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

Hi GoldenEagle, I have to add more to your points five and six. When you say the book of Revelation could not have been a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem, I presume this is just one aspect of the book you are drawing out to emphasize the weakness of my position. Is this correct? I feel Revelation is much more than just this prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem (Revelation 18-19). Besides being the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I feel it is also about the avenging of the saints, and the judgment of OT Israel, a theme throughout Scripture. But, if it is as you say, a book written after the fall I find it amazing that there is no mention of this destruction that was so much a part of Jesus' ministry (Matthew 24, a pivotal passage that involves so many books of the Bible). The whole Jewish economy, their religious life that revolved around the temple and city in the Old Covenant order coming to an end, IMO. How could the supposed already fallen and ruined city not be mentioned if it was penned after Jerusalem fell? It just seems incredible to omit and it does not make sense that the whole of the NT omits this fall, yet each book has the warning of this shortly coming judgment, the day. Indirectly I believe the theme is there, and it (the destruction) has not yet happened. How could that be if the book was written after A.D. 70 and the fall? The destruction of the temple ties in with the destruction of the city and the coming of the Lord (Revelation 18). That is again I feel a point in favor of the Preterist position. Here is John, a 1st century believer, being told to measure the temple and altar. Was he measuring something that was no longer standing? What is your explanation for that? I've committed my position to you, so now I'm asking for you to explain yours. Peter

Hi GoldenEagle, I wanted to continue my take on some of your previous comments. I could lay out some of the reasons for the early writing of the book if you like, but I think one of the things that stands out in my mind is the fact that John, telling his first century reader that the time is soon, still lists the temple as existing, even though we know it was completely destroyed in A.D. 70. If John was writing after A.D. 70, then of most importance would be the fact that the temple was no more. In Revelation 11:1 John is given a reed to measure the temple. Another interesting point is that in Revelation 11:2 the Roman armies are doing just that, they are trampling over the city for 42 months during the siege of Jerusalem. The other problem I feel your take of Scripture has is that of Hebrews (esp. ch. 8-9). The writer is coming from a perspective, IMO, that what is old and obsolete will soon pass away (Hebrews 8:13). In Hebrews 9:1 the writer continues on the thought of 8:13 in respect to the earthy sanctuary and its ordinances/regulations and then shows the contrast between it and the New Tabernacle, the heavenly sanctuary. The old is a type and shadow of the new, but the point I'm making is that the new, the real, the true, the genuine, is already in existence. Both the priesthood and the articles in the two are contrasted. In 9:8 Scripture says: Hebrews 9:8 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. The fact is that the first tabernacle was no longer standing. The sanctuary was destroyed in A.D. 70. Jesus has gone into God's presence, the Most Holy Place, in our behalf and He has provided access for us! From the Preterist position, and I believe confirmed by Scripture, the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies was torn in two from top to bottom, again providing man access and reconciliation with God in Christ, something that was lost with the 1st Adam and regained with the 2nd Adam. You see, only the High Priest could enter the H of H's, and that only once a year on the Day of Atonement. What is more, the Aaronaic priesthood could never sit down, or even enter the MHP (except for the High Priest). Their job was never done, whereas we are told in Scripture that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God - a completed work as both Priest and King in the order of Melchizedek, a different line of priesthood, just like we have a different temple and different covenant than the old. My question to you, GE, is a question of whether you believe the old is still in effect? If you do then I believe that you have major theological problems. IMO, and that of Scripture I believe, the gifts and offerings performed by the OT priesthood could never make a person perfect, for they had to be constantly offered, over and over again, yet here is what verse 9 says: Hebrews 9:9 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. Why is that so? I believe Scripture again provides the answer: Hebrews 9:10 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order. Again, as a Preterist I believe that the new order came in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the old order. Notice in vs. 9 it says 'the present time' and then immediately following in vs. 10 tells the reader that it only applied until the time of the new order. Durin the time of writing, the Levitical priesthood was still performing sacrifices and offerings.The old order was concerned, IMO, with what is physical in nature; the new order with what is spiritual in nature. The same verse in the NKJV renders the 'new order' as the time of reformation (also Acts 3:21). I find this significant