PGA

Montana, Part 4 (final part), I find it difficult to nail down all aspects of this Scripture. One possibility is that Titus, in his siege of Jerusalem, could be seen to represent Caesar Nero who started his persecution of Christians in A.D. 64. Before this time it was mainly the Jews who persecuted the Christians. Thus, Nero also could be seen as confirming a covenant with many (the Jews) for one week that was carried on by the Caesars who followed him in that both he (Caesar) and the Jews opposed and persecuted the early church. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) "And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place." (Miscellanies) "The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet (i.e., Daniel) said." (Miscellanies 1:21) Montana, how much of a quote am I allowed? I have a long one by Eussebius. This stuff is all public domain. Peter

Montana, Part 3 Some in the Preterist or partial Preterist camp believe this man of lawlessness to refer to Nero, others Titus, but the third option is the Jews themselves. You still did not address what these biblical passages actual say and who John was addressing when he made these statements, so how about it? I would be interested in looking up these references of Ireaneaus and Polycarp. I believe with some digging I could bring claims forth from early Christians that say otherwise as relating to the last days or the time of Christ’s coming, but our highest/final authority is Scripture itself, is it not? Eusebius, the early church historian makes mention of Caius as defiling the temple in the holy city, but I still see Titus as representing Caesar as a more likely candidate when he entered Jerusalem in A.D. 70, if you see this man of lawnessness as other than a Jew, which is reasonable to conclude. Josephus actually records how the Romans brought their standards/banners/ensigns into the city and set them up against the eastern gate, where they offered sacrifices to their gods. I believe the mirror passage to Matthew 24:15 is Luke 21:20-21 in which some have argued that the armies that entered the city could be considered as causing the abomination of desolation either directly or indirectly, because Jerusalem’s desolation is mentioned. Of course, I believe that included with the armies would be Titus and possible Caesar’s image which represented Caesar himself being placed in the temple (PS – of note -Nero was called/referred to as the Beast by some). I’m not sure if I can provide web addresses, so please Google Eusebius Pamphillius on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library concerning the man of lawlessness and Christ’s coming relating to the 1st century. Please also Google the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary of Mark 13:14. F.F. Bruce: (On Matthew 24:15; The "Seventy Weeks" of Daniel) "When the temple area was taken by the Romans, and the sanctuary itself was still burning, the soldiers brought their legionary standards into the sacred precincts, set them up opposite the eastern gate, and offered sacrifice to them there, acclaiming Titus as imperator (victorious commander) as they did so. The Roman custom of offering sacrifice to their standards had already been commented on by a Jewish writer as a symptom of their pagan arrogance, but the offering of such sacrifice in the temple court was the supreme insult to the God of Israel. This action, following as it did the cessation of the daily sacrifice three weeks earlier, must have sensed to many Jews, as it evidently did to Josephus, a new and final fulfillment of Daniel's vision of a time when the continual burnt offering would be taken away and the abomination of desolation set up" (Israel and the Nations, p. 226) Origen (2nd Century) "The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled" (Principles, 4:1:5). Peter

Hi again Montana, Matthew 22:1-14 – a parable – has something to say about your concern here, or at least the first part of your concern. Matthew 22:1-14 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) The Parable of the Wedding Banquet 22 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. 4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ 5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless. 13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” I believe this parable to be addressing OT Israel as the ones invited but refusing to come. Just a couple of points that I find relevant – God was enraged with that generation in which His Son came to. I think that can be demonstrated throughout Scripture. There are passages that say that their sins were heaped up to the limit. And in IMO, since their city and temple was destroyed I think this parable is for this very generation of which Jesus was born into as a man – their Messiah. The destruction of the city is brought out in the parable, IMO. The other point I would like to bring your attention to is that after the city was destroyed the wedding banquet was (is) ready, and IMO, because Israel of old had rejected the Son and their salvation judgment was coming upon all but the faithful remnant. Another point I think significant is the passage you bring out in Revelation 22:16 – ‘The Spirit and the Bride say, Come’ is that it is the Spirit and the BRIDE (I’e., the marriage has taken place) that say come. The invitation is still open after the marriage. If we are currently in the church age again, I would invite you to show me where in the NT the church age is said to end? In the OT I believe that the imagery of God as being married to Israel is presented. I also believe God issued Israel a certificate of divorce for her unfaithfulness. The penalty for an unfaithful bride was death (Lev. 20:10). I believe that death came to OT Israel in A.D. 70. I also believe that God said He would make a new covenant with her and remarry her when she was pure. Hosea 2:16-19 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 16 “In that day,” declares the Lord, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.[a]’ 17 I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. 18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. 19 I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in[b] righteousness and justice, in[c] love and compassion. Footnotes: Hosea 2:16 Hebrew baal Hosea 2:19 Or with; also in verse 20 Hosea 2:19 Or with This brings up a host of other theological issues, for instance, when did/will God establish His righteousness and justice in love and compassion?I think the NT already reveals that His righteousness has been established in Christ Jesus. Hosea holds many themes that I believe are present in the NT such as resurrection and (re-)marriage. With communion I look back to what the Lord has done for me and I am reminded of the time when He will come to take me at my physical death to the heavenly Jerusalem, the greater reality (Colossians 2:16-17). Peter

