PDA

View Full Version : When did Caiaphas die?


Bro Tony
04-06-2004, 01:02 PM
Is anyone here aware of any historical information concerning the date of Caiaphas' death? Some of my friends that are full preterists state that Matthew 26:64 speaks of the second coming and that it took place in 70AD. Caiaphas being the high priest at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry must of been up in age. Jesus spoke these words to him approximately 40 years before 70AD. It seems highly unlikely Caiaphas was alive in 70AD and this verse be speaking of the second coming. If anyone has some information I would appreciate it.
Thanks and God Bless,
Bro Tony

Grasshopper
04-06-2004, 03:46 PM
My question as a Preterist would be if He is not talking about His Coming, what will Caiaphus see? And did he see it.

Here is a thread on this discussion:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2152.html

Bro Tony
04-06-2004, 06:09 PM
That is my question also. While the discussion you refer to deals with the generation question, it does not deal with whether Jesus was telling Caiaphas specifically that he would be there for the second coming. If it did like full preterist state happen in 70 AD, was Caiaphas alive then and what did he see? Any historical information about Caiaphas?

Bro Tony

Grasshopper
04-06-2004, 08:27 PM
If it did like full preterist state happen in 70 AD, was Caiaphas alive then and what did he see? He saw the Lord coming in judgement on Jerusalem.

It is up to the futurist to interpret the passage in another way than its obvious meaning.

Daniel David
04-06-2004, 08:31 PM
GH, did he also see the Lord sitting beside the Father in heaven?

Grasshopper
04-06-2004, 08:58 PM
His judgement on Jerusalem was the proof that Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the Father.

So it is up to you, did he see it or did he not? I take the word of Jesus that he did.

Daniel David
04-06-2004, 09:43 PM
I thought the judgment was his coming in clouds in a mythical way.

Grasshopper
04-06-2004, 10:37 PM
64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.


Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power,

DD says,"No you won't!"

Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven

DD says," No you won't!"

And you call me a heretic.

Isaiah 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, Jehovah rideth upon a swift cloud , and cometh unto Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall tremble at his presence; and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

So was that mystical?

Ps. 18: 9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; And thick darkness was under his feet.
10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he soared upon the wings of the wind

So was that "coming" physical? Did He ride a cherub? Or is this more mysticism.

I have a feeling the 1st century Jews, Caiaphus in particular, understood what Jesus was saying. His mind wasn't corrupted with western thought.

Bro Tony
04-06-2004, 11:21 PM
GH,

Do you hold to the understanding that Jesus' second coming happened in 70AD, and that the teaching concerning the second coming refers only to the judgment on Jerusalem through Titus.

What about what the two angels said in Acts 1:11, "...This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." Do you not believe in the literal, physical return of Christ. That is the orthodox view of the second coming, not some mystical coming in judgment, where he never really comes.

My question still remains, I find it hard to believe that Caiaphas was alive in 70AD. Does anyone have any concrete info on this?

Bro Tony

Dr. Bob
04-07-2004, 03:17 AM
All conjecture trying to uphold a failed view of preterism, Tony. But it is fun to try to visualize!

Bro Tony
04-07-2004, 01:09 PM
Dr Bob,

It certainly seems that way because no preterist has yet been willing to answer my questions.

Bro Tony graemlins/thumbs.gif

Plain Old Bill
04-07-2004, 01:56 PM
He served as high priest from 18-36 ad. Since the high priests were the elders of the priestly group that would suggest he did not live much beyond 36 A.D. when he was deposed.

Plain Old Bill
04-07-2004, 02:07 PM
Also it is said he died in his 60's from what I can dig up.Based on the bones of a 60 year old man found in his tomb.

Glory Bound
04-07-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
All conjecture trying to uphold a failed view of preterism, Tony. But it is fun to try to visualize! I find the preterist view interesting, but I have no idea of what the actually truth is. Too many ways to interpret to be able to say for sure.

As far as Caiaphas... Did Jesus say that Caiaphas would not die before seeing His return? Perhaps Caiaphas would indeed see the return... from whatever eternal abode he occupies.

Just a thought ...

Bro Tony
04-07-2004, 02:46 PM
Bill,

Thanks for the information. Could you give me the source it would really be helpful.

GB

While full preterism is interesting it has no Scriptural support. One has to jump through alot of hoops to make full preterism even make sense logically much less biblically. They believe the 2nd coming occurred in AD 70, that it was not literal or physical but in God's judgment on Jerusalem through Titus. Matthew 26: 64, Jesus is addressing Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, He says, "..you will see the Son of Man...coming in the clouds". Now the full preterist does not believe that Caiaphas would see the literal return of Christ, because they deny it, but they do believe that Jesus was saying Caiaphas would see the judgment of Jerusalem that took place in 70 AD. Not possible if Caiaphas died before 70 AD, that would be the death-nail for full preterism. The you Jesus was talking about could not be literally Caiaphas if he was already dead by 70 AD.

Bro Tony

Glory Bound
04-07-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Bro Tony:
While full preterism is interesting it has no Scriptural support.Well, I wouldn't say "no Scriptural support"... it may not have total support, but I don't really think any viewpoint does. I find it interesting because it does answer some of the questions I've wondered about, particularly in Matthew 24. But there are other issues that I still wonder about.

I'm not taking sides in this debate - I've read too many books, articles and posts where it seems every side can fully explain their views - and yet other sides can refute at least some of them. I don't think we have enough information to fully say for sure - and I don't think God wanted us to know, evidently. It makes for lively conversation, and perhaps an incentive for Bible study, though.

I do appreciate your thoughts on the subject, Bro. Tony!

Dr. Bob
04-07-2004, 03:48 PM
Very few "full" preterists, since the view is so allegorical and mystical. Most are "partial" preterists, which allows them to pick-and-choose what is prophesied in the Word that was fulfilled in AD70 or still to be fulfilled.

Such "partialists" REALLY do damage to the Scripture as this eclectic melding of events in various time frames is 100% subjective.

Grasshopper
04-07-2004, 06:47 PM
Do you hold to the understanding that Jesus' second coming happened in 70AD, and that the teaching concerning the second coming refers only to the judgment on Jerusalem through Titus. Yes. Though I came kicking and screaming to this view. I found that the OT backs me up on this.

What about what the two angels said in Acts 1:11, "...This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." Do you not believe in the literal, physical return of Christ. That is the orthodox view of the second coming, not some mystical coming in judgment, where he never really comes. How was He taken up? In what manner?
You are correct that the orthodox view is in opposition to mine.