because with the destruction of the city and temple the old order was gone. Gone and never again to be restored, IMO. Hebrews 9:11 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) The Blood of Christ 11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. Footnotes: Hebrews 9:11 Some early manuscripts are to come The things I find interesting about this verse which follows the thoughts of the previous verses concerning the New Covenant, new Priesthood, new tabernacle, new city, new land, is that the new tabernacle is not man-made, yet to many people that I talk to, they are expecting the Jews to rebuild the earthy temple and restore the animal sacrifices and offering, as if Christ's offering of Himself is not sufficient. Are they going to again deny everything that the Son of Man came to do (Hebrews5:5-10)? Where is the tabernacles that is not man-made? For one thing, it is not part of this creation. If it is not part of this creation then could it be a spiritual, heavenly temple? Does Scripture not tell us this in this very verse (see John 18:36)? Peter

Hi GoldenEagle, I don't have time to address much of your post although I feel you raise some interesting points that I would like to respond to at a future time. Although Josephus does note the Roman armies entering the land from the east and coming westward across the land, I don't think, in the context, that is the best interpretation of the verse. What Preterist's quote this verse as the Roman army being its fulfillment? I think the language speaks for itself, that as lightning is visible so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Visible or evident that is. I believe Jesus is using a metaphor to bring an image of His coming to the hearers mind. If His presence was localized then it would be like 'There He is in the desert' or 'Here He is in the inner rooms' but His presence is going to cover such an immense area that it would be like lightning coming from the east to the west. This imagery also conveys suddenness and swiftness, like lightning with His coming on judgment of OT Israel, IMO. This judgment would come upon this generation He was addressing. 'So if anyone tells YOU...' He is speaking to His disciples and answering the three pronged question of Matthew 24:3. In Luke 17:20-37 this same kind of theme is present. The Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God/heaven would come. Jesus said that the kingdom would not come with their careful observation Luke 17:21-25 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within[a] you.” 22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day[b] will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. Footnotes: Luke 17:21 Or among Luke 17:24 Some manuscripts do not have in his day. Can you see the similarities between Matthew 24:26-27 and Luke 17:21-25 (please read)? Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees (vs. 26)and telling them about the coming of the kingdom, that it does not come with careful observation and then to the disciples (vs.22-25) He tells them that His coming in His kingdom will be similar. Men will try to draw them away by saying 'Here He is' or 'There He is' but in Jesus' day His coming will be like lightning. They will know it has come (just like they know when lightning has come), and in the context of Matthew 24, it will be when one stone of the temple is not left on top of another. That generation will not pass until all these things have come to pass. I hope to finish your reply and the last half of the reply to Danielzk concerning Isaiah 11, 65, etc., later. Peter

Hi Daniel, 1) It all happened in a future tense, we just disagree on how far in the future. 2) The fact is that I take many statements as literal. I take ‘this generation’ as the generation that Jesus was addressing in the 1st century. 3) Yes, I could be wrong and that is why I try to support my arguments with Scripture, so that we can argue/discuss/reason these points out concerning specific passages. I look to the authority of God’s word as my starting point, hopefully not the self-sufficiency of my own logic or intellect, or not just the popular view or what someone feels is the correct interpretation 20 centuries later. You have a view that you have built on because you feel it is biblical and so do I, a view that you feel best interprets what God’s word actually says, and so do I. We both have difficult passages that neither of us have all the answers to. The point is that I refer to God’s word as my ultimate/highest authority, not someone else’s interpretation. I have presented you with as many valid points as you feel you have with me. I feel history backs these events as happening in biblical times. Josephus describes many of the events mentioned in Matthew 24. So does the Bible. Are we still talking of ‘this generation’ in Matthew 24 or elsewhere, because I believe every other mention of the term ‘this generation’ refers specifically to that 1st century generation. I believe in the context of Matthew 24, without reading into the text, Jesus is speaking to His disciples and I believe other passages of Scripture confirm this also, like the mirror verse in Luke 17:20-34. Do you affirm or deny this, Danielzk? Now if every other time ‘this generation’ is used it refers to that 1st century generation, why would it be different in this one instance? I believe every one of those events of Matthew 24 can be attributed to the 1st century and most are evidenced as having happened by Scripture. History also confirms many of these.

