurative language and types etc.

John is calling apostate Jews of the 1st century "Sodom" because he is recalling past usage:

Deu 32:28 For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.

Deu 32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:

Egypt is figurative of bondage which the children of God were under


Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

It was the apostate Jews of the 1st century that represented bondage, and they were persecuting the children of the free woman:

1 Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

1 Th 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

As for the mark of the beast, I don't believe fussing over what it was or how it was applied is a necessary study in the scripture unless you are a dispensationlist looking at which possible technology is the best fit, or the signs of the apocalypse in next days daily headlines. *rolls eyes*

 

[iamsoandso]

You need to break this down by reference to each book otherwise I really don't know what you are addressing.

Take Romans 13 first and lets see what we can "hash" out, then when we've done that move on to Peter.

All three references address the same issue. In all of the New Testament books Matthew-Revalation Rome was the power and authority set in place by God (Romans 13:1). There are also other references in scripture concerning the same matter. In Luke Jesus is ask about paying tithes to Caesar he as we know answers in Luke 20:25 telling them to give Caesar's things to him and Gods to God.

There also is the issue in John 2:15 and Matthew 21:12 where the money changers were charging usury that is they were charging the Jews who lived in other nations and came to the temple a fee for exchanging the money they had for money acceptable to be used to pay tithes. Rome's laws did not permit minting of money/coins without their permission. Tyrian shekels were the coins used at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_shekel

So these coins would have been used to pay tithes both to Rome (Romans 13:6-7) or in Acts 21 when Paul went to the Temple. In multiple books in scripture those who are set as governors over any of us are spoken of this way. In Jeremiah 29:5 and Isaiah 65:21 they are told to build houses and dwell in them and why is that they were going into captivity and going to be in subjection to a cruel master ordained by God.

In Daniel it is said that 70 weeks were appointed to end something and it is also revealed that 4 beast would accomplish their appointed times as masters over Daniels people. Now in the days of the Church the several beast had come and were their masters and Rome was governor over them at that time. The apostles it seems saw that until the times of the gentile rule over them was fulfilled then they were still to build houses and dwell in them and to obey the masters set over them as rulers as if they were ordained of God.

So then that appointed length of time from the head,Babylon to the toes or from the first beast until all that is spoken of the fourth all must build houses and obey the authority set over it by God. Now contrary to this if you notice some not recognizing the time of their visitation did not obey and instead of honouring the master set over them revolted before the heads were fully come and the ten horns.

Now the apostles said to Honour the masters above you it would seem because they understood that until the ten kings had received their kingdoms and the other came they were still in the midst of the times determined. There are only two paths to ponder one is that we are to obey the masters set over us and the other is it being accomplished of it's time allotted. If then as some hold to the time's of those beast to whom Daniels people were in bondage is fulfilled then there is no longer necessity to build our houses here and honour their authority any more.

So seeing that Rome was in that day that governor and that it is taught that it is proper to be subject to it's authority as ordained by God it then would be reasonable for the apostles to teach that the Christians were to remain obedient to Rome until it's days were fulfilled. That is if one were to revolt or rebel and the full amount of time of punishment were not yet full and complete in the times of that fourth beast then 70 times more.

It then is no riddle in that the apostles taught to honour Rome as if ordained by God if they thought Rome was still in authority over them. It is not proper if they believed the 70 weeks had been completed. So if then they were under Rome's authority then they were to obey and give tribute and they were not taking the mark if it had not yet come. The others though not recognizing the time of their visitation set out to set off the remainder of the times of their captivity by rebelling and so in doing so before that one came and his mark neither of the two could have it written in their foreheads,the Christians nor the Jews.

 

[Timeline]

Matt 23:1-3 YLT
1Then Jesus spake to the multitudes, and to his disciples, 2saying, ‘On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; 3all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not;

Matt 23:1-3 NASB
1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Perhaps the authority was not just Rome, but also the leaders of the Jews.

Granted, Jesus tells readers/hearers to give to Caesar what it Caesar's, but in these verses He tells them to do and observe all that the scribes and Pharisees tell them.

After Pentecost, however, we see that the Apostles/disciples do not heed the words of the "rulers and elders of the people":

5On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; 6and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. 7When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” 8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, 9if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11“He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. 12“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
13Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. 14And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply. 15But when they had ordered them to leave the Council, they began to confer with one another, 16saying, “What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17“But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.” 18And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

 

[PlainWord]

In Rev 11:8 John is claiming the city were the Lord was crucified is "figuratively" called Sodom and Egypt regardless whether they are physical entities so there is only on way for it to "strike" - the whore of Babylon was not really a whore in the physical sense, neither is "she" physical Babylon just as the Pharisees were not vipers or Christians sheep - well some are...


(Rev 11:8 KJV) And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

The Lord did not die in Sodom or Egypt but Jerusalem.

Who were the two witnesses in your opinion?

 

[PlainWord]

Let's face it, there are two events that both camps (Dispensationalists and Preterists) tend to confuse.

These two events are:

1. The Wrath/Vengeance (AKA Great Tribulation) against Jerusalem in AD 66-70
2. The Future Second Coming of Christ date Unknown

The Dispensationalist almost completely ignores the first and applies virtually all of these events and passages relating to AD 70 events to some future "great tribulation" effecting the whole world. They literalize everything and think the world will go through this massive turmoil where 90% of the population is killed. In their minds, the AntiChrist reigns supreme over the world and requires everyone to take his mark or be killed. They see all of this as God's wrath and since we are not appointed to God's wrath, they invent the Pre-trib rapture to remove the Church. Some of the left behinders will convert to Christ and become so-called Tribulation Saints and many will be slaughtered by the AntiChrist. After the Great Tribulation, Christ returns with all the Saints at the Second Coming then we enter 1,000 year earthly reign where a new Temple is built in Jerusalem.

The Preterist largely think just about everything prophetic has been accomplished. They believe Christ returns once (in a spiritual sense) during the AD 70 events. There are full and partial preterists which is an important distinction. Full preterists typically think everything prophetic is accomplished - Christ’s second coming, the tribulation, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment—has already happened. Many preterists embrace replacement theology as do many in the dispensational camp. Partial Preterists still see a future second coming but no future tribulation and no future antiChrist. Most preterists are amillennialists meaning they don't believe in a literal 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ.

If I had to label myself, I'd be a partial preterist amillennialist which leads me back to my premise, that being I believe there are two distinct and separate events, the Great Tribulation of Israel (AD 66-70) and a future return of Christ (Second Coming). The key is "rightly dividing" which passages go with which event. Who thinks as I do?