That is the orthodox view of the second coming, not some mystical coming in judgment, where he never really comes. Did He really come in the OT when He said He would? Should I show you several verses where He "comes in the clouds" and in Judgement? I think the 1st century Jews would have a clear understanding of these terms.

My question still remains, I find it hard to believe that Caiaphas was alive in 70AD. Does anyone have any concrete info on this? Suppose Caiaphus did die prior to AD70. You still have the scribes and elders who were the "YE" Jesus was speaking about.
You have still not given an alternate interpretation of this verse if it is not speaking of His return. What was He referring too and did Caiaphus see it? What was Jesus talking about?

One has to jump through alot of hoops to make full preterism even make sense logically much less biblically. I actually find just the opposite to be true. Futurist must deny a lot of clear passages to refute preterism.

All conjecture trying to uphold a failed view of preterism, Tony. But it is fun to try to visualize! Dr. Bob , DD and others are quick to point out preterism is wrong, but when it comes to dealing with the difficult scriptures they are strangely absent. Or maybe its not so strange.


Now perhaps you would like do deal with some verses that others will not or can not do.

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

Who are the "you" and "Ye"

Compare this with Matt. 23 when Jesus is talking to the Pharasies.

Matt 23:34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:


Matt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.28 Verily I say unto you , there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Who are the "you" and "they" that would see His coming and judgement in vs.27 and His Kingdom in vs. 28?


Luke 23: 27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him. 28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children .29 For behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts that never gave suck.30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us .

How does a futurist view these scriptures? What does it mean to you?

A Preterist uses scripture, not hoops, to discover the fulfillment.

Rev 6:16 and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne , and from the wrath of the Lamb:17 for the great day of their wrath is come ; and who is able to stand?

What did the Daughters of Jerusalem see? They saw the Roman army come and kill them and destroy their city, Temple, and the Old Covenant access to God.

Malachi 31 Behold, I send my messenger , and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts.2 But who can abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap:

Who is the messanger to come?

Mal 4: 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come .

Who is this Elijah? What is this terrible day?

Matt 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come

Jesus clearly states that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come as prophesied. I'm sure futurist have a problem with this because its not the "physical" Elijah. Would you consider this "mystical" or "allegoric"?
So John the Baptist shows up, so what is the "great and terrible day" that was to come after him? Or do you put a 2000 year gap between the two events?

Bro Tony
04-07-2004, 08:19 PM
GH,

While you will allow me time to look at all your Scripture references I will quickly share with you how I deal with some you have mentioned.

The matter of Elijah and the prophecy of Malachi. Clearly, John the Baptist was a type of Elijah, the Scriptures confirm this. Certainly, you don't believe him to be Elijah. You will remember that Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration. The "Elijah" that will come before the great and terrible day of the Lord is, I believe a type, just as John was.

As for Matthew 16:28--all three of the synoptic gospels record this promise just prior to the occurance on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is also correct to translate this word "Kingdom" as royal spendor. That promise I believe was fulfilled for the some of them there on the mount. Only six days later this took place.

You like other full preterist I have talk with seem to have a problem with a "2000 Year gap" I don't. In God's timing there is little difference in the 2000 year gap I believe in and the 40 you choose to believe in.

I don't have no problem with using Rev 6:16 in the fulfillment of what Jesus said to the women in Luke 23: 27-30, I don't believe it has been fulfilled yet. I would be hard pressed to believe it has been fulfilled in 70AD and then John some 20 years later speak of it a prophecy rather than history. I Know, you don't believe that Revelation was written in 90AD or so, you can't because if you accept that your preterism becomes meaningless.

I often wonder how every eye will see Him if He did not nor does not literally come. I hope this helps some, I know you won't agree and I am sure no matter what is said you or I have a different view of it.

God Bless
Bro Tony

Bro Tony
04-07-2004, 08:40 PM
GH

While we are at it you still have not dealt properly with my original question. When did Caiaphas die? You say it doesn't matter maybe he is speaking about some of the other priest or scribes. Read the text, Jesus is directly answer Caiaphas' question and speaking directly to him. Matthew 26: 57-65.

If Caiaphas died before you proposed date of "Jesus' return" 70 AD and Jesus said that Caiaphas would see him. Then he could not be talking about an 70 AD return and Caiaphas seeing Him with his eyes. It makes yours and every other full preterist view on terms like "you" and "this generation" suspect when it comes to understanding Jesus prophecying His return.
Bro tony

Grasshopper
04-07-2004, 09:27 PM
While you will allow me time to look at all your Scripture references I will quickly share with you how I deal with some you have mentioned. Good. Look forward to your responses.

The matter of Elijah and the prophecy of Malachi. Clearly, John the Baptist was a type of Elijah, the Scriptures confirm this. Certainly, you don't believe him to be Elijah. You will remember that Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration. The "Elijah" that will come before the great and terrible day of the Lord is, I believe a type, just as John was. Yes John was a "type" of Elijah. This is exactly the maning Jesus had in mind. I'm confused about what you believe here. Do you think there is still a future Elijah? Jesus clearly identifies John to be the one that Malachi prophecied about.

As for Matthew 16:28--all three of the synoptic gospels record this promise just prior to the occurance on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is also correct to translate this word "Kingdom" as royal spendor. That promise I believe was fulfilled for the some of them there on the mount. Only six days later this took place.
This is one I have yet to get a straight answer on.

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

1. If this was 3 days later, why does it say "some" would still be alive? Would not all in all probability still be alive? "Some" indicates more than just a few would not be.

2.It says "coming in His Kingdom". It doesn't say a fore-taste or type.

3.What do you do with verse 27? No-one will answer this. Verse 27 speaks of the His coming and Judgement, and you can't have His Judgement unless you have the resurrection. So did that happen at the Mount of Transfiguration? Or is there yet another 2000 year gap between verse 27 and 28?

You like other full preterist I have talk with seem to have a problem with a "2000 Year gap" I don't. In God's timing there is little difference in the 2000 year gap I believe in and the 40 you choose to believe in. Except for the fact that Jesus said these thing would happen in the 1st century Jews lifetime. In their generation. So yes, I have a problem taking it out of the 1st century context.

I don't have no problem with using Rev 6:16 in the fulfillment of what Jesus said to the women in Luke 23: 27-30, I don't believe it has been fulfilled yet. So that statement was completely meaningless to whom it was made. Futurist have absolutely no regard for audience relevence. This was a statement made to and about the daughters of Jerusalem.

