End times madness w Matt. 24 Part 1

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Basically i see no unconditional covenants.
Even the one people insist on where the animal was cut in half
needed circumcision to be effectual.

So! if the promises were only good for the believing elect through
Christ. And Jesus pronounced that the nation with its Old covenant
system was left desolate.(matt. 23:38-39) And further Jesus added "till" they say
blessed Is Jesus Christ the messiah (my translation). Then that
pretty much leaves them to find fulfillment in Christ only.

Then their land is Mt Zion, heavenly Jerusalem. Just what Abraham was looking for. heb 11:9-10; 12:22-24.
 
The unholy see and the black see are Seen by the Lion, they carry the mark and it is known. The Dead Sea will be observed by the true Children of God.
 
Abiding. You are really not getting it bigtime.

From your reply to me I can see you are on another world entirely.

I will repost and 'splain it slowly, painfully. I start with a repost.
================================================================
Quote me:
"In any event, you said you don't want to speculate. But indeed you've done lots of it."

Quote you:
"Its not that i wont speculate, ever...i spose in the process of learning a starting point would be called speculating just like as a gold digger is. But i dont teach speculations...or debate them. Understand
what im saying?"

Quote me:
Do I understand? ... oh boy do I. The above has a name. It's usually referred to as semantics. But we can just call them word games.

As if there's a difference. "A rose by any other name..."
You can fill in the rest.

We all "teach", by word and deed. We don't ever stop. A parent knows this. Children learn from everything we say and do.

Only a politician would try to say different as they practice immoral behavior and say it's won't affect their public office.
===========================================
Now your reply to me on the above.

Quote you: "Semantics and speculation. I dont see them even close as a term.
To me speculation is merely a guess, with nearly no support.
Semantics is how you express something. Anyway again i miss your point."
===========================================================

I wasn't saying your 'speculation' is 'semantics'. I was replying, CLEARLY, to what you said in your defense concerning your 'speculation'.

You said that "Its not that i wont speculate" but then you try to differentiate between what you do and what you don't do. "But i dont teach speculations...or debate them".

And then I made the point that there's no difference. I made it clear enough for a grade school student.
But you went on to say "Semantics is how you express something. Anyway again i miss your point."

Yes you did indeed. My point is, what you said in defense of your speculation, that you don't "teach" it, is bogus nonsense. You are playing word games when you say "i dont teach speculations...or debate them" .

There is no difference.

Your semantics and word games are when you say "I don't teach" speculations, like somehow your speculations are more righteous.

You speculate. Your specualtio IS "teaching". My point about parents and children. Go back and read it.

Somehow, I don't think you're that thick that you can't understand what I said and meant. I think you're just that 'sly'........Mr Bill Clinton. "No, I didn't have sex with that woman". SEMANTICS. He was trying to make what he did righteous. 'Fellatio' isn't "sex" after all... right?

You get it yet? I think the rest of the world has. Oh wait, the grade school is on the phone, the principal says the students have written essays on "We get it, how come abiding doesn't"

===========================================================

Next.

Quote you:
"See? I told you you were baiting me. Unless its just for forum attention, get on with it.
I hold no firm eschatological position as yet.

No, you are a preterist. You have made it abundantly clear. There's no mistake. You have said repeatedly that you feel matthew 24 was all over with in 70 AD.

THAT'S PRETERISM.

Quote you:
"But other than that, im not firmly convinced enough to hold onto wires so
you can flip the switch."

Man, are you really that thick. Does everything go straight over your head?

My stories were not "parallism" for mr abiding. I was making the point that we all will be held responsible for our actions and beliefs. You're no exception!

And if you want everyone to believe that what is coming out of your mouth YOU REALLY BELIEVE, then remember, have the guts to put your money where your mouth is.

Just like when I told the guy to fork over $55.00. Just like the guy who was convinced he knew what he was talking about.