Hi Hippias, I think this could be looked at in two different ways. Here is my take. The Abrahamic covenant was made before the Mosaic covenant but I see certain similarities between the two, like circumcision, tithing and land promises, but since circumcision was a condition of both and since IMO the Lord Jesus Christ has met all of God's requirements, both covenants must have been fulfilled in Christ. Here is why I feel this is true: 1) Those who believe are children of Abraham. The people that would be blessed by Abraham are all nations and if all nations then the land promises could be considered fulfilled in these nations/people. Galatians 3:6-9 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 6 Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a] 7 Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[b] 9 So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Footnotes: Galatians 3:6 Gen. 15:6 Galatians 3:8 Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18 Galatians 3:29-4:7 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. 4 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[a] Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. Footnotes: Galatians 4:6 Aramaic for Father Notice that the father set the time for the heir to receive the inheritance and that the time had fully come for God the Father to send His Son and redeem those under the law so that they may receive the full rights as sons. The full rights as sons would include the land promise being fulfilled, would it not? So, in Christ these early Christians received the full rights as sons, just as those in Christ do today. If we belong to Christ we are Abraham's seed, just as Christ is, for we are joint heirs with Christ. 2) Circumcision is abrogated in Christ. It is not just a reason for the Mosaic Law being fulfilled in Christ and the New Covenant. Circumcision was also conditional in the Abrahamic covenant. There is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision in Christ - all are one. Therefore the condition of possessing the land promised to Abraham I believe has been fully met in Christ with circumcision of the heart - the true Jew and descendant of Abraham is one circumcized by the heart (Romans 2:28-29). If circumcision, a physical condition of the Abrahasmic covenant has been met in Christ, why do you think that the land promise is not also fully met? Genesis 17:11 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. Galatians 5:1-11 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) Freedom in Christ 5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. 7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. Galatians 6:14-16 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God. Footnotes: Galatians 6:14 Or whom 1 Corinthians 7:19 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 3) I believe the land promised to Abraham ultimately pointed to the new spiritual promised land, the heavenly country, for I am convinced that the whole OT has types and shadows that point to Christ Jesus and fulfillment in Him, as made known over and over again in the NT. Hebrews 11:13 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. Hebrews 11:16 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. Hebrews 11:39-40 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40 God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. John 8:56 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” I'm sorry, I'm out of time, but the point I'm trying to develop is that Abraham was looking for a different land, a heavenly country and he waited patiently for Christ's day, saw it and rejoiced. I ask you whether the land promises could be met in the spiritual nature, rather than physical? We, along with Christ are seeds of Abraham to whom the promises were made, but more than that are heirs of the heavenly realms. Now, and this is something you have to decide for yourself, are all God's promises yes in Christ on whom all these saints of old were waiting and who also were waiting for a heavenly country, not an earthly one. 2 Corinthians 1:20 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God. Ephesians 1:3 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) Spiritual Blessings in Christ 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. Peter

Hi Danielzk, The Preterist position does not discount God working in the lives of people today. He does that all the time in His revelation of Himself to others by bringing them to faith. I believe that God is not a god of confusion, therefore logical, and the Preterist view I see as also logical. I see taking a term like 'this generation' of Matthew 24 and applying it to a far distant generation is not logical, or in fact God's intent when we read such Scripture. If you take note of ever other occurrence of this phrase it seems to apply to the 1st century. Can you deny this? If not then why take the Matthew 24 passage as other than applying to 1st century Jews. I believe that one of the major themes of Revelation is the vindication of God's people, the avenging of the blood of all the saints shed on the earth, both OT and NT. I believe this vindication revolves around old covenant Israel. The book transitions between heaven and earth and I believe there is good evidence that the whole book was