. I would be hard pressed to believe it has been fulfilled in 70AD and then John some 20 years later speak of it a prophecy rather than history. I Know, you don't believe that Revelation was written in 90AD or so, you can't because if you accept that your preterism becomes meaningless. You are correct. This was one of the first things I studied when I started dealing with Preterism. I recommend Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell".

I often wonder how every eye will see Him if He did not nor does not literally come. There are different possibilities with this. Eyes simply could mean understanding as it does in other places in the NT. However I beleive He is making the point that those in the land of Judea and possibly all the Roman Empire would see the fall of Jerusalem as Christ's coming in an OT motiff.

I know you won't agree and I am sure no matter what is said you or I have a different view of it. The only ones who will never change are those who refuse to. I was just as Pre-mill as anyone on this board till I really started looking at it. Then it became a question of do I want to change my lifelong beliefs. I decided I don't care which view is correct, I just want to know the truth. So here I am, waiting for someone to rescue me from this lonely island.

While we are at it you still have not dealt properly with my original question. When did Caiaphas die? You say it doesn't matter maybe he is speaking about some of the other priest or scribes. Read the text, Jesus is directly answer Caiaphas' question and speaking directly to him. Matthew 26: 57-65.
I do not know when Caiaphus died. Nor do I think anyone really knows. As far as reading the text, lets set the context of the text. To whom is Jesus speaking?

57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest , where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.

Now to the text:

64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy:

As I have been told by futurist, the YE is plural. OK its plural. Jesus was speaking to Caiaphus, scribes, and elders. So my view still holds whether he is dead or alive.
Again, what is the futurist interpretation of this verse? Other than the preterist are wrong.

If Caiaphas died before you proposed date of "Jesus' return" 70 AD and Jesus said that Caiaphas would see him. Then he could not be talking about an 70 AD return and Caiaphas seeing Him with his eyes. It makes yours and every other full preterist view on terms like "you" and "this generation" suspect when it comes to understanding Jesus prophecying His return.
Did Jesus say he would see Him with his eyes? Or did He say he would see His coming? Big difference. Can "you" not also be plural? Can you show me where "generation" means something other than contemporaries? Make sure you use the correct greek word for examples.

Trust me, I asked the same questions and many more.

Daniel David
04-07-2004, 10:30 PM
GH said:

1. Except for the fact that Jesus said these thing would happen in the 1st century Jews lifetime. In their generation. So yes, I have a problem taking it out of the 1st century context.

2. You are correct. This was one of the first things I studied when I started dealing with Preterism. I recommend Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell".

3. There are different possibilities with this. Eyes simply could mean understanding as it does in other places in the NT. However I beleive He is making the point that those in the land of Judea and possibly all the Roman Empire would see the fall of Jerusalem as Christ's coming in an OT motiff.

4. Did Jesus say he would see Him with his eyes? Or did He say he would see His coming? Big difference. Can "you" not also be plural? Can you show me where "generation" means something other than contemporaries? Make sure you use the correct greek word for examples.
___

Once again, we see the bizarre and ridiculous method of interpretation by the preterists: choose one meaning of the time references and reinvent the meanings of other words. Classic.

Grasshopper, come out of shadow.

1. Actually, he NEVER said that. Not even once.

2. I second that recommendation. You should be able to find it for $0.97 somewhere. It sure it a good book to help start a fire.

3. It is not even possible for the rest of the world to view it that way as most of the world didn't even know about Christ. To them, it was just another pounding administered by the Romans. Nice attempt. I broke another rib laughing so hard.

4. GH, this is one of your favorite verses and you don't even know how to interpret it. Let me remind you that Christ spoke directly to Caiaphus and said that he would see Christ SITTING NEXT TO THE FATHER AND RETURNING IN THE CLOUDS. If Caiaphus saw the returning in the clouds, he also saw Christ sitting next to the Father. Tell me where this old man who was about to die got such powerful eyes.

Grasshopper
04-07-2004, 11:37 PM
1. Actually, he NEVER said that. Not even once. Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh.
29 And he spake to them a parable: Behold the fig tree, and all the trees:
30 when they now shoot forth, ye see it and know of your own selves that the summer is now nigh.
31 Even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished.

Matt 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation .


2. I second that recommendation. You should be able to find it for $0.97 somewhere. It sure it a good book to help start a fire.
Why don't you read it first. Then tell me where he is factually wrong. But then again you never provide proof, just attack.

3. It is not even possible for the rest of the world to view it that way as most of the world didn't even know about Christ. To them, it was just another pounding administered by the Romans. Nice attempt. I broke another rib laughing so hard.
Luke 21 Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.

What does "world" mean here? Do a little research before attacking.

4. GH, this is one of your favorite verses and you don't even know how to interpret it. Let me remind you that Christ spoke directly to Caiaphus and said that he would see Christ SITTING NEXT TO THE FATHER AND RETURNING IN THE CLOUDS. If Caiaphus saw the returning in the clouds, he also saw Christ sitting next to the Father. Tell me where this old man who was about to die got such powerful eyes.
Let me remind you that Christ spoke directly to Caiaphus.

Funny, you argued in another thread that He wasn't speaking to Caiaphus. graemlins/laugh.gif
Did you forget? Which is it? Didn't you say Ye is plural therefore couldn't be referring to Caiaphus? Oh what a tangled web we weave.....

And once again you cannot interpret the verse. You have no idea what it refers too do you? You had your chance at dealing with these verses but chose to run and hide. Let someone else who is serious take a shot at it.

Glory Bound
04-08-2004, 10:30 AM
I'm no authority by a long shot, but I can understand Grasshopper's view here better than any other when it comes to Matt. 24. It seems to me the twisting starts when trying to indicate Jesus was speaking of a time 1,000's of years later when He clearly seemed to be speaking to the 1st century people.

I would appreciate hearing arguments based on scripture rather than insults and wisecracks. I'm sure there are more people reading this thread than those who post. Maybe I'll see something here that will help me.

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 01:08 PM
As I think through these issues, I believe we must approach it as Glory Bound has stated. We are trying to understand, sometimes some very difficult verses and how they fit into our view of Eschatology. It does little good to attack individuals who have a different view. Sometimes labels lead to this, and I know labels can make it easier in discussion but at the same time they can be used to slam someone.

I personally feel that the death of Caiaphas makes a difference, because in context Jesus was talking to him. Again, when it comes to the fulfillment of prophecy it makes no difference if the gap is 40 or 2000 years, either way there is a gap. I believe the belief that the second coming of Jesus has already happened and will not take place where every eye will see Him has no biblical support. I also believe that all camps, but especially the "A" and preterest camps, tend to spiritualize when it does not fit there interpretive bent. I am sure they feel the same about us "pres". I find the dating of Revelation to an earlier date a convenient belief in order to be able to hold a view.

