PGA Posted January 23, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 210 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2013 Peteer 1) So you believe in a secret Second Coming of Jesus Christ. A King who never went in through the East Gate. 2) BTW, If Jesus has already come. We are not the Church. Who are we? I sincerley hope you have never taken Communion. 3) So who was the Antichrist then, Irenaeus did not know, Polycarp did not know. 4) If you say the OT is full of imagery, A virgin did not conceive and give birth to a son. Spiritually this could mean that a very devote woman will give birth to a son. In Christ Montana Marv 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGA Posted January 23, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 210 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2013 Hi Widor 1, By first fulfilling the Old Covenant, and then destroying the Old Covenant, God, through Christ, brought in the greater/better everlasting covenant. -Me Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” -Widor1 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGA Posted January 23, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 210 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2013 PGA 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montana Marv Posted January 23, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,135 Content Per Day: 0.69 Reputation: 1,091 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/03/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2013 Peter I will respone to the other questions later. Rev 22:17 - The Spirit and the Bride say; Come. And let him who hears say, Come. Here the Perterist has a problem. If Revelation has been fulfilled, The Church/Bride of Christ is already complete. The whole NT is written for Believers, Chruch/Bride of Christ. The Perterists are reading someone elses mail, which has nothing to do with those living past 70 AD. Do you see my point. We who are post 70 AD do not have any claim to be part of the Bride of Christ, for it is already complete. As said in Rev 22:17.... We cannot be Christians, for that was the name given for Believers prior to 70 AD. Who are we then in post 70 AD??? In Christ Montana Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted January 23, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2013 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. 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 On my phone so this will likely be brief. I do not believe that The Mosaic Covenant is still applicable today. Salvation is through Christ alone. Yet I do believe God's promises to Israel still apply today. I believe Israel is still God's chosen people. Do you? God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGA Posted January 24, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 210 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2013 Peter I will respone to the other questions later. Rev 22:17 - The Spirit and the Bride say; Come. And let him who hears say, Come. Here the Perterist has a problem. If Revelation has been fulfilled, The Church/Bride of Christ is already complete. The whole NT is written for Believers, Chruch/Bride of Christ. The Perterists are reading someone elses mail, which has nothing to do with those living past 70 AD. Do you see my point. We who are post 70 AD do not have any claim to be part of the Bride of Christ, for it is already complete. As said in Rev 22:17.... We cannot be Christians, for that was the name given for Believers prior to 70 AD. Who are we then in post 70 AD??? In Christ Montana Marv 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGA Posted January 24, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 210 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2013 Hi GoldenEagle, I do not believe that The Mosaic Covenant is still applicable today. Salvation is through Christ alone.-GE 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widor1 Posted January 24, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 140 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 105 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1987 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Hi Widor 1, By first fulfilling the Old Covenant, and then destroying the Old Covenant, God, through Christ, brought in the greater/better everlasting covenant. -Me Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” -Widor1 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 Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or Prophets, as it says in Matthew 5:17. He came to fulfill them. The law was not destroyed, and is still alive today. It is in our nature to follow the law, as an outflow via the Holy Spirit. The Prophets were not just people who gave prophesies involving the future; they were dispensing God's divine Word (like Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), and aren't separate from the law. Romans 8:1-4 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Matthew 5:18 points back to verse 17, reiterating that no meaning will be lost from the law because of Jesus. We are free from the law of sin and death because Jesus imputed His righteousness onto us. I would say verse 18 from Matthew 5 does apply now. The last time I checked, we are still on the same earth, and a new one (along with a new heaven) has not surfaced to my knowledge. Hebrews 8:13 is a summation of verses 8-12, taken straight from Jeremiah 31. Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Seems to me the writer of Hebrews suggests that the Old Covenant law, while it is becoming obsolete, and is growing old and ready to vanish away, hasn't yet. Jeremiah was written before Jesus, and Hebrews was written after. Why wouldn't the author just write that it IS obsolete and HAS vanished away? We are not still under the law of Moses, but the Old Covenant was not destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted January 24, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2013 Hi GoldenEagle, I do not believe that The Mosaic Covenant is still applicable today. Salvation is through Christ alone.-GE 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 Notice I said the Mosaic Covenant is not applicable today. In other words, salvation is with the New Covenant through Jesus Christ. Matt. 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. This is an important verse. However, in context Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets as seen in verse 17. The Mosaic Covenant was never meant to last. Since Christ is the New Covenant He fullfills what the Mosaic Covenant could not - mankind couldn't save itself and needed an Atoning Sacrifice/Savior. Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. After a bit of reflection I believe there are: Old Covenant (To Israel) Mosaic Covenant (The Law through Moses) Abrahamic Covenant (To Abraham) New Covenant (Jesus) Regarding Israel there is this thread: (check out post 35 in particular) Your thoughts? God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montana Marv Posted January 24, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,135 Content Per Day: 0.69 Reputation: 1,091 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/03/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2013 Peteer 1) So you believe in a secret Second Coming of Jesus Christ. A King who never went in through the East Gate. 2) BTW, If Jesus has already come. We are not the Church. Who are we? I sincerley hope you have never taken Communion. 3) So who was the Antichrist then, Irenaeus did not know, Polycarp did not know. 4) If you say the OT is full of imagery, A virgin did not conceive and give birth to a son. Spiritually this could mean that a very devote woman will give birth to a son. In Christ Montana Marv 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. Really you cut this verse off short: Matt 16:27 - The Son of Man is going to come in his Fathers glory, with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done, Here is a future time when Jesus Christ comes with his angels and then rewards us. This is yet in our future; Have you received your rewards from Christ yet. v. 30 - I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming is his Kingdom. This has to do with the Transfigureation and Christ assending into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father. 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. If Chirst has already returned (His Second Coming) according to the Perterist view in 70 AD and that Revelation was already fulfilled by 70 AD. But according to Rev 22:16 - The Spirit and the Bride say, Come. If, this has already taken place, the Church is complete, for the Church is the Bride of Christ without spot or wrinkle. This had to take place in 70 AD, if not, then the belief that Revelation has been fulfilled by 70 AD is Flawed. Then how much more of the Perterist view is flawed. We cannot trust their thinking. Now about communion; 1 Cor 11:26 - For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes. We are still waiting for His Coming. 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. But Ireneaus and Polycarp (a disciple of John) state they did not know who this man of lawlessness was. So it was not Nero, nor Titus, nor the Jews. The Perterist camp is wrong in all cases. 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.) What 7 year covenant did Titus make or strengthen with many according to Dan 7:27. 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: The Holy of Holies became empty when Christ died on the Cross, the veil split. All in Christ Jesus have access to the Holy of Holies. http://www.josephus....ology7Fall.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.biblestud.../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. Peter is not infering anything about the temple or the city in 70 AD. This is for a New Earth, a New Heaven, then a New Jerusalem in which God (the Father) will dwell with man. Future 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. Then why do you say Isa 11:6-9 is figurative. The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat,... the lion will eat straw lie the ox. This is Paradise reclaimed, as it was in the Garden of Eden. Peter Peter as you can see in the Garden of Eden all was pure, No death no taxes, no weeds or tares or thistles. No predator animals. Isa. 11:6-9 is fortelling of a future time with no predatroy animals, no weeds, tares or thistles. ALL live in peace and safety because Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Zech 14:8-9 - On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea, in summer and winter. The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one Lord, and His name the only name. All I can say is, WOW, a time when the wolf and the lamb will be at peace with each other, a time when there is only One Lord, and his name the only name. I am waiting for that day. In Christ Montana Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts