The 'Holy Covenant' and the Temple Mount

I'm not, but thanks for giving an answer. The problem with your answer is that apocolytiic language is not a type or shadow. Now physical Israel and the physical Temple were types and shadows of the spiritual realities to come. You seem to agree that Old Covenant elements are not to be taken as physical realities in the New Covenant.


Now for the other 2:

1. Can you give me any NT examples where these words in Rev 1:1,2 are used in the fashion you claim? I suppose "generation" in Matt 24 means race right?

2. I have still yet to hear if Caiaphus saw Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven in Matt 26:64. Is that chronological or qualitative?

 

1. According to you! I gave an answer that isn't straight from Scofield (which I know is what you were probably expecting), and you can't handle it.

2. Yes. How about... Rev. 1:1-2?

Apparently you need an example, because I have covered this with you, but you refuse to grasp it.

I can tell my mom that I am coming over soon.

Now, that can mean that I will be there within the hour, or the manner is which I am coming will be soon. Driving is faster than walking. So, either way is acceptable. You see, I am literal on both the time references AND the events. You are literal with one meaning of the time references and destroy the meaning behind the events by cramming them into this gnostic nonsense called preterism.

Here is my favorite point about preterism. The angels said that Christ would return the same way he ascended. He ascended (and was resurrected) literally, bodily, visibly, physically. Now preterist deny he will return this way. Instead, they have made his ascension (and thus resurrection) purely spiritual. How very Jehovah's Witness of them. Are they wolves? Yes.

3. It means exactly what Christ said it did. Christ said that the generation that saw the events would see the completion of them. What is so difficult about that?

4. You tell me something. Does the 'you' specifically refer to Caiphas? Or is that another preterist fabrication?

DD says: You want answers?

Grasshopper says: I think I am entitled.

DD says: You want answers?

Grasshopper says: I want the truth!

DD says: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Whew! I had to get that off my chest.

 

In Revelation 11:1 John is instructed to measure the temple and the altar which he has seen in his vision. Consider that the "Altar" is already spoken of in Rev 6:9 "When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the Word of God and for the testimony which they held"

Is it this altar that John is to measure?

Is there not a Temple in Heaven? Isnt John having a vision of events taking place in heaven?

Revelation 16:17 "Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying it is done"

Sure the mosque on the temple mount could be destroyed, but the land that it is on would still remain the property of the mosque. And it would be rebuilt, simply because the muslims would have an agenda to have it rebuilt.

Look in the past when Israel has to rebuild the temple before, they were chastised once before for not doing so the minute they reinherited the land. Yet this time they have has the land scince 1948 and have not made any attempt to rebuild it. Except for small groups within Israel.

The whole concept of advocating the rebuilding of the temple is anti christian. Jesus instructed us to spread the gospel to the world, not to be taken up into diversions that cause divisions and restrict evangalism. If you are reading this thread and you are in favour of the temple being rebuilt, think carefully about Jesus Christ and how He is that Holy of Holies. Lead people to Jesus not to a building of dead works.

 

Another quick point concering 2 Thess 2:4 "who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he sits AS God in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God"

The son of perdition is mimicing God. and trying to emulate him. I find it interesting that the verse says "As God in the Temple". Not the same as actually being in the temple himself. Rather an emulation of the Temple structure.

 

I dont appreciate your comment "DUH!!!"

It is totally unneccesary to make or incinuate rude remarks at another poster because they have a different opinion to your own. No matter how right you think you are. I suggest you think a little more carefully about stuff like that.

The court in Revelation 11:2 is cut off from the temple. When Christ died on the cross God tore the temple curtain of the holy of holies and the temple ended. The gentiles in the outer court were able to access God through Jesus in the outer court. Which is symbolic of the whole world as the outer court of the temple. Which is without measure because of the growth of people streaming into it from all the nations. People who will go up with those from Israel who accept Jesus to worship the Lord in the new Jerusalem which God will create, not what men create.

 

Good point, BenW.

Tim

 

So apocolytic language of the OT is a type or shadow? Is poetic language also a type?

I didn't think tou could find any other examples except the one in question.

Do you interpret "at hand" in this manner also?

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.

For the sake of argument I'll assume you are serious. Lets take a look at this verse:

1 Tim 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly;

So according to your method of interpretation Timothy must have asked himself this question when he received this letter. "So, does Paul mean he will be coming in the next few months, or when he comes he will be riding a camel instead of walking?"