I am not sure of everything, but I am sure of one thing. When all is said and done we will all see how little we actually knew. Yet that which we do know for sure is what will make all the difference in the world. That is Jesus is Lord!

Blessings to All,

bro Tony

Daniel David
04-08-2004, 01:39 PM
When Jesus said 'this generation' in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, he had just layed out a whole series of events that would take place. So he is saying that 'this generation' (that sees these events) will not pass away until they are all completed.

In other words, this generation that sees the events will see all of them. So the events will take place in a relatively short time frame (7 years to be exact).

GH has picked one meaning of the time references and prostituted the meaning of the events into symbolic mumbo-jumbo.

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 01:42 PM
DD,

I agree with what you have said concerning the understanding of the term "this generation". I believe He was speaking of the generation who would see this come to past.

Another question I would have, since you mentioned the seven years. According to the preterist view where did these seven years go? Daniel the prophet stated that 490 years were appointed for his people, at 483 years the Messiah was cut off (killed) now where are those last seven years. I believe Revelation tells us where they are and that they are future. There is no specific seven year period in history that fullfil the seven descrided in Revelation or in which God works through Israel. Where are those seven years----there on the way!!! Praise His Name, because that means He's on the way not that He has already come.

Bro Tony

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 01:53 PM
While I am thinking about it, I fear that preterism and much of amillenialism leads to a teaching of replacement theology, that is the church has replaced Israel in God's plan. That being the case there is no need for Israel to exist now or in the future. I believe this is a belief that is not supported in Scripture and those who hold this belief have a real problem with Romans 11. Paul wrote, (by the way he wrote this when the church existed not prior):

vs 1, "Has God cast away His people? Certainly Not!" He was talking about national Israel, not the church.

vs 25, "...that the blindness of Israel in part has happened until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

vs 26, "And so all Israel will be saved..."

These are just a few verses, but the entire chapter speaks of the truth that Israel has not be cast aside or forgotten by God. And again I remind all that Paul said this after the birth of the Church. It is clear that God has a plan for Israel in the future, He tells us about it in the book of Revelation.

Blessing to All, Come quickly Lord Jesus,

Bro Tony

Grasshopper
04-08-2004, 02:09 PM
So Bro. Tony I take it you will not deal with the scriptures I listed?

Glory Bound
04-08-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Daniel David:
When Jesus said 'this generation' in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, he had just layed out a whole series of events that would take place. So he is saying that 'this generation' (that sees these events) will not pass away until they are all completed.

In other words, this generation that sees the events will see all of them. So the events will take place in a relatively short time frame (7 years to be exact).

GH has picked one meaning of the time references and prostituted the meaning of the events into symbolic mumbo-jumbo. Interesting idea. It seems awkward to me, though. Why would Jesus say "This generation..." rather than "That generation..." if He was speaking of people who were not within earshot of his words?

Jesus promised that Caiaphas would see him coming ... (I may have missed this, but) how is this reconciled in a futurist view?

This is why I find some parts of the preterist view intriguing. The first and most obvious understanding of these words would indicate an event coming within the lifetime of the listeners.

Now perhaps this is not meant to be literal... but then it would seem that Jesus was misleading the people he spoke to.

It boggles my poor little mind... what's left of it! graemlins/tear.gif

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 04:11 PM
GH,

Yes I am going to respond to you questions. I have answered concerning my view of all of them except for Matt 10:23 & 23:34. I am still working on these. You have to give me sometime as I do have other things I am dealing with. While you are at it maybe you could do me the courtesy of answering some of my questions.

Like the Bible teaching the literal return of Christ where all eyes see Him.
The years God has appointed for Israel.
Replacement Theology and Romans 11.

I fear that I am just speaking into the wind, and I am sure you feel that way also. The reality is that there are difficult passages but taking it in the whole I feel preterism has some severe problems.

Because I believe in a later date for Revelation, Preterism has been excluded as a possibility. Because I believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ as He promised, preterism is not a possibility.

I sure you don't agree, but I am glad we can discuss these things.

Bro Tony
PS--I wrote you a long response about 1/2 hour ago and my server quit--quite frustrating.

Grasshopper
04-08-2004, 04:59 PM
Interesting idea. It seems awkward to me, though. Why would Jesus say "This generation..." rather than "That generation..." if He was speaking of people who were not within earshot of his words?

Jesus promised that Caiaphas would see him coming ... (I may have missed this, but) how is this reconciled in a futurist view?

This is why I find some parts of the preterist view intriguing. The first and most obvious understanding of these words would indicate an event coming within the lifetime of the listeners.

Now perhaps this is not meant to be literal... but then it would seem that Jesus was misleading the people he spoke to.

It boggles my poor little mind... what's left of it! You sound like me 2 years ago. Don't quit!

Grasshopper
04-08-2004, 05:09 PM
Yes I am going to respond to you questions. I have answered concerning my view of all of them except for Matt 10:23 & 23:34. I am still working on these. You have to give me sometime as I do have other things I am dealing with. While you are at it maybe you could do me the courtesy of answering some of my questions.

Good, I was afraid you would do like many and bail out when it gets down to actually proving ones views.

Like the Bible teaching the literal return of Christ where all eyes see Him.
The years God has appointed for Israel.
Replacement Theology and Romans 11.
I will work on these.

I fear that I am just speaking into the wind, and I am sure you feel that way also. The reality is that there are difficult passages but taking it in the whole I feel preterism has some severe problems. I was there once. Now I believe it is your position that has the terminal problems.

Because I believe in a later date for Revelation, Preterism has been excluded as a possibility. Because I believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ as He promised, preterism is not a possibility.
Why have you ruled out the early date? I was shocked at the lack of evidence for a late date when I studied this subject. Most all of the late daters use one paragraph from Irenaeus to base their beliefs on. The book I recommended does an excellent job of looking at the internal and external evidences of both positions.

I sure you don't agree, but I am glad we can discuss these things. Study will make us both better enlightened. I enjoy the challange to prove scriptually my position.

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 05:48 PM
GH,

Thanks for agreeing to look into my three points I gave you. I will look to see if I can get the book concerning the date of Revelation.

Another thing that has notning to do with what we are talking about. How do you put my quotes in your posts. I see others doing this and I don't know how, I am not completely computer literate.