You will one day be asked, do you really believe what you are saying? And someone will say "hold on to this while we run the test".

You got the guts? Good luck!
 
Abiding. You are really not getting it bigtime.

From your reply to me I can see you are on another world entirely.

I will repost and 'splain it slowly, painfully. I start with a repost.
================================================================
Quote me:
"In any event, you said you don't want to speculate. But indeed you've done lots of it."

Quote you:
"Its not that i wont speculate, ever...i spose in the process of learning a starting point would be called speculating just like as a gold digger is. But i dont teach speculations...or debate them. Understand
what im saying?"

Quote me:
Do I understand? ... oh boy do I. The above has a name. It's usually referred to as semantics. But we can just call them word games.

As if there's a difference. "A rose by any other name..."
You can fill in the rest.

We all "teach", by word and deed. We don't ever stop. A parent knows this. Children learn from everything we say and do.

Only a politician would try to say different as they practice immoral behavior and say it's won't affect their public office.
===========================================
Now your reply to me on the above.

Quote you: "Semantics and speculation. I dont see them even close as a term.
To me speculation is merely a guess, with nearly no support.
Semantics is how you express something. Anyway again i miss your point."
===========================================================

I wasn't saying your 'speculation' is 'semantics'. I was replying, CLEARLY, to what you said in your defense concerning your 'speculation'.

You said that "Its not that i wont speculate" but then you try to differentiate between what you do and what you don't do. "But i dont teach speculations...or debate them".

And then I made the point that there's no difference. I made it clear enough for a grade school student.
But you went on to say "Semantics is how you express something. Anyway again i miss your point."

Yes you did indeed. My point is, what you said in defense of your speculation, that you don't "teach" it, is bogus nonsense. You are playing word games when you say "i dont teach speculations...or debate them" .

There is no difference.

Your semantics and word games are when you say "I don't teach" speculations, like somehow your speculations are more righteous.

You speculate. Your specualtio IS "teaching". My point about parents and children. Go back and read it.

Somehow, I don't think you're that thick that you can't understand what I said and meant. I think you're just that 'sly'........Mr Bill Clinton. "No, I didn't have sex with that woman". SEMANTICS. He was trying to make what he did righteous. 'Fellatio' isn't "sex" after all... right?

You get it yet? I think the rest of the world has. Oh wait, the grade school is on the phone, the principal says the students have written essays on "We get it, how come abiding doesn't"

===========================================================

Next.

Quote you:
"See? I told you you were baiting me. Unless its just for forum attention, get on with it.
I hold no firm eschatological position as yet.

No, you are a preterist. You have made it abundantly clear. There's no mistake. You have said repeatedly that you feel matthew 24 was all over with in 70 AD.

THAT'S PRETERISM.

Quote you:
"But other than that, im not firmly convinced enough to hold onto wires so
you can flip the switch."

Man, are you really that thick. Does everything go straight over your head?

My stories were not "parallism" for mr abiding. I was making the point that we all will be held responsible for our actions and beliefs. You're no exception!

And if you want everyone to believe that what is coming out of your mouth YOU REALLY BELIEVE, then remember, have the guts to put your money where your mouth is.

Just like when I told the guy to fork over $55.00. Just like the guy who was convinced he knew what he was talking about.

You will one day be asked, do you really believe what you are saying? And someone will say "hold on to this while we run the test".

You got the guts? Good luck!

This is Good stuff apocalypse. But it doent change my attitude any.
I can say what i think is true, and, say im not absolutely sure about another part because
I havnt done all the homework thats necessary yet.

So the disclaimer in my opinion allows me to dialogue. And feel honest.

Why would you say i want people to believe what comes out of my mouth? Did i say that?

What is your motive in talking to me at all?
Yes at this point im in a different world, and dull.
Certianly possible
 
Abiding. You are really not getting it bigtime.

From your reply to me I can see you are on another world entirely.

I will repost and 'splain it slowly, painfully. I start with a repost.
================================================================
Quote me:
"In any event, you said you don't want to speculate. But indeed you've done lots of it."

Quote you:
"Its not that i wont speculate, ever...i spose in the process of learning a starting point would be called speculating just like as a gold digger is. But i dont teach speculations...or debate them. Understand
what im saying?"

Quote me:
Do I understand? ... oh boy do I. The above has a name. It's usually referred to as semantics. But we can just call them word games.

As if there's a difference. "A rose by any other name..."
You can fill in the rest.

We all "teach", by word and deed. We don't ever stop. A parent knows this. Children learn from everything we say and do.

Only a politician would try to say different as they practice immoral behavior and say it's won't affect their public office.
===========================================
Now your reply to me on the above.

Quote you: "Semantics and speculation. I dont see them even close as a term.
To me speculation is merely a guess, with nearly no support.
Semantics is how you express something. Anyway again i miss your point."
===========================================================

I wasn't saying your 'speculation' is 'semantics'. I was replying, CLEARLY, to what you said in your defense concerning your 'speculation'.

You said that "Its not that i wont speculate" but then you try to differentiate between what you do and what you don't do. "But i dont teach speculations...or debate them".

And then I made the point that there's no difference. I made it clear enough for a grade school student.
But you went on to say "Semantics is how you express something. Anyway again i miss your point."

Yes you did indeed. My point is, what you said in defense of your speculation, that you don't "teach" it, is bogus nonsense. You are playing word games when you say "i dont teach speculations...or debate them" .

There is no difference.

Your semantics and word games are when you say "I don't teach" speculations, like somehow your speculations are more righteous.

You speculate. Your specualtio IS "teaching". My point about parents and children. Go back and read it.

Somehow, I don't think you're that thick that you can't understand what I said and meant. I think you're just that 'sly'........Mr Bill Clinton. "No, I didn't have sex with that woman". SEMANTICS. He was trying to make what he did righteous. 'Fellatio' isn't "sex" after all... right?

You get it yet? I think the rest of the world has. Oh wait, the grade school is on the phone, the principal says the students have written essays on "We get it, how come abiding doesn't"

===========================================================

Next.

Quote you:
"See? I told you you were baiting me. Unless its just for forum attention, get on with it.
I hold no firm eschatological position as yet.

No, you are a preterist. You have made it abundantly clear. There's no mistake. You have said repeatedly that you feel matthew 24 was all over with in 70 AD.

THAT'S PRETERISM.

Quote you:
"But other than that, im not firmly convinced enough to hold onto wires so
you can flip the switch."

Man, are you really that thick. Does everything go straight over your head?

My stories were not "parallism" for mr abiding. I was making the point that we all will be held responsible for our actions and beliefs. You're no exception!

And if you want everyone to believe that what is coming out of your mouth YOU REALLY BELIEVE, then remember, have the guts to put your money where your mouth is.

Just like when I told the guy to fork over $55.00. Just like the guy who was convinced he knew what he was talking about.

You will one day be asked, do you really believe what you are saying? And someone will say "hold on to this while we run the test".

You got the guts? Good luck!

I dont know why but when I read this, I kept picturing an angry redheaded kid stomping his foot.

Don't know why he had red hair either, nothing against red heads.
 
Gabriel is with me, that is the message. Your heart will decide if you take heed. I was protected from the church, it's not safe..I'm learning rapidly now. We all are, in our own way. Search your soul for truth. When the true Chrism is received then we will know each other as it was.

Wow, really? Are you sure it wasn't Joseph Smith?
 

Attachments

  • Hewbrew 1-2 Gabriel.jpg
    Hewbrew 1-2 Gabriel.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 26
images
 
I do not mean to offend, I hope you will feel the same way.
Will you take the time to read the following and see if you might understand that absolutely everything in the Bible is about Jesus.

It is written about Him.