Hi Montana, When you speak of rewards I believe you are missing the context and ignoring who is being addressed. Who does the ‘us’ refer to without lifting it out of context? IMO Montana, when you include ‘us’ today, you were not standing in the 1st century when Christ came in His kingdom. Also, if this passage is speaking exclusively about the Transformation that happened six days later, I think it is a very strange statement to make. All of them, not just some, were alive and well six days later. Luke 9:26-27 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 26 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” Mark 8:38-9:1 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” 9 And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” Jesus here seems to be, IMO, addressing His contemporary generation, the one He came to as a man. I believe you can’t isolate the verses from each other without doing damage to the text. I think they go together and Jesus is going to come in His Father’s glory, with His angels. Now you can include Elijah and Moses as two angels/messagers (i.e., the Father’s angels) in the Transfiguration as Jesus in His kingdom, but you can’t, IMO, say that Jesus has ascended to heaven and is seated at the Father’s right hand until after the cross and Jesus’ mediators work on our behalf is done. So this may have been a vision of Him in His glory – the glory of His kingdom, but even though these disciples were privy to this, that coming has not yet come. I don’t believe you can say He came in His kingdom until He received it from the Father (Daniel 7:13-14; Matthew 24:30-32). Matthew 24:30-32, when Jesus received power and glory, came after the Transfiguration. And I believe that Jesus sat down at the right-hand side of the Father with His ascension and His enemies were made His footstool in A.D. 70. The apostle Peter does give reason to include the Transfiguration as part of this witness to His majesty, but I don’t see the verses as explaining how Jesus came in His kingdom, although I realize how you can argue for this. Peter

Hi Montana, You have left me with a lot to answer so I will break you post into sections and try to make each section brief. Peter

Hi GoldenEagle, I read your post on the other forum and agree with much of it. I also think that Larry made a good point to you that you addressed in the next post (the first point) and I did not see his reply after that. The point where I think I'm confused with is how you make a distinction between 'the Old Covenant' and 'the Mosaic Covenant'. I see them both as one. I see one of the great focuses of the NT as a contrast between it and the OT; the old covenant primarily being the one made between God and Israel with Moses as the mediator. You recorded in post 35 a Scripture from Exodus (Ex. 19:3-6) in which the people of Israel agreed to the covenant with God in which Moses was the mediator - the if...then covenant. So you said: If He has fulfilled the Law (of Moses) and the Prophets, then verse 18 is accomplished also and the new heavens and new earth already exist, or at least that is how I believe the verse reads. I think you correctly surmised on post 35 of the other forum a correct view of Hebrews 8:13, but are you not missing here that at least some of the Law has disappeared, so everything is accomplished - i.e., new heaven/new earth? How could it not be if even the smallest jot or title of the law no longer applies? I liked what larryt said here: And here: And finally here: I find this third quote from him to be a point that I think could be developed, especially in light of passages like 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; Colossian 2:17; Hebrews 8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:1. I see a distinction between the Israel of old, in which only a faithful remnant were saved, and the new Israel of God, or the New Israel, which is comprised, IMO, of both Jews (the faithful remnant with all those Jews who would believe in Jesus Christ) and Gentiles, there being no distinction between the two for we are all one in Christ Jesus. Yes, I believe the New Israel of God is comprised of the church which is under the New Covenant (Galatians 4:24-27; Hebrews 11:9-10, 13-16; 12:22-28). That is what Jesus came preaching, IMO the kingdom of heaven - the kingdom of God/heaven were interchangeable terms, again IMO. And I also believe this kingdom is a spiritual reality on earth. Jesus even taught His disciples to pray 'Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' Peter