Bro Tony

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 06:58 PM
GH,

Matt 10:23--

Jesus was telling his disciples that they could expect great presecution in the land of Israel. Just as He Himself would face. This persecution would cause them to flee from one city to another (ref Matt. 23:34)this persecution in Israel would not subside fully until the Son of Man's return. That certainly did not happen in AD 70. Their missionary task and the persecution they would face would not be completed until Jesus' return. In the end, Israel would repent, again that repentance did not happen in 70AD, (Matt 23:39).
In the passage of Matt 10, it seems plain to me that Christ desired that his disciples should avoid bringing against themselves any persecutions and that there life would be one where they were constantly one of flight from the rejection of their message and Lord. It is still the way it is in the world today.

Going to Matt 23:34-39--Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and Scribes and I believe to the nation of Israel as a whole. Earlier in His ministry Jesus asked the question, "Which of the prophets did not your fathers kill?" Again Jesus in this passage is speaking against the Pharisees and Scribes and their rejection of God's message and presence amoung them. They would not repent of their wicked ways, and they were guilty before God. There rejection was so vast that Jesus says he is talking about from Abel to Zechariah. The Lord is speaking judgment against them. So now He is leaving them, their house is left desolate, He left the Temple for the last time. A temple without God is desolate and it is no longer God's house but man's. The Lord's public ministry was finished. But He was not through with Israel--Look at verse 39--When He comes again they welcome and believe in their Messiah. That did not happen in 70AD, as you know. It will happen--Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 23:5-8, Zechariah 14:4-11, Romans 11.

Certainly it is clear that the Judgment of Israel was at hand and we know what happen in 70 AD. But the fall of Jerusalem does not consitute the coming of the Lord, the second coming. Nor was it a time when Israel received Jesus as their Messiah.

Sorry so long, but will give you something to chew on for a while. I hope I was not to confusing.

Bro Tony

Grasshopper
04-08-2004, 07:13 PM
To quote, hit full reply form, then go down where it says quote and hit it. Then paste your message in between the two ends.

I shall return.

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 07:23 PM
Thanks! I wait with baited breath. graemlins/wave.gif

Grasshopper
04-08-2004, 08:36 PM
Like the Bible teaching the literal return of Christ where all eyes see Him.
Rom. 11: 7 What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened:8 according as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day.

Would you take the above verse as literally seeing and hearing as you take the one in Acts?

7 Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen.

You say every eye shall see His return. What does Jesus say?

[ 19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

How long is a little while? Jesus says when He leaves the world will see Him no more. How do you reconcile these two? Why did they ask "how will you manifest thyself"?


Here is some things I have on this:

Some will probably be wondering at this point about the reference in Rev. 1:7 to "every eye" seeing Him and how this fits in with this interpretation. It should be noted that the word for "see" is often used not of sight, but of perception. For example, in John 14:19, Jesus says, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." Or, "every one that sees the Son and believes in Him shall have everlasting life" (John 6:40). Now, if you use the same interpretation here as most do in Rev. 1:7, only those who saw Jesus with their literal eyes could be saved! We use the word "see" in the same manner today, sometimes with literal intent: "I see clouds in the sky," and with figurative intent at other times: "I see!" As Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "May the eyes of your understanding be enlightened" (Eph. 1:18).

Before we consider this further, let’s look at the rest of the context. “...and the tribes of the earth will mourn over him.” The word translated “tribes,” is phule. This word means tribes and it is always in reference to the tribes of Israel. That is the way it is used throughout the Greek New Testament. It does not mean nations. The word ethnos means nations, or gentiles throughout the Greek New Testament. It does not mean people. The Greek word for people is laos.

The translations that use people or nations are incorrect. The word translated “earth” is ge This word can mean “earth,” but just as often it means “land,” such as “the land of Israel,” or “the land of Judea.” To use the term, “the earth of Israel,” or “the earth of Judea” would be improper. Because we are dealing with the tribes, land is the proper translation here.
To reinforce this idea, we will now look at the word “mourn,” or “wail* in many translations. The Greek word is kopto and it means neither mourn nor wail. It literally means “to beat one*s breast.” This was an act of mourning that was practiced by the Jews, similar to sitting in sackcloth and ashes. We do not practice this custom today. The context of this passage is the Jews in the first century. They were the ones who would see him.

Now back to “...every eye will see him, even the ones who pierced him.” Can we honestly say that “every eye” here is to be taken in a literal and absolute manner? First, it is a hyperbole, or exaggeration. We use similar language every day. At the final seconds of a close and heated game of basketball, it can be said that every eye was on the ball. First, we have to consider the context. Every eye is only in reference to those watching the game from the stands. This does not include the rest of the world who are not involved. Even of those in the stands, not every eye was on that ball. At least some were not paying attention, or more interested in their food.
So let*s be reasonable and understand that the first century Jews are the ones implied. They were the ones who pierced him. That in itself limits the event to the first century. Jesus was to come on the clouds in judgment, which he did in A.D. 70. Those people did witness the event. Every eye did see him — that is, every eye within the intended context.

The years God has appointed for Israel.
Not sure where you are headed with this one.

Replacement Theology and Romans 11.
We could spend hours on this. I do not think of the church as replacing Israel, it is the New Covenant form of the Old Covenant Israel. It is "spiritual" Israel. Perhaps my good friend Tim would care to jump in on this one.
Here's a link for a preterist view on this:http://www.presence.tv/cms/allisrael.shtml

Matt 10:23--

Jesus was telling his disciples that they could expect great presecution in the land of Israel. Just as He Himself would face. This persecution would cause them to flee from one city to another (ref Matt. 23:34)this persecution in Israel would not subside fully until the Son of Man's return.
Matt. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Wait, are you saying those disciples have still not gone through the cities of Jerusalem yet? You see my problem with that explanation? Jesus is talking to His disciples, not some future peoples thousands of years in the future. He told them YE shall not go till the son of man be come. I am a strong believer in "audience relevence". The first application must be made to whom it was written or said.

Certainly it is clear that the Judgment of Israel was at hand and we know what happen in 70 AD. But the fall of Jerusalem does not consitute the coming of the Lord, the second coming. Nor was it a time when Israel received Jesus as their Messiah.
Interesting phrase you use, "at hand". I think you are going to regret that. graemlins/laugh.gif

This phrase and other time-indicators are what led me and keep me at full-preterism. Did God communicate to us in language and terms we would understand? I say yes. Lets look at that phrase in other places.

Matt 26:45 Then cometh he to the disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

II Tim 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
Ok.

1 Peter 41 Forasmuch then as Christ suffered in the flesh, arm ye yourselves also with the same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
2 that ye no longer should live the rest of your time in flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.
3 For the time past may suffice to have wrought the desire of the Gentiles, and to have walked in lasciviousness, lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries:
4 wherein they think strange that ye run not with them into the same excess of riot, speaking evil of of:
5 who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the living and the dead.
6 For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore of sound mind, and be sober unto prayer:

What things are ending?