Paul is discussing a lot in Galatians, but he covers the Promises, plural, and applies ALL the Promises (no matter the Covenant) to the Beneficiary, Jesus. The Promises of the Testament (Will), are only for those who will inherit what is in it.

The New Testament changes terms in the greek; the "Land" promise becomes a universal term

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. - Galatians 3:15 NASB




"When a man writes his last will and testament, he puts within that will his wishes as to what is to be done with his estate. Among other things, he specifies who are to be the beneficiaries. He is under no obligation to include them in the will, and the inheritance is not compensation for what the beneficiaries have done. The fact, nevertheless, is that if they are named in this will, then they are to receive the inheritance.

Paul notes here that even in the case of a human will, once it has been confirmed or validated, the terms therein cannot be altered. After the death of the testator, its instructions must be carried out in every detail. The implication is that the testament of God, who is infinitely more trustworthy than man, is all the more dependable and unchangeable. Paul sets this up as an illustration of why the Mosaic law must not be interpreted as an annulment or alteration of the terms of the Abrahamic covenant.

The point is that nothing which came after this legal arrangement with Abraham would change the original covenant that God made with him. Both the Gentile Christians in Galatia along with the Judaizers would have understood this illustration. They would have concluded that the blessing, which was given to Abraham by God, was received by Abraham by faith as he believed in the promises of God.

This "irrevocable trust agreement" that God made with Abraham is described in terms of the beneficiary of the trust (v. 16), the date of the trust (v. 17), and the condition for inheritance (v. 18).

Our study of these terms of the Abrahamic covenant will enable us to appreciate the gracious, unconditional nature of God's love for us.

The Beneficiary of the Trust

Galatians 3:16 (NASB) Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

Now, as to the promises given to Abraham, the Judaizers would argue that they were only given to Israel since they were the seed or descendants of Abraham. Therefore, since Abraham was later instructed by God to be circumcised, along with his family, the Judaizers' reasoning was that to be a true Christian, who has accepted the Messiah who came through the Jews, everyone must be circumcised to lock in their salvation.

Following that line of argument, Paul says, "God specified in His will that the beneficiaries were to be Abraham and his seed." The apostle calls particular attention to the word "seed," as distinguished from "seeds." And that singular seed that God had in Christ, not all the blood descendants of Abraham....

...Paul is saying that the primary recipients of the Abrahamic covenant were Abraham and Christ. This, of course, would include all who are in Christ - believers. This promise is not realized in the Jews, but Christians.

...Genesis 15:18 (NASB) On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

By quoting the specific geographic boundaries that Abram's descendants will inherit, God makes it plain that Abraham's physical descendants will reap the benefit of this covenant. Israel will inherit real land. But their inheritance of the land was only a type....

...We have to realize that Paul's definition of seed contradicts the Jewish nationalistic interpretation of this term. Jews were convinced that the term seed referred to the physical descendants of Abraham, the Jewish people. Therefore, they believed it was absolutely necessary to belong to the Jewish nation in order to receive the blessings promised to Abraham.

Paul is just as exclusive as his Jewish counterparts, but his exclusivity is not based on ethnic identity. Since Christ is the heir of the promises, all those, and only those, who are in Christ by faith are beneficiaries of the irrevocable trust agreement God made with Abraham:

And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise - Galatians 3:29

When God established the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12 and then expanded upon it in Genesis 15 and 17, what was Abraham thinking? What did he understand? What sort of fulfillment was Abraham looking forward to when he was given the word of promise concerning the land? What did he expect? Did he look for an earthly fulfillment? Did Abraham just see the type or did he see past the type to the anti-type? According to God's Word in the book of Hebrews, Abraham was looking past the type to the anti-type, he was looking for a heavenly city:

By faith he [Abraham] lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. - Hebrews 11:9-10

By faith he dwelt in the land of promise. By faith in God's promise of a heavenly city he lived as a pilgrim on the earth. He knew the earth wasn't his home, so he never tried to make it his home. The city Abraham was looking for was the heavenly Jerusalem. The writer relates:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, - Hebrews 12:22-23

From these verses we can see the different description of the same entity; the city, the kingdom, the heavenly Jerusalem, the church, and Mount Zion. These all have their fulfillment in the New Covenant as established in the first century. This was in contrast to the old, physical, earthly city of Jerusalem."
Berean Bible Church



With all due respect, I'm afraid you are making the same mistake the 1st Century Jews made - not understanding that the Land Promise was a temporary type only.