Hi Widor, That was not quite what I said. The agreement that God made with these people, I believe, was destroyed in A.D. 70 with the removal of the temple and destruction of the city. The covenant could no longer be fulfilled to the smallest letter of the law. If it could not be fulfilled in this manner then don't you think that what Jesus said in verse 18 now applies (highlighted in Red and underlined). Matthew 5:17-18 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) The Fulfillment of the Law 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore Jesus has fulfilled the Law of Moses because that law can no longer be followed as God laid it down to the smallest letter in the OT (by the Israel of God). If you think it can then where is the temple, where is the priesthood, where is the animal sacrifices, where are the genealogies? How do you trace the Israelis of today back to the OT tribes? You say verse 18 applies (which includes heaven and earth passing away), but you ignore that verse 17 says that Jesus came to accomplish/fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and not the smallest letter will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished/fulfilled. Well, as I stated earlier, I believe it is evident that at least some of the Law has disappeared (the temple, priesthood, sacrifices, etc) so therefore I contend that the heaven and earth that disappeared was the OT world, their heaven and earth - the world they lived under in the covenant they made with God. I don't see how you can ignore that Hebrews is contrasting the old covenant with the better sacrifices, better priesthood, better covenants, better country/promised land, better city, better Mediator, better temple, and that the New Covenant comes into effect with the death of the testator - Jesus, but the two covenants lived side by side for 40 years, IMO, until Jesus came out of the H of H's and brought judgment (and salvation for those waiting) on OT Israel. What is more, I believe that Hebrews is addressing Jewish Christians who are in danger of turning back to Judaism. Hence there are warnings (ch. 6, 10) not to turn away from this better covenant because what is old and obsolete will shortly disappear (i.e., within that generation - Chapter 3-4). In fact, I see chapter 10 as significant in revealing the timeline. Hebrews 10:37-39 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 37 For in just a very little while, “He who is coming will come and will not delay. 38 But my righteous one[a] will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.”[b] 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved. Footnotes: Hebrews 10:38 One early manuscript But the righteous Hebrews 10:38 Hab. 2:3,4 If it is not destroyed where is the temple, where are the priests and animal sacrifices that are required to offer and make atonement for sin in the OT/Old Covenant? Peter

Hi GoldenEagle, If you believe the Mosaic Covenant - the law - is not longer valid today then can you explain to me how Matthew 5:18 does not apply (i.e., all is accomplished, all fulfilled per Jesus' words)? Surely the heaven and earth they were living in has disappeared then, the heaven and earth of the old covenant??? More on my thoughts concerning Israel later, if I remember. Peter

Hi Montana, Where in Scripture do you find the end of the church age? IMO, I see Jesus being concerned primarily with two ages, the one He came to - the Old Covenant Age - and the age He came to establish - the church age, the kingdom age. Matthew 12:32 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. I believe the age to come was/is the age of the eternal New Covenant in His blood and 'this age' referred to in that verse was the age He came to. Hence we have the New Testament (that you are drawing from), a new age - and a testament is only binding once the will bearer dies, per Hebrews 9:16-17. Matthew 13:36-43 New King James Version (NKJV) The Parable of the Tares Explained 36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! I think it is fitting that the disciples asked Jesus in the Olivet Discourse what would be the sign of His coming and the end of the age (Matthew 24:3). They understood the age was coming to an end. The disciples were all Jews and lived by the laws of the OT age. That age, IMO, was about to pass away with the New Covenant in His blood. Jesus came to these eleven disciples (minus Judas) and told them that all authority in heaven and earth has been given to Him, tells them to go and make disciples of all nations (of which I believe Scripture reveals they did) and that He would be with them always, to the very end of the age (Matthew 28:16-20). Well, what age were these disciples living in that was coming to an end? Can you say that the Old Covenant Age survived passed A.D. 70? I think that the apostle Peter understood this when he wrote... 1 Peter 4:7 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray. Who do you feel he was addressing in the context? I think Hebrews carries with it a similar theme of the last days of the Jewish economy, the end of the age of the Old Covenant. In Hebrews 1:1, the author, speaking to Jewish Christians about their forefathers, through the prophets said that 'in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son...' In Hebrews 9:23-28, esp. 26b, still speaking concerning the Jewish economy and worship in the temple and its sacrifices in contrast to Christ said, 'but now He has appeared (done deal as per the verb tense) once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. I believe the end of the ages (plural) here spoken of refer to the age of the patriarchs and the Mosaic age, because they are both fulfilled in Christ, IMO. Paul conveys a similar thought in 1 Corinthians 10:11 when he addresses what happened to the Israelites in the desert... 1 Corinthians 10:11 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So since Jesus mentioned two ages I think it is very reasonable to believe that the church age does not end. Some in that generation, IMO, lived to see the end of the first age. 1 Timothy 6:19 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. And one last though, I think Scripture makes it clear that the church age continues on into our times by verses like Acts 2:39 and a host of others that I'm not going to dig up because I'm out of time. We, just like they were, are brought near to God by the blood of Christ (Eph. 2:13). Peter

I have to agree with Golden Eagle, which don't happen a whole lot. I am convinced you should not be teaching anywhere. (At least not this peterwhateverstuff) It's hard at times to not come of as "TEACHY" at times, but this needs swept under the rug, and left there. Jesus Is Lord. Hi Mike, The Preterist position certainly goes against everything we have been taught as Christians to believe in the last hundred or so years concerning His 2nd coming as a future event, so I understand your concern. This by itself is something that will upset many. I was greatly upset when I heard the Preterist position for the first time and sort to refute it by further reading, both biblical and otherwise. But after considering some of the arguments I found it hard to ignore the hundreds of time statements in the NT as being irrelevant to that time it was written and that generation. Some say a duel fulfillment, but this brings up other issues. And the question that was presented to me was, Did God not say what He meant and meant what He said? - heaven forbid if He did not because then how can we know what He means? Yes, I know all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so it does apply to us as well as those to whom it was originally addressing, but Jesus came to His own - OT Israel, I believe, yet His own did not receive Him. That opened the door for all of us, as was God's plan all along with the better covenant. IMO, I find the futurist position is trying to interpret events from a non literal light all the while claiming its a literal interpretation by ignoring and projecting these time passages as well as the personal pronouns into the distance future. So a letter to the church at Corinth or Thessalonica now becomes primarily a letter to us, 20 centuries removed. I find it brushes over the many types and shadows mentioned and explained in the NT that pointed to a greater reality than the mere physical (i.e., the spiritual reality that is mentioned over and over again) and the time elements/references like 'in a little while, near, at hand, quickly', etc. Peter

Hi Widor 1, So, did Jesus fulfill the Law and the Prophets Widor? If so then does verse 18 now apply? Matthew 5:18 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. The problem I see you having to explain is that if you say that Jesus has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, then all is accomplished. If that is the case then the heaven and earth referred to will also have had to disappear. If you say that Jesus did not fulfill everything required of God as listed in the Law and the Prophets then we are still living under the Old Covenant, are we not? But Jesus repeatedly says that He came to make a new covenant in His blood, and from Hebrews alone I think an exceedingly good case can be made that this has been accomplished by His death alone. If it has been accomplished then what do you make of Hebrews 8:13 for starters? Can you answer any of these questions for me? That is why I asked GE if we were still under the Law of Moses and also went on to explain why I see this as very unlikely. Peter

I think we are opening another can of worms here. 1) No, I don't believe in a secret coming. I believe Jesus made the manner of His coming plain when He said He would come in His Father's glory (Matthew 16:27). The question is how did the Father come in OT times? I believe He also made it evident that the generation He came to would not perish before they saw the Son of Man coming in His glory (Matthew 24:30-31, 34; Daniel 7:13-14). James in his letter/epistle makes it clear that the Lord's coming was near (James5:8) as do so many of the writers of the NT. 2) I don't understand your logic. How are we not the church? The church is a body of believers. We are Christ's body on earth, Christ is our head. And yes, I have taken communion. 3) IMO, John (1 John 2:18, 22) makes it clear that many antichrist's have already come, but you are referring to the man of lawlessness/sin, the one who desecrates the temple, right? Paul, speaking to the Thessalonians, said to them that lawlessness was already at work and they knew what was restraining the man of lawlessness, so that he would be revealed at the proper time (2 Thess. 2:3-10, esp. vs 6,7). Some in the Preterist or partial Preterist camp believe this man of lawlessness to refer to Nero, others Titus, but the third option is the Jews themselves. We are told in Luke 20:21 that when "you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. This could either refer to the city (as God's holy city in which His presence dwelt) being trampled by the Gentiles or what happened within the city to the temple itself.The Romans worshiped in the temple grounds while the temple was burning. Titus was the one who ordered the gates of the temple to be set on fire (Ninth of Av - A.D. 70, August 28th). On August 30th, in the temple grounds a Roman soldier threw a burning piece of wood into the inner court which caused the fire to spread. When the fire spread to the temple itself it was Titus who tried to prevent the fire from spreading further, according to Josephus. Titus then went through the temple into the Holy of Holies, finding it completely empty. Someone then threw a firebrand against a wooden gate, which engulfed the entire inner sanctuary, with Titus and his generals escaping. (Josephus notes it was the same day in 587 B.C. that the First Temple was destroyed.) For a Jew, other than a priest to enter the Holy Place or the High Priest to enter the Holy of Holies, or even the High Priest at a time other than the Day of Atonement, would be to desecrate the temple, IMO. When Titus entered the temple he found that the temple had already been robbed. This would mean that the Jews themselves had desecrated the temple, as noted by Josephus in his writings and summed up in chronological order on the following web page - please read: http://www.josephus.org/FlJosephus2/warChronology7Fall.html Here is a translation of Josephus' actual writings on the destruction of the temple. Please note that Titus entered the Temple itself. http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-6/chapter-4.html I also find it fascinating that Peter describes the present heavens and earth as reserved for fire (2 Peter 3:7) of possible significance in regards to the temple and city that were burned to the ground in A.D. 70. 4) Just because the OT is full of imagery and types and shadows, that does not necessarily mean that there is no historical narrative or plain language involved. There is lots of it, of which I believe, as revealed in the NT, that Jesus' birth was from the Virgin Mary. I think that you are assuming just because I say that the OT is full of imagery and types and shadows that I take every verse in that sense. Let me assure you, I don't. Peter