written before A.D. 70. The mention of the measurements of the temple and the Great City where the Lord was slain (Rev. 11) are indicators that it is OT Jerusalem before its fall. It is a difficult book to interpret because of all the imagery and symbolism, thus, I believe a good knowledge of the OT is required, since much of its imagery is taken from OT books. But one thing again that strikes me is the theme of near expectancy by the language used. Even though I favor a full Preterist approach to Scripture I'm also open to the partial-Preterist position, I just do not find the Scriptures as supportive of this view. The partial Preterist believes in a final coming of the Lord Jesus Christ whereas the Preterist sees His coming as happening in the first century. The Preterist also sees this coming to earth by Jesus as spiritual in nature, not physical. Peter

I would be speculating to say who it was, although I think there are clues from the writings of Josephus, but let's take the witness of Thessalonians itself. 2 Thessalonians 2:7 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. Paul says that the power of lawlessness is already at work and THEY knew what was holding him back. Paul was writing to a church that existed in the 1st century. The second point is that some of the believers thought the Day had already come. This means that they, at least, were not looking for a physical coming in which the heavens and earth would be destroyed, because they thought it HAD already happened. This man of sin would sit in the temple of God. That means that a temple would have to exist and since Paul was writing to 1st century believers, this must have been the OT temple that existed, because the NT temple is the called out body, being made into a spiritual house, is it not? Lastly, the 'Abomination that causes Desolation' is a Mosaic concept in violation of that covenant that, in other Scripture, brings in the destruction of the Mosaic city and temple, as made a note of in Daniel 9:27 and also in the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28-32. If this is the case then the man of desolation can also be seen as possibly being a Jew. Josephus records the different factions involved within the city during the Roman siege, as well as the different divisions of the Roman armies outside the city walls. We also know from Josephus that Titus was involved in bringing down the city and temple and as a Roman emperor also seen as a god to some. Peter It's quite important that the man of sin be identified with historical veracity to even tacitly attempt to objectively argue a preterist viewpoint, in my opinion. I find preterists tend to shy away from this because there are simply no good candidates that fit the entire narrative, which in and of itself calls preterism into question, especially in light of some of the descriptive terms used with regards to some of these events. Titus wasn't a roman emperor yet at this time, so that's simply out as an argument. The traditional preterist argument has seemed to be Nero as far as I can tell, but these must be people who haven't studied any sort of history at all and so, without giving the laundry list of reasons why, he must be ruled out as well. Your last line of reasoning basically says that, while under a full seige from a vastly superior enemy and in the height of a crisis, someone from jewish sect INSIDE jerusalem was somehow able to accomplish this? Not to mention the fact that in 11 and 12 it very much so seems like a foreign conqueror. The possibility of it being a jew aside, you have no real candidate for the man of sin and we have an extensive historical record of the events. If there is no man of sin there is no great tribulation and if that's the case the preterism is defunct. Hi Steve, Although it is not so easy to identify who this man may be because history does not give us enough records of this event to deal with it in certainty, I feel that Scripture is specific enough to reveal to us the time frame in which these events took place. Who was there to witness them, other than Josephus, the Romans in the city and the Jews in the city. Of those who do you think would best be able to preserve such record? I can dig up some references from Josephus on this destruction of the temple and city. Other than that who is going to record such events? The Jew in captivity? It is my contention that the whole of the Scriptures were already written before A.D. 70, so Scripture would also be silent on who this was, other than to say that the Holy Spirit was keeping this person at bay at the present time of it being written. My point earlier was that I believe 2 Thessalonians was written to 1st century believers who were expecting Christ to come shortly. This is evident in just about every epistle/letter. If you notice the verb tenses, it is in the present, near future and past tense that the author is speaking much of the time. By the pronouns and context it is to this body of believers. I actually listed some of my reasons in my previous post to you as to why the context talked directly and primarily to that church of the 1st century. How about addressing those points? Preterism does not rest on one Scripture or 'the man of sin.' It rests on the whole body of God's word and what it says in context and in the