TEMPLE......TO BE OR NOT TO BE....THAT IS MY QUESTION!!!!!

That underlined part is the wrong question... it should be, "and what are the things that must come to pass in quickness [noun] after the things WHICH ARE [/exist in the present]?" That's different from the question you're conveying, which I believe misses the point.

Kroogz had it, where he explained:



I believe when one CONFLATES the "in quickness [noun]" of verse 1 with that of the "near/soon [adverb]" issue of the other verses containing this word, only then can one come to the [incorrect] conclusion that the "after these things" things, had to have happened in the first century (the events surrounding 70ad, i.e. "soon" or "imminently" from when written).

I already answered your questions.

That's how "prophecies" work. No?



["Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy ..."]

That's not right. You can make such an argument from verse 1, but not in light of verse 3 and 7. Verse 3 says at hand and verse 7 says those who pierced Him would see Him. You ignore 2 other verses that place the time as 1st century.

How the world can you rightly answer anything if you reject Biblical truth and supplant it with heresies?

That's not right.

Prophesies come with time frames. There are clues to when it is that is being considered. At hand is never considered 2000 years in the future.

Did you read my previous post, where I'd said that v.1's "in quickness [noun]" is speaking of a DISTINCT THING from that of what v.3's adverb "near/soon/imminent" is speaking of?

You mean the understanding you ascribe to. And yet you can't even give the arguments of a book in the Bible made by its author.

@Cameron , you've asked for an outline of Romans... I had made a partial one some time back, perhaps you could peruse this post at link (to save me some typing):

Post #733 (from Jan 2021) - https://christianchat.com/threads/i...-restrains-the-antichrist.195880/post-4459983

Its relationship with verse 1 limits verse 1, not 1 limiting verse 3.

Verse 3 is all about the "writing" / "words" (because the "readers" started once the "writing / words / prophecy of this book" was written and then distributed "unto the churchES"--which started way back then, yeah!!--But "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS" and which take place "AFTER THESE THINGS" [after "the things WHICH ARE"] is prophetic, and not necessary to transpire right then also.)




As to v.7, remember when Peter in Acts 3 said to "ye men of Israel" (v.12), "whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life..." and then said, "And now, brethren,... REPENT ye therefore"... and "many of them which heard the word believed" (4:4), about 5000, I think it says...
So, yes, why would those "ye" not be present in that future day (as we will be)...

(bear in mind also that the "ye" in the Olivet Discourse is a "proleptic 'ye'" and a "consistent 'ye'"...speaking of THOSE TO WHOM the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom was promised: Israel's "earthly things"; "proleptic"=all those in the future of the SAME CATEGORY; It would be like if the governor of California wrote a letter to those living in that state, "when you feel the rumblings start, hightail it outta there and run to Iowa!" The letter isn't telling them "when" it will take place, but that IT WILL and when it DOES, whoever OF THEM are living there at that time needs to RUN, coz this and such is GOING TO TAKE PLACE at that time: "ye Californians, when ye shall SEE ALL OF THESE things...". But suppose it isn't slated to BLOW for another 150-200 years, does this INVALIDATE the "ye" TO WHOM it was addressed? NO!)

That's not right. You can make such an argument from verse 1, but not in light of verse 3 and 7. Verse 3 says at hand and verse 7 says those who pierced Him would see Him. You ignore 2 other verses that place the time as 1st century.
And I've asked you a handful of times what was God's primary message in the book of Revelation. You haven't been considerate enough to give an answer. @Kroogz said it was about the rapture. Do you believe this too?

The point wasn't the outline. The point was the line of reasoning that led to the particular verse in Romans 11. Someone who has studied the book could have done so in a post in 5 minutes. I pressed the issue because I was making a point. Whatever someone believes about the relationship between God and the nation Israel is not a salvation issue and I could care less what someone thinks on the issue. But the verse didn't mean what the poster said it did and understanding Paul's line of thought and the arguments he has made to that point would bear it out. Turns out, the one who accuses others of not accepting the truth of scripture himself is guilty of what he accuses. But that's often the case.
I don't possess a perfect understanding of scripture and don't claim to. But to call someone a heretic because they disagree with their understanding is beyond poor judgment.
And you are full of answers yourself except for the ones that would answer the questions I actually ask you. I've taken time to respond to your posts and answered your questions and objections. Why don't you pay me the same courtesy?

I did not say The revelation was about the rapture. How did you get that idea?

I did not say The revelation was about the rapture. How did you get that idea?

The revelation shows us what must take place AFTER the rapture. It will be the guide for people and Israel going through the Great tribulation.

From post #1131.