James 58 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand .
John 2:13 And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

Does "at hand" change meanings now?

Revelation 11 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass : and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;2 who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw.3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand .

Seems John is letting us know in verse 3 that it is "at hand" in case we missed the "shortly" in verse 1.

Is it your belief that these terms "at hand" ,"shortly" "near" and "soon" have different meanings when it comes to eschatology than they do in other situations?

I believe unless you understand the OT use of language, you can never understand prophecy of the NT. I'll show you some verses I think must come into play when interpreting the NT. Keep in mind the OT and NT are written by Jews and to Jews. The 1st century Jews would have been very familiar with OT passages and their meaning.

Comings of the Lord

Isaiah 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, Jehovah rideth upon a swift cloud, and cometh unto Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall tremble at his presence; and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

Ps. 18: 9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; And thick darkness was under his feet.
10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he soared upon the wings of the wind.

Micah 1: 3 For, behold, Jehovah cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.

Ex. 3: 8 and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians,

Use of clouds in His comings:

Exodus 16:10 - It came about as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud.

Exodus 19:9 - The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.

Exodus 34:5 - The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.

Leviticus 16:2 - The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.”

Numbers 11:25 - Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him....

Note that in several of these passages, Yahweh is said to have “come,” He “descended,” “came down,” and “appeared.” This is language similar to that which Jesus used in reference to His own second coming. Question: was the “body” of Yahweh seen at these times or was it just that the cloud signified the presence of Yahweh? Were these manifestations of Yahweh “bodily and physical?” The answer is obvious.

Psalm 18:912 - He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. He rode upon a cherub and flew; and He sped upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, darkness of waters, and thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds, hailstones and coals of fire.

Psalm 97:23 - Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne. Fire goes before Him and burns up His adversaries round about.

Psalm 104:3 - He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind...

Isaiah 19:1 - The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

Daniel 7:13 - I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him.

Here is some commentary:

Note that in the New Testament references to Jesus’ coming with clouds, the majority of scholars agree that Jesus is pointing back to this passage, referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” in Daniel. Was the main point of Jesus in doing so to assert a “physical, bodily” coming, or was it more to identify Himself with that Son of Man who was to receive glory and a kingdom that would not end or pass away (see Daniel 7:14). Preterist believe the latter.
Joel 2:12 - Blow a trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming; surely it is near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, so there is a great and mighty people; there has never been anything like it, nor will there be again after it to the years of many generations.
Nahum 1:3 - The LORD is slow to anger and great in power and the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.

Zephaniah 1:1415 - Near is the great day of the LORD, near and coming very quickly; listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, a day of trouble and distress, a day of destruction and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness...
Note also that many of the references to Yahweh coming in or with the clouds have to do with His bringing judgment upon His enemies and those who rebelled against His covenant. Again, there was no physical, bodily coming of Yahweh at these times.

I have an idea. Let us focus on one thing at a time. I, like you, probably have a 100 different directions you want to go. I'll let you try to walk me out of my Preterist position, starting with how I got in. When are the "Last Days" and what are they. I will post the question on the next post.

Grasshopper
04-08-2004, 08:57 PM
I have heard all my life we are living in the last days. Preachers use the term all the time. What does the Bible say about the "Last Days"?

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Seems the writer of Hebrews believes he is living in the last days.

What does Peter say?

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel ;17 And it shall come to pass in the last days , saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Here Peter is quoting a prophecy by Joel concerning what would happen in the last days. Peter say it was happening that day.

So how do we get the last days out of the 1st century?

One explanation that our good friend Ed holds to is that the last days started at Pentecost and continue on today. Ed is smart enough to understand that the Second Coming, Kingdom, Judgement, and Resurrection are to happen in the last days. Therefore to be intellectually honest with scripture he extends the last days and does not limit them to the 1st century.

Of course the problem I have with this is that it renders the term "last days" as meaningless. Not to mention it makes 90% of Evangelical Pastors who preach we are in the last days look like bafoons. Under Ed's belief of course we are living in the last days, and everyone born since pentecost is. A preacher who says we are in the last days is like a College Biology Prof telling his class, "humans breath air". Obviously.

The other problem with taking the last days out of the 1st century is you ignore the numerous time-indicators throught the NT concerning when the Coming, Resurrection, etc.. would be.

So What say ye Bro. Tony? Are we in the "Last Days"?

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 11:57 PM
GH,

Thank you for your response and the spirit in which you share. My use of the term "at hand" certainly cannot be equated with the Bibles use of it. It is not used in Matt 23, where I was explaining my view. I believe the coming of the Lord is still at hand.

You will not like my answer concerning the term "last days". I believe it speaks of a period of time and I would be in agreement with our friend Ed on this.

While you can give me those OT verses concerning the Lord coming in judgment and not being a literal coming. I believe you still have a problem with the face that Jesus spoke of his literal return. It seems a little strange you keep refering to the belief that I will not understand the Scripture in its plainest sense, and then your view of His second coming is not in the plainest sense. Again, the men were told that the Jesus who you see leaving will come in like manner is what the Bible speaks of.

You quote Rom 11 where it says that God gave them a spirit of stupor and blinded them, but will not deal with the same Chapter as it clearly says that God is not through with the nation of Israel. Also you did not deal with Matt 23:39, where he says you will not see me no more TIL you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. While He was talking to the Pharisee and Scribes face to face, he was talking to the people of Israel specifically. Those scribes and pharisees would never respond, but the day will come when Israel will. Jesus use of the word til speaks of the fact that it would happen, in agreement with the prophets I referred to above.

Bro Tony

Bro Tony
04-08-2004, 11:59 PM
Sorry if my last post does not contain good grammar. It has been a long day and I am going to bed.

God Bless and have a great night sleeping in the hands of the Savior.

Bro Tony

Grasshopper
04-09-2004, 09:28 PM
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
While you can give me those OT verses concerning the Lord coming in judgment and not being a literal coming. I believe you still have a problem with the face that Jesus spoke of his literal return.
It seems a little strange you keep refering to the belief that I will not understand the Scripture in its plainest sense, and then your view of His second coming is not in the plainest sense.

So which do we interpret in the plainest sense? Time-statements or descriptions of His coming and Kingdom?

I heard it once said and agree, " let the timing determine the nature". Most do it backwards from that.