larger context of Scripture itself, for just like you, I'm sure, I believe that Scripture is its own best interpreter, when correctly handled. There are so many avenues of questions that I feel cannot be adequately defended by a futurist position, of which I have tried in the past to engage others with limited luck. If I felt that a futurist position was correct I would not be asking how such questions are to be answered because I would already have an adequate answer. But this is the problem I have, that is, I have not seen adequate answers. For instance, if Jesus said that not one letter of the Law or Prophets would be abolished until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18), what does that tell you about the Law and Prophets (1 Peter 1:10 onwards)? Where is the temple? Where is the priesthood? Where are the animal sacrifices that the Law requires for sin? Where are these Mosaic covenant people? Why does Scripture teach that circumcision of the flesh is no longer valid, that the people of promise are a circumcision of the heart? Foe instance, how can the Great city spoken of in Revelation be anything but OT Jerusalem? We can get more specific than this by actually examining each epistle or gospel as to what it literally or plainly says to the topics of whom primarily it is addressing and when. The question becomes when you do this, 'Can God tell time' or 'Does God mean what He says' when you look at the passages, because they speak of things that must shortly come to pass. When Jesus is speaking to His disciples in Matthew 24 and they have asked Him questions as to when the stones of the Jerusalem temple will be thrown down, or what will be the sign of His coming or the end of the age He addresses them. 'Watch out that no one deceives YOU...' If you are going to take the passage literally then who would 'you' refer to? We know of course that the answer of both the time and meaning is yes to both. God can tell time and make His meaning clear. But I feel we also have to understand that God speaks to us in spiritual language that conveys spiritual truths. Physical Israel and physical history in the OT can and do take on spiritual meaning in the NT. Peter

My answers are not satisfactory to you because you look at Scripture from a different standpoint. You view Scripture from that standpoint, and I used to as well. I explained in the last thread, before it was shut down, my take on Isaiah 11 and Zechariah 12-14, of which you never responded to my questions. In fact I gave you Scripture on Zechariah 12:10; 13:7 and Isaiah 11 as already being fulfilled from quotes in the NT. I have also been through my position on the thousand years, of which you also dismiss because I don't a) necessarily see it as literal, or b) see it as already fulfilled. I gave you a list of my thoughts, and Scriptures on why I saw Christ as victor over Satan, as already having received power and glory and might from the Father when He came into His heavenly kingdom and how He was waiting in heaven at His Father's side until His enemies were made His footstool, which I believe happened in A.D. 70, bvecause OT Israel was His enemy that He said He would judge in 'this generation' of 1st century A.D. He conquered death, sin and Satan and in A.D. 70, I believe, He came in judgment (as well as to bring salvation to those who were waiting, for throughout the NT there is always this near expectancy of these realities) to make these victories reality. By first fulfilling the Old Covenant, and then destroying the Old Covenant God, through Christ, brought in the greater/better everlasting covenant. Peter

Hi again Steve, I would be speculating to say who it was, although I think there are clues from the writings of Josephus, but let's take the witness of Thessalonians itself. 2 Thessalonians 2:7 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. Paul says that the power of lawlessness is already at work and THEY knew what was holding him back. Paul was writing to a church that existed in the 1st century. The second point is that some of the believers thought the Day had already come. This means that they, at least, were not looking for a physical coming in which the heavens and earth would be destroyed, because they thought it HAD already happened. This man of sin would sit in the temple of God. That means that a temple would have to exist and since Paul was writing to 1st century believers, this must have been the OT temple that existed, because the NT temple is the called out body, being made into a spiritual house, is it not? Lastly, the 'Abomination that causes Desolation' is a Mosaic concept in violation of that covenant that, in other Scripture, brings in the destruction of the Mosaic city and temple, as made a note of in Daniel 9:27 and also in the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28-32. If this is the case then the man of desolation can also be seen as possibly being a Jew. Josephus records the different factions involved within the city during the Roman siege, as well as the different divisions of the Roman armies outside the city walls. We also know from Josephus that Titus was involved in bringing down the city and temple and as a Roman emperor also seen as a god to some. Peter