That is laughable, but I understand in order for futurism to hold water you must give alternate meanings to words.

So what was His method of ascension? What does scripture say?

Acts 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

How did Jesus say He would return? Again scripture:

Matt.26:64 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.

Coming on the clouds was OT language that the Jews were very familiar with.

Psalm 104:3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters; Who maketh the clouds his chariot ; Who walketh upon the wings of the wind;

Isaiah 191 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.

Jesus was drawing from OT language His audience was very familiar with. Caiaphas even charged Him with blasphemey for His statement of "coming in the clouds".

I have never read nor heard any Preterist who denies Christ's physical resurrection. Let me give you some of your own advice: "Can we stop with the stereotyping of what we don't understand or agree with?"

Most futurist understand Jesus is speaking of His generation. Therefore they must change the meaning of generation from (genea) contemporaries to (genos) race. It says THIS (present) generation not THAT(future) generation.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.

Nor does it say "This generation that sees these things."

Lets set the context.

Matt 26: 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.

So it is Jesus, Caiaphus, the scribes, and elders.

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 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.

I think its clear that He is speaking to Caiaphus. If you would like to add the scribes and elders to that, I have no problem. So I ask again did Caiaphus see His coming? Or do you have Jesus addressing some future unknown people a few 1000 years in the future? Where is the fabrication?

 

And once again you make the same mistake of saying that the only definition can be chronological.

 

Grasshopper said:

1. So apocolytic language of the OT is a type or shadow? Is poetic language also a type?

2. I didn't think you could find any other examples except the one in question.

3. Do you interpret "at hand" in this manner also?

4. That is laughable, but I understand in order for futurism to hold water you must give alternate meanings to words.

5. So what was His method of ascension? What does scripture say?

6. Coming on the clouds was OT language...

7. Jesus was drawing from OT language His audience was very familiar with. Caiaphas even charged Him with blasphemey for His statement of "coming in the clouds".

8. I have never read nor heard any Preterist who denies Christ's physical resurrection. Let me give you some of your own advice: "Can we stop with the stereotyping of what we don't understand or agree with?"

9. Most futurist understand Jesus is speaking of His generation.

10. As to Caiaphas...
_______

DD easily answers as follows:

1. Yes to the first question. Red herring to the second question. Stick to the discussion. Apocalyptic language is prophetic by nature. Poetry isn't.

2. And neither do I have to. Come on.

3. Yes, it is at hand. This would be because of the imminence of his return. We are to be continually watching.

4. Well, lets think about that brilliant statement. Context determines the meanings of words. If I am typing to fast, lemme know.

5. According to the angel who said, "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Jesus didn't appear to anyone in AD 70 unless you have some sort of special revelation you could share with us.

6. Enough said.

7. The blasphemy wasn't because he would be coming in the clouds, but because he claimed to be the Son of God. Don't twist the Scriptures because you find it convenient.

8. Just because you haven't thought through what you believe...

9. This is a conversation between you and me. Jesus gave a whole series of events that will take place, and then says that this generation will see them. Get it? When the events happen, it will be that generation.

10. The next time Christ will be seen, it will be coming in the clouds.

 

So I am correct in that you can find nowhere else in scripture that your "method" of intepretation of these words is used.

Again you make up definitions to suit your view.

It is not your typing that is the problem, but your thought process. Revelation was written to 7 churches that no longer exist today. So the context is on my side.

"In the same way" was in the clouds.

Jesus did appear, in judgement. Do we need to go back to the OT examples of God showing up yet not visible?

Well, when this was written they were still under the Old Covenant. Though I do not believe it matters, the original audience understood the meaning.

How did He claim to be the Son of God? By his statement" Sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds".

Show me a Preterist who believes that Jesus did not rise physically from the dead. Again you cannot backup your statement. Do I need to quote your advice again?

Can you show me which scripture says " when it happens it will be that generation." Didn't think so. Let me quote you again: "Don't twist the Scriptures because you find it convenient."

Again you refuse to answer the question. Is it possibly because your futurism will not allow you? Did Caiaphus see it? Or was Jesus mistaken.

 

This is hilarious. Are you saying that Christ ascended in judgment because he supposedly returned in judgment? His return would be the same way he ascended. If he returned in judgment in AD 70, then he ascended the same say. Simply rib-breaking.

 

No.

He ascended in the clouds. I think I made that rather clear.
When your through laughing, care to answer the question you have been avoiding? Did Caiaphus see it?