"The Date of the Trust

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. - Galatians 3:17

So 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant was given, an additional arrangement was instituted by God. This time God made an agreement, not a promise, with Israel. This agreement demanded certain responsibilities of each party to the agreement. There were consequences involved, and each side had to uphold its part. But that agreement was made at a much later time than the promise, that was given to Abraham, thus it could have no effect on that promise. The promise and the agreement cannot be mixed together with one another, because they accomplish different results. Thus, the fact that the Law came later cannot invalidate the great, life-giving promise that was given originally. That is the argument of these verses.

The Mosiac covenant does not invalidate the Abrahamic covenant - God's promises in the Abrahamic covenant still stand.

The Condition for Inheritance

For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Galatians 3:18

"The Law" here is a reference to the Mosaic covenant. This was not a promise, but an agreement:

'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; Exodus 19:5

Have God's promises to Abraham been fully fulfilled? Those theologians who are yet looking for a golden age for national Israel do not think so. But Paul makes it abundantly clear that the promised descendant of Abraham is Christ. And it is through Christ, through faith in His subsitutional death that people from all nations will be blessed."
Berean Bible Church




Again, with all due respect, Peter, who was Jewish, never said Jews or anyone else should look for, or would receive anything other than this:

But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. - 2 Peter 3:13

Peter even connects it to the Promise. Why didn't Peter say, "in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a restored Judea, Jerusalem and inheriting the Land in the Middle East" He didn't say anything like that, though he should have is what you believe is true.

Thank you Marianna, you articulate this very well, much better then I. I hope my friend EG will be able to see this marvelous mystery. God Bless you.
 
(1) Why would you say i want people to believe what comes out of my mouth? Did i say that?

(2) What is your motive in talking to me at all?

(1) You mean to say that you want those who hear you to relegate your words to the superfluous and the redundant? You slay me.

(2) You began talking to me as I recall. Correct me if I'm wrong.

With this I end our little bantor.

When the music stops, and you go to sit down, and you look back to see there's no chair, and then you remember that you threw that chair in the trash compactor, blame no person but he who resides in the mirror.​
 
ARE YOU BEING PICKED ON ABIDING. THE SQUIRREL AND ME WE DON'T LIKE THAT.:cool:
 
Wow, really? Are you sure it wasn't Joseph Smith?

haha, who knows...I think I would have run though.

I did not ask for this, and no angels appear in blazing light before me. I sensed a presence and he spoke to my soul. I have given you the words to make your own choice. I can see the symbols everywhere and I can decipher their truth. I have learned the truth of the beginning. When the father of Time and the mother of Fate formed the Holy Trinity here upon this Earth. This was God's will.
 