PGA could you clarify? When you say old do you mean the old covenant (Mosaic)? Or do you mean the Abrahamic Covenant God made choosing Israel as His people? God bless, GE The Mosaic Covenant, the covenant God made with OT Israel, the if...then covenant GoldenEagle. Blessings in Christ Jesus! Peter

Hi Danielzk, {{{ Removed video link... Please submit all video's to the appropriate forum to be reviewed by the Moderation Team. See: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/121-videos/ }}} Yes, John saw a vision of the future and in this vision was told to measure the temple, the same temple and same city in which the Gentiles will trample on for 42 months. This harks back to Luke 21:24 and 21:20 in which Jerusalem was to be surrounded by armies and its desolation was near. It is a time of Israel's punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. I believe therefore, that the temple was a physical temple that was to be measured and that temple being the temple that existed when John penned Revelation. Peter

Hi Danielzk, I already supplied what I consider a Preterist take on the thread that was shut down, concerning Isaiah 11. Apparently I went too far. If I go into it too deeply I will be again seen as teaching. From correspondence and reviewing the policy in the introduction to the Worthy Christian Forum I am not permitted to teach without approval from members of the forum and certain credentials. All I can do is give you my opinion and supply Scripture and reasoning that I believe upholds the Preterist position with Scripture. I believe these passages you keep coming back to all speak of A.D. 70. When a NT author quotes or makes reference to an OT passage it seems good to consider that OT context also, IMO. Paul in Roman’s 15:12 quotes Isaiah 11:10 (a reference to ‘in that day’ or to be more specific, in the day that the wolf would live with the lamb, and the leopard would lie down with the goat) as applying this passage in fulfillment of his mission to the Gentiles. The point being that reconciliation brings peace between parties that oppose each other, the wolf with the lamb. That is my answer, again. Romans 15:10-12 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 10 Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”[a] 11 And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.”[b] 12 And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.”[c] Footnotes: Romans 15:10 Deut. 32:43 Romans 15:11 Psalm 117:1 Romans 15:12 Isaiah 11:10 Isaiah 11:6-8 speaks to me of reconciliation; animals that oppose each other living in harmony and peace. Paul, quoting from Isaiah 11 confirms this, IMO. ‘Rejoice, O Gentiles with His people’ speaks of the wolf living with the lamb. I believe Jesus used the metaphor of sheep many times in addressing the true Israel of God. He said He had other sheep from a different pen in John 10:16. The Gentiles were from a different sheep pen than Israel. Since Paul ties Isaiah 11:10 in with the Gentiles in Romans 15, I think this is a very reasonable interpretation. What I believe you fail to take into account is that Scripture, especially OT Scripture uses a lot of imagery, a lot of metaphors to convey spiritual truths. For those who want to take all Scripture as literal, then God has physical eyes and ears and nose and mouth in which double-edges swords appear. I believe Isaiah 65 and 66 are again passages that speak of the day in which God would make a new covenant with a people who were not His people and give them a new name. Isaiah 2-4, 11 are also concerned with this same time period. I think Isaiah 65-66 would be very interesting to discuss in depth. Do you know some of the passages in the NT that quote from Isaiah 65-66? It becomes very interesting, IMO. Peter