I don't deny that there is a measure of looking towards the new testament with regards to the promises given to Abraham. I believe that this is specifically borne out in Genesis 22:15-18 after God stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac: Gen 22:15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, Gen 22:16 and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son— Gen 22:17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. Gen 22:18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." There are all sorts of beautiful parallels here that obviously point to Jesus. But, for the purposes of this conversation, I'm going to stick with my Genesis 12:7 line of reasoning. The Hebrews scripture quoted above is not mutually exclusive to the Abrahamic land promise. Why does the physical realm matter at all if everything can be looked at through a strictly spiritual prism and, furthermore, if that's the case, why were physical land promises ever made? Here's an example: Gen 13:14 And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; Gen 13:15 for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. This is a reiteration of the land promise made in 12:7. Why were these promises made exclusive of the promises made to Abraham after his obedience to God with reference to Isaac? Also, let's look back at Gen 22:15-18. Abraham is told - "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." This implies to me that Abraham's obedience with regard to Isaac earned him a greater reward than the land promise (God says "by Myself I have sworn" with regards to this particular group of promises. God swore by himself to give Abraham this particular set of rewards and it's pretty awesome to think about that in and of itself. For me, it is indicative of the willingness of Abraham to obey no matter what). If 12:7 and further 13:14-15 were the same promises as 22:15-18 (which I believe is the argument you are making), then that certainly takes away a lot from Abraham's act of obedience because he already had these promises. In your response you said that those in Christ under the new covenant are those of the great nation. God promises that "In your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed." This is CLEARLY, to me, the promise of a messiah coming from Abraham's bloodline. This was made long after the land promise and is obviously also a physical promise, because Jesus DID come from Abraham's seed (physically). It's quite confusing for you to claim that the land promise extends to the new covenant spirtually, when clearly the seed promise was fulfilled PHYSICALLY (not to mention the fact that the land covenant has also been physically fulfilled!). And that brings me to my greatest issue. We have physical evidence right now that descendants of Abraham are, against virtually all odds, in control of the land (or most of it) promised Abraham. All of the prophecies given to Abraham have been physically fulfilled. Clearly there are spiritual components to them and clearly the greatest reward is in heaven, but God keeps his promises and he promised Abraham physical land to his descendants forever ("Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward;"). Hi Steve, Since it is getting late I'm going to think more about you post over the next couple of days, since I'm working this weekend. But I want to make a few comments now. If forever always means forever then you can't take 2 Peter 3:10 as literal then, can you? Or is God going to 'recreate' this land? Something has to give, surely, either the way you look at Genesis 13:15 or the way you look at 2 Peter - right or wrong? Actually, I've never looked at it from this angle before. I always looked at the land promises that are so often quoted as 'not being fulfilled', in order to fulfill the Israel of today prophecies, as being those of Deuteronomy 1:7 and 11:25-27 and these applying to OT Israel under the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic covenant, which I think is a true understanding of those two Scriptures. It is clear, to my mind at least, that in regard to the Mosaic covenant that God brought the curses upon this people, both in the Babylonian captivity and also in A.D. 70. So I can't see how this people today in our times relates to OT Israel, the people whom God made the Mosaic covenant with, since I believe that covenant is no longer in existence. These are the people who I believe that God is concerned with in sending His one and only Son to earth from heaven. It was this covenant of blessings and curses that fits the bill of returning to the land - blessing for obedience and curses and removal from the land for disobedience. One final point, as per Hebrews, the shadow and copies are the physical, earthly things. The reality is the heavenly things. Would you agree? I've listed a number of these contrasts that can be seen throughout the Bible in NT Scriptures in previous posts, but that list can be greatly expanded on. In the NT the spiritual aspects of the physical OT quotes and illustrations can be seen. For instance, here are just a few examples that you can refer to - Romans 5:12-18; 1 Cor. 10:1-11; 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Gal. 4:21-31; Eph. 5:22-33; Phil. 3:1-9; Col. 2:11-17, of which I'll leave you with verse 17: Colossians 2:17 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Peter