People who believe most, (partial preterist), or all(preterist), Biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, tend to be angry with those of us who don't think it's mostly yet fulfilled. I'm not angry with u, so why is my belief considered "madness"? There are so many holes in the theory that daniel & matt.24 etc have already been fulfilled, that u really shouldn't be getting angery & calling our view "madness". Most of these people won't even allow a good end times discussion about upcoming propehcy fulfillment. I see nothing Christian about such behavior. I noticed several preterists/partial, referring to "josephus" as ususal. JOSEPHUS IS NOT BIBLICAL & IS NOT IN THE BIBLE & WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE. What power does Josephus have over you, that you need Josephus to be able to uderstand Jesus? Why don't u see that as a problem? The definition of "generation" in Matt;24 referring to these things & this "generation shall not pass until all these things have been fulfilled"
Generation definition means Nation!!! The entire chapter is talking about nations!! If it was referring to the age of the apostles & you are believing everything Josephus says, well guess what? Most of the apostles were MARTYRED before Josephus' 70 a.d. Now what next? Ok let's say we can't take rev or Matt. literally, we take the rest of the Bible literally & Josephus literally, but matt. 24 & rev will be taken metaphorically. That's a cop out. 70 a.d. does not fulfill the prophecy if most of the apostles are dead. If any of the apostles are dead, before 70 a.d., then biblical prophecy was wrong. (according to you & Josephus). Biblical prophecy is never wrong, so are you going to say that the apostles wern't martyed before 70 ad?
John wrote the book of Rev AFTER 70 AD.
Do you think anyone outside Jerusalem thought the world was coming to an end right then? famine, pestilence, wars, worlwide earthquakes? Why is matt 24 talking about all these nations & the whole world yet 99 % of the world didn't know what was happening in 70 a.d. in Jerusalem?
"everyone will see his coming" ? I missed it. Anyone else see it ? Did Josephus write about seeing it in his book?
In 1948 Israel became a nation again. It is NOT destroyed. They were given the exact dimensions of land described in the old testament. (belonging to the descendents of Abraham).
A couple of yrs later, in the 50's tv came into our homes, where most of us can "see" things happening all over the world. If Jesus were to come today, all the world could see him if we were outside, & after the trumpet sounded we would all go outside to see what it was anyway.
My "madness" didn't tell me we were living in the millenium, the 1000 yr reign of Christ on earth. The Bible says we will travel to see him from all over the world. Did Josephus say where He was? Do any of u know? I sure would like to know. It seems to me that He is NOT ruling the earth literally or metaphorically!!
So since all or most of this prophecy has been fulfilled, then we are living in the millenium AND satan is bound huh? Now who's mad? It's obvious satan is not bound, but u will stick to trusting josephus.
Ok so then the great tribulation is over, & who did the antichrist turn out to be? Nero? because the money/coins had his face on it? well then again biblical prophecy was wrong because no one had the mark of the beast on their hand or forehead. since biblical prophecy is never wrong what is the metaphor here?
during the millenium beasts dont kill people. is that not to be taken literally too ? what's the metaphor? There's not supposed to be any wars in the millenium. or was the millenium from 70 ad to 1770? oops!! so what is going on? what would Josephus say we shoudl do?
 