Yes, to US it would seem to be interpreted literally. But it was not written too US.It was written to 1st century Jews who spent their entire life reading and studying the OT. What would they think when they read of Christ coming in the clouds? Would they not refer back to the OT where this exact language was used? If not, why not?

Again, the men were told that the Jesus who you see leaving will come in like manner is what the Bible speaks of. So the question is what is like manner? Why the assumption they are speaking of physical? Why not coming on the clouds is the manner in which He comes? Revelation says He rides a horse, will He be riding a horse when He returns?

You quote Rom 11 where it says that God gave them a spirit of stupor and blinded them, but will not deal with the same Chapter as it clearly says that God is not through with the nation of Israel. 1 I say then, Did God cast off his people ? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel:
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Let me first say my bible does not say "the nation of Israel". It says Israel. This gets into a whole other debate of who is the Israel of God. I believe it to be the elect, those He foreknew. Perhaps those to who Paul was writing were under the impression that God was through with individual physical Jews. I could see how they would believe this since they were aware that the Kingdom would be taken from them. But Paul reassures them saying he is a Jew and was not cast away. He continues in vs. 5 to say that yes, there will still be physical Jews in the Kingdom because a remnant was still part of His elect.

Notice verse 26: All Israel will be saved as it is written. Then Paul quotes Is 59:20-21. Verse 20 starts out.. "The Deliverer will come out of Zion." Since the Deliverer was Jesus, this seems to indicate a past event, not future.

While He was talking to the Pharisee and Scribes face to face, he was talking to the people of Israel specifically. That is an assumption base upon your presupposition that these things are still future. I could use your own statement back on Matt 26:64. While He was talking face to face with Caiaphus He was really talking to the people of Israel specifically. To be honest with myself, I cannot take this approach, otherwise we can say just about anything we want, which leads to a slippery slope. Take the thief on the cross, was He speaking to him? Or was He really speaking to future Gentiles? I can't go there.

Now lets look at Joels prophecy which Peter proclaims of being fulfilled.

16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy , And your young men shall see visions , And your old men shall dream dreams:
18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day. 21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Notice the fulfilment:

Acts 21: 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters, who prophesied .10 And as we tarried there some days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus .

Acts 9: 10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said unto him in a vision , Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

Acts 16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night : There was a man of Macedonia standing, beseeching him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.

Compare verse 20 with past Judgements by God:

Destruction of Babylon:
Is. 16:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine.


Fall of Israel
Amos 8: 8 Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? yea, it shall rise up wholly like the River; and it shall be troubled and sink again, like the River of Egypt. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord Jehovah, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon , and I will darken the earth in the clear day .

So verse 20 describes the Fall of Jerusalem using apocolyptic language very familiar with the 1st century Jews. Why would some try to literalize this?

Verse 21 speaks for itself. The "last days" ended in AD70. It was the end of the Jewish Age. We now live in the Kingdom of which the increase shall never end.

Now just a few Yes or No follow-ups.

1. Do you expect a future Elijah?
2. Do you equate "Last Days" to "Church Age"
3. Being from the Phoenix area, did you ever hear one of my favorite preachers, Richard Jackson of NPBC?

Glory Bound
04-10-2004, 12:42 AM
Grasshopper,

Have you read any books by Gary DeMar? I picked up a couple last year out of curiousity, and was pretty impressed in general. I don't know if I buy into all of his ideas, but he raises some interesting points.

Bro Tony
04-10-2004, 12:36 PM
GH,

Here are my few Yes or No follow-ups:

1. Yes
2. Yes going into the Day of the Lord
3. Yes--quite a preacher and encourager to young pastors when he was here.

Sorry, could not just say yes or no. Problem with us preachers--- ;)

Bro Tony

PS--Keeping things in its plainest sense does not allow a person to interpreted Romans 11:1 other than Paul was referring to natural Israel. The Jews of his time, which you continually say we must understand the Scripture text as they would, would certainly believe Paul was talking to them, not some spiritual Israel. Read chapters 9 & 10, it is clear Paul is talking about Israel.

Hope you have a great day celebrating the Resurrection of our blessed Lord. Praise His Holy Name!

Grasshopper
04-10-2004, 03:43 PM
Grasshopper,

Have you read any books by Gary DeMar? I picked up a couple last year out of curiousity, and was pretty impressed in general. I don't know if I buy into all of his ideas, but he raises some interesting points. Yes, in fact his book Last Days Maddness is what got me started on this. I have also read End Times Fiction. Last Days Maddness was a real eye-opener for me.

Grasshopper
04-10-2004, 06:55 PM
So you still believe in a yet future coming of Elijah. This is amazing to me, though I understand why you must. Jesus and the disciples tell us that John was the fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy.

Matt 11:10 This is he, of whom it is written , Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee.11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.

Are you not willing to receive it? Was Jesus mistaken?

[I]Matt 17:9-10-13 …. And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come ,…. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Now the disciples heve figured it out. They too were probably looking for the literal, physical Elijah, but unless the are mistaken, they realized it was John.

Matt 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Jesus again affirms for us that Elijah has already come. So what is your basis for believing for a yet future coming of Elijah? Is there a prophecy of another Elijah that will come after the first?

You believe the Last Days are the same as the Church Age. Do you consider the Last Hour to also be the Church Age?

I John18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.

If not, what does the "last hour" refer too?

PS--Keeping things in its plainest sense does not allow a person to interpreted Romans 11:1 other than Paul was referring to natural Israel. The Jews of his time, which you continually say we must understand the Scripture text as they would, would certainly believe Paul was talking to them, not some spiritual Israel. Read chapters 9 & 10, it is clear Paul is talking about Israel. I believe he was refering to natural Jews individually. I do not believe he is refering to Jews as a group. John tells us that physical Jews are not New Covenant Jews:

Rev 2:9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not , but are a synagogue of Satan.

Rev 3:9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Yet in other places in scripture, believing Gentiles are called the children of Abraham. Clearly a spiritual application.