People who believe most, (partial preterist), or all(preterist), Biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, tend to be angry with those of us who don't think it's mostly yet fulfilled. I'm not angry with u, so why is my belief considered "madness"? There are so many holes in the theory that daniel & matt.24 etc have already been fulfilled, that u really shouldn't be getting angery & calling our view "madness". Most of these people won't even allow a good end times discussion about upcoming propehcy fulfillment. I see nothing Christian about such behavior. I noticed several preterists/partial, referring to "josephus" as ususal. JOSEPHUS IS NOT BIBLICAL & IS NOT IN THE BIBLE & WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE. What power does Josephus have over you, that you need Josephus to be able to uderstand Jesus? Why don't u see that as a problem? The definition of "generation" in Matt;24 referring to these things & this "generation shall not pass until all these things have been fulfilled"
Generation definition means Nation!!! The entire chapter is talking about nations!! If it was referring to the age of the apostles & you are believing everything Josephus says, well guess what? Most of the apostles were MARTYRED before Josephus' 70 a.d. Now what next? Ok let's say we can't take rev or Matt. literally, we take the rest of the Bible literally & Josephus literally, but matt. 24 & rev will be taken metaphorically. That's a cop out. 70 a.d. does not fulfill the prophecy if most of the apostles are dead. If any of the apostles are dead, before 70 a.d., then biblical prophecy was wrong. (according to you & Josephus). Biblical prophecy is never wrong, so are you going to say that the apostles wern't martyed before 70 ad?
John wrote the book of Rev AFTER 70 AD.
Do you think anyone outside Jerusalem thought the world was coming to an end right then? famine, pestilence, wars, worlwide earthquakes? Why is matt 24 talking about all these nations & the whole world yet 99 % of the world didn't know what was happening in 70 a.d. in Jerusalem?
"everyone will see his coming" ? I missed it. Anyone else see it ? Did Josephus write about seeing it in his book?
In 1948 Israel became a nation again. It is NOT destroyed. They were given the exact dimensions of land described in the old testament. (belonging to the descendents of Abraham).
A couple of yrs later, in the 50's tv came into our homes, where most of us can "see" things happening all over the world. If Jesus were to come today, all the world could see him if we were outside, & after the trumpet sounded we would all go outside to see what it was anyway.
My "madness" didn't tell me we were living in the millenium, the 1000 yr reign of Christ on earth. The Bible says we will travel to see him from all over the world. Did Josephus say where He was? Do any of u know? I sure would like to know. It seems to me that He is NOT ruling the earth literally or metaphorically!!
So since all or most of this prophecy has been fulfilled, then we are living in the millenium AND satan is bound huh? Now who's mad? It's obvious satan is not bound, but u will stick to trusting josephus.
Ok so then the great tribulation is over, & who did the antichrist turn out to be? Nero? because the money/coins had his face on it? well then again biblical prophecy was wrong because no one had the mark of the beast on their hand or forehead. since biblical prophecy is never wrong what is the metaphor here?
during the millenium beasts dont kill people. is that not to be taken literally too ? what's the metaphor? There's not supposed to be any wars in the millenium. or was the millenium from 70 ad to 1770? oops!! so what is going on? what would Josephus say we shoudl do?

I'm sorry you feel that I'm angry, I'm not...but you sound angry. There are also a lot, I would say more, pre-treb, pre-mill preachers, radio stations, books, movies, etc. etc. out there then PP have. This is site is a forum in where I can openly express my eschatology. If you disagree, that's fine, feel free to tell me why. But place to attack me, debate me with love and charity. That's all I ask.

BTW, in my first and original post I never mentioned Josephus, I would say I read about 3 or 4 % of his stuff. lol. I only use him and other historians to a feel for the time and see what happened according their view. Just like you might read the left-behind serious or another persons view points and writings.

take care, may God's love and peace fill your being.
 
People who believe most, (partial preterist), or all(preterist), Biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, tend to be angry with those of us who don't think it's mostly yet fulfilled. I'm not angry with u, so why is my belief considered "madness"? There are so many holes in the theory that daniel & matt.24 etc have already been fulfilled, that u really shouldn't be getting angery & calling our view "madness". Most of these people won't even allow a good end times discussion about upcoming propehcy fulfillment. I see nothing Christian about such behavior. I noticed several preterists/partial, referring to "josephus" as ususal. JOSEPHUS IS NOT BIBLICAL & IS NOT IN THE BIBLE & WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE. What power does Josephus have over you, that you need Josephus to be able to uderstand Jesus? Why don't u see that as a problem? The definition of "generation" in Matt;24 referring to these things & this "generation shall not pass until all these things have been fulfilled"
Generation definition means Nation!!! The entire chapter is talking about nations!! If it was referring to the age of the apostles & you are believing everything Josephus says, well guess what? Most of the apostles were MARTYRED before Josephus' 70 a.d. Now what next? Ok let's say we can't take rev or Matt. literally, we take the rest of the Bible literally & Josephus literally, but matt. 24 & rev will be taken metaphorically. That's a cop out. 70 a.d. does not fulfill the prophecy if most of the apostles are dead. If any of the apostles are dead, before 70 a.d., then biblical prophecy was wrong. (according to you & Josephus). Biblical prophecy is never wrong, so are you going to say that the apostles wern't martyed before 70 ad?
John wrote the book of Rev AFTER 70 AD.
Do you think anyone outside Jerusalem thought the world was coming to an end right then? famine, pestilence, wars, worlwide earthquakes? Why is matt 24 talking about all these nations & the whole world yet 99 % of the world didn't know what was happening in 70 a.d. in Jerusalem?
"everyone will see his coming" ? I missed it. Anyone else see it ? Did Josephus write about seeing it in his book?
In 1948 Israel became a nation again. It is NOT destroyed. They were given the exact dimensions of land described in the old testament. (belonging to the descendents of Abraham).
A couple of yrs later, in the 50's tv came into our homes, where most of us can "see" things happening all over the world. If Jesus were to come today, all the world could see him if we were outside, & after the trumpet sounded we would all go outside to see what it was anyway.
My "madness" didn't tell me we were living in the millenium, the 1000 yr reign of Christ on earth. The Bible says we will travel to see him from all over the world. Did Josephus say where He was? Do any of u know? I sure would like to know. It seems to me that He is NOT ruling the earth literally or metaphorically!!
So since all or most of this prophecy has been fulfilled, then we are living in the millenium AND satan is bound huh? Now who's mad? It's obvious satan is not bound, but u will stick to trusting josephus.
Ok so then the great tribulation is over, & who did the antichrist turn out to be? Nero? because the money/coins had his face on it? well then again biblical prophecy was wrong because no one had the mark of the beast on their hand or forehead. since biblical prophecy is never wrong what is the metaphor here?
during the millenium beasts dont kill people. is that not to be taken literally too ? what's the metaphor? There's not supposed to be any wars in the millenium. or was the millenium from 70 ad to 1770? oops!! so what is going on? what would Josephus say we shoudl do?

Sorry your miffed. I understand. But 70ad was no tiny blimp on the screen of redemptive history.
And i suppose some will turn to historians both about 70ad, the fall of Babylon. etc by the way
futurists do the same thing when it floats their boat..right?

A great deal of prophecy in the Old Testament was dedicated to the Life of the messiah and the
closing of the OldCovenant, Pencticost, 70ad...and the church age. Alot of futurists seem to not
want to acknowledge that and end up misunderstanding scripture and adopting a very different
world view.

Of coarse you know Jesus said His kingdom was not from this world...which fits very wonderfully
with the OldTestament prophecies..along with the book of Hebrews. Many of the Oldtestament
prophecies are used by futurists as the milliinal age, most of these OT prophecies have
nothing to do with the future Kingdom they describe . Thats just my opinion.

Yes rev 20 is not just a quick read. The binding of Satan has to be understood along with the rest
of the new testament. Where there is ample info. But i understand the sentiment.

Go back to the Old testament where your getting these visions of a future kingdom.
Put them along side the new testament including Hebrews. They make more sense.

Preterists dont believe all prophecy is fulfilled....we just cant be called futurists saying
that so much that has been fulfilled hasnt been.

Feel free as you said and show the holes in Daniel and Matthew 24 being fulfilled.
You gave many interesting comments..ie the word nations for generation....etc and much more
that id love to comment on...But i shall not, because its too much at a time.

Hope you post more...thats whats fun about the forums :)
 
Last edited:
you misread. I didn't say that Matt 24 & dan .were fulfilled, I said there's holes in the theory that they have been fulfilled. I'm not a preterist or a partial preterist. Only they believe that theory. read back. Yet I'm not calling them "full of madness" & insulting their Christian beliefs with namecalling.
 
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The madness is that Christians don’t think that Matt24 is talking about the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 24:21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

It will be the worst it as ever been or ever shall be, and his angels gather together his elect from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven

Deuteronomy 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;
 
I'm saying the pre-trib, pre-mil, rapture theory, and an age after this one that you would call the millennium madness, but not you personally mad, just the theory and theories that come out of it..