Here are some interesting thoughts from Todd Dennis:

the ONLY 'nation' that the kingdom of God belongs to is the same nation of I Peter 2:9, which reads, "But ye (those in Christ) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation.." And Christ Himself clearly identified that "nation" by the word He spoke to His disciples, "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32).
For another confirmation of who 'God's chosen people' really are, Galatians 6:15-16 tells us, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." Paul is certainly not saying that the Old Covenant nation of Israel walks after that "rule" (salvation), as he knows clearly that they are lost, and will perish in their sins without Christ. Neither is Paul wishing peace upon the lost nation, for, having "great heaviness and continual sorrow in (his) heart" (Romans 9:1) regarding them, he knows the only peace is in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it appears, according to Scripture, that the only Biblical Israelite is the individual, regardless of lineage, who is 'in Christ' through salvation.
The Bible teaches that God's only 'chosen people' are those who are born again (Rom. 8:11-14). According to Galatians chapter three, "to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." This means that the promises of eternal inheritance or adoption, delivered by Abraham's physical descendants, can only be claimed through Jesus Christ, as Galatians 3:29 concurs.
In a statement that can only be taken as meaning addition, or subtraction, God reveals that something has indeed been subtracted from the 'nation of Israel after the flesh'. Romans 9:6-8 reads, "... For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." These verses confirm that something has been taken away... and that not everyone that is a racial part of national 'Israel' are the true eternal Israel, nor are they the children of God. What we are discovering when we try to relate the Old Testament 'nation of Israel' (which is a possessive phrase) to the New Covenant, is that the fleshly nation of the fleshly man Israel was but a shadow of the heavenly nation of the spiritual Israel, which can only be entered into by Spirit, not by water. Therefore, physical Israelites, could, from then on, have no place in the nation of Israel (which is after the Spirit), except on the basis of personal salvation, through their faith in Christ Jesus (Hebrews 11:13,39-40).

What if the descendents of those 1st century Jews do not exist? What does that do to ones eschatology?

The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
'The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics." (vol. 12, page 1054)

Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .

Encyclopedia Americana (1986)
"Racial and Ethnic Considerations. Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximate those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 16, p. 71).

Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they five" (Collier's Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).

H.G. Wells
"There can be little doubt that the scattered Phoenicians in Spain and Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, speaking as they did a language closely akin to Hebrew and being deprived of their authentic political rights, became proselytes to Judaism. For phases of vigorous proselytism alternated with phases of exclusive jealousy in Jewish history. On one occasion the Idumeans, being conquered, were all forcibly made Jews. There were Arab tribes who were Jews in the time of Muhammad, and a Thrkish people who were mainly Jews in South Russia in the ninth century. Judaism is indeed the reconstructed political ideal of many shattered peoples - mainly Semitic.... The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea" (The Outline of History, p. 505).

Happy Easter, and don't think I didn't see your post on Revelation. graemlins/laugh.gif

Bro Tony
04-10-2004, 07:09 PM
Thought you would like that ;) I do hope you have a wonderful day tomorrow celebrating yours and my Risen Lord.

I want to ask you a personal question that you do not have to answer if you do not wish, by the way I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion even though we are far apart on this issue, do you take the Lord's Supper?

Bro Tony

Bro Tony
04-10-2004, 07:32 PM
GH

As for what Jesus said, I certainly accept it. I also believe that John was in fulfillment of Malachi. That does not preclude another Elijah who is to come. REv 11:5&6 speaks of this future Elijah, I know you cannot accept this because you do not believe Rev is future.

Jesus did not mean that John was literally Elijah come back, but a type of Elijah whom the religious leaders rejected. Luke 1:17 records that he came in the spirit of Elijah.

Because the religious leaders rejected John who came in the spirit of Elijah I believe the one in Rev 11 will come before the 2nd coming of Jesus. Just as Christ will return so will the Elijah type.

It is interesting that in John 1:21-23, John told the religious leaders that he was not Elijah and that he was there in fulfillment of the words of the Prophet Isaiah.

If John is the only Elijah type, when did he do what is stated in Rev 11?

Also, if there is not another Elijah type when did John do what was prophecied in Malachi 4:5-6--When is the dreadful day of the Lord. Revelation answers this and it is yet to come.

Bro Tony

Grasshopper
04-10-2004, 10:32 PM
I want to ask you a personal question that you do not have to answer if you do not wish, by the way I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion even though we are far apart on this issue, do you take the Lord's Supper? Excellent question. You are a thinking man. This is a subject that sneaks up on one when moving toward Preterism. I have seen good arguments from Preterist on both sides of the issue, that being do we still observe it. Yes, I still observe it, but I honestly do not know what to think. Something I'm still working out. Tradition whether right or wrong is a very strong force.

As for what Jesus said, I certainly accept it. I also believe that John was in fulfillment of Malachi. That does not preclude another Elijah who is to come. REv 11:5&6 speaks of this future Elijah, I know you cannot accept this because you do not believe Rev is future. Since it doesn't give Elijah's name in the text, that is another presupposition. However you are on to something. I believe the two witness's are representative of the Prophets(Elijah) and the Law(Moses).

Jesus did not mean that John was literally Elijah come back, but a type of Elijah whom the religious leaders rejected. Luke 1:17 records that he came in the spirit of Elijah.
Read vs. 17 very carefully

:17 And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.

In it Luke quotes Malachi 4:4-5

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come.6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

You have made another great case for John being Elijah. Elijah "shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers" and Luke speaking of John the Baptist says John would: turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,

So all the prophecies point to John in the 1st century, not a future Elijah in the 21st century.

Because the religious leaders rejected John who came in the spirit of Elijah I believe the one in Rev 11 will come before the 2nd coming of Jesus. Just as Christ will return so will the Elijah type.
He did come before the second coming(parousia).

It is interesting that in John 1:21-23, John told the religious leaders that he was not Elijah and that he was there in fulfillment of the words of the Prophet Isaiah.
True. He and the religious leaders were also expecting a literal-physical Elijah. It was not till later they understood that it was not to be in the physical. He was not Elijah, but he was the fulfillment of the prophecy.

If John is the only Elijah type, when did he do what is stated in Rev 11?
Again, Elijah is not mentioned in Rev. 11

Also, if there is not another Elijah type when did John do what was prophecied in Malachi 4:5-6--When is the dreadful day of the Lord. Revelation answers this and it is yet to come.
Ex 34:6 And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth,7 keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.

John was undoing the effects of sin that existed in verse 7.

The dreadful day of the Lord was the destruction of Jerusalem and death of over a million Jews who were in the city.

You are correct that Revelation describes this event. And speaking of Revelation:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Two things to notice in the very first verse. It tells us when these things were to happen(shortly) and how to interpret the book(signified). It is full of signs and symbols. Most are found in the OT. Understand thier meaning in the OT and you will have a better chance of interpreting them. Example: Who is the "Harlot" in Rev.? Find out who played the "Harlot" in the OT. Could the Beast of Revelation be the Beast of Daniel 7?

Bro Tony
04-11-2004, 12:55 AM
GH,

I will get back with you on Monday. Got to go to bed and I have a full day tomorrow. I am looking forward to being with my church family and celebrating our Risen Lord.

God Bless